Comments on: Wild Rivers get murkier and murkier

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:31:31 +0000

Tom,

Could you give me a ring 0407182692 on this please?

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:36:08 +0000

I have something for you on this. Drop me a line.

By: Mr Squid

Mr Squid — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:56:38 +0000

In fact I think the figure that was given to balkanu to run the wild rivers consultation was $70,000.

the “consultants” had a wonderful time running round the cape spending taxpayers’ money, living the high life, while doing absolutely nothing.

has balkanu acquitted the funds? that would be nice.

has balkanu produced a report? that would be nice, even if it simply quotes “indigenous people” (noel pearson and his flunkies) and “indigenous communities” (Balkanu and Cape York Institute) as being 100% opposed to wild rivers.

wild rivers is nothing but a shonky political campaign run by noel pearson and his murdoch lickspittles.

As an aside, it was interesting to note some media this week about a wind farm proposal in which balkanu is involved.

one of the contenders in the project has publicly claimed that “informal payments” had been sought, and demanded a meeting with the premier about the irregularities.

By: Dermot McGuire

Dermot McGuire — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:07:13 +0000

ah legal advice remember the question prperly framed gives you the answer you want.

By: Vince17

Vince17 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:21:45 +0000

I’m always fascinated by advocates throwing up the claim “we’ve got legal advice” to support their position. Ms Gusmerini tries and then demonstrates her inexperience in weak discourse in the linked paper on Austlii

e.g. Point B re clearing native vegetation preventing the use of grass, bark, stones etc… a clear misrepresentation, a HPA prevents broadscale clearing of the floodplain and only affects woody native vegetation - nothing there about grasses, stones and if removal of the bark doesn’t kill the tree (as per traditional practices) it is not prevented.

It’s disappointing that a minority is acting as if they speak for the majority and then can’t get some basics of law correct.

By: Clara

Clara — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:30:57 +0000

Bernand is right, this just gets murkier and murkier, and Pearson’s highly deceptive tactics and political campaign is becoming more apparent.

The article last week from the wilderness society was particularly illuminating - evidence that communities are being lied to about what wild rivers means. Lew Griffiths is kidding himself to portray that really this about consent - it is in fact about Pearson’s power and control and deeply old-fashioned views about development (dig it up, chop it down, ship it off, make a buck).

It’s about time the media began to seriously scrutinise Pearson’s activities, including where he is getting all the cash to run this campaign. For too long has he had a open run in the press with accountability or challenge (barring an exceptional interview from Leigh Sales a few weeks back …)

By: Chris Graham

Chris Graham — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:30:02 +0000

You know I lveo your work, Bernard, but a few points need to be made - Lew Griffiths (Pearson’s right hand man) refers to the public consultation process on Wild Rivers as a “sham”. Surprising, given that it was Pearson’s group who was paid tens of thousands of dollars by the Blight government to run… you guessed it, a public consultation on the Wild Rivers.

Simple fact is, Pearson wants to mine Cape York. Most Aboriginal people, however, don’t. So Pearson and his mates are running a very aggressive, very dirty campaign against it. Problem is, just like Pearson is learning on the NT intervention, you can only prop up sh*t like this for so long before it collapses under the weight of its own detritus.

Methinks the anti-Wild Rivers campaign is heading for troubled waters soon.