How intersection in Australia Leads to the Destruction of Indigenous Sacred Sites – a case study

Image credit: 

Claire (she/her) is a non-Indigenous Australian raised on Ngunnawal Country and currently based in Naarm/Melbourne, studying and working on Wurundjeri land. She is in the final year of her Bachelor of Arts and Music degree at Monash University, majoring in history and jazz performance. Intent on incorporating historical analysis into her writing, Claire is particularly interested in how marginalised communities have been excluded from Australia’s dominant historical narratives and the impact this has on Australians today. She is also an avid musician, drumming in a number of jazz, rock and pop bands around Naarm/Melbourne.

We would like to acknowledge the strength and power of the Ngarrindjeri people who fought to protect their sacred women’s business site. We want to acknowledge the suffering and harm that came with the interrogation into their beliefs and the desecration of sacred sites and Country. We pay our deepest respects to your elders – past, present and emerging.

***

While researching the desecration of Aboriginal sacred sites in South Australia, I came across the case of Kumerangk, also known as Hindmarsh Island. Part of the Ngarrindjeri peoples’ Country, Kumerangk is a sacred site of women’s business and women’s knowledge. What struck me about this case was that a Royal Commission into development plans for the island ruled that the Ngarrindjeri women had made up false claims of their spiritual connection to Kumerangk.

This made me think about how a legal system can assess the validity of a group or community’s spiritual beliefs – in fact, many believed that this Royal Commission was a denial of the Ngarrindjeri peoples’ right to religious freedom. I questioned whether Australia had ever witnessed a similarly intense interrogation into culturally dominant religious beliefs and why not? What kind of evidence does one have to present to prove Indigenous spirituality in a legal system founded on Western/European structures and culture? Does the Australian legal system recognise oral histories and knowledges as evidence?

The short answer is that the Australian legal system struggles to give due justice to people and communities who don’t exist within Western/European norms of culture, religion and knowledge.

In the 1980s, developers proposed to construct a bridge connecting Kumerangk to nearby town Goolwa in order to increase the amount of people accessing the marina they were also building. The bridge was heavily opposed by a group of Ngarrindjeri women who said that its construction would desecrate their sacred sites. A string of political and legal events followed, including in the 1995 Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission which allowed for the construction of the bridge.

As I came across more and more information, it became clear that racism and sexism greatly influenced the outcome of the Royal Commission. Disrespect toward and marginalisation of women and Indigenous cultures overlapped, contributing to a legal decision deeming Ngarrindjeri women’s spiritual connection to Kumerangk to be made up.

In this article I will explore some of the historical, legal and political events in the Kumerangk bridge construction saga that influenced legal decisions regarding the Ngarrindjeri women’s sacred knowledge. This will show that a major contributor to the desecration of Kumerangk was the double oppression First Nations women face in Australia.

 

Omission and censorship in the colonialist’s written record

Western culture privileges the written record as an historical source, failing to acknowledge non-written sources of knowledge as equally valuable. There has been an incredible amount of research devoted to analysing oral histories, disputing the claim that they provide inaccurate, unreliable and biased evidence. If you’re interested in this, the book ‘Songlines’ by Margo Neale and Lynne Kelly provides a really great insight into Indigenous systems of knowledge and oral histories.

 

A version of Australian history has developed primarily based on the written sources of European settlers, despite Indigenous systems of knowledge being incredibly complex and deeply connected to Country. This is one reason why Indigenous voices, historically and currently, have been silenced and omitted from the telling of Australian history.

 

Colonialist George Taplin wrote about the Ngarrindjeri people in the 1860s and 1870s. Taplin, as well as other colonialists, took a European perspective towards the role of women in Ngarrindjeri society – assuming strict gender stereotypes such as the submissiveness, obedience and chastity of women. Taplin was shocked when Ngarrindjeri women acted in ways that were ‘indecent’ and ‘lewd’ by his restrictive and discriminatory standards. When writing about the Ngarrindjeri language, Taplin glaringly omitted the word for female genitalia and changes the word for ‘sex’ to ‘laying down’. Women’s songs and dances about sexual and reproductive topics were also censored. The influence of European gender stereotypes also resulted in colonialists ignoring Indigenous women’s roles in society because they assumed the men were the holders of knowledge and owners of land.

