Murray River Country: An Ecological Dialogue with Traditional Owners by Jessica K. Weir

Author:Jessica K. Weir [Weir, Jessica K.]
Language: eng
Format: mobi
Tags: Indigenous Studies
Publisher: Independent Publishers Group
Published: 2009-09-01T04:00:00+00:00

The many tensions and fractious understandings encumbered in dialogue between Indigenous peoples and governments about Indigenous rights and identity were revealed in the bitter contest known simply as ‘Hindmarsh’. This conflict became highly politicised, touching a raw nerve in the Australian psyche about who can say what and how. The dispute pitted local religious beliefs stated by a group of Ngarrindjeri people against marina developers who were focused on building a bridge to connect Kumerangk (Hindmarsh Island) to the small town of Goolwa, just behind the Murray Mouth in South Australia. The Ngarrindjeri people argued that the bridge would desecrate a sacred place in their country. The developers wanted the bridge to provide land access to the marina on the island.

The bitter Hindmarsh dispute is better described as a ‘cataclysmic encounter’ than a dialogue (Marcus 2004, p. 340). The conflict involved court cases and appeals under state and federal heritage legislation, a royal commission, a High Court appeal, and a year-long trial in the Federal Court in 2001 (which was the biggest of 15 defamation cases brought by the marina developers) (Ogle 2002, p. 16). The dispute was played out in the media and in parliaments, and people watching it on television took their own positions about the validity of the local religious beliefs of a group of Ngarrindjeri. In the final defamation case, Justice von Doussa determined that the women’s religious beliefs were not fabricated, and was very critical of the bridge proponents (Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 5) [2001]FCA 1106).

Debbie Rose asks how can Aboriginal people ‘expect to “enjoy” their culture’ when their laws and lives are ‘scrutinised, debased and debated in a form of public vivisection’ (Rose 2001, pp. 115–16). She questions the role of scholars in these engagements and wonders whether our engagement ‘simply serves to sustain a pretence of open debate in a plural society, while we hover at the periphery of the destruction that continues around us’ (ibid., p. 116). Instead of scrutinising the authenticity of Indigenous culture, scholars must ensure Indigenous people have the intellectual space to express themselves in Australian society. Otherwise the debate is a fiction.

Since Hindmarsh, the Ngarrindjeri and the local government have been working together on a different dialogue. In 2002, a ‘Sincere expression of sorrow and apology to the Ngarrindjeri People’ was signed by the mayor of Alexandrina Council and witnessed by three Ngarrindjeri Elders and the council chief executive (Alexandrina Council 2002). This document acknowledged and expressed regret for the suffering and injustices that Ngarrindjeri people had experienced over 166 years of colonisation. The council also explicitly recognised the Ngarrindjeri people as the traditional owners, their unique culture, and ‘your right to determine your future’ (ibid.). It is a statement of reconciliation that acknowledges the past and lays the foundations for agreement-making into the future. The Ngarrindjeri people now work closely with the council on issues of concern to the traditional owners, including development applications that are next to the Murray River. They have also begun working towards a formal agreement with the Ramsar managers of the Coorong (Hemming et al.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.