1995 Global Cultural Diversity Conference Proceedings, Sydney
Development and Sacred Sites
Mr John Ah Kit
Executive Director, Jawoyn Association, Australia
I would like to start by quoting some words from Bill Neidjie, one of the senior custodians of Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. He is talking about this land, Australia, and the importance of the land's sacred places to indigenous Australians.
Dreaming place ...
you can't change it,
no matter who you are.
No matter you rich man
No matter you king.
You can't change it.
We say that's secret because dreaming there.
We frightened you might get hurt if you go there ...
not only my country, but any secret place.
No matter if it Croker Island, Elcho Island, Brisbane or Sydney.
Late last year the Australian airline Qantas unveiled one of its jumbos painted with Aboriginal designs. It was hailed by the airline and the tourist industry alike as a valuable marketing tool for both Qantas and the industry.
The fact that the designs were drawn from the culture of the Yanyuwa people of Borroloola was given scant attention at the time, but this was not a great surprise to me. What was being promoted was airline seats, not Aboriginal culture; and the use of Aboriginal design was about market positioning, not a celebration of the Yanyuwa people. The desire and impetus to paint the jet with the designs was made in a boardroom, not in the Yanyuwa Camp at Borroloola; and advice was sought on its effectiveness as a marketing tool from advertising executives, and not ceremonial leaders. For Qantas it was a commercial decision designed to build profits.
For many years now, Aboriginal culture and art has been used to symbolise the Australian nation state, particularly overseas. Most of you would remember, for example, the use of the boomerang on the old "Made in Australia" logo, and many of our national institutions have, in the same way, utilised elements of a stereotyped "Aboriginality" to present themselves to the world. The Australia Council for the Arts, for example, chose its logo precisely because of the Aboriginal "look" of the kangaroo design; the national capital's Australian National University also incorporates the boomerang and indeed the design of the national parliament is based on the shape of boomerangs. The two dollar coin depicts the head of an Aboriginal man, known by Europeans half a century ago as "One Pound Jimmy", his image first appeared on an Australian stamp. The list goes on.
This process of Aboriginal culture being commodified for the nation state parallels similar uses by private enterprise. We have come some way since "Whacco the Abo, self-raising flour" graced the shelves of general stores back in the 1940s, but clearly the Qantas board and many others still see commercial advantage in projecting this Aboriginality as a marketing tool.
The irony in all this is quite obvious. The "Made in Australia" boomerang was used for decades during a time when our people were not recognised as citizens, and our original title to our lands was deliberately ignored under Australian law. Quite clearly, Aboriginality as a component of "Australian-ness" was not something to be made available to Aboriginal Australians.
And although an Aboriginal artist did receive a fee for the Qantas design, something of a first which Qantas should be congratulated on, it is doubtful there will be long queues of Yanyuwa people being able to afford to buy tickets on the Kangaroo Route to London.
For the marketers, Aboriginal culture is merely a commodity, there to be stripmined for commercial profit. Little, if any, benefit is derived by Aboriginal people through this arrangement. The profit on a single plane load of passengers would be more than enough to pay for a much-needed kidney dialysis machine for Borroloola, but it is doubtful Qantas would install one there to treat the ceremonial leaders who are the custodians of Yanyuwa culture.
There is also little, if any, consideration of the importance of the culture to the ceremonial bosses who control it, and the time it takes to acquire cultural knowledge. Advertising executives don't have to know how to sing the songs or perform the dances or understand the Dreamings that have carried the culture for the last 100,000 years. All they have to think about is the bottom line and maximising their billings.
And from all accounts, Aboriginal culture is now earning $40 million a year for the Australian economy through sale of art and crafts and through the performing arts. That's not bad. It's up from about $10 million ten years ago, and does wonders for our balance of payments.
So Aboriginal culture is good for business. It costs very little, and promotes the Australian nation state and the economy. Our cultural organisations have done much in recent years to try and minimise the financial losses to our artists whose work is being directly ripped off, but we have had to wear the fact that our culture has, in some ways, been commodified and commercialised. It is a price we have been forced to pay for some sort of recognition, and it is certainly a long way advanced from the days of "Wacco the Abo".
Aboriginal culture is something we have promoted ourselves. Not only has it reinforced confidence in our position as the original owners of the Australian continent, but it has also done much to explain our thoughts and beliefs to the non-Aboriginal world. For example, songs, dance and painting have all been used in the Northern Territory to prove our relationship to land under the Land Rights Act, and will continue to be used under national Native Title legislation to demonstrate what all indigenous people know, Australia always was and always will be Aboriginal land.
But what has happened in Australia, in recent years, when Aboriginal people have said to the state and to commerce "our culture is not for sale"? What has happened when we have refused to allow our birthright to be removed from our control or destroyed?