First Nations histories already struggle to be recognised in Australia’s dominant historical narrative. This is due to the prioritisation of the written record over other historical sources in Western systems. Then, when colonialists applied their oppressive gender stereotypes towards Indigenous women, their lives were further omitted and censored, more-so than Indigenous men. By effect, the lives of Ngarrindjeri women were made culturally invisible to a Western/European system.

Back to the 1990s, Ngarrindjeri elder Doreen Kartinyeri cited her Elders as the source for Kumerangk being a sacred women’s site. However, the incomplete, censored and prejudiced depiction of Ngarrindjeri women in the written record – the legacy of 19th Century colonialists – was a contributing factor in the Royal Commission decision. Australia’s legal system put more value on the written record – which unsurprisingly presented minimal evidence of sacred women’s connection to Kumerangk – than Indigenous histories.

The distinct lack of value placed on Indigenous women’s causes in the Australian legal system

Australia’s legal system is founded on Western/European ideals and structures, basing women’s rights and people of colour’s rights as secondary. Cases that exhibit cultural differences to this Western/European norm struggle to be correctly understood and rightfully acknowledged in Australia’s legal system. As a result, the Ngarrindjeri women’s culture, knowledge and spirituality was practically invisible to the 1995 Royal Commission. How can the legal system provide justice to all Australians if it operates within structures that rarely recognise the validity of First Nations knowledges and view men’s business as superior to women’s?

The Ngarrindjeri women had to reconstruct their claims to Country and their histories into the language of the legal system. They would have risked their case having a much higher chance of being lost if they didn’t make their knowledge recognisable to a Western/European system. The Ngarrindjeri women also had to break cultural protocol by releasing private information to the Royal Commission in order to protect Kumerangk. Politicians, legal authorities and the media used this reconstruction and recent release of private information as proof the Ngarrindjeri women were fabricating their sacred connection to Kumerangk. Rather, these were actions that had to be taken to increase the chances of protecting their sacred sites in a Western/European based legal system. Exacerbating this, the Royal Commission released some parts of the Ngarrindjeri’s women’s private knowledge because they deemed it to be of public interest. This denied the Ngarrindjeri women’s right to privacy and agency over their beliefs.

Adding fuel to the fire, critics of the Ngarrindjeri women believed that the uncertainties and contradictions in their cultural knowledge (the small amount made public) was more proof of it being made up. In reality, this was because of a nation-wide issue concerning the loss of First Nations knowledges as a result of colonialism and dispossession.

The Ngarrindjeri women’s history, spirituality and culture was made culturally invisible in a legal system that examines cases through a Western/European perspective. The reconstruction and public release of Ngarrindjeri women’s sacred knowledge was perceived as evidence they had made up their spiritual connection to Kumerangk, rather than a necessary act to make their culture recognisable to a Western/European system.

Exclusion from the planning process

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) and subsequent supplementary development plan (SDP) for the construction of a bridge from Kumerangk to Goolwa did not raise First Nations heritage as a major issue. The EIA report recommended consulting traditional owners about the construction of the bridge, but the state government had already approved the concept and funding. In fact, the entire planning process was pushed through as quickly as possible. The SDP was approved in July 1993. It would later be found in Professor Cheryl Saunders’ report about the cultural significance of Kumerangk that Ngarrindjeri women were not made aware of the development plans until March 1994.

On display here is a lack of respect for First Nations heritage and culture, with developers and politicians valuing the economic growth of Hindmarsh Island over Indigenous uses and connection to Country. This significantly impacted the Ngarrindjeri women’s case against the bridge construction.

