Custodian closer to rock art answers after 'rude' wait

Legal action launched by a traditional custodian will go ahead in a bid to compel the government to consider a heritage application to protect Indigenous rock art.
Mardathoonera woman Raelene Cooper said she was thrilled the case against the newly appointed environment minister Murray Watt was moving forward without further delays.
"It's rude to have someone waiting for such a long time," the Save our Songlines co-founder said outside the Federal Court in Sydney.
"I am furious that the minister would make a decision to lock in ongoing and irreversible damage to my country before addressing my application."
The court determined Ms Cooper's case would be heard in the week of July 14.
The preliminary hearing follows the minister's interim approval of Woodside's North West Shelf extension, a controversial gas project in Western Australia.
The call has flared tensions, with environmental and Indigenous groups arguing it will slow efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and have a ruinous effect on nearby ancient petroglyphs.
Senator Watt attached heritage and air quality conditions to the approval and those are yet to be formally agreed to by the Australian energy giant.
Ms Cooper said the North West Shelf and other industrial developments at Woodside's Burrup Hub posed risks to the rock art - concerns and evidence laid out in full in a cultural heritage assessment the minister is yet to consider.
The "section 10" heritage application was originally lodged in early 2022.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the conditions attached to the pending approval of the North West Shelf extension would address concerns about the rock art.
"The local Aboriginal corporation there is, I've met with them in the past, they're very supportive of industry," he told ABC radio on Friday.
"They want to make sure there's protection, but they support those jobs and that economic activity."
In a separate case, three protesters are expected to be sentenced after targeting a 2023 Woodside annual general meeting with stench gas and flares.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Age

an hour ago

• The Age

Anglican Church can't grow if it fails to accept gay reality

The other day a friend showed me photos of her friends' same-sex wedding. Such joyful scenes as family and friends celebrated with the happy couple. It wasn't a church wedding, and certainly not an Anglican wedding – not even a wedding blessing. While the Anglican Church's highest court has said it is not against the church's constitution to bless same-sex weddings, only a handful of Australian dioceses have permitted that. And now Melbourne Diocese – once the progressive capital of the Australian church – has elected an archbishop firmly opposed to same-sex weddings. There will be no wedding blessings here. He is quoted in last Sunday's Age as saying that church must welcome people in same-sex relationships. But that rings hollow. How can you welcome people while damning their relationships as sinful? The newly elected archbishop, Ric Thorpe, a bishop from London, is first and foremost a church planter. That is why his Melbourne supporters have chosen him. The church is in decline in Melbourne, with numbers of worshippers dropping and many small parishes struggling for survival. His supporters want to see significant growth in the church, and think that means planting lots of new congregations. But will those brave new plants be attractive to Australians in the 21st century, when presumably they will be preaching against same-sex marriage, given the core group of Melbourne Anglicans who campaigned for his election hold the same view? When more than 60 per cent of Australians voted in favour of same-sex marriage in the 2017 plebiscite? Bishop Thorpe claims the Scriptures are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that cannot be set aside. Many significant scripture scholars read the Bible differently. They say the very few Bible verses that are claimed to prohibit same-sex relationships actually prohibit only promiscuous, predatory relationships. But conservatives have latched on to same-sex prohibition as their line in the sand. Some would argue they took up the cause when they lost the debate in the 1990s about ordaining women. It has given them a stick to knock progressive Anglicans into the ground. The election of Bishop Thorpe shows they are winning. The debate has echoes of the nasty debate that raged in the Anglican Church over divorce last century. Divorced people could not remarry in church, and often were made distinctly unwelcome in congregations. It was Melbourne Diocese in the 1970s that overturned that, and pushed the national church to change. And in 1972, Melbourne Diocese called for homosexuality to be decriminalised, eight years before the state government agreed. How sad that Melbourne has now joined the conservatives. Bishop Thorpe is quoted as saying that the same-sex debate is 'a distraction' from the message of the church. No, it is harming the church's message. The church's message is that God is love, and loves all people unconditionally – and that includes gay people, their spouses and their families.