The answer is depressingly simple. At best we are painted as anti-Christian pagans determined to halt development. At worst we are depicted as people being manipulated by outside forces to destroy the Australian economy. Somewhere in the middle, we are said to be an ignorant, simple people, who don't know what's best for us.
Let me give you a few examples from the Northern Territory, and explain why such statements can only be regarded as deliberate, calculated lies. And where the lies fly fast and thick is over the issues of sacred sites, our religions, and our culture.
Back in 1983 a commitment was given by the Federal Government to return Uluru and Kata Tjuta to its traditional owners. Part of the agreement negotiated with the then Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) was that, in return for a lease to the ANPWS for use of their land, the traditional owners of the national park would have strengthened powers to exclude visitors from entering sacred sites at the park, and indeed close parts of the park for ceremonial reasons from time to time.
What followed was a shameful episode in recent Australian history. A Northern Territory election was called on the basis that the "Rock belonged to all Australians", and that an undeserving minority, Aboriginal people, would prevent the majority, "Territorians", "Australians" and other tourists, from enjoying one of the wonders of the world.
More to the point, there would be economic ruin for the entire central Australian tourist industry. It was claimed that the bid by the Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara was some sort of economic conspiracy to rob "real Territorians" of the chance to make a killing out of the tourist trade.
This anti-Aboriginal campaign was based on simple falsehoods, viciously and savagely exploited for electoral and sectional commercial interests. The campaign was successful in electoral terms, but failed to achieve its dishonest ends. Uluru-Kata Tjuta was finally handed back to its traditional owners nearly ten years ago.
And the result? There are more visitors than ever to Uluru, and the non-Aboriginal commercial interests at Yulara are doing quite nicely thank you. There is absolutely no evidence that the protection of sacred sites in the park has dissuaded tourist development, and much to suggest otherwise.
For example, increasing numbers of tourists are now refusing, at the request of the traditional owners, to climb the Rock. Increasing numbers of visitors participate in cultural tours at the Rock. And, recently, Uluru-Kata Tjuta was relisted for World Heritage for its cultural as well as natural attributes.
Quite simply, the cultural and religious significance of Uluru is developing into an economic asset, and not a detriment.
At about the same period, dire predictions were also being made about the possibility of the Jawoyn people gaining control of the Nitmiluk, Katherine Gorge, National Park near Katherine. During the period of the Jawoyn Land Claim, the same lies were told, with equal ferocity. An election wasn't held over the issue, but in downtown Katherine the conflict engineered by racists was potentially more deadly.
During the time of the land claim hearings, shots were fired over the heads of two of the senior claimants, and threats from a supposed branch of the Ku Klux Klan were made public. Aboriginal people were warned to avoid the main streets of the town the day groups such as Rights for Whites demonstrated against what they saw, again, as the economic ruin of a territory town. It was said at the time that the Jawoyn would declare a whole range of sacred sites over the park, and exclude visitors.
The result? Again, five years after the Jawoyn received title to their traditional lands at Nitmiluk, visitation at the park has increased. Under the Jawoyn slogan of "Sharing Our Country", economic opportunities have expanded. Furthermore, not a single non-Aboriginal person has lost a job, even after the Jawoyn bought out a 50 per cent stake in the Gorge boat tours. And needless to say, previously unemployed Aboriginal people have gained work through the process, a saving to all taxpayers.
But weirdest of all about this so-called "threat" from sacred sites in Nitmiluk was the fact that, as part of the Mt Todd mining agreement of 1993, the size of Nitmiluk National Park, was expanded by over 50 per cent, thus greatly increasing public, and commercial, access to a major asset.
And it was the Mt Todd agreement itself that should have put the nail into the liar's coffin about sacred sites and development. Much has been made in recent times about the success of Mt Todd, both in its negotiation period and subsequent history.
But the story that has never been publicly told is that the Jawoyn custodians of the mining project area had ensured the proposed mine would not damage sacred sites long before the time of the agreement, and indeed before the High Court Mabo decision that ultimately allowed the Jawoyn to force the issue of an agreement over Native Title.
The simple truth is that the Jawoyn people had acted in good faith in undertaking sacred site surveys to allow the development of a $1.5 billion gold mine. The Jawoyn people, even before they were able to realise some economic advantage from the mine, demonstrated that they were neither anti-development nor mere "gold diggers", inventing sacred sites for commercial benefits.
It is worth contrasting this with the bitter attacks the Jawoyn had so recently endured over Guratba, or Coronation Hill as it is known in English. Among other things, the Jawoyn custodians of Guratba, were accused, publicly and shamefully, of inventing the existence of sacred sites. They were accused of falsifying their religion: the rough equivalent, for example, of telling Catholic witnesses to the miracle of Mary McKillop that they were liars.
