Hindmarsh bridge victory

By Anthony Thirlwall

ADELAIDE -- A major victory has been won by those fighting to stop the construction of the Hindmarsh Island bridge. On July 10 the federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister Rob Tickner announced a decision to place a 25-year ban on construction of the bridge.

The decision follows a long grass-roots campaign and has been welcomed by conservation groups as well as the local indigenous people. It is the first time that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act (1984) has been used in SA's history.

Tickner explained that he had “moved to ensure the long-term protection of an area of particular Aboriginal significance”, especially to the women of the Ngarrindjeri nation.

The decision has been welcomed by WA Greens Senator Christabel Chamarette who commented that the sites at Goolwa and Kumarangk are of great significance to the Ngarrendjeri and Ramemdjeri people, as well as being of great ecological importance.

The bridge had initially been projected by the Bannon Labor government. In opposition, the Liberal party opposed its construction. However, since winning government, it has reversed its policy.

Disagreement between the state and federal governments over the construction of the bridge has centered around the issue of state's rights.

On the weekend prior to the announcement, South Australian Premier Dean Brown appealed to Prime Minister Paul Keating not to stop the bridge. Since then, he has slammed the decision, calling for an urgent summit to discuss its implications and voicing fears it will “throw development in Australia into absolute chaos”.

The Conservation Council of South Australia, however, has commended the federal minister's intervention on the grounds that environmental damage and human rights are issues which require a national approach.

Meanwhile the federal Coalition is supporting calls for a review of the Act and the federal opposition environment and heritage spokesperson, Ian McLachlan, described the decision as “outrageous”.

Adelaide's only daily newspaper, the Advertiser, editorialised in a similar vein. On July 12, it complained that “South Australia has been wounded and made a laughing stock. It is South Australia which is seen -- once again -- as being vulnerable to the very kind of politically correct, green heritage, land rights passions which those with risk capital hate most”.

The state's planning processes, which were instrumental in fuelling the initial dispute, have been criticised by opponents of the bridge for failing to take full account of Aboriginal and environmental considerations.

Other plans for the development of the area have been drafted which have been approved by the Ngarrindjeri people and environmentalists alike.

This article was posted on the Green Left Weekly Home Page.
For further details regarding subscriptions and
correspondence please contact glw@greenleft.org.au

Tools

• Bookmark This Page
• Print This Page