Make Text Larger Make Text Smaller Email this Article to a Friend Print this Article

Oodgeroo accuses Brisbane archdiocese over St Mary's Treaty

Published: March 04, 2009

The Oodgeroo of the tribe Noonuccal has lodged a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission against Brisbane Archbishop John Bathersby and the archdiocese alleging discrimination against Aboriginal people. 

The Westender reports the "Oodgeroo of the tribe Noonuccal, Custodian of the land Minjerribah, Peace Prosperity and Healing, Sacred Treaty Circles" has lodged a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission against Brisbane Catholic Archbishop John Bathersby, the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane and their lawyers, alleging discrimination against Aboriginal people.

The Oodgeroo Treaty Circles have complained the Archbishop has discriminated against Aboriginal people by refusing to acknowledge the validity of a treaty between Father Peter Kennedy on behalf of the St Mary's South Brisbane parish and Bejam Denis Walker on behalf of the Noonuccal and other Aboriginal people.

Archdiocesan lawyers Thynne and Macartney have written to Bejam Denis Walker and described the St Mary's treaty as having no legal effect or validity and stated the Archbishop will not enter into any discussions or negotiations as to the implications of the treaty.

But spokesperson for the Oodgeroo Treaty Circles, John Tracey, said "the St Mary's Treaty was signed during a well attended Mass with the congregation of St Mary's and members of the local Aboriginal community witnessing it.

"The treaty was celebrated in coroborree in accordance with Aboriginal customary law and written on paper in accordance with non-Aboriginal law. It is real."

"The Archbishop's choice of (former High Court Justice Ian Callinan as) mediator is an example of the contempt of Aboriginal law, culture and rights that he appears to hold. His blanket refusal to discuss the treaty is another."

"The Oodgeroo Treaty Circles are asking the Archbishop and the Brisbane Archdiocese to confirm and support the St Mary's treaty which involves innovative Aboriginal welfare and social justice programs such as dry camps, a cultural heritage education program and the facilitation of Aboriginal men's, women's and elders business.

"The treaty process provides non-Aboriginal Australians a direct relationship with Aboriginal culture and programs. This path of healing is being obstructed by the Archbishop's refusal to even acknowledge Aboriginal rights and interests, let alone work pro-actively with them," Mr Tracey said.

SOURCE

Archbishop accused of racism (Westender)

LINKS

Oodgeroo of the tribe Noonuccal, Custodian of the land Minjerribah, Peace Prosperity and Healing, Sacred Treaty Circles (Treaty Now)

 

 

Response to articles is welcome though it may take up to 24 hours for the posting to appear. Simply follow the prompts to post your comment. No posting of more than 250 words will be published. While critical comment on stories & issues is welcomed, postings that descend to personal attacks on or impugn the integrity of other commentators will be blocked.
If you have any problems please email news@cathnews.com
Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Recent Comments

  1. What rubbish! Peter Kennedy has no legal authority or right to be signing treaties with anyone. This was a misplaced gesture/token to local entities. This is just a smoke screen from locals to muddle the real issues. Everyone needs to forget pride, ego and territorial breast beating and get down to negotiating a real solution to the sad saga of St Marys Catholic church and parishioners. Too many conflicting personal agendas here!

  2. It's right that the Archbishop is not going to enter into any discussions regarding this treaty.

    I see the Oodgeroo link refers to Justice Callinan as inappropriate to speak on Indigenous matters because of his attitudes regarding the Hindmarsh Island case. The Royal Commission on Hindmarsh, however, found that the claims put forward on behalf of Indigenous people were fabrications produced purely for the anti-bridge campaign.

    I recollect that it was Aboriginal women who blew the whistle on the "secret women's business" claims of a small group of Aboriginal women who made them up in order to get the bridge stopped.

    It seems Justice Callinan has demonstrated his respect for truth and the law.

  3. It's such a shame, these people don't do themselves any favours at all. This whole mess is a bit like the soldier whose mother said he was the only one in step during a march past. It looks to me like Peter Kennedy and his congregation think they are the only ones in step.

  4. Could someone please explain to me, because I am sincerely confused about this, what is a Stradbroke Island traditional tribe making claims about a property in south Brisbane for???

    I would imagine this would not be appropriate, and miht reflect cultural insensitivity to the tribe which is actually the guardian of that particular land.

  5. The St Mary's Community shouldn't have used the word 'treaty'. They have no right to make treaties. They may have made an agreement on their own behalf with the Noonuccal people, but that doesn't bind the Church as a whole. Archbishop Bathersby is not responsible for this mistake.

