*Definition of sacred site challenged in Aboriginal heritage test case The definition of a sacred site is being challenged in an Aboriginal heritage test case in the WA Supreme Court. Those taking the action are trying to stop part of Port Hedland being removed from the states heritage register and stripped of protection. In December 2013, the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee made a finding that land and waters around parts of Port Hedland port should no longer be considered an Aboriginal sacred site because it had not been used for religious purposes. The committee had been assessing whether a request for dredging at the port would damage or destroy any heritage values in the area, which had been recognised as an Aboriginal site in 2008. Marapikurrinya brother and sister Kerry and Diana Robinson are challenging the validity of the committees finding and want the decision quashed. In court on Thursday their lawyer Greg McIntyre, who represented Eddie Mabo in the historic 1992 native title case, said whether or not the area had been used for religious purposes was irrelevant. His argument focused on guidelines issued by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which state that to be a recognised as sacred site, a place needs to have been devoted to religious use rather than simply mythological stories, songs or beliefs. He said a report by the departments Registrar of Aboriginal Sites recommending the Port Hedland area not be regarded as a site was presented to the committee as essential to its decision Mr McIntyre told the court the committee had wrongly focused on this, when the Aboriginal Heritage Act made no requirement for religious use. It is not required to be dedicated to religious use to be a sacred site, he said. It was enough, he said, for it to be of special importance or significance to people of Aboriginal descent. Very few sites on heritage register have religious connection He pointed out there were many sites on the register which had no religious connection. In fact, there are very few sites that are subject to religious use on the register. Mr McIntryre said there was evidence of religious use of the site by the Marapikurrinya people. He said they spoke to the Kata-Katara water serpent, which they believed would be disturbed if dredging went ahead and could retaliate by flooding the area. If it doesnt protect this site ... the vast majority of sites on the register will be removed and well be left with a small number of ceremonial sites around the state, he said, before withdrawing the comment as a rhetorical flourish about the broader implications of the case. Lawyer for the committee George Tannin said the clearly accepted definition of a sacred site was one devoted to a religious purpose. He said the act required the area to be more than merely a place of veneration or religious respect. There is no evidence of access to that working port area by the applicants, he said. He also rejected Mr McIntyres assertion that the Marapikurrinya people had been denied a fair say and procedural fairness by the committee. He said they could still make a submission to the Indigenous Affairs Minister Peter Collier. However, Justice John Chaney said the registrars report had shifted the whole basis of the committees decision making. He questioned the extent to which any opposition to that report was heard by the committee. Mr Tannin said Mr Collier, who on Thursday tabled amendments to the 1972 Aboriginal Heritage Act in parliament, would not act on the committees findings while the court proceedings continued. Justice Chaney has reserved his decision. abc.net.au/news/2014-11-27/supreme-court-test-case-challenges-wa-govt-definition-of-sacred/5923598
Posted on: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:39:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015