Using the same parameters as those applied to indigenous sites, it can be forcefully argued that the Cairns Aquatic Club Building, on its site, is a Sacred Site of strong Cultural and Heritage significance to the people of Cairns.
Those parameters which apply to indigenous Sacred or Historical Sites must surely apply to white Australians too. Or are white Australians being discriminated against by Parliamentarians?
For example, there is a debate on Aboriginal site protection in the Northern Territory, and who should determine that the protection of a particular site is of such importance to Aboriginal Territorians that it outweighs considerations of economic development.
In the Northern Territory the existence of a sacred site is not determined by legislation. The Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 simply acknowledges the prior existence of sacred sites, defining them as: a site that is sacred to Aboriginals or is otherwise of significance according to Aboriginal tradition.
The definition of a "sacred site" means:
- a site that is sacred to Aboriginals or is otherwise of significance according to Aboriginal tradition "Aboriginal tradition" means the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals or of a community or group of Aboriginals, and includes those traditions, observances, customs and beliefs as applied in relation to particular persons, sites, areas of land, things or relationships.
Point 1.
The Aquatic Club, and the building they purchased, and the land on which it is located, all fit the above definition. The building has conjointly been significant to the people of Cairns for over 100 years. More than 3 million people have danced on the Black Bean sprung dance floor.
The Peoples Intention:
Was made very clear in 2005 when in February of that year an ePetition was lodged. This was followed in June by a Plain Paper Petition containing 5,000 signatures. The petition pleaded with the Queensland State Labor Government to protect the people's Heritage.
An excerpt “Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to protect this historical site and heritage listed building, by whatever means the House has at its disposal.”
The State Government did nothing.
Are the traditions of the people of Cairns, observances, customs and beliefs as applied in relation to particular persons, sites, areas of land, things or relationships any different or less important than those of the indigenous?
No, they are not.
The loss of the Aquatic is Heritage and irreplaceable historical and hertitage evidence that Cairns was pioneered by such people as A.J. Draper, and E.C. Earl. The loss of its potential as a tourist attraction would cost us more than $100 million over 50 years. This revenue rightly belongs to the people of Cairns.
The High Court of Australia may be the place it will be decided in due course.
No comments:
Post a Comment