Such accusations, common at the time of the dispute over Guratba, are terrible. And I should reveal here, again for the first time, individual Jawoyn were offered bribes to change their mind about protecting their sacred sites and their culture over Guratba.
Needless to say, these offers of thirty pieces of silver failed, but what does all this say about sacred sites and development? Firstly, it says that Aboriginal people will go so far, but will not willingly give up their birthright. They are no more capable of denying their religious sites than sincere Christians are of denying the existence of their God.
Our people do not "invent" sacred sites. Indeed, what sane people would put up with the power that has been wielded over the years against the custodians of places such as Guratba, Noonkanbah and the proposed Alice Springs Dam site unless they held such genuine and deep religious views?
Secondly, and most importantly, the potential conflicts between development and sacred sites are not insurmountable.
To give an example. Last year the Jawoyn people reached an agreement with the diamond explorer Stockdale over a large area of their traditional lands. The mining company's geologists identified 509 locations from which they wished to take samples. Eighteen of the proposed sampling areas were relocated to avoid places of religious sensitivity; six sites were refused outright.
In no way has this hampered Stockdale's exploration program, and indeed the exploration agreement with that company promotes equity involvement with the Jawoyn should exploration be successful.
We hope this exploration program is mutually profitable, but realise that the risky end of the mining industry is just that, a risk that may not come to fruition.
But it is certainly proof of what we have always said: while we will protect our sacred places we will also support culturally and environmentally sensitive development.
Aboriginal culture comes from the strength of the beliefs and custodial relationships we have with the sacred sites that form part of our cultural heritage.
The same sacred places that have been part of the creation and continuing practice of our culture have been the inspiration for the art that we now sell nationally and internationally. I no longer want to hear the lies that say our religious beliefs are a threat to the national economy.
What I want to hear is the kind of genuine commitment that some commercial enterprises have shown to Aboriginal people in the mining and tourism industries that have demonstrated that our sacred places do not affect development.
Therefore, even if they do not realise it, it is these sites that a part of the cultural heritage that in turn inspires the people who use the "Made in Australia" logo or who choose to adorn their aeroplanes with our designs.
Even if you are not prepared to negotiate agreements with individual artists or cultural groups as to the use of Aboriginal imagery in your promotions and sales, at least know where it comes from.
It comes from the same sacred sites that we have been condemned for trying to protect; it comes from the whole complex of our lands and our lives that makes us the people we are.
The culture that might be so glibly exploited is not just the plaything of commercial enterprise. It is not just a trademark to be registered or product to be sold. It is more than these things. It is Noonkanbah and Guratba; it is the Malandarri Dreaming sites of the Yanyuwa; it is the women's sites of Alice Springs and Hindmarsh Island in South Australia; it is Uluru and Kata Tjata; Nitmiluk and Nourlangie.
So next time you take a trip with Qantas, or buy a T-shirt printed with one of the designs of our people, remember this. Remember the religious knowledge and sacred places that have contributed to a small part of your holiday or dress sense. Remember that sacred sites are not a hindrance to economic development.
Remember that their protection is a matter of religious tolerance and social justice and, if for no other reason, recognise their protection has a commercial significance, too.
Aboriginal people have proved all over Australia that the protection of sacred sites and economic development are not mutually exclusive possibilities, so recognise this in your dealings with our people. Mary McKillop's Chapel in Sydney does not prevent that city's economic development. If anything, it enhances it. It recognises a cultural and religious aspect of Sydney that is important.
The fact that parts of Uluru are excluded from visitation because of their religious and sacred significance does not affect the possibilities of economic development for black or white in central Australia. If anything, it enhances such possibilities. It recognises that there are cultural and religious aspects of Uluru that can be appreciated by other cultures.
I no longer want to hear the Hugh Morgans and others of his ilk condemning Aboriginal Australians for standing up and protecting their lands, their religions, their cultures, and the sacred sites that are part of those cultures. I no longer want to hear the lies that say our religious beliefs are a threat to the national economy.
What I want to hear is the kind of genuine commitment that some commercial enterprises have shown to Aboriginal people in the mining and tourism industries who have demonstrated that our sacred places do not affect development.
I want to hear words of mutual respect when I hear talk of economic development. I want to hear words that demonstrate a genuine commitment to reconciliation in this nation, between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
Any other words will mean we all lose out of this, economically as well as socially. A continuation of conflict with those who do not recognise our sacred sites will lead, inevitably, to further impoverishment for indigenous Australians so long as our views are not recognised. And while our people are impoverished, the rest of the country will suffer as well.
Next: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - Australia's Feminist Heritage: What it Means for Australian Identity
Previous: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - Education and Identity: Multicultural Education in Australia