Mt Warning: Why ban awe and wonder?
A view from the summit
Open letter to the NSW Environment Minister Hon James Griffin MP
Dear Hon James Griffin MP – NSW Minister for Environment,
RE CONTINUED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SUMMIT OF MOUNT WARNING – IN YOUR HANDS
In 2014 NSW Government declared Mt Warning National Park an Aboriginal Place for parts of the park above 600m in height (1). This includes the summit of Mount Warning which has been a highly popular tourist attraction since the summit track was constructed in 1909, attracting well over 100000 walkers annually.
James, you may have completed this awe-inspiring walk yourself at some point and would be well aware of the importance the summit has to the Australian and International community as a place of wonder and discovery of the natural world, and an important tourist destination in northern NSW; the first place in Australia to see the sunrise each day. Perhaps one day you would like to take your children to the summit so they can enjoy the inspirational views and learn something about the geology and geography revealed by this unique place.
The declaration of the Aboriginal Place published in the NSW Government Gazette in 2014 (2) is attached overleaf. The declaration includes the following statement: “Research gathered for this project suggests there are at least eight separate stories about the mountain and its cultural meaning. Each story is equally valid; with no one story taking precedence. It is culturally appropriate to accept all stories and therefore the interpretation and meaning provided in each story is the prerogative of the story teller, and is also dependent on the acceptance and beliefs of the listener.”
Despite knowledge of multifaceted, complex Aboriginal mythologies about Mount Warning, in its management of the Mount Warning National Park since the early 2000s the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) have given precedence to just ONE Aboriginal cultural story, that of the so-called “Bundjalung Nation”. NPWS have promoted proclamations from the ““Bundjalung Nation” and they are given prominence on information boards at the entry to the summit walk trail and on NPWS’ website. This includes statements that the Bundjalung prefer visitors not to attempt the summit walk, reserving it only for particular male elders. Since the early 2000s NPWS has not provided any alternate interpretations and information from other local Aboriginal Groups, including those supportive of climbing who have greater legitimacy over the mountain than the “Bundjalung Nation”. In arranging a survey of visitor attitudes NPWS and its consultants from Southern Cross University promoted the Bundjalung view about the summit walk, as the only view (3). NPWS unfairly used the results of this survey to imply there was community acceptance of the message not to climb (4) and used this false message to inform previous Ministers. NPWS promotion of just one viewpoint has clearly mislead the Minister of Environment, State government and the public about Aboriginal attitudes to public access in the park for many years. In regard to management in the Park repeating a lie often enough, such that it becomes the truth, seems to have become one of NPWS’ core mission statements.
Missing Aboriginal viewpoints include those of the Ngarakwal/Nganduwal Aboriginal Moiety represented by the Boyd family. It is with some irony that the stories of this group were collected by NPWS themselves through the work of NPWS own anthropologist Harry Creamer in interviews with the last “Gulgan” of Mt Warning Millie Boyd in the late 1970s (5), yet these views have been effectively censored by NPWS. This wilful act of omission has been compared to cultural genocide by Ngarakwal/Nganduwal elder Harry Boyd (6). The Ngarakwal/Nganduwal view about public access in the park including the summit is well represented by the uplifting statement of the late Ngaraakwal Elder Marlene Boyd who in 2007 before her death stated: “I do not oppose the public climbing of Mt Warning - how can the public experience the spiritual significance of this land if they do not climb the summit and witness creation!” (7). Imagine the survey results if this statement had been provided alongside the Bundjalung “no climb” message? Marlene Boyd was the daughter of highly regarded Millie Boyd, the last recognised keeper of Mount Warning, or “Wulambiny Momoli” as the mountain is known in her cultural mythology. In his anthropological work Harry Creamer notes that "I can confirm that during my field research with Aboriginal elders in the Northern Rivers, Northern Border Ranges and Tweed Valley areas (1973 to 1987), I did not hear them ask that the walk to the summit of Mount Warning be closed. (8)”
In managing the park and preparing the Aboriginal Place Management plan, NPWS have ignored the clear statement made in the declaration of the Aboriginal Place that: Each story is equally valid; with no one story taking precedence. There are many stories, yet NPWS have given preference to just one. James, they have mislead you and the public about the wide range of Indigenous cultural attitudes in the park.
QUESTION: James, can you explain why NPWS have effectively censored alternative Aboriginal Stories at Mount Warning? How does this meet the declaration statement “Each story is equally valid; with no one story taking precedence.”
In balancing continued public access in the Park, including to the summit, and preparing the Aboriginal Place Management Plan NPWS need to abide by the declaration (Each story is equally valid; with no one story taking precedence) and to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 No 80 section 30K (2a), that requires NPWS to manage the place “in accordance with the cultural values of the Aboriginal people to whose heritage the buildings, places, objects, features or landscapes belong.” This needs to take ALL views into account and not just one view.
There is ample room for compromise in this area and at your discretion you, James, as Minister, have the power to organise and approve an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit that would allow for continued public use of the trail and access to the summit. The trail has been used by millions of visitors since it was constructed by volunteers in 1909. Despite millions of footsteps there has been very little environmental impact. With installation of the summit lookouts in 1989 the summit is in better condition now than in the 1970s when it featured in a Bill Peach documentary (8). The Aboriginal views are diverse and provide for continued public access, safety issues are manageble. In managing Bundjalung views perhaps several weeks each year can be set aside for their exclusive cultural use of the Mountain.
QUESTION: James, will you take personal responsibility we entrusted in you bu your election and ensure continued public access to the park and summit or will you let unelected NPWS bureaucrats dictate the future and permanently place a ban on awe and wonder in NSW? James, will you be remembered as the man who shut the gate on awe and wonder Mount Warning?
Regards
Marc Hendrickx
Why is this outstanding experience of the natural world being banned?
Footnotes
[1] https://gazette.legislation.nsw.gov.au/so/download.w3p?id=Gazette_2014_2014-66.pdf P.2830
[2] ibid
[3] https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/reco20/2022/00000021/00000002/art00005 Hendrickx, M., 2021. Journal of Ecotourism, Volume 21, Number 2 Comment on ‘To climb or not to climb? Balancing stakeholder priorities at an iconic national park’ by Erica Wilson, Noah Nielsen, Pascal Scherrer, Rodney W. Caldicott, Brent Moyle & Betty Weiler
[4] https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/-/media/visitor/files/pdf/wollumbin-summit-track-closure-extended-nov-2020.pdf
5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdXD3TyVJf0
[6] http://righttoclimb.blogspot.com/2021/02/mount-warning-aboriginal-claims-about.html
[7] http://righttoclimb.blogspot.com/2021/01/mount-warning-aboriginal-claims-about.html
[8] http://righttoclimb.blogspot.com/2022/04/cultural-mis-interpretation-at-mt.html
Comments
Post a Comment