Northern Territory Intervention all about Uranium and Nuclear Waste Dumping
Stop the Intervention – Neil E Gillespie, Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc – 9 February 2010 “I find the continuation of the racist NT Intervention by the Rudd Government disappointing.
I remind everyone that the Intervention is about access to Aboriginal land by business interests (mining) and the location of a dump for uranium waste.
SA, WA and Qld will not accept uranium waste so we are deluding ourselves the Intervention is anything but accessing Aboriginal land in the NT.
It has NOTHING to do with children.If it was about children, then the Intervention would have occurred elsewhere due to the undeniable fact that child abuse per capita is not as significant in the NT as it is in another State. NT is well down the pecking order.My question is why not have an Intervention in that State rather than the NT? The answer is simple. The Federal Govt does not have the Constitutional power to invade a State like it has in the NT.
3 Comments »
Leave a comment
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Dear Neil
I often see this statement(“that the Intervention is about access to Aboriginal land by business interests (mining) and the location of a dump for uranium waste”) made by bloggers, but I have as yet to see a logical argument proving the case for the assertion. Can you explain to me exactly how the Intervention is enabling mining or dumping in the NT?
Ta
Bob D
Hermannsburg NT
LikeLike
Australia is obligated to take back some radioactive nuclear waste from England, and the Federal government cannot override the States, but can override the Northern Territory. With the “Intervention” continuing, the Rudd government will find it easier to impose a radioactive waste dump on aboriginal land in the Northern Territory.
With a bit of luck, Rudd will be able to bribe a few aboriginals, and the whole thing can be done quietly, without much fuss from the ignorant and apathetic “dominant group”.
With a bit more luck, a few entrepreneurial types will be able to set up a continuing importing of overseas nuclear wastes as a lucrative Northern Territory business.
LikeLike
As Paddy Gibson said on solidarity.net.au (Issue 21, November 2009)”Mining companies gained no greater rights through the Intervention. They still need permission from Aboriginal landowners to explore or mine on Aboriginal land and must undertake these negotiations through appropriate Land Councils.”
If Christina is correct, then it would appear that Neil merely assumes or suspects that “the Intervention is about access to Aboriginal land by business interests (mining) and the location of a dump for uranium waste”, but has no particular evidence to support this notion, other than his generalised political assessment about what governments and mining companies get up to.
Christina herself draws a long bow: the Australian Government already has agreement from the NLC and Muckaty TOs about storing nuclear waste there. There are other groups keen to seal similar deals. Why would the government then whip up a billion dollar Intervention just to achieve what already exists? Including building permanent towns on the same Aboriginal land that he seems to believe they want for mining and dumping? Doesn’t the fact the NTG and AG are developing 20 Aboriginal towns work against Neil and Christina’s arguments?
http://www.solidarity.net.au/highlights/intervention-motives-more-serious-than-mining/
LikeLike