  6. I'm surprised that Fr. Kennedy entered into this treaty without the knowledge of or the support of the Archbishop. I feel that our aboriginal people, in this instance, have been let down, not by the Archbishop but by Fr. Kennedy, because he failed to work in union with the Archbishop. I can't help but get the sense from media reports, that the Archbishop is much maligned in this whole affair. I could be wrong and will stand corrected if I am.

    However, I must strongly disagree with the allegation that the Archbishop is racist. Anybody who has worked closely with him will know that he is a devout priest and compassionate leader of his flock.

    While I admire the good that Fr. Kennedy and his parishioners are doing, we need to know that there are many parishes where, the outcasts, the homeless and the needy are cared for in a loving and nourishing environment.

    I will continue to pray for all concerned, so that both Fr. Kennedy and Archbishop Bathersby will find a peaceful solution to this distressing situation.

    Annamaria McGregor.

  7. Are our taxes being used by the aborigines to take this case to court ?? If so, I suggest a swift kick up a few backsides. At the same time, advise them that they are discriminating against my rights as a Catholic. Further, those that are bringing this case should be made to pay from their own pockets for all this nonsense.

  8. One can only pray ( but maybe with not much hope) that the supporters of Fr. Kennedy - irrespective of whom they are or who make demands on claims that Kennedy had no right to grant - do not impede the possibility of Fr. Kennedy accepting, as an ordained priest of the Catholic Church, the ultimate decision of the Archbishop as to his status as an authorised person of the Church, both in the priestly and administrative role functions. To claim that the Catholic Church refuses the rights of aboriginals simply because Fr Kennedy claims authority to grant something which he, as an individual, cannot grant, would get no support from the legitimate Aboriginal elders or the loyal catholics in St. Mary's Parish. Mediation is not recognition of falsehoods.

  9. How unreasonable of the Archbishop to ignore the legal validity of a document which has no legal validity...

    What they failed to mention was that the treaty, signed by Fr Peter Kennedy, supposedly has legal implications in relationship to the ownership of the land upon which St Mary's stands. Unfortunately for them, Fr Kennedy had no legal right to sign over the land to any other party.

    I believe even the people of St Mary's realise how ridiculous this accusation of racial discrimination is; as this article appeared on their website on Sunday, but is no longer featured on there.

  10. This is ludicrous ! Is this indigenous tribe Catholic? Have they ever studied the bible ? Do they think they own the church building ?
    Next they will be telling us the church is built on ground containing the bones of their ancestors and is sacred to their tribe, therefore the Catholic Church has no right there.

  11. Father Kennedy's ego is huge. He really is trying hard to keep this sorry saga front page news. This latest attempt at gaining a media audience is so lame to be embarrassing. Kennedy and his minions had no right to sign a treaty. They do not own St Mary's nor the land on which the Church stands. These people surely know that and are simply grinding out useless grasps at publicity.

  12. Wouldn't it be fabulous if the indigenous people were able to bring about reconciliation between Father Kennedy and his Archbishop when the situation seems too much for Church authorities?

  13. I have friends who worship at St Mary's or at least did - they haven't told me otherwise. Whatever the case, they are no longer prominent in media photos as they once were.

    At any rate, I pointedly remarked to one of them, after the crisis started, that I thought the Treaty was conveniently timed.

    This article tends to prove my suggestion to my friend that the true purpose of the Treaty is to make any attempt to evict Fr Kennedy and the committee into a media circus, with the third ring being the Church's supposed racism. Simply, if you evict us, you're going to appear racist.

    St Mary's has, I'm told (being in Sydney), a long record of support for the local Murri community. That it only entered into its "Treaty" after being put on notice by the Archbishop suggests that the St Mary's community isn't above selfishly ignoring its own beliefs. Whatever the theological and ecclesiological issues - which are obvious and were always going to be resolved by eviction - the ethical breaches of the St Mary's community become more glaring by the day. If they were not after rent-free accommodation, they wouldn't be entering invalid treaties and proclaiming their communion with Rome. They would be meeting at the Trades & Labour Council.

  14. Wasn't Oodgeroo of the tribe Noonuccal" the name adopted late in her life by the famous poetess Kath Walker? What right do these self-appointed spokesmen have to speak in her name? And isn't it supposedly considered culturally offensive in so-called "traditional aboriginal culture" to use the name of a dead aborigine, let alone to misuse it?

