Guest Post by Dr John Perkins.
John gave me permission to repost his letter to the Minister. It's a plea for reason. I understand the Minister is attending the official ceremony to ban awe and wonder in the Park. Hopefully, she reads it and it's not answered by a departmental hollow man.
"While many of those on the Management Board may have literal belief in the Tjukurpa, it is not proper that these beliefs should unduly intrude into Park management decisions, to the detriment of Park visitors."
24 October 2019
Hon Sussan Ley MP
Minister for the Environment
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Minister Ley
Re Uluru – closing the climb
I would like you to review the decision to close the climb of Uluru/Ayres Rock please. The conditions for closing the climb have not properly been met. In particular, adequate new visitor experiences have not been established.
The attention of the Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park management has been unduly focussed on narrow cultural issues, to the neglect of the geological aspects. The Rock is a unique geological feature. It is its geology that is its primary attraction.
To illustrate the imbalance, in the Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park Management Plan 2010 – 2020, the word "cultural" is used 335 times. By contrast, the word "geological" is used only 11 times, and the first of these is to explain that the Anangu do not refer to geological explanations. The notion that Uluru is sacred to the Anangu is a religious viewpoint, which is now being imposed on everyone.
The creation mythology of the Anangu is interesting, and should be noted and explained, but this should not detract from the unique geology of the Rock. The layers of the 500 million year old Rock, created by erosion of mountains, were tilted vertically 300 million years ago. The world’s largest monolith, which may penetrate up to six kilometres into the ground, has been exposed by further hundreds of millions of years of erosion. Nothing typifies the geology of Australia, the world’s oldest continent, more than Ayers Rock.
The focus of the Management Board should have been to take advantage of the tourist potential based on scientific knowledge, but has this been neglected in favour of emphasis on the cultural mythology. As a result, the safety and environmental issues regarding the climb have not been addressed. Other aspects of tourist development, including the provision of adequate accommodation and toilets, have also been neglected.
Despite the ideologically motivated “please don’t climb” messages, over a hundred thousand people per year have climbed the Rock. Many more people would do so if not discouraged, and if weather condition would permit. The Management should cater for the interests of these visitors, rather than giving veto rights to the 300 residents of Mutitjulu.
The religious aspects of the decision to ban the climb need further investigation. Given that the climb could be closed for ceremonial occasions, the climb did not prevent belief in, or the practice of, the Aboriginal religion, the Dreamtime mythology or Tjukurpa. While many of those on the Management Board may have literal belief in the Tjukurpa, it is not proper that these beliefs should unduly intrude into Park management decisions, to the detriment of Park visitors.
It seems clear from their statements that Board members have a literal belief in the creationist ideology, the Tjukurpa. It is even contended that the World Heritage listing of Uluru “confirms the validity of the Tjukurpa”. People are entitled to have creationist religious viewpoints if they wish, but it is not appropriate that these views be endorsed, promoted, and now imposed, by a government agency.
Given the religious motivation for banning the climb, questions may be raised as to whether the ban is in fact legal. The imposition of a minority religious belief on the entire visitor population may be considered a breach of the:
Another question that may be raised is whether the official promotion of the adoption of creationist beliefs amongst the Aboriginal community is actually beneficial.
The decision to ban the climbing of Uluru was ill considered and narrow-minded. The thousands of people who have flocked to Uluru to try to climb before the ban demonstrate its unpopularity. The climb facilities should be improved not removed.
The decision to ban the climb, which effectively blocks all direct access to the Rock, is a loss of the freedom of all Australians, and overseas visitors, to harmlessly enjoy the benefits of a National Park, and to celebrate the natural wonder of a world famous landmark.
I urge you, on this basis, to initiate a review of the decision to ban the climb. Pending this, I ask that you ask the Management Board that the climb chain and memorial plaques not be removed.
Yours sincerely
Dr John Perkins
John gave me permission to repost his letter to the Minister. It's a plea for reason. I understand the Minister is attending the official ceremony to ban awe and wonder in the Park. Hopefully, she reads it and it's not answered by a departmental hollow man.