A commonly heard criticism of the Ngarrindjeri women’s claims was that if they were so opposed to the construction of the bridge, why did they only speak up when it was finally approved and not during the planning process? Broader negative cultural representations of Indigenous people can lead to the harmful beliefs that because there was no public knowledge of culturally significant sites, their claims must have been made up in order to stop or hinder development. This denies Aboriginal people the right for their sacred knowledges and practices to remain private. It also begs the question, what responsibility does government take to ensure that these marginalised communities have access to this information?

Disrespect from men in parliament

In early 1995, a box of documents about Kumerangk was delivered in error to the Shadow Minister for Environment, Ian McLachlan’s office, meant to be going to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Robert Tickner. In this box was an envelope containing sacred women’s knowledge, marked “confidential” and “to be read by women only”. However, while the box was in McLachlan’s office, it was opened, photocopied and the sacred women’s knowledge was read by a man.

Doreen Kartinyeri said that she knew a man had read the sacred information when she felt strong stomach pains, and later attributes her stomach cancer to the incident. For Ngarrindjeri women, desecration of Country and sacred knowledges is felt as damaging to women’s bodies and health. They felt great pain when a man read their sacred women’s knowledge without consent.

McLachlan’s Chief of Staff, Peter Miller, later admitted to reading the contents of the confidential envelope. Miller said that, “I was aware, well, not of wrongdoing but that some people might think what I was doing was wrong… I am quite sure there were references to [Dreamtime ancestors], and their significance eluded me. I can remember reading it and thinking there was nothing remarkable there.” Miller shows a blatant lack of respect for the Ngarrindjeri women’s sacred knowledge, passing judgement on the validity of another group’s beliefs.

McLachlan tabled the photocopied confidential information in parliament without the consent of the Ngarrindjeri women. After mass backlash, McLachlan resigned from his position not long after the incident.

The agency of the Ngarrindjeri women was denied at numerous levels in McLachlan’s office. First, government worker(s) read and photocopied confidential sacred women’s knowledge, and then McLachlan brought the photocopies into parliament. The Ngarrindjeri women’s decision to protect their sacred knowledge from desecration was denied and ignored by men holding positions of authority in parliament.

The denial of First Nations spirituality in the Royal Commission

“So, it’s really nothing to do with women’s business, is it?”

Ngarrindjeri man George Trevorrow was asked this as part of the 1995 Royal Commission. Despite multiple statements that as a man he didn’t know and couldn’t discuss women’s knowledge, the questioner David Smith continued to press on the issue. Trevorrow goes on:

“I didn’t want to say this, but the place of the waters relates to what we call – the Ngarrindjeri people call Ngatji, which is each clan group’s symbolic totem, so to speak. Those places like that is where these things breed, where they live, where they feed, all those things. You upset the totem area, you are upsetting everybody.”

Smith had immense difficulty understanding how environmental concerns, sacred women’s business and broader Ngarrindjeri spirituality could coexist on the one site. Smith further denied Ngarrindjeri spiritual connection to Kumerangk by reducing Ngatji to “a question of protecting the environment from a lot of people coming to the island and ruining it”.

Vi Deuschle, an ally of Doreen Kartinyeri, said in 1995 that, “These judges won’t have full knowledge of the beliefs across cultural boundaries. They have no knowledge of the Aboriginal world view. So how can they make judgement about our beliefs?”

Smith’s questioning of Trevorrow demonstrates exactly the idea that Deuschle is entertaining – the Australian legal system’s lack of acknowledgment and recognition towards the validity, existence and agency of Indigenous peoples’ world view. Also, why was it considered necessary to question a man about women’s sacred knowledge?

Conclusion

Following the 1995 Royal Commission, construction work on the bridge began in 1999 and was completed in 2001.

Image credit: Marion Cartwright, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-03/aboriginal-leader-dies-in-sa/975634 

A long nine years later, the South Australian government acknowledged the Federal Court ruling and recognised Ngarrindjeri women’s sacred connection to Kumerangk at a symbolic bridge walk ceremony. Despite their statement of acknowledgement, the SA government offered no apology to the Ngarrindjeri people for the desecration of Kumeragnk. Many Ngarridjeri people did not take part in the bridge walk that was meant to symbolise their spiritual connection to Kumerangk because they were still culturally and morally opposed to the bridge. It is unclear whether the SA government implemented any changes to Aboriginal heritage laws to prevent the same destruction happening again in the future.

