The Kabi Kabi Registered Native Title Claimants (Kabi Kabi RNTC) have provided the following responses in italics to questions asked (in green) to our office following a women’s gathering at Poona Lake. Where responses concern government legislation and/or approval processes, they have sought advice from the Queensland Government and included their responses below:

1. a) Why has this development process failed to observe Grandmother Law by not specifically engaging and consulting with Kabi women upon the consideration and approval of the development overall and the particular sites?

The Queensland Government has been engaging with the Kabi Kabi RNTC, as well as the wider Kabi Kabi peoples in relation to the project since its inception in 2018.

Kabi Kabi RNTC is comprised of Kabi Kabi men and women, who have been formally authorised by the wider Kabi Kabi native title claim group in respect of ‘future acts’ under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Kabi Kabi RNTC have been consulted and in turn have consulted with the wider Kabi Kabi native title group in relation to various aspects of the project, including site selection, environmental impact assessments, cultural heritage impact assessment and the development of the proposed visitor experience. The Queensland Government has also permitted the Kabi Kabi People RNTC to undertake a regional cultural heritage values assessment of the proposed area.

The Kabi Kabi RNTC included additional families in site inspections on country and women to inspect women’s only sites.

Through an Indigenous Land Use Agreement and a Cultural Heritage Management Agreement between the Queensland Government and Kabi Kabi RNTC, Kabi Kabi People’s involvement and management of cultural heritage in relation to the project will continue into the future.

1. b) Why were men included in the site assessment and selection around the Sacred Women’s area of Poona Lake?

There were a multitude of concerns raised in relation to site assessment and selection around Poona Lake, including water quality, weed control, access, and cultural concerns. The different types of issues meant that a number of people had to be involved in the process who weren’t all women. At all times Kabi Kabi RNTC sought to ensure site visits and consultation was undertaken in a culturally appropriate manner.

1. c) As a First Nation’s woman, does the wife of CABN’s CEO recognise and respect Grandmother Law as a core function of Kabi Kabi Lore and culture? Are you aware of how she feels about its oversight within this current development process hanging over the CGW?

The Queensland Government has been engaging with the Kabi Kabi RNTC, as well as the wider Kabi Kabi peoples in relation to the project since its inception in 2018.

We are aware that the wife of CABN’s CEO has attended Kabi Kabi wider group meetings during the consultations to pay her respects to Traditional Owners. This question is probably best referred to CABN.

2. Does Kabi Aboriginal People’s Corporation and Kabi Resources and Minerals Corporation sit under Native Title and the Cultural Heritage Act?

The Native Title Act 1993 (The NT Act) and related regulation requires traditional owners to establish a corporation to represent them and their native title interests when a native title determination is made by the Federal Court.

Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation (KKPAC) has been established with the intention that, after a determination is made by the Federal Court of Australia recognizing that the Kabi Kabi People hold Native Title in its native title claim area, it will become the Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC) for the determination area under the NT Act. The appointment of an RNTBC and its nomination to the Federal Court is a matter for the wider Kabi Kabi group. KKPAC is currently an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Body under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld)(ACHA).

The Kabi Kabi Natural Resource Management Aboriginal Corporation does not have a formal role under the NT Act or the ACHA.

3. Given the significant problem with weed control at nearby lighthouse lease site, how can creation of this new risk profile into pristine habitat at Double Island Point be justified as being either culturally or ecologically acceptable? Background: Experts and local NRM group, Cooloola Coast Care, have expressed clear concerns about cumulative impacts likely to arise from this development and the inability to mitigate and limit their expansion once begun. Weed ingress and proliferation is an especially acute concern.

The Queensland Government has advised that:

  • Legacy pest and weed issues persist on Double Island Point as a result of significant vegetation clearing of the headland in the early 20th century for the construction of the Double Island Point Lighthouse and to maintain lighthouse sight-lines.
  • Noosa Parks Association (NPA) have undertaken significant revegetation works on Double Island Point and lead ongoing weed management in the area.
  • Weed issues on Double Island Point are further exacerbated by significant, unregulated public visitor use to the area.
  • To be authorised under the Nature Conservation Act 1992(NCA), ecotourism facility operators must implement stringent measures to protect key natural and cultural values of the underlying national park. This includes strategies to avoid and mitigate the introduction of pests and weeds into the national park, managing existing pest and weed issues on-site and prevent the spread of weeds into adjacent areas.
  •  Ecotourism operators must also positively contribute to broader park management, and where possible work with existing park management including QPWS, Traditional Owners and other conservation partners.
  • Such arrangements are in place for other ecotourism operations in national parks elsewhere in Queensland – for example, the operator of the Spicers Scenic Rim Trail in Main Range National Park works directly with local QPWS rangers on a number of park management matters, including maintenance of trails, roads and campsites, ecological monitoring programs, and join pest and weed control operations.
  • Further details on the requirements for ecotourism facility operators may be found in the EcotourismFacilitiesonNationalParksImplementationFramework (the Framework) and BestPracticeEcotourismDevelopmentGuidelines (the Guidelines).

