Hi.
In reply to Annette:
The following comes from a pamphlet called UNFINISHED BUSINESS: KUMARANGK HINDMARSH
ISLAND which I think was published late last year. It may be helpful
Dean
______________________________________
Unfinished business: A history of flawed decision-making
1993 ERD Inquiry
The Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the South Australian
Parliament reported on an Inquiry into the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Project in 1993.
This open inquiry involved the local community and all major political parties and had
members from both houses. The committee found unanimously against the bridge, but the
State Labor Government ignored the recommendations to protect the island and oppose
the bridge.
1994 Jacobs' Inquiry
During the State election campaign the Liberal Party opposed the bridge. Sam Jacobs
was appointed to investigate legal and contractual issues surrounding the bridge and
refused to consider Aboriginal heritage issues. His report has never been released.
The Liberal Government decided on the basis of this secret report that likely
litigation and compensation costs would be too great if they reneged on building the
bridge.
1994 Saunders' Inquiry
Under the federal Heritage Act, the Lower Murray Aboriginal Heritage Committee applied
for protection from the federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to prevent the
desecration of Aboriginal heritage sites on Hindmarsh Island and the bridge approach,
because although the State Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had agreed there were
significant sites at risk, he had used special powers given to the Minister under the
State Act to authorise damage to the sites so as to allow bridge construction.
Professor Cheryl Saunders was appointed to investigate the matter and report. The
Federal Labor Government accepted the findings of the Saunders' Inquiry, and on 10th
July 1994 banned the bridge for 25 years. This decision was overturned on legal
technical grounds, to do with process. Opponents of the Ngarrindjeri people's claim
made much of the section of the report which contained sensitive cultural material
pertaining to women, for reading by women only.
1995 Stevens' Royal Commission
The Royal Commission was established by the Liberal Government to investigate whether
the secret women's business was fabricated. It had no power to prevent the building
of the bridge. The Ngarrindjeri women seeking heritage protection believed that the
Royal Commission was an Inquiry into their spiritual beliefs, and refused to
participate. Veronica Brodie did decide to give evidence later after hearing the
gossip and scurrilous claims about her ancestors and deceased relatives which was
being given and accepted as evidence. The Government was forced by the Supreme Court
to go back and consult appropriately with Aboriginal people after having given the
Royal Commission powers to hear sensitive cultural information without appropriate
consultation. The renewed consultation showed that 85% of the Ngarrindjeri people
were opposed to the Royal Commission continuing and against giving the Commission
powers to hear sensitive cultural information. Public opposition to the Royal
Commission came from Aboriginal groups, women's groups, churches, unions, human
rights organisations and environmentalists across the nation. The Royal Commission
found that the whole of the "women's business" was a fabrication for the purpose of
obtaining protection under the federal Heritage Act. The Advertiser played it for
all it was worth under the banner "Lies Lies Lies". The Royal Commission did not
specify how the fabrication occurred, nor who the fabricators were. Despite the State
Liberal Government's keen acceptance of the Report, its legitimacy has been
questioned: its terms of reference were inappropriate and denied human rights of
religious freedom. The subsequent Mathews' Inquiry has shown that a number of the
Royal Commission's findings were wrong. An attempt to have the Royal Commission's
conduct and findings subjected to a Judicial Review foundered on the grounds that
South Australia's Royal Commission Act expressly disallows any review process at all.
1996 The Mathews' Inquiry
After the Saunders' Inquiry was quashed on technical grounds, the Ngarrindjeri people
again applied for protection under the federal Heritage Act. Justice Jane Mathew's
was appointed to investigate and report. Unfortunately, while she was working on her
report, there was an election and the new Federal Government's Minister for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, refused the Ngarrindjeri people's
request that he appoint a female Minister to read the report, so Ngarrindjeri women
refused to include evidence to the Inquiry that they felt was sensitive, and thus it
could not be considered. The Royal Commission had found that the Seven Sisters
Dreaming Story was "part of Western Desert mythology likely to have been introduced
[into Ngarrindjeri culture] by Doreen Kartinyeri"
Justice Mathews found that:
There is considerable material, much of it unearthed for the purposes of this report,
which directly refutes the Royal Commissioner's finding on this matter. References to
the Seven Sisters Dreaming Story in Ngarrindjeri culture can be found in several
sources, some of which go back a long time. (page 179).
