Mr TONY SMITH(5.56 p.m.) —My pupil master always told me that, when you have a hopeless case and you are addressing the jury, you remember three things: talk about anything but the facts of the case, be full of sound and fury, be unctuous. There has been a lot of that from the other side in this particular debate.

It has been argued that the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill breaches the Racial Discrimination Act, but nowhere in any of the speeches I have listened to have I seen particulars of that. The only particulars we have, from looking at the speeches and listening to them, is from the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham) who said it discriminates against a class of people, but there are no particulars as to which class and in what way it so discriminates.

The second thing I wish to observe in relation to the speakers who have gone before me is in relation to the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans) who said that we needed to get a better phase in the debate and we needed to think about reconciliation. Members should remember that reconciliation involves an apology to the dissident women. That is what I am speaking about here tonight—the perils and the tyranny that the dissident women faced in this whole thing.

The history of this particular saga is characterised by the following elements: conspiracy on a grand scale; deliberate denunciation and denigration of individuals, particularly the dissident women; contumelious disregard of those voices raised in support of the dissident women; a biased and partisan Australian Broadcasting Corporation; outrageous wasting of taxpayers money; and, as I said to some of the dissident women whom I met last night, a grave injustice to them. If any one issue was capable of signing a political death warrant for a minister, this was one. I believe it fed through to the government of the day.

It was another example of the failure of an ideology clouding ideas and judgment. When that occurs not only the body politic as a whole suffers but also the effect on the Australian community is profound. It brings with it a deep sense of mistrust and resentment towards Aboriginal people, thus fomenting the seeds of a racially based loathing. It makes the community angry and that anger gets in the way of the real issues that need to be addressed in this country so as to uplift its indigenous citizens. Unfortunately, the heroes of Hindmarsh—those dissident women—have largely been forgotten in the wash up of all of this.

They all deserve our utmost respect and admiration. These were brave women. Bertha Gollam, Dorothy Wilson and Dulcie Wilson have been, in a sense, the leaders of the dissidents in that they spoke out first. That is not to underplay the similar courage of the other women. These women—as Bill Hayden in a broader context in his letter to the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday said—stood up to:

.. the . . . bullying . . . by several, largely self-appointed, political elites . . . determined to have us toe the line on what they state to be politically correct.

They were ordinary people who were not listened to.

The history of the setting up of the royal commission is quite clear. The dissident women claimed that the secret women's business was a fraud. The report was released and found that there was a fabrication of the women's business, particularly the claim that there was spiritual and cultural significance on Hindmarsh Island relating to the Aboriginal tradition of Ngarrindjeri women which was crucial for the reproduction of the Ngarrindjeri people.

The cosmos which supported their existence was fabricated. The claim that the women's business required the prohibition of the construction of the bridge was fabricated. The purpose of the fabrication was to obtain a declaration from the minister pursuant to section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to prevent the construction of the bridge. In other words, it was a monumental conspiracy—a grand false pretence—to induce a course of action.

Apart from the dissident women, few anthropologists emerged from this whole sorry business unscathed. Those who did and who were prepared to stand up to the establishment are to be commended. Those who chose to get caught up in it and those who chose to be silent have done their profession no credit whatsoever. It highlights the existence of a deliberate anxiousness to get involved in creative anthropology.

Does this bode well for the deluge of native title claims? Already we have seen the Century Zinc debacle, where $50 million has been squandered, where a $1 billion development has been quarantined—not one ounce of zinc, not one job and no Aboriginal has been advanced one iota.

I was most impressed with an article by Dulcie Wilson, one of the dissident women, titled, `Telling the Truth'. The building of the bridge was of no interest to this woman, yet she wanted no gross misrepresentation of her culture and origins. Let us look at the genesis of the conspiracy. Until 1994, there had been no indication of women's business or the fundamental cosmological importance of the region around Hindmarsh Island in the extensive literature about Ngarrindjeri.

An anti-bridge coalition had been in existence and, when political and environmental objections failed, they turned to Aboriginal heritage issues, even though no concerns had been raised in the developer's earlier consultation with Ngarrindjeri representatives. This lobby led to the involvement of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, who were advised by ATSIC that the federal minister could have intervened if something of `greater cultural significance' was found.

