sea bed mining, page-98

Jaeb

The TO's are 100% committed in their opposition to GOT. I keep refering to their public statements in support of that. And Got are well aware of this.

In all my years here I have never seen an issue that has so united this family based culture.

Look, if you want confirmation why not just ring the ALC and talk to say the Legal Officer (who is a European) or the acting CEO (who is also a European) or to some of the aboriginal staff. In terms of the latter you could talk to the Chairman, the Deputy Chair or the Liaison Officers. I can provide you with direct phone numbers and email addresses. Just say the word, or you could Google "Anindilyakwa Land Council" for contact details.

How would I feel about GOT attempting to broker a deal with TO's, say of one family or another? You know the answer, personally I wouldn't like it. But this is not about me or how I feel. I have nothing to do with what the TO's decide about their Land and Sea Country. I can only state that all TO's have rejected GOT's overtures to date and that they continue to do so.

Lets look at proof:

1. The TO's rebuffed GOT's land based ambitions.
2. View the public statements by the ALC and the TO's.

Jaeb, why don't you just either ring up or make email contact with aborigines employed here...then at least you'll know. And maybe you might be inclined to post what you discover here.

The decision making process here operates like this:

1. The ALC are the body that acts under all legislation, Commonwealth and Territory, on behalf of the TO"s.
2. The "Executive" of the ALC (although they're not in fact called "The Executive", that decision making group is called "The Members") is elected by all TO's over the age of 18. The elections are run by the Electoral Commission. "The Members" are made up of either one or two representatives from each family, depending on the size of the family, and two community "Members" (a man and a woman) from each of the three major villages on the Archipelago. There are 25 members in all.

All motions to date rejecting GOT have been carried unanimously by the ALC "Members".

In terms of Sea Country, the TO's themselves have set up their own body..."The Forum of the Traditional Owners of the Groote Archipelago in Matters of Sea Country"...membership of that forum is open to every TO of the Archipelago. "Members" (i.e the Executive decision making body) of the ALC are also members of that forum. The "Forum" (re sea country) makes the decisions re the sea and directs the Members of the ALC in matters of sea country.

I have made stenuous efforts to "be honest" in all my posts and have always attempted to back up what I say with reference to documentation in the public domain or documentation that I could provide on request (apart from anything that's confidential)...a couple of people claiming to be members of HC have already taken up that offer.

I actually believe that GOT are attempting to get on with it...but they're facing some monumental challenges. I believe, and I am only speculating, that GOT withdrew their application to the EPBC to map because it was seriously flawed...presenting as it did, in my opinion, an argument not to map rather than an argument to map. That application is of crucial importance because if their apllication to map is rejected then no exploration fullstop (although they could re-apply).

I posted yesterday that GOT could not have picked a more difficult place to pursue their mining ambitions, both on land and in the sea, than this joint. It's not even arguable, in my opinion, that combined, the cultural and environmental values see that their land and sea based EL"s are targeting the most significant culturally and environmentally charged geography in Australia...maybe the world. That's why they're bogged down, in my opinion.