Also, Justice Mathews had scientific tests conducted on Betty Fisher's note books
which contained notes which Betty Fisher alleged were written back in the 1960s, about
what she was told about the significance of Hindmarsh Island and the channel for
Ngarrindjeri people. The testing supported Betty Fisher's claims, whereas the Royal
Commission had refused to accept the authenticity of her notes. Justice Mathews
accepted that the Ngarrindjeri people's opposition to the bridge was based upon a
genuine belief that the area was of great traditional significance to the Ngarrindjeri
people. After the report was completed the Federal Court ruled that Justice Mathews,
being a judge, was ineligible to have carried out the Inquiry and her Report was ruled
ineffective. The report was later tabled in the Senate by Senator Herron despite the
objections of Ngarrindjeri people.
1996 Evatt Report.
Justice Elizabeth Evatt was appointed by Minister Tickner to report on the
effectiveness of the Federal and State heritage legislation. Again her report was
completed after the change in Government. Concerning th federal Heritage Act, she
said:
The Act should recognise and respect Aboriginal customary law restrictions on
information about significant areas. The [present] Act does not protect confidential
information or respect Aboriginal spirituality or beliefs which require that
confidentiality be maintained. Aboriginal people want the Act to be maintained and
strengthened.
Significantly, despite the federal Liberal, National and Labor parties all saying they
support heritage protection, the new Act which is presently making its way through
Parliament departs markedly from Elizabeth Evatt's recommendations, and provides
little protection for confidential beliefs.
Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997
With two applications for heritage protection now having been stymied because of
technical legalities, the Ngarrindjeri people again requested that the minister
appoint someone to investigate and report as required by the Heritage Act. Instead
Senator Herron introduced the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill to parliament. The
Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act was passed early in 1997 and had the effect of preventing
the Minister from making any Orders under the Heritage Protection Act relating to the
building of a bridge in the Hindmarsh island bridge area. Since 1993 Ngarrindjeri
people had been seeking heritage protection under the federal Act. Through no fault
of theirs, the previous attempts by Government to apply the Act had failed. In 1997,
the law was changed specifically to deny them the protection of that law.
They challenged the constitutionality of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act in the High
Court. It was a case given even higher profile because of the belief that it might
have a bearing on any legal challenge to Mr Howard's Wik 10 point plan. The
Ngarrindjeri plaintiff's lost the challenge because the Court ruled that the Hindmarsh
Island Bridge Act was an amendment to an already existing Act, and that if Parliament
had the power to make a law it also followed that Parliament had the power to unmake
it.
In 1998 Di Bell published Ngarrindjeri Wurruwarrin: A World That Is, Was and Will Be
(Spinifex Press, 688pp) which provides a compelling argument against specific findings
of the Royal Commission concerning the Ngarrindjeri women's beliefs.
Supporters of the Ngarrindjeri opposing the bridge, conservation groups, and the media
have been significantly hampered in their activities by a continuing string of
litigation.
So here we are
The Ngarrindjeri people who are seeking heritage protection have not given up. They
have been willing to face every challenge with determination and courage. They have
followed up every legal and administrative avenue available to them. Such options are
now exhausted yet their modest request for protection of their heritage and culture
has not been satisfied. Politicians, lawyers, and judges have let them down time and
time again. One could understand them feeling that the whole system is expressly
devised and programmed to prevent them from ever winning. Yet they still stand firm.
They are at this moment looking to international remedies. And back here on the
ground the only hope left for them is people power. If enough people of goodwill,
were to stand together in solidarity with these Ngarrindjeri people saying we are
willing to stay with you come what may, then and only then, might this relentless
attack on Ngarrindjeri culture and heritage be turned back.
Kumarangk Coalition UNFINISHED BUSINESS: KUMARANGK HINDMARSH ISLAND p5-8
____________________________________________________
Annette said
Hi all,
I have just read over the account of the Goolwa meeting that Dean has put up (thanks
Dean) and I am wondering if anyone can give me a rundown on the events around this
"bridge" . I know bits of this history but it would help me greatly in my
discussions with people to be far more educated about this. SO who can help me out
here?
Thanks
Annette Flanagan
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