"While many of those on the Management Board may have literal belief in the Tjukurpa, it is not proper that these beliefs should unduly intrude into Park management decisions, to the detriment of Park visitors."
24 October 2019
Hon Sussan Ley MP
Minister for the Environment
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Minister Ley
Re Uluru – closing the climb
I would like you to review the decision to close the climb of Uluru/Ayres Rock please. The conditions for closing the climb have not properly been met. In particular, adequate new visitor experiences have not been established.
The attention of the Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park management has been unduly focussed on narrow cultural issues, to the neglect of the geological aspects. The Rock is a unique geological feature. It is its geology that is its primary attraction.
To illustrate the imbalance, in the Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park Management Plan 2010 – 2020, the word "cultural" is used 335 times. By contrast, the word "geological" is used only 11 times, and the first of these is to explain that the Anangu do not refer to geological explanations. The notion that Uluru is sacred to the Anangu is a religious viewpoint, which is now being imposed on everyone.
The creation mythology of the Anangu is interesting, and should be noted and explained, but this should not detract from the unique geology of the Rock. The layers of the 500 million year old Rock, created by erosion of mountains, were tilted vertically 300 million years ago. The world’s largest monolith, which may penetrate up to six kilometres into the ground, has been exposed by further hundreds of millions of years of erosion. Nothing typifies the geology of Australia, the world’s oldest continent, more than Ayers Rock.
The focus of the Management Board should have been to take advantage of the tourist potential based on scientific knowledge, but has this been neglected in favour of emphasis on the cultural mythology. As a result, the safety and environmental issues regarding the climb have not been addressed. Other aspects of tourist development, including the provision of adequate accommodation and toilets, have also been neglected.
Despite the ideologically motivated “please don’t climb” messages, over a hundred thousand people per year have climbed the Rock. Many more people would do so if not discouraged, and if weather condition would permit. The Management should cater for the interests of these visitors, rather than giving veto rights to the 300 residents of Mutitjulu.
The religious aspects of the decision to ban the climb need further investigation. Given that the climb could be closed for ceremonial occasions, the climb did not prevent belief in, or the practice of, the Aboriginal religion, the Dreamtime mythology or Tjukurpa. While many of those on the Management Board may have literal belief in the Tjukurpa, it is not proper that these beliefs should unduly intrude into Park management decisions, to the detriment of Park visitors.
It seems clear from their statements that Board members have a literal belief in the creationist ideology, the Tjukurpa. It is even contended that the World Heritage listing of Uluru “confirms the validity of the Tjukurpa”. People are entitled to have creationist religious viewpoints if they wish, but it is not appropriate that these views be endorsed, promoted, and now imposed, by a government agency.
Given the religious motivation for banning the climb, questions may be raised as to whether the ban is in fact legal. The imposition of a minority religious belief on the entire visitor population may be considered a breach of the:
- Australian Constitution, Section 116
- Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986
- proposed Religions Freedom Act.
Another question that may be raised is whether the official promotion of the adoption of creationist beliefs amongst the Aboriginal community is actually beneficial.
- dysfunction in the Mutitjulu community was the subject of the Northern Territory Intervention
- epistemological issues regarding Dreamtime beliefs may have a role in sustaining such dysfunction
- official endorsement of Dreamtime mythology may thus have a deleterious effect on the Mutitjulu community
The decision to ban the climbing of Uluru was ill considered and narrow-minded. The thousands of people who have flocked to Uluru to try to climb before the ban demonstrate its unpopularity. The climb facilities should be improved not removed.
The decision to ban the climb, which effectively blocks all direct access to the Rock, is a loss of the freedom of all Australians, and overseas visitors, to harmlessly enjoy the benefits of a National Park, and to celebrate the natural wonder of a world famous landmark.
I urge you, on this basis, to initiate a review of the decision to ban the climb. Pending this, I ask that you ask the Management Board that the climb chain and memorial plaques not be removed.
Yours sincerely
Dr John Perkins
Comments
Post a Comment