Sydney Morning Herald

an hour ago

• Sydney Morning Herald

Anglican Church can't grow if it fails to accept gay reality

The other day a friend showed me photos of her friends' same-sex wedding. Such joyful scenes as family and friends celebrated with the happy couple. It wasn't a church wedding, and certainly not an Anglican wedding – not even a wedding blessing. While the Anglican Church's highest court has said it is not against the church's constitution to bless same-sex weddings, only a handful of Australian dioceses have permitted that. And now Melbourne Diocese – once the progressive capital of the Australian church – has elected an archbishop firmly opposed to same-sex weddings. There will be no wedding blessings here. He is quoted in last Sunday's Age as saying that church must welcome people in same-sex relationships. But that rings hollow. How can you welcome people while damning their relationships as sinful? The newly elected archbishop, Ric Thorpe, a bishop from London, is first and foremost a church planter. That is why his Melbourne supporters have chosen him. The church is in decline in Melbourne, with numbers of worshippers dropping and many small parishes struggling for survival. His supporters want to see significant growth in the church, and think that means planting lots of new congregations. But will those brave new plants be attractive to Australians in the 21st century, when presumably they will be preaching against same-sex marriage, given the core group of Melbourne Anglicans who campaigned for his election hold the same view? When more than 60 per cent of Australians voted in favour of same-sex marriage in the 2017 plebiscite? Bishop Thorpe claims the Scriptures are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that cannot be set aside. Many significant scripture scholars read the Bible differently. They say the very few Bible verses that are claimed to prohibit same-sex relationships actually prohibit only promiscuous, predatory relationships. But conservatives have latched on to same-sex prohibition as their line in the sand. Some would argue they took up the cause when they lost the debate in the 1990s about ordaining women. It has given them a stick to knock progressive Anglicans into the ground. The election of Bishop Thorpe shows they are winning. The debate has echoes of the nasty debate that raged in the Anglican Church over divorce last century. Divorced people could not remarry in church, and often were made distinctly unwelcome in congregations. It was Melbourne Diocese in the 1970s that overturned that, and pushed the national church to change. And in 1972, Melbourne Diocese called for homosexuality to be decriminalised, eight years before the state government agreed. How sad that Melbourne has now joined the conservatives. Bishop Thorpe is quoted as saying that the same-sex debate is 'a distraction' from the message of the church. No, it is harming the church's message. The church's message is that God is love, and loves all people unconditionally – and that includes gay people, their spouses and their families.

West Australian

3 hours ago

• West Australian

Nat Locke: applying for a Turkish visa has led to frustration, anguished wailing and a loss of faith in tech

I have spent most of this week jumping to the obvious conclusion that the Turkish government hates me, which is a fairly bold statement, I know. Let me explain. I'm heading off on holidays in just a couple of weeks' time and my first stop is Turkey. Or Turkiye if we're going to be absolutely correct about it. And seeing as I'm trying to get them to like me, Turkiye it is. So, as an Australian visiting Turkiye, I'm eligible to apply for an e-visa prior to my arrival. It's a relatively simple process, that in a perfect world, goes like this: Step 1: Fill out an online form with your passport and contact details. Step 2: Wait for an email. Step 3: Activate the link in the email within 60 minutes. Step 4: Pay. Step 5: Admire your new Turkish e-visa. What could possibly go wrong, I hear you ask. Well. I completed Step 1 on a Thursday evening a couple of weeks ago and checked my email. No email that night. No email all Friday. Then an email from the Republic of Turkiye turned up at 5:28am on Saturday. Unfortunately I didn't wake up until 7:15am, so the 60 minutes had elapsed and I had missed my window. So I went back to Step 1 again on Saturday at about midday. No email arrived on Saturday. No email arrived on Sunday. I started to take it personally. After all, I have been nothing but supportive of Turkiye. I'm a big fan of Turkish Delight, for starters, and sometimes I get mocked for my choices. But I digress. The much-awaited email turned up at 5:22am on Monday. Luckily, I was already at work, so I asked for silence and clicked on the link. And what appeared was a message indicating that my 60 minutes had already elapsed and I would have to go back to Step 1 again. At this point, I declared that the system was basically impenetrable. If the email didn't arrive in time, how was I supposed to activate the link? I was literally at a stalemate, but I love a challenge. So I utilised the strategy that has helped just about everyone to subscribe for something twice. Yes, I used my work email address. Back to Step 1 I went, laboriously filling in my passport details yet again. On the upside, I now know when my passport expires. It is seared into my brain. And guys, THIS TIME IT WORKED. The email appeared in my inbox immediately. I eagerly clicked on it, ready to activate the link and finally make my way to Step 3. And the email disappeared. It just ceased to be. It wasn't in my junk file or my deleted items folders. There wasn't even a tiny puff of smoke. So, I did what any tech-savvy human being would do. I asked the Turkish government to resend the email. And it appeared immediately. And then as soon as I clicked to open it again, it disappeared forever. At this point you may have heard