Hindmarsh Island dispute: what was 'fabricated'?
By Philippa Stanford ADELAIDE — On January 16, the federal government announced plans to hold a second federal inquiry into the construction of the Hindmarsh bridge. This inquiry, into a fresh application for heritage protection of sacred sites on Hindmarsh Island (known by the Ngarrindjeri people as Kumarangk), was initiated by federal Aboriginal affairs minister Robert Tickner. It follows a full Federal Court decision on December 8 confirming an earlier decision that it was inappropriate to ban the building of the bridge without reading the contents of a confidential envelope detailing secret women's business. It also follows the South Australian royal commission into the affair, which found that the women's business had been fabricated to stop construction of the $6.4 million bridge. The Liberal state government, which has committed $3 million to the construction, has said that it will proceed with the bridge despite the second inquiry. Since the federal government decision in July 1994 to ban work on the bridge for 25 years, the Aboriginal women's beliefs have been under scrutiny in the establishment media and in the royal commission. The state royal commission was prompted by sensationalised media reports. Its terms of reference meant that instead of considering whether Aboriginal sites, traditions or culture should be protected, it became an inquiry into whether these spiritual beliefs were valid. As one Ngarrindjeri woman said, this was like holding an inquiry into whether or not Mary was a virgin. The proponent Ngarrindjeri women refused to recognise and participate in the royal commission. They maintain that "Hindmarsh and Mundoo Islands, the waters of the Goolwa channel, Lake Alexandrina and the Murray Mouth within the Aboriginal tradition of the Ngarrindjeri women is crucial for the reproduction of the Ngarrindjeri people and the cosmos which supports their existence". "The waters are a life force to the Ngarrindjeri women, whether past or present, and should anything cover these waters, then the strength there will be taken from the Ngarrindjeri women and they will become very ill", according to Leila Rankine.
No support
A recently released book,
The Royal Omission, by Adelaide lawyer Greg Mead, concludes that on the basis of evidence given to the commission there is no support for a conclusion of fabrication of the women's business. In fact, even without the evidence of the proponent Ngarrindjeri women, most of the testimony supported the existence of women's business pertaining to Hindmarsh Island. The pro-bridge lobby argued: firstly, that the Aboriginal people did not raise the women's business at any time between 1989, when the bridge was approved, and 1994; and secondly, that Doug Milera was sober and reliable when he told journalist Chris Kenny in a television interview that the women's business was made up. Ngarrindjeri men explained that the secret business was not revealed earlier because they believed that there would be more consultation before the bridge was constructed. They also hoped the bridge could be stopped without revealing the women's business. Anthropologist Steve Hemming said that because of the importance of the women's business, it would not be revealed unless there was an imperative need to do so. The television interview with Milera is the most dubious of all evidence presented. Doug Milera, secretary of the Lower Murray Aboriginal Heritage Committee, had been active in protests against the bridge. He suddenly appeared on Channel 10 claiming the beliefs were made up. The journalist responsible for the interview, Chris Kenny, had written several articles condemning Tickner's decision to stop the bridge. Kym Denver (a pro-bridge landowner) and developers Tom and Wendy Chapman lined up Milera's interview with Kenny. Denver composed a letter to Tickner alleging fabrication, which Milera signed during the course of the interview. However, in a later statement to solicitors, Milera denied any fabrication and retracted his comments from the interview. He stated that he had been drunk at the time and had been given $200 after the interview. Similarly, an article in the
Advertiser entitled "The Great Lie of Hindmarsh Island" was based on alleged comments by Sarah Milera, who says that she was misquoted in the article. The legitimacy of the inquiry is questionable, given that these two interviews were the basis for its convening.
Dissident women
The other charge of fabrication came from five dissident Ngarrindjeri women, the most prominent Dorothy Wilson, who disputed the existence of secret women's business on the grounds that they did not know about it. However, there is nothing unusual, according to anthropological evidence, about knowledge of traditional culture being selectively distributed amongst Aboriginal people. Several of the dissident women had lived a European or Christian lifestyle. According to Hemming, the custodians of traditional Aboriginal beliefs would have been reluctant to impart their tradition even within their own community to those who held strongly Christian beliefs because they might not have high regard for the Aboriginal beliefs. The transformation of Dorothy Wilson's doubts into concrete allegations of fabrication appears to have been aided by members and employees of the Liberal party. It was federal frontbencher Ian McLachlan who first used the term "fabrication" after discussion with Dorothy Wilson. Sue Lawrie, a former employee of Victorian federal MP Ken Aldred, was very active in her efforts to have the disagreement within the Ngarrindjeri women exposed to the general public. She was instrumental in bringing the dissident women together and putting them in contact with journalists, including Chris Kenny. Mead wonders, in his book, if perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have a royal commission into the role of the Liberal Party in fostering division within the Ngarrindjeri community.
Anthropology
The allegations raised by Dorothy Wilson were based on the idea that the secret business was developed as a last resort to stop the bridge. This "fabrication", at the Ngarrindjeri men's suggestion, was supposed to have taken place at a meeting at Mouth House on May 9, where the Ngarrindjeri people were discussing their request to Robert Tickner to intervene. Tom Wooley, a lawyer with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, confirmed that the women's business was not fabricated at this time. It is also unclear who the fabricators were, given that evidence to the royal commission suggested seven possibilities in various combinations, plus any or all of the anti-bridge protesters. The fact that there was no mention of the secret women's business in anthropological literature is claimed as further proof that it is made up. In fact, there
is written evidence of secret business in Ngarrindjeri culture from the research of anthropologist Norman Tindale in the 1930s. Anthropology is an incomplete science and does not claim to hold the definitive word about Aboriginal culture. Secret business is unlikely to be discussed freely with anthropologists, particularly if they are male. The royal commission attempted to put the Ngarrindjeri people and their beliefs on trial. It was a continuation of the racist denial of Aboriginal culture and society and perpetuates the idea that it is for non-Aboriginal society to judge these beliefs. Aboriginal communities must have the right to determine which sites of cultural or historical significance are to be given legal protection.