DES cannot provide specific details of how these requirements will be met at the present time as it has not yet received a detailed proposal from the proponent.

4. How and when will an EIS for the entire project be scoped and scheduled? Will Kabi people and the wider public have access to this EIS process as it is developed and executed?

The Queensland Government advises that:

  • The project will not be subject to a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process on a State level, as it does not meet the EIS assessment criteria under either the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA), as it is not a resource project, or the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1974 (SDPWOA), as it is not a declared coordinated project.
  • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project has already commenced – between 2019 – 2022 DES engaged ecological, cultural heritage and groundwater experts to undertake preliminary EIA of the five proposed eco-accommodation sites.
  • This EIA work informed a referral to the Commonwealth of the Cooloola Project for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) in June 2021. On 30 June 2021 the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment determined that the Cooloola Project is not a controlled action under the EPC as it is not likely to impact on any Matters of National Environmental Significance, and so further assessment under EPBC is not required.
  • Reporting generated from these preliminary investigations was made publicly available in June 2021, following submission of the Cooloola Project EPBC referral, and can currently be found on DES’ website.
  • Should an application be received by DES for the Cooloola Project, DES will undertake an assessment for the Chief Executives consideration, including statutory NCA requirements, DES policy documents pertaining to ecotourism development specifically (the Framework and Guidelines), QPWS’ park management framework and any other requirements under relevant State legislation, polices and guidelines, including (but not limited to) regulations and wildlife management plans under the NCA, Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA), Water Act 2000 (and relevant water plan for the area), Queensland Environmental Offset Framework, and the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2004 and Queensland Heritage Act 1992.
  • In addition to the assessment by DES, the Cooloola Project must also undergo development assessment and approval by Gympie Regional Council and Noosa Shire Council.
5. State Government PR states that the Great Walk was originally developed with the intent to carry 17,500 persons. Can you provide a documented reference to this specific planning intent?

The Queensland Government advises that:

  • The 17,500 figure provided refers to the number of visitor nights, not the maximum number of individuals. A visitor night is a single night spent at one of the four campsites.
  • QPWS determines nightly capacity of the CGW by the combined capacity of the four CGW walkers camps (Brahminy, Dutgee, Litoria and Kauri):
  • Brahminy Walkers Camp: 18 campers per night (a higher number is provided at Brahminy to allow for overnight campers from Teewah Beach)
  • Dutgee, Litoria and Kauri Walkers camps: 14 campers per night.
  • The CGW can therefore accommodate a maximum of 60 visitors per night across the four campsites.
  • At maximum capacity the CGW could accommodate up to 21,900 visitor nights annually. However, as the CGW is regularly closed during peak summer months, total capacity is conservatively estimated at 80% of total annual capacity, at the approximately 17,520 visitor nights.
  • Actual use of the CGW is well below capacity, even accounting for a significant increase in the use of the CGW during COVID-19 restrictions on interstate and international travel. Refer to total visitor nights for the previous five financial years in the table below. Note that this figure also does not include non-camping use, use of the CGW but non-CGW campers or occupancy of public campsites by existing commercial operators;
  • Further, should the proposed Cooloola Great Walk Ecotourism Project be approved, current public and overall capacity of the CGW will not be reduced. As eco-accommodation is being provided in addition to the existing public camping spots, ecotourism walkers will occupy public capacity at campsites along the CGW.
    Year Total visitor nights % of estimated 10 month capacity (80% total capacity or

    17,520 visitor nights)
    2021-2022 4850 28%
    2020-2021 5626 32%
    2019-2020 1174 6.7%
    2018-2019 2170 12.5%
    2017-2018 1440 8.3%
6. Why has no scrutiny or care been given toward the Kabi Applicant’s breach of their formal rules that very specifically require them to regularly consult with and take advice from the Claim Group on business matters, very particularly including the initiation and development of ILUA’s?

In accordance with the claim group requirements, the Kabi Kabi RNTC undertook wider Kabi Kabi consultation about the proposed ILUA project at meetings held in Kilkivan, Nambour and Petrie in March 2022. These meetings were open to all Kabi Kabi members. These consultation meetings resulted in changes to the location of the proposed Poona Lake and Noosa River ecotourism sites. The Kabi Kabi RNTC again held an information session for the wider Kabi Kabi group on 5 November 2022 to consider the project and the proposed ILUA.

6. a) Why was the standard voting procedure for substantive motions changed and basically ignored, in the ILUA meeting, without notice and without allowance for any discussion?

The decision-making procedure for the ILUA followed the established decision-making process for the Kabi Kabi native title claim and was a process agreed to and adopted by the Kabi Kabi native title claim group at the ILUA authorisation meeting held on 12th November 2022.

6. b) Why were ILUA attendees not required to validate their authentic Kabi Kabi family connections before being included in the vote?

Consistent with previous Kabi Kabi native title meetings, attendees were required to identify to which Kabi Kabi apical ancestor they were descended. The attendees at the meeting resolved that there was sufficient representation of Kabi Kabi First Nation Traditional Owners to make binding decisions.

