Editorial: The issue our ‘open, transparent’ govt won’t address

The state government has been doing all it can to keep Queenslanders in the dark about land claims by Indigenous groups, writes the editor.

Eastern Ocean beach near Eurong on K’gari

Why does it seem that governments never learn that secrecy does little more than encourage suspicion?

It is a reality driven by the truth that when governments withhold information, people – reasonably – ask: “What are they up to?”

The Miles government has for months now been doing all it can to keep Queenslanders in the dark about a raft of freehold land claims by Indigenous corporations and groups on state land in 15 large and small townships across the state.

Its latest move is to inform us that it will not be releasing any further details about the expressions of interest from the various groups.

The Courier-Mail had requested access to the documents under Right to Information laws.

The fact that we had to use the RTI legal mechanism gives you an idea of how reluctant a government that proudly – but erroneously – bills itself as open and transparent has been to talk about the claims.

Indeed, we only know the names of the townships – and that there are 15 of them – because of our persistent badgering and the answers to Questions on Notice that were asked by former One Nation MP Steve Andrew.

And we really only know about the claims themselves because local communities heard about them.

The transfers, made under the Aboriginal Land Act, have already caused uproar in communities, including Eurong and Happy Valley on K’gari (Fraser Island) and Toobeah new Goondiwindi.

We thought our readers should know more. So we submitted our application for more information.

The Department of Resources twice requested extensions of time. Finally, it told us that even though a total of 163 relevant documents had been uncovered, we would not be allowed to view any of them.

Toobeah near Goondiwindi

The reason? We were advised that land transfer applications may contain culturally sensitive material about a person’s or a group’s connection to the land and that they could also name dead people, “which, if released, would breach the privacy of the deceased (and) may offend Aboriginal people in accordance with culture or custom”.

The department’s RTI officer who wrote to us further noted that land transfer applications might also cause conflict among Indigenous people if they were made by individuals or groups who were viewed as having no connection to the land.

We respect and understand the need for cultural sensitivity. And we recognise that these various land transfers are, on the face of it, quite within the law – made under the Aboriginal Land Act or Torres Strait Islander Land Act.

But the government must also surely realise that this is a sensitive topic – and that one of the reasons these proposed land transfers are so upsetting for locals is the secrecy and absence of a clear explanation about what is going on.

Private freehold property is unaffected, which means existing landholders should having nothing to fear. However, the government’s secrecy and lack of consultation have done nothing but create a fertile breeding ground for speculation about such questions as who will have access to newly transferred land and ongoing care and maintenance, as well as the impact on rates revenue.

We are now just 11 days away from the state election and the government is in caretaker mode, which means – rightly – that no big decisions can be made until after the voters of Queensland make their own big decision.

But high on the list for the new administration after the election must surely be a revisiting of the whole process of land rights claims – to address not only Indigenous cultural issues, but also the concerns of local communities.

These are sensitive issues, but they are also important. A good start would be for a fair bit more openness and a fair bit less secrecy.

POLICY A SH** SANDWICH

Premier Steven Miles has done the equivalent of putting the annual groceries bill on the mortgage with his plan to use borrowings to fund his harebrained $1.4bn scheme to provide every state school child a free lunch – no matter their family’s financial circumstances.

And economists were quick to line up yesterday to point out the serious danger of a government taking this approach of using borrowings to pay for what would be recurrent public spending.

We agree with Saul Eslake’s description of this scheme as being “one of a succession of gimmicks that the Queensland government have resorted to in what seems to be a fairly desperate attempt to save the furniture”.

But you don’t have to listen to the economists. The folly is shown by the fact that even the peak body for Parents and Citizens Associations is against it, pointing out there would be better ways to spend the planned $1600 on every state school kid.

This is such an obvious Hail Mary election bribe that it suggests Mr Miles and Labor think two things: one, that Queenslanders are stupid, and two, that Queenslanders are so fed up with this administration that their votes can now only be bought.

It won’t work. Queenslanders are not stupid. They will see straight through this unworkable stunt.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here

Originally published as Editorial: The issue our ‘open, transparent’ govt won’t address