At about the same time, anthropologist Lindy Warrell told two senior Ngarrindjeri activists, `It would be nice if there was some women's business.' This anthropologist had been studying the women's business of the northern desert people. Within a few weeks, secret women's business emerged. Its key proponent was the Aboriginal activist, Doreen Kartinyeri.

At one meeting in the embryonic stage of the invention, where men were in attendance, an aerial map was being considered. One of the men said, `Doesn't that remind you of a woman's private parts?' I always wondered about this gem, since any ancient tradition would have required there to have been the presence of aeroplanes to examine an aerial view of the area. This obvious anomaly escaped the pathetic ABC but did not escape Dulcie Wilson, who said:

I was dismayed that such people would cheapen and degrade Ngarrindjeri women and culture in this way. How would our ancestors have known what an aerial view of Hindmarsh Island looked like . . .

Dulcie Wilson went on to talk of Doreen Kartinyeri, who was actually her second cousin. They both share the same great grandparents.

Doreen Kartinyeri went to work at the Adelaide museum, where she was asked to record what she knew about Ngarrindjeri culture. In her own handwriting, she clearly said that she did not know anything about it, since she was raised in a children's home in Adelaide since the age of 10. But if she needed to know anything, she would pay Dulcie a visit.

Kartinyeri's credibility was further damaged when she claimed, according to Dulcie:

It was grandmother Sally who told her about women's business on Hindmarsh Island. When I pointed out to her that grandmother Sally was not a Ngarrindjeri woman but from another tribe on the west coast of South Australia, Doreen changed her story that it was really aunty Rosie who told her about women's business on Hindmarsh Island yet aunty Rosie's own step-daughter was one of the dissident women who gave evidence at the Royal Commission. She said she had never been told anything by her step-mother about such business and that she had a good relationship with her . . .

But creative anthropology ignored the implausibility of Kartinyeri and desperately struck out to make the facts fit the nonsense and give it the authority and presence of a study.

An initial inquiry carried out by Professor Cheryl Saunders, which led to the 25-year ban of construction on Hindmarsh Island by Minister Tickner, omitted a piece of information that was absolutely essential for any proper ministerial assessment of the claim. Saunders claimed that, in the secret oral tradition of the Ngarrindjeri women, the Hindmarsh Island region was crucial for the production of Ngarrindjeri people.

The most authoritative account of the traditional culture, based on research carried out by Ronald and Catherine Berndt in the early 1940s, had specially noted that there was no evidence that Ngarrindjeri had any gender based secret domain. Saunders claimed in her report that she had consulted Berndt's book, but she made no mention whatsoever of their finding, even though the book's index contains the entry `secret-sacred issues, absence of'. In the foreword of the same book by Professor Robert Tomkinson, this feature was also stressed.

Elementary research techniques dictate that it is almost beyond comprehension that Professor Saunders would not have been aware of these matters. The inescapable conclusion is that she deliberately chose to ignore them. Saunders also noted that she did not have an anthropologist attached to her inquiry, but she made considerable use of a separate report by Dr Fergie, an anthropologist from the University of Adelaide appointed to work for the proponents of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement.

Saunders knew that Fergie had no expertise in Ngarrindjeri culture, and, indeed, at the time of the appointment Fergie had not even read the Berndt book. Fergie told the royal commission that her findings represented `a significant anthropological discovery'. One would have thought that it was fairly basic that such discoveries, whether significant or not, be identified as such. But this was not done in Fergie's report. Thus the conspiracy firmed up and fiction assumed the respectability of an appearance of fact.

When the dissident women spoke out in May last year, the major Christian churches, the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, women's groups, green groups, Aboriginal groups and even overseas welfare groups publicly supported the conspirators. None had bothered to research the matter or speak to the dissident women. This is the part I found most offensive: nobody gave them the decency to even speak to them and deliver a bit of natural justice.

