AlanJG

Peter, the only place I can find any reference to that book is in the book review you listed. IF you spell the place correctly there is not a single reference on the web and my friend who deals in second hand books can find no mention of it anywhere.

With regards to ownership and payments for access, would you not pay to see the Green River fossil deposits, Flinders Ranges and the famous Solnhofen and Holzmaden quarries?

Funny thing is happening up this way. There is a group of people very concerned about the perceived loss of property rights. It is exactly this same group that welcomed Tim Fisher's "bucket loads of extinguishment" with open arms but said it did not go far enough. This was despite leaseholders gaining further rights and providing barriers to orderly development on those lands which are owned by us all and held by the crown. Of course, they would say that they are not racist.

If one starts from the premise that the invasion of Australia brought British common law then that can only be overridden by statute and that law must abide by the constitution which prohibits arbitrary seizure and requires just compensation.

AlanJG

Meant to add that Peter B English has no other record on the web under that name either.

How could one visiting 'the rock' not be aware that it is a geological feature. Is it that most people do not know that this was recognised first as a reason for nomination to the World Heritage List that bothers you? What about the listing of the Wet Tropics where the geology was ignored?

Sue_xx_yy

Interesting turn this thread has taken.

AlanJG and PeterSale, your discussion has led me to wonder: what constitutes arbitrary seizure? Recently in my own domaine, the government expropriated land because it was deemed to be in the common interest. (Example: neighbours not far away had to sell part of their land to allow for road widening. They raised strenuous objections, but were overruled.) Expropriation does not mean theft, since compensation is given, but if one did not wish to sell, or otherwise trade access rights to the property for cash, it still ends up being controversial compensation.

Peter Sale raises an interesting issue: where 'fair market value' can't be assessed easily - and that is probably true of geological features - what is just compensation? And who should be deemed to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of any given group - or groups, if more than one feels they have title? What to do, when no deeds exist?

Peter Aus suggest the Wailing Wallis similar to Uluru since both are places sacred to given people. Should size, though, be taken into consideration? And what about graveyards - these are sacred places, yet precedent exists for moving graves to another site, if the original impedes something, again supposedly in the public interest.

peterSale

The constitution is very cleverly worded. By using the term "just terms" it leaves it open to each generation to decide. A decision should be based on what society as a whole would consider "just". No descision will please everyone. This is part of living in a democracy.

There are currently major roadworks outside our house (it is shaing as I write) and have been for the past three months and will continue for another six at least, as the highway is widened. When it is finished we will have to drive an extra 250m and then do a U-turn to get to our house. Should we and our neighbours be compensated for this? If so how much? Should we have been relocated for the duration? NO. It is part of living in democracy and putting up with inconvenience for the greater good.

We need to be less selfish as individuls and as interest groups and be more community minded. What is good for the WHOLE community? What is a suitable compromise?

It is a specious argument to compare Ayers Rock (or any other natural feature) with a temple wall, cathedral etc.

The aborigines have simply made up stories to suit a physical feature. They have different names and stories for the constellations. Should they have rights over these as well?

A Temple on the other hand has been made for a specific religious purpose. The two are totally different.

Zealots of any type are dangerous. There was a fight recently in the Bethlehem Church of the nativity between different branches of the Christian Church. Let alone the fighting in Israel between religions. It is all silly and beggars belief. They should share like good children.

I have no problem with the aborigines using Ayers Rock for their beliefs, nor do I have a problem with the recent stripper, or Sam Newman hitting a golf ball or someone walking its length and breadth. You can sacrifice a goat up there for all I care. All I ask is that everyone be treated equally. No single interest should dominate, other than sound environmental management.

If you swap one group for another and it sounds absurd/racist/sexiest then the first one was also. I am sure no one would want McAyersRock or Trump Olgas. We need to get rid of the politics, pure and simple.

As Ayers Rock is a World Heritage area it should be managed like all world heritage areas should be in a way that allows all people to see and enjoy it in their own way as long as it does not cause damage.


As to paying to see such things. I have and will pay. I don't begrudge it if I know it is going directly to the maintenance and preservation of the sight (and will often give a donation as well). I do begrudge it if it is just a commercial thing or going into consolidated revenue.

However, I believe that such significant things should be preserved in National Parks or similar for the enjoyment of all and not just those who can afford it and not to the commercial benefit of individuals or companies.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Sue_xx_yy

Hi Peter, thanks for taking the time to reply. (Sorry OP, didn't mean to disrupt your thread, I suppose ideally we should move this tangential discussion to its own thread.)

I assumed that the claim of the aboriginals to Uluru was a land claim, if only on the lands over which one must travel to access the site. Elsewhere, land has been expropriated to create national parks, so if I've followed what you are saying, PeterSale, you believe Uluru/Ayres should fall under this category, that of national park. As it is, I had the impression that some kind of agreement had been reached so as to permit access to the site (since people obviously visit it); if I've followed this discussion, the controversy seems to be about whether certain exclusive access (or at least, a certain degree of restricted access to non-aboriginals), based on cultural claims, is reasonable. You seem to be saying, no, that universal access is the only kind reasonable in a national park.

Re 'naming' of places/making up stories: many places that are considered sacred, manmade or natural, are sacred because of the fact that they have been formally named, formally designated. (In various Chhristian denominations, a church is not just built, it has to be formally consecrated to be considered a church.) The Christian religion was wise enough to foresee the possible requirement for formally 'deregistering' a place as sacred, as when a church is deconsecrated and the building then made available to other purposes. (I presume a similar ritual takes place when a graveyard has to be moved.)

So possibly your main concern is with the permanent classification of a site, manmade or natural, as sacred, with no allowance for flexibility in the face of either social change, or even natural disaster (e.g., an earthquake rendering the rock a heap o' dust.)

peterSale

Basically Yes. If it is a National Park/World Heritage Area then it should be managed as such. If it is "Native Land", it should be named and managed as such.

Kakadu I think is in the same category in that it is called a National Park but has different mangagment rules.

This goes for anywhere in the world.

Physical features are different to man made things. Man made were made for a purpose and that purpose obviously has certain inherent rights.

I am sure people would not approve if Ayers Rock was controlled by a hang gliding club and only hang gliders could use it and that hang gliding was seen as the most important aspect of the Rock. I am equally sure that if it was, the hang gliding club would be able to come to some compromise with other users.

I just think such things should be shared. No Politics. No Bigotry.

Should rock climber be allowed to climb the wailing wall?
Who does it belong to. Who should it belong to? Who should judge such a thing?