Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Kimberley land take flawed, objectors say

Kimberley land take flawed, objectors say
Lloyd Jones
December 22, 2010 - 2:54PM

Mr Bergmann said the KLC had lodged its objections to compulsory acquisition but hoped an agreement could be struck before it went further.

"If a deal was not done the issue would clog up in court and stall" he said.

Redhand told you so two days ago under the heading: Repulsive Acquisition Deals behind closed doors.


  1. So this would explain why people are talking about the new rumour going around,that Joe Roe has accepted $1,000,000 from the government and Woodside to sign on.I guess this is just more humbug?

  2. Barnett and Voelte always treat Joe like hes like all the rest and will fall over for a few bucks.Bergman talks like everyone will fall over for the money,sooner,rather than later.With all the to ing and fro ing,despicable deals,the pro gas mob had to start something like this in the hope they might fool a few people who don't follow the news.They've got so much sh*t all over their ass,they don't want no one looking their way.

  3. The KLC is on the record as saying that if the current proposal goes ahead it will be devastating for Indigenous people.

    I understand there is a lot of animosity towards the Land Council over the division within the Goolarabooloo Jabirr Jabirr claim group. However people need to ask themselves if this animosity is not actually doing more harm than good.

    By all accounts keep the legal avenues ticking - the delaying tactic is the best there is right now, but in the fight against Compulsory Acquisition - the Land Council and the No Gas groups have a pretty similar position - they are opposed to it.

    Everybody is being divided when differences should be put aside for the purpose of tackling the Compulsory Acquisition.

    Roe and Brown have talked about finding alternate sites for the project that won't hurt the Dreaming Trail.

    This tells me that they are not against the gas hub on pollution grounds but on cultural grounds.

    The Land Council is pretty much required to do what it is doing in order to meet the recomendations of the Report of the Working Party into Native Title Payments. That is - the money needs to be shared around. All the windfall can't just go to the group whose land has the mine/metal/industry.

    If you are opposed to that concept then you have to talk with the KLC and fight the government. Don't fight the KLC on that because you might as well blame the bus driver for the price of fuel.

    Love Chas

  4. Does that mean Chas that the KLC brokered deal for Irvine Island today will be shared around, will Argyle Diamond mine money be shared around? I think not. Get real. The only reason KLC is arguing for sharing money from JPP is that it is a sh@#$t load of money and the brothers want a peice of it. Let's see if they fight as hard for a deal when the coal comes out of Jahlmadangah land?

  5. Good points.
    Let me think about that one.
    Merry Christmas,
    Love Chas

  6. why does it look like the pakistani floods are visiting oz?

  7. Yes, you are right about the Sh##load of money and it being a driving force behind the effort etc...

    Not sure about the Irvine agreement but the Argyle Agreement is, I believe, quite well regarded as a deal that has brought a wide range of benefits to people.

    As for Mt Anderson ... One would expect that the lessons learned from JPP would be refined in any negotiations with coal miners there.

    Does that sound unreasonable?