The activist women who were part of the conspiracy had strong connections to the established Aboriginal power structures in Adelaide. Through the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and ATSIC, they have had financial and legal support. They worked closely with the ABC to mount a campaign against the dissidents and the royal commission, so the ABC joined the conspiracy. The support of the fabricated claims was rock solid. It also helped Mr Tickner float his defence that the fabrication claims came from journalists, politicians, developers and complicit Aborigines for financial, political and racist aims.

Stuart Littlemore, that paragon of media virtue, dedicated a whole program to run a facinorous line attempting to discredit three journalists who had investigated the fabrication. Every point Littlemore made in his program has been proved wrong by the royal commission, but he has never made an admission of this on his own program. Why did no ABC journalist, no church leader, no anthropologist, no Tickner aide or no environmentalist actually meet the dissident women to discuss the issues with them, assess their credibility and test their claim? This I find reprehensible.

The two notable exceptions to the conspiracy, as far as the anthropologists were concerned, were Phillip Jones and Phillip Clarke, who knew the truth and made sure it came out and placed their careers on the line. Tickner would have portrayed these men as conservative rednecks out to discredit Aboriginal culture. This was strange behaviour for people who had built careers on their understanding of that culture. Dr Clarke is married to a Ngarrindjeri woman and they have a child.

It seems that the former Attorney-General did not speak to the dissident women either. Like so many others, he was drawn into the vortex with former Minister Tickner and the apparent alliance between the minister and the conspirators. In a censure motion that the former Attorney-General moved on 7 March 1995, and in inappropriately extravagant language for the first law officer of the Crown, he vilified the member for Barker (Mr McLachlan), now the Minister for Defence. It is an almost delicious stroke of irony that in the penultimate paragraph of his speech on the censure motion he said, in referring to the member for Barker:

He then has to answer why he completely disregarded the advice and opened the envelope which contained the material which was so sensitive to Aboriginal women. He and his entire staff knew about the entire background of the matter and the impact that it would have on Aboriginal women.

But look at the truth of the matter. Now that it has been found to be a total fabrication, a massive conspiracy, does the former Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, have any idea the impact of what he said had on the dissident women? Has he apologised to Doreen Wilson and her brave comrades for his being so insensitive to the Aboriginal women who were being truthful and faithful to their Ngarrindjeri origins? It is interesting to quote Dulcie Wilson where she pertinently observes:

I read an article a few months ago which referred to the views of Marcia Langton, an Aboriginal activist with whom I don't always agree; although on this occasion, I agree with her wholeheartedly. She complained about those Australian people who will not criticise or contradict Aboriginal people in any educated discussion. Such patronising behaviour, she says, should be condemned for it is treating Aboriginal people like children on the assumption that they cannot take criticism and lack the same intellectual and emotional capacity as other human beings.

I respectfully endorse those sentiments. It has saddened me over the years to see judges, magistrates and prosecutors treating Aboriginal witnesses and accused Aboriginals in this way. I regret to say that I myself have probably been guilty of this from time to time. Dulcie Wilson goes on to speak about the future of Aboriginal affairs in this country, given the fact that Aboriginal activists call the tune and expect the rest to dance to it. They have the power and authority of ATSIC behind them. She continues:

I see similarities between the Aboriginal situation in this country and what is happening in third world countries. Billions of dollars are poured into various Aboriginal projects and organisations with very little return and very little accountability. The "Aboriginal industry", for that is precisely what it is, is one of the most sought after industries to be employed in today by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Huge sums of money are being allocated to that industry ensuring long-term employment and excellent financial remuneration for all concerned.

This statement highlights the ill-directed policies towards Aboriginals in this country. These have produced a monolithic bureaucracy like ATSIC, with the chief executive on a salary package in excess of $200,000, but it continues to fail miserably to improve the lot of Aborigines and leaves the Torres Strait Islanders out in the cold.

One of the most disgraceful claims in this saga was that made by the moderator of the Uniting Church in South Australia. The moderator said:

I have conveyed my willingness to meet Mrs Dulcie Wilson at any time she wishes to have an interview with me.

She goes on to say:

Our hope for Dulcie Wilson and others who share her dilemma is that she will know God's love for Aboriginal people and discover fully the richness for them and their Aboriginal culture.

