Central Land Council

TAYLOR STREET SAGA COULD HAPPEN AGAIN

The Central Land Council has warned the Northern Territory Government that the debacle over the protection of a sacred site which has curbed development in a residential housing estate in Alice Springs could easily occur again, to the cost of all parties. The sacred site over which development has occurred - now an urban back yard in Taylor Street in Alice Springs - has been attracting nationwide media attention for over a year, but rarely has the story been told with all the facts. Sadly, the most significant of those facts is that the Northern Territory legislation virtually invites developers to ignore the possible existence of sacred sites.

And because of NT Government intransigence, the Taylor Street saga is bound to be repeated elsewhere. Unfortunately, may journalists and politicians have been unable to resist travelling the well-worn path of sacred site bashing in interpreting the events. To add to the fear and confusion, the issue of sacred sites protection, under legislation which ahs existed since self-Government in the Northern Territory, has been confused in the media with land rights, land claims and native title rights, creating a false public impression that suburban back yards are "under threat" from Aboriginal claims. The Taylor Street story began when a group of residents in a dress circle area of residential Alice Springs were concerned their views might be affected by the construction of four new houses in the street.

A resident sough the advice of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority as to whether the development might harm a known sacred site. Although a clearance for development of crown land in the street had previously been given by traditional custodians, they now discovered that development had commenced on the privately-owned land without any prior consultation. The blocks - six in total - were situated on a ridge which had long been established as significant to a number of dreamings including snake, euro and the famous Alice Springs dog dreaming.

No clearance had been sought for this work. Identification of the site did effectively prevent construction on the four blocks, as well as impeding extension plans of the fifth, owned by Dominic Miller. Mr Miller was told he could not build a spa in this back yard, as he had planned, because it would involve disturbing the site. Largely unreported by media is the fact that custodians told Mr Miller he was welcome to build an above-ground pool, a fence, or any other structure that didn't disturb the ground. Custodians showed considerable goodwill in accepting that building of Mr Miller's house was too advanced to be stopped, despite the fact that it was also on the ridge. They also negotiated with Mr Miller's neighbours to allow them to proceed with construction of their home.

The Territory Government offered compensation to buyers of the four blocks, and NT Aboriginal Affairs Minister Steve Hatton publicly blamed deficiencies in the previous sacred site act for the debacle. But as the Central Land Council was quick to point out to both Mr Hatton and the then Chief Minister Marshall Perron, the same deficiencies still exist in the present act. In 1989, when the Government was drawing up the current Sacred Sites protection legislation, the CLC submitted that "it should be compulsory for any person proposing to undertake land development to obtain a sacred site clearance or certificate." This was also recommended by former Land Rights Commission, Justice Toohey, in his report "Seven Years On." The submission was rejected as "totally impractical" by the then Lands Minister Daryl Manzie, and again when the CLC wrote to Mr Perron in the wake of the Taylor Street episode. Mr Perron told the Central Land Council, "I am satisfied that the requirement to protect sacred sites within the land development process is properly balanced." By implication, Mr Perron seemed to be saying that the present state of the law - under which Taylor Street could happen all over again - was "practical. It certainly proved practical for his colleague Shane Stone, who in his run-up to the position of Chief Minister was widely reported for his emotive statements about Taylor Street.

"A man's home is his castle," Mr Stone proclaimed, apparently implying that the spa was the twentieth century equivalent of the moat. The cabinet's "good policeman", Steve Hatton, rushed in to balance Mr Stone's inflammatory utterances, accurately pointing out that the Territory has laws to protect no-Aboriginal heritage sites as well. As landowners in the Hartley Street "historical precinct" of Alice Springs have discovered, they can be just as restrictive as the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. Unfortunately for the Territory's Aboriginal people, however, other Territorians find it harder to recognise the heritage significance of a sacred site than a white pioneer home.

There is little recognition that towns like Alice Springs have been built, literally on top of a rich cultural heritage in which all the landscape has meaning and many topographical features have special, deep spiritual significance. However, under the Aboriginal Sacred Site Protection legislation, there is no penalty for anyone who does work which destroys a sacred site, even a well known site, if the person can prove that he was ignorant of the existence of the site. Ignorance is therefore encouraged and, in effect, rewarded under the current "protection" legislation. By refusing to introduce compulsory clearance provisions, the Government has placed traditional owners in a lose-lose situation.

If landowners or developers build on or destroy a sacred site without seeking clearance first, they can plead ignorance and avoid penalty. Should the site become apparent during development, politicians and media can gleefully point to a fresh example of the "invention" of sacred sites to impede development.