We are constantly being told that the Uluru Statement is an invitation from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to ‘walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future’. But we can only join in the walk to Canberra on their terms. We cannot, under any circumstances, walk with the Bundjalung people to the top of Mount Warning. This was once one of the most popular walks on the NSW North Coast and those who got to the top early enough were able to enjoy a magnificent coastal sunrise view. Not anymore.

In an earlier article about sacred sights, I tried to describe the Bundjalung initiation ceremonies which took place on Mt Warning 120 years ago (‘Sacred Sites – A warning to us all’ Spectator 13/3/2021). The account of the ceremony was so shocking that the editors, in their infinite wisdom, decided the details were unfit for a family magazine and excised some of more graphic descriptions of the procedures from the article. It must be admitted that, if the traditional ceremonies were repeated today, criminal prosecutions would follow. Volume 37 of the journal, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society  for promoting useful knowledge, published in 1898,  contains a fascinating article on the ‘Initiation ceremonies of Native Tribes of Australia’ for those who wish to know more. But the fact that the Bundjalung people can no longer follow their traditional sacred ceremonies never seems to worry those who claim the ceremonial sites are still sacred places.

Australians are no longer permitted access to Ayers Rock/Uluru and a host of other ‘sacred sites’ for ‘cultural reasons’. And of course it’s not just in national parks that Aboriginal groups are wielding power in the sacred sites fandango. While we are being asked to walk together to a better future, at the same time, billions of dollars of mining projects which would enrich us all are being stymied because of indigenous intransigence. Australian operator Santos has had to suspend drilling activities at its $3.6-billion Barossa offshore gas project following a legal challenge brought by indigenous groups. Santos has similar setbacks at its Narrabri gas project. At a recent public meeting, hosted by Santos, Ms Dorothy Tighe, a representative of the traditional owners of the land on which the mine will be based said, ‘We’re here to tell you you’re not welcome on Gomeroi and Githabul and Ngarabal country because there’s not any proper consent done for our people. You never consulted with us as traditional owners…. We don’t want you on country. Gamil means no’. In response to Ms. Tigh, the chair of the meeting said, ‘We have been working with the authorised applicants of the Gomeroi people, and we’ve been working with them in informal negotiations since 2012 and formal negotiations since 2015. We have undertaken extensive engagements to ensure the Gomeroi are fully informed on the aspects of the project.’

So, at a time when the Australian east coast is facing a critical shortage of natural gas supply a major project which has been under development for over a decade cannot progress without court action. The Gomeroi people are the traditional owners of the land in the Pilliga state forest on which Santos wish to mine the gas which will be solely for the Australian market. Santos will need access to 1,000 hectares for the life of the project. This is one fifth of 1 per cent of the land controlled by the Gomeroi people but they will not relinquish even that tiny fraction of the land they control. Not much of the ‘walk with us’ spirit there.

Of course every major mining group in Australia has similar problems. Projects which would benefit us all are inevitably resisted by people claiming a deep spiritual commitment to the land on which the projects are to be based.  The raising of the Warragamba dam wall is also being resisted by traditional owners because it will flood sacred sites but there is almost no photographic evidence of the alleged sacred sites. The proposed widening of the Great Western Highway connecting Sydney to Western NSW is said to be of national significance but that doesn’t concern Wiradjuri man Adrian Williams who is deeply worried about 20 sacred sites that may be affected by the widening of the highway.

And on it goes. Almost every road project in rural Australia encounters problems with people claiming that a tree or rock is sacred.  Rarely is any evidence produced in support of such claims. Instead journalists are content to merely repeat whatever a self-appointed spokesperson chooses to say. Just as uttering the word ‘Shazam’ turned mild-mannered Billy Batson into the 1950s superhero Captain Marvel, so anyone who utters the magic phrase ‘sacred sites’, turns into an indigenous expert who will mysteriously appear on ABC news programs.

Whenever an Aboriginal group gets control of land then, almost invariably what follows will be a struggle by various members within that group for supremacy and access will usually be restricted or denied for non Aboriginal Australians. Economic development will invariably be impeded or delayed.

It is time we recognised that places that were once undoubtedly sacred to people can no longer claim that status. Stonehenge which must once have had a sacred purpose is now a tourist attraction. The same status now applies to almost every pre-industrial animist religious site in the modern world and although many Aboriginal Australians, especially those from the Canberra tribe, would argue otherwise, Australia is part of the modern world.

Giving greater power to Aboriginal groups will not reduce their resistance to economic development and the Voice treaty truth campaign is not a way forward. It is an unashamed grab for even more power and will inevitably result in greater difficulty developing the resources which have made Australia one the most successful and wealthy nations the world has ever seen.

It would be helpful if credulous journalists could start asking Aboriginal spokespersons some direct questions about this mysterious voice to parliament. They might ask why we are all to walk together for a better future when Aboriginal groups invariably resist economic development. Perhaps they could ask for a deeper explanation of how discontinued religious and ceremonial practices are still regarded as essential to their self identity.