The hide of this senior church figure to refer to the honesty and decency of Dulcie, who had nothing to gain by telling the truth, as equating the telling of the truth to being in a dilemma—and this when Dulcie was an active member of the Uniting Church. Not unnaturally, Dulcie Wilson was appalled by this. At no time had any person conveyed the moderator's wishes to speak with Dulcie Wilson, but the last sentence left her speechless. She said:

The very reason that I stood up to be counted was because of my love and concern for the Ngarrindjeri people who were being manipulated not only by some of their own key people but by other groups such as the CFMEU, Greenpeace and some other conservationists, the Friends of Hindmarsh Island and various others. Today I am proud of the dissident women who had the courage to tell the truth, against all odds, for secret women's business was indeed proved by the Royal Commission to be fabricated.

Unfortunately, the anthropologists in favour of the proponents' position have continued to make extraordinary claims in order to justify their position. I refer honourable members to an article written by Mr Ron Brunton in relation to that particular matter.

Where does this leave the real issues confronting the Aboriginal people of Australia and the Torres Strait Islanders living in the Torres Strait and those living on the mainland? It yet again raises the question of whether ATSIC can continue to justify its existence. More than $4 million has been wasted in relation to this farce. The opposition, not content with this waste of money, seems to be saying that there should be yet another inquiry. This is absurd. When are the crucial issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders going to be addressed? When are we going to fulfil our obligations to those disadvantaged and culturally repressed people?

The clear picture that emerged to me from a recent visit to the Torres Strait Islands was that Torres Strait Islanders would, through their island councils, prefer to deal directly with government rather than through ATSIC and the Torres Strait Regional Authority. As one of them pointed out, echoing the words of Senator Herron:

We don't want a trickle coming out of the fire hose after it has been through all the commissions and bureaucracies before the money gets to us.

Having observed the obscenity of 35 barristers appearing in the High Court in the recent Waanyi case, and estimating the cost of those barristers, together with their instructing solicitors, as well in excess of $1 million, I say again that there is a cry for help out there amongst Aboriginal people and there is a cry for help amongst Torres Strait Islander peo ple. Are we, as legislators, in the best position to heed those cries or are we unfortunately becoming bogged down in the mire of bureaucracy and ineptitude?

In relation to the Torres Strait Islanders, is it not now their time to be recognised as a completely independent ethnic group, yet Australians nonetheless? Why are they lumped together with Aboriginal people? Likewise, why are Aboriginal people not recognised as a separate individual ethnic group of people? Why are they lumped together with Torres Strait Islanders? It is insulting and patronising in the extreme to so lump them together. Does this not recognise and perpetuate the continual errors that Australians make in the area of administration for policies for indigenous Australians? Why can't we look seriously at real autonomy for these people of the Torres Strait? I think it would be a tremendous thing for Torres Strait Islanders to be given a goal to aspire to, to develop real autonomy.

In my recent visit to the Torres Strait Islands I made the following note about autonomy: the evolution of ultimate autonomy for the Torres Strait comes from individual autonomy as per each island, for with island autonomy comes economic autonomy, which will encourage the return home from the mainland of Torres Strait Islanders. With economic autonomy comes the capacity to integrate ideas with other islands. With the integration of other ideas with other islands comes real autonomy—that is, the capacity to be an independent territory capable of existing as a governing territory for the peace, good order and good government of the whole of the relevant Torres Strait islands and their inhabitants.

Likewise, I completely endorse views that there should be bottom end funding as far as Aboriginal communities are concerned. For many people out there self-interest unfortunately does prevail—those who only wish to see the never-ending bucket of money supply for metaphysical issues that are not advancing the standards of health, education, job training and employment opportunities for any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and along the way perpetuating a myth of reconciliation when there can be no reconciliation under the present entrenched bureaucracies.

This bill indicates that the government, along with the people of Australia, have had enough of what has been going on. In my view, we should hail it as a breakthrough in this area. We should belatedly hail Bertha Gollan, Dorothy Wilson and Dulcie Wilson as heroines of the Ngarrindjeri people. (Time expired)