From the colonialists’ written record in the mid-19th Century to the disrespect from political and legal decision makers in the 1990s, it is clear that the intersection of race and gender oppression hugely influenced the desecration of Kumerangk made possible by the 1995 Royal Commission. Ngarrindjeri women were denied agency over their own histories and culture, having their spiritual beliefs unfairly interrogated by a Royal Commission that would decide they were fabricated.

Without change, actions to protect Indigenous sacred and cultural sites will always be examined through the Western/European framework of the Australian legal system. This prevents First Nations histories and knowledges, especially those of Indigenous women, to be considered by the legal system in the same way traditionally European sources are. The inclusion of Indigenous systems of knowledge and lore in Australia’s legal system is achievable, and an example of this is Victoria’s Koori Court. Indigenous Australians in Victoria can request to have their cases heard by the Koori Court, where Elders are present in the trial and give advice to the judge on cultural issues, perspectives and protocol. Imagine if there had been a similar initiative taken for the Ngarrindjeri women’s case. More fundamental changes that take cultural differences into account are required in Australia’s legal system to ensure the safety and survival of the world’s longest living culture.

However, some positive change started to occur when developers brought a $20 million compensation case to the Federal Court in 2001. Justice John Von Doussa would deny the bridge developers compensation for damages, and declared, “upon the evidence before this Court I am not satisfied that the restricted women’s knowledge was fabricated or that it was not part of genuine Aboriginal tradition”.

Following the Federal Court decision, Doreen Kartinyeri sums up the importance of protecting Indigenous sites;

“I know that my children and my grandchildren and all my people’s grandchildren will now have an opportunity to learn their culture, respect it, and treat it as it is being handed down to them from other Ngarrindjeri people. And this is a victory for all Indigenous people in this country.”

Sources

ABC News. ‘Aboriginal Leader Dies in SA’. December 3, 2007. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-03/aboriginal-leader-dies-in-sa/975634.

ABC News. ‘Ngarrindjeri in Symbolic Walk Across Hindmarsh Island Bridge’. July 6, 2010. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-06/ngarrindjeri-in-symbolic-walk-across-hindmarsh/894792.

Diane Bell. Ngarrindjeri Wurruwarrin: A World That Is, Was and Will Be. Melbourne: Spinifex Press Pty Ltd, 1998.

Geoffrey Parrington. ‘Hindmarsh Island: The Inside Story – The Scandalous Handling of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Affair’. News Weekly, no.24 (1996): p11-14. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.960706546. 

Government of South Australia. The Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission (1996). https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/5127.

Jason Om. ‘Secret Women’s Business Acknowledgment Welcomed’. ABC News, July 5, 2010. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-05/secret-womens-business-acknowledgment-welcomed/892102.

Jason Om and Tony Eastley. ‘Symbolic Hindmarsh Bridge Walk Recognises Aboriginal Struggle’. July 7, 2010, in ABC Radio AM. https://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2946682.htm.

Joanna Burke. ‘Women’s Business: Sex Secrets and the Hindmarsh Island Affair’. UNSW Law Journal 20, no.20 (1997): p333-351. https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/article/womens-business-sex-secrets-and-the-hindmarsh-island-affair/. 

Margaret Simons, The Meeting of the Waters: The Hindmarsh Island Affair. Hodder Headline, 2003. Excerpt in ‘The Manhandling of Secrets’. The Age, May 10, 2003. https://www.theage.com.au/national/the-manhandling-of-secrets-20030510-gdvoji.html.

Mark Colvin. ‘Court Rules Against Hindmarsh Damages Claim’. August 21, 2001, in ABC Radio PM. https://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s350183.htm.

Nick Harvery. ‘Public Involvement in EIA: The Hindmarsh Island Bridge Project’. Australian Planner 33, no.1 (1996): p39-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.1996.9657709.