  15. In response to Ronk,

    The Oodgeroo Treaty circles are coordinated by Oodgeroo's eldest and only remaining son, Bejam Denis Walker.

    The Oodgeroo Treaty circles is the continuation of Oodgeroo's work and vision.

    Your suggestion that her family does not have the right to continue her legacy is what is culturally offensive, indicating not just your ignorance of the nature of cultural sensitivities but also your willingness to use this ignorance to attempt to discredit Aboriginal cultural process.

    I can understand that some people are disturbed by Aboriginal demands for their rights and interests to be recognised because this has a real direct impact on the rights and interests of non-Aboriginal people.

    However, to attempt to use ignorant white perceptions of Aboriginal culture as a reason to dismiss Aboriginal perspective and interests is, I suggest, dishonest.

    It is the refusal of non-Aboriginal people to honestly face up to the history of this country that has entrenched and perpetuated Aboriginal disadvantage.

    Only open hearts and open minds can bring about reconcilliation in this country. The archbishop's refusal to even discuss the treaty and the kneejerk reactions against the treaty expressed on this forum are not signs of open hearts and minds.

  16. John, while there is much to be admired in the symbolic act of the treaty, which acknowledges the traditional owners of the land and encourages programs to support them, it is really not closed-minded of the Archbishop or the Archdiocese to say that the document is not legally binding in terms of land-ownership. This is true, as Fr Kennedy was not in any position to sign away the rights of the land.

    The only way to argue that the land should be legally co-owned by the indigenous people of the region would be to argue that all private property should be co-owned by the indigenous people of their respective areas.

  17. John T, your accusations that I am “suggesting that Kath Walker’s family does not have the right to continue her legacy”, “being culturally offensive”, “attempting to discredit Aboriginal cultural process” , “disturbed by Aboriginal demands for their rights and interests to be recognised”, “dishonestly attempting to use ignorant white perceptions of Aboriginal culture as a reason to dismiss Aboriginal perspective and interests”, “refusing to honestly face up to the history of this country that has entrenched and perpetuated Aboriginal disadvantage”, having a closed heart and mind and “kneejerk reactions”, are all patently false and deeply offensive. You damn me for being “ignorant”, yet you unleash this farrago of abuse at me merely because I dared to ask questions to try to reduce my ignorance.

  18. Hello Alex,

    Firstly, there is nothing in the treaty to suggest the things that you seem to be fearful of.

    Here is a draft treaty similar to the St. Mary's treaty
    http://treatynow.wordpress.com/supportget-involved/

    As you will see, it is a forgiveness of past crimes and an acknowledgement of Aboriginal rights and interests. Most importantly it is a commitment to work together in good faith.

    Land title, which white Australia holds as sacred, is not a part of Aboriginal culture. Aboriginal connection to land and the rights and interests based on that connection are not a matter of the queen's land title.

    However, Aboriginal rights and interests in relation to land are not just symbolic, they are very real.

    I suspect that the Archbishop has not even read the treaty and is, like you, reacting to his own fears just as with the hysteria of the native title debate where some claimed that 70% of Australians would lose their land title. This kind of fear-mongering is an obstacle that lives in the minds of white people but does not have any bearing on Aboriginal claims or on the path to reconcilliation.

    The treaty does not in any way threaten the property rights of the church over the land, it is simply a recognition of the Aboriginal rights on that land and, most importantly, a commitment to be part of a healing process that embraces rather than makes irrelevant Aboriginal cultural perspective.

    As St. Mary's has shown, Aboriginal interests and non-Aboriginal interests do not have to be opposed but, through a reconcilliation process such as the treaty, it can be a peaceful and loving negotiation towards a win-win solution rather than the usual dominance of white rights over Aboriginal rights.

    All land title in this country today has been acquired by way of the genocide and disposession of Aboriginal people. Property rights are no moral high ground by which to dismiss Aboriginal claims to this country.

    John Paul II in his 1986 speech to Australia's Aborigines made it very clear that Aboriginal perspective and knowledge of God in this country has a special places, not just in this country but in the life of the church.

    The Archbishop's refusal to even discuss the treaty process is a betrayal of John Paul II's message as well as the ongoing reconciliation process in this country.

    As for the legality of the St. Mary's treaty. At the time of signing Peter kennedy was the properly appointed administrator of the church and had every legal right to sign a common law contract on behalf of St, Mary's regarding land management just as he would to contract a gardener to mow the lawn or get a plumber to fix the toilet.

