FluffynymphInteresting that you should bring up the issue of the...

Fluffynymph

Interesting that you should bring up the issue of the Hopping Mouse (an endangered species) project. I was in discussions in regard to the Hopping Mouse yesterday. Originally Gemco and the ALC were to jointly fund that project. Gemco subsequently renigged on their part of the deal and the Project proceeded without their involvement ultimately being replaced by reseach in regard to some other species with Government, but not Gemco, involvement.

Gemco, in pursuing their activities on the Eastern Leases now that their exploratory drilling has assessed the ore body, must now embark on their EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)pre mining. Although the Hopping Mouse has revealed indications that it exists elsewhere on the Eylandt, the only area where in fact it has been sighted is on the "Easter Leases".

As it has been established that an endangered species resides there Gemco must now accomodate it when they mine. Therefor they must establish the extent of its presence (i.e its numbers). Having pulled out of the original project which would have meant a considerable outlay of money they now wish to undertake the process of identyfing HM numbers in the Eastern Leases by employing a PhD student. The ALC have the right to deny the student access to the Eastern Leases, in that at this point in time they are not leased to Gemco for mining.

The debate yesterday was as to whether the ALC should accomodate the cheap option or insist on a fully funded research project. No decision was made, but the sentiment appeared to be that we'd opt for the an ignition of the original research project.

Gemco, to my knowledge has never made direct cah payments to the ALC. However, under the lease arrangements- you know Fluffynymph, legally binding arrangements that constitutes the "rent money" you appear to hold is a "present"- Gemco pours money and resources into a number of community based projects; in the interests of being a good corporate citizen, and I suppose, endearing themselves to the TO"s in the hope pursuing mining ambitions on the Eylandt, and maybe the sea too, who knows.

Gemco often become involved in supporting intiatives outside of the Lease agreement. Part of that may have been in providing materials for the new jetty (I'm not sure), they may have also provided some equipment (again not sure). But doing such "good deeeds" I'd imagine that they see themselves as "currying favour" with the TO's.

I know that they are bending over backwards to re-kindle some sort of positive relationship with the TO's given TO rancour with thing like their water managent practices, and their staking of sea based EL's etc.

GEBIE and DELTA have a number of contracts undertaking work that would otherwise be contracted out elsewhere. Groote Construction Company, too, undertakes some of the work generated by the Commonwealth housing initiative. I'd suggest that this is good business practice, keeping money on the EYlandt and employing TO's. Although GEBIE and GCC and the ALC between them also provide jobs for well over 100, mainly, but not exclusively, European workers who are not TO's.

In summary, Gemco have been involved with all those initiatives you listed, providing money and resources- but no cash directly to the ALC to spend as they might wish outside of the agreements garnered re those joint projects. They're the sorts of projects and partnerships GOT, too, placed before the TO's and the ALC as enticements to accomodate both their sea based and land based ambitions. That's what's known as being a good corporate citizen, and paying the rent too.

In turn I think you are a little out of your depth, or else ill informed, but probably, in my opinion, grasping at straws. You appear to be under the illusion that I am somehow indirectly employed by eithe GEmco or some arm of governmnet. My role has nothing to do Gemco (apart from being in a "professionally abrasive" relationship), or is it outlined under any arrangement with the Commonwealth (eg. Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairsor NT Governments)or NT Governments.

I am employed by a private company, GEBIE, on behalf of the TO's to run an anti sea-bed mining campaign. My only responsibility is to further the To's interests,and as they see it, not as I see it. And I give it 100%...maybe I should have written something like "in coordinating the TO's campaign, and on their directions, the aim is to destroy GOT as a commercial entity". Which it is by the way.

Many TO's sit beside me while I participate in this forum. Some are members of the ALC executive. The CEO of the ALC is more than aware of my activities here too. As is the NLC for that matter. I am encouraged by my employers to post here. But' like you, I know that I address very few SH's. I'm under no illusions about that. This is a sideline to what I do as my core business. But in this role I walk that extra yard and take advantage of any opportunity to promote the sensibilities of the TO's.

(And I must address my role description on the ALC web-site...my wife and I no longer have that role, in fact we haven't delivered a Cross-Cultural Course since March...but we will do a few in the remaining months of the year).

If Gemco proceed with any intrusive activity on their sea-based EL's my job will be, in my role, to thwart them as well. Unfortunately because Gemco are so well resourced it would be unrealistic to have the goal of destroying them as a commercial entity. But in the case of GOT, who in the opinion of the TO's have made a pre-emptive strike against their culture, promoting a Project that, if it came to full fruition would, in their opinion, destroy their Ceremonial life (see, once again letter to CM Henderson dated 10th October, 2010,), given the fact that GOT are so poorly resourced their destruction may well be an achievable reality.

I've think I've covered everything there Fluffynymph, but yours was a complicated post, remind me if I have not addressed all your concerns.

Given that I have taken the time to address your post in full (as I see it) would you mind reciprocating and explain to me why you appear to see Royalties as a "present"?



Q