6. c) Who organised and paid for the bus from Cherbourg?

The bus from Cherbourg was made at the request of the Kabi Kabi RNTC and consistent with all other previous Kabi Kabi native title wider group consultation ad authorisation meetings including meetings facilitated by QSNTS, the representative body. The Queensland Government paid meeting costs including hall hire, catering and bus hire.

6. d) How was this bus journey and its purpose promoted?

Consistent with all previous Kabi Kabi native title meetings, a notice of the proposed meeting ILUA authorisation meeting was displayed at the Cherbourg community and information about the bus transport was communicated by word of mouth by Kabi Kabi people.

7. Why are non-Kabi citizens being kept out of having any say or opinion on commercial development in National Parks, especially given the objections registered on petitions and submissions?

The Queensland Government has advised that;

  • There have been multiple opportunities for the public to comment on the Cooloola Project.
    • In May-August 2019, then-Department of Innovation and Tourism Industry Development (DITID) (now the Department of Tourism, Innovation and Sport (DTIS)) undertook online community consultation to see views from the community regarding potential ecotourism development in the Cooloola Recreation Area an share ideas and knowledge on the Cooloola Great Walk to inform future planning. This was advertised on the Queensland Government’s Getinvolved website, DITID’s website, local radio and print media, and on social media. This consultation event generated over 4100 views, 37 online submissions and seven written submissions.
    • In June 2021, DES undertook targeted community consultation in the Rainbow Beach ad Noosa regions, intended to present information gather to date on the project, seek views of the community and key stakeholders at an early stage of the proposal, and to notify the public of an opportunity to make a formal submission on the Cooloola Project EPBC referral. This community consultation was advertised on DES and DTIS’s respective webpages and on social media, and DES invited over 130 conservation groups, tourism industry bodies, local businesses, and local and state government representatives to attend consultation events. Consultation included four public community briefings, two pop-up stalls at local community events, and six one-on-one briefings with key conservation and local government stakeholders in the area. Combined these consultation event engaged with over 150 registered participants during this time.
    • Since June 2021 DES has had an open invitation for public submissions on the Cooloola Project. Any submission received will be considered by DES as part of any future assessment of a final project proposal, and in final departmental decision-making on the project approvals.
  • In an effort to keep the public informed on the project, DES has also published all available project documentation on its website. This includes all ecological reporting, information on proposed sites, the site selection process, and responses to frequently asked questions that have arisen throughout public consultation and in correspondence to the department.
  • Future project approvals, such as local government development approvals under the Gympie Regional Council and Noosa Shire Council, may also require statutory public notification and therefore provide the public further opportunity for public engagement. More information on the development assessment process may be found on the Development,Infrastructure,LocalGovernmentandPlanning website, and on the Noosa Council and  GympieRegionalCouncil
8. Why has the promise by the State Government to overturn the ruling to allow commercial development in our National Parks been so blatantly ignored?

The Queensland Government advises that:

  • Queensland Government policy supports sustainable ecotourism on protected areas in Queensland, with a core focus on ensuring the protection of natural, cultural and recreational values of these areas.
  • Provides for development of low-impact, purpose-built ecotourism infrastructure on national parks that is ecologically sustainable, is in the public interest and, to the greatest possible extent, preserves the natural condition and cultural values of the underlying national park.
  • As the agency responsible for administering the NCA, DES must ensure that ecotourism projects on protect areas are consistent with the requirements of the NCA and key ecotourism development policy documents, the Framework and the Guidelines.
  • Further information on ecotourism development in Queensland may be found on DES’website.
9. Can you guarantee, on record, that there won’t be additional future development on an of the sites at Double Island Point, Lake Poona and all the sites on the Noosa River?

The Queensland Government has advised:

  • There is no final proposal with DES for assessment and DES cannot pre-empt a future ecotourism development proposal or the outcomes of any assessment or approval process of such a proposal – any decision made regarding the Cooloola Project will be based solely on the merits of the proposal submitted to DES.
  • Should the current Cooloola Project proposal be considered by the State, footprint and operation scope of an approved development would be restricted to what is proposed by the proponent and deemed acceptable by the Chief Executive of DES. No expansion or alteration of the development would be permitted without the approval of the department, including relocating or constructing additional cabins or other infrastructure, undertaking additional clearing, altering how facilities are accessed by guests (for example, allowing non-hiker use or multiple night stays), offering additional facilities or services, or sale of the project to another operator.
  • Any future expansion or alteration of an approved development would be considered a completely new proposal, and be subject to further EIA, the seeking of relevant additional local, State and Commonwealth approvals, renegotiations of approvals with Traditional Owners, and for public consultation to be undertaken in line with any relevant statutory requirements.

Yours faithfully

KKRNTC

A reminder as included in their response above, that DES has published all available project documentation on its website and submissions can be sent regarding this project at any time via ecofacilities@des.qld.gov.au