    The Archbishop's determination to squash Peter Kennedy does not in any way invalidate the legal obligations of the parish.

  19. Thank you John for linking to a copy of the treaty, I've been trying to find one for a while but I have found both the St Mary's website and the Treaty Circle website notoriously difficult to navigate. After reading it my question is, if the document does not have legal implications as to the ownership of the land, then what does it do? To quote you "it is simply a recognition of the Aboriginal rights on that land" however even after reading it I'm unsure as to what exactly these rights are; they are not specified in the treaty. If the treaty is not merely a symbolic gesture then what are its legal and practical implications?

    On top of this, if the issue is not about who owns the land in common law, why is there a 'common law notice of want of jurisdiction' posted on the website?

  20. Hello Alex,

    They are complicated questions which I have not the time to answer properly here so please forgive me for the inadequacy of the following.


    There is a song by Paul Kelly that he sings in his short film "One Night The Moon". It is sung by two men, a white pastoralist who sings "This is land is mine" and an Aboriginal tracker who sings "This land is me".

    These two perspectives result from two different notions of connection to land. The aboriginal perspective, "this land is me" is, I suggest, a deeper and more profound connection to land than simply the registration of a title.

    There are two aspects of the treaty, the first is an acknowledgement of the Aboriginal relationship to land and, with that as a basis, work out what that means in specific details. The essence of the process however is to build a relationship with the people who are the land, an ongoing respectful business relationship. The details will develop out of that.

    What has developed out of the St. Mary's treaty process, and is the second aspect of the treaty, is a commitment to real practical action. The St. Mary's treaty includes a commitment to "The Agenda" which can be found here....
    http://treatynow.wordpress.com/the-agenda/

    I can't speculate beyond that, as this whole process has stopped since the Archbishop's intervention, but my guess is the next step would be to reform the welfare service delivery mode of Micah to incorporate the cultural heritage education program and the Minjerribah dry camps into their local mission, especially with Aboriginal homeless people.

    The rights inherent in the treaty are the rights to do this sort of thing.

    The common law notice of want of Jurisdiction was served on the Archbishop after he threatened in the media to arrest people at St. Mary's.

    In essence, it demands of the Archbishop to prove his bona fides to have authority over Aboriginal people on that land in order to carry out his threat.

    The property rights that the archbishop relies on are illegal in terms of international law and British common law. The Magna Carta and the common law doctrine of reception clearly state that the ancient laws of the land are valid and remain in place. Australia was occupied on the notion of Terra Nullius, now dismissed by the high court as a fiction. Australia was never Terra Nullius and therefore the ancient laws of this land are still valid whereas the Archbishops claim to that land are illegal - except as much as they conform to Canon law and the Papal Bull Sublimus Dei which, like international law and British common law, respects the rights and interests of indigenous people.

    The notice of want of jursidiction has implications much broader than the Mabo High Court case and it will be fascinating to see how it plays out if it gets to court. it is based on a different premise to the following but this opinion gives an indication of the scope of the action.....
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1989/18.html

    But the obvious alternative to becoming adverseries battling it out in court is the treaty process itself, a mutual end to hostilities, forgiveness of past crimes and commitment to work together in good faith. This is not really so complicated or threatening, is it?


Delicious

More from this section

  1. Machete gang in Sydney school rampage

    Three Sydney teenage boys are under arrest over a machete armed rampage that caused over $30,000 damage and forced Trinity Catholic College, Auburn in western Sydney into lockdown.

  2. Vatican halts Anglican-Catholic Pentecost service

    The Holy See has vetoed a joint Pentecostal service planned by the Newcastle and Maitland Catholic and Anglican bishops.

  3. CathNews celebrates ten years

    Founded in 1999 by Jesuit Fr Michael Kelly, CathNews, one of the Catholic world's earliest exclusively web based publications, turns ten this month.

  4. Geelong school site sale awaits Vatican approval

    Melbourne Archdiocese has forwarded details on the proposed sale of Geelong's central city St Mary's Catholic Primary School site to the Vatican for endorsement.

  5. Police call for witnesses over Liverpool church fire

    Police are appealing for public assistance following a suspicious fire at a Catholic church in Sydney's south-west last night.

Church Resources provides a range of services for the Church and not-for-profit sector, including aggregating buying power for a wide range of products and services used by health, welfare, aged care, education and parish organisations. More »

Subscribe

Receive CathNews headlines in your inbox daily.

News Feed

Subscribe to the CathNews RSS feed to get the daily edition automatically delivered to you.