Toxic debates
The debate about a toxic waste site at the Muckaty Station north of Tennant Creek continues. I’ve blogged about this here before. In today’s Sydney Morning Herald another article details the confusion and divisive nature of the proposed dump site and the $10 million for education etc. In light of the intervention, the question should be posed again: Why should Aboriginal communities be forced to make these deals in order to get basic services like roads, housing and education–things that should be available to ALL Australian citizens?
When I was in Tennant Creek the past few months I discussed this with both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. There isn’t very much support for the site by anyone. NLC seems to have put its head down and isn’t saying much except that they did do proper consultations. But the Aboriginal people from the outstations near the proposed site that I spoke with were clearly opposed to the idea. Dianne Nampin Stokes has been an ardent critic of the dump and has been lobbying around the country to gain support. I spoke with Dianne about this on a few occasions. Her feelings were clear “We don’t want that dump, it’s not good for our kids, it’s not good for our country.” Now it seems that Dianne and others have been able to convinced others of the problems with such a site.
I won’t sign any agreement because my mob disagrees with building the dump there,” said Sammy Sambo, senior elder of the Milwayi clan, which owns the only road to the site in Muckaty, a former cattle station 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek.
“We are upset about the way those government fellas have gone about trying to convince us and are confused and worried about what to do next.”
Hopefully this on-going campaign will lead to actual consultation with all those involved as well as a national conversation about the demands put on Aboriginal communities to accept nuclear waste sites as a way to “bridge the gap” with those public benefits other Australians receive.
About The Author
Kim Christen
I am an Assistant Professor at Washington State University. I use this blog to keep myself writing. I blog about Australian Aboriginal politics, Indigenous issues, Indigenous new media, cultural politics, and other issues that come up. I made the icon above at Portrait Icon Maker
Other posts byKim Christen
Author his web sitehttp://www.kimberlychristen.com
What’s particularly disgusting is that the offer is for “more than” $10 million for 5000 cubic metres of storage space for 300 years!
After upgrading a road, building dozens of much-needed houses, refurbishing a school and setting up their out-station, there won’t be much change from a once-off ten million. Without the required government funds for these sorts of things, they’ll be back to square one in 150 years, with no money, and yet another 150 years of the deal to honour.
There was also Mr Sambo’s premonition, that:
Which was nicely juxtaposed by the article’s conclusion:
Interestingly though, the print article had an extra little bit of info at the end of this paragraph, “…which Australia had sent overseas”, that was omitted from the online content.
Jangari-
Thanks for the little extra tidbit from the print article–seems an important bit for sure. And yes the $10 mil hardly seems adequate, what’s more there aren’t any published plans yet for how the towns and communities up and down the track will be protected–sure the TOs may or may not agree, but what about all the other folks. A spill will affect everyone.
Hi Kimberly,
According to one newspaper report i was reading:
“Ron Levy, the NLC’s senior legal counsel, insisted there was overwhelming support for the dump from Ngapa people with the authority to make decisions regarding the land, based on the still-secret findings of three NLC-employed anthropologists.”
In the (unproofed) transcript the recent sitting in Darwin of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, i was surprised to read:
Senator LUDLAM—It sounds to me as though a number of different people and different groups have obligations that are around that area and on that area. The Northern Land Council has a legal obligation to talk to not just one group of people but to talk to a range of people. Unfortunately we have not seen the agreement that was signed because it was secret, and we have not seen the anthropological study that was done because that is secret as well.
And in a letter read to the Senate Inquiry from First Peoples with afflialiations with the Muckaty area:
“Any land claim under the Northern Territory lands act is commonly owned and is freehold. How, then, was it possible to sell part of our claim? Who was consulted? Who sold the land and who bought it? How much money changed hands and who were the beneficiaries? We never heard that a land claim can be lodged by one single family group, like the Ngapas have done. Our traditional country holds many different dreamings. We inherited countries through father and mother. These are known as kirta kurtungurlu family relationships among our people. We are demanding to see the anthropologists’ evidence provided to the Northern Land Council regarding Ngapa clan.”
1. Does anyone know who the three NLC employed anthropologists are?
2. Is there a professional anthropological ethical problem here?
Bruce Reyburn
Hi Kimberly
I just added a post to songlines blog about Muckaty which puts your approach (in your book) to good effect in comparison with that in an article which was in a recent “Good Weekend” supplement to the Sydney Morning Herald.
See “Let’s end the Nuclear Nightmare at Muckaty, NT.”
http://songlines.org.au/2010/06/03/nuclear-nightmare-at-muckaty-nt/
Cheers
Bruce