claire speaks on the fed/nt battle, page-3

there will be indeed y/c. Both parties have been aware of the relevant clause in the Mining Act all along. Not just recently. Hence the politics. I was briefed on it years ago, clearly, the NTG has never had the power to reject new uranium mines. Of ourse, no new uranium mines has been approved since Ranger.
The mining companies' advisors would also have known about the clause. They too have copies of the NT and Fed Acts.ie Mining Act, Self Govt Act, Atomic Energy Act, Mining Management Act(that will confuse the issue)
Claire is being accused of misleading the public with her n.n.m's policy statement in view of this clause, which she would have known about.
She does have the powers under the Mine Managemet Act so this will confuse the situation and create loads of fun.
I think it coud mean there will be a new mine in the next 5 years. Th debate will now be widened as land tenure is the critical issue. aru are on pastoral lan and cmr have a pe-ALRA situation.
It will be a long and hard debate - not only on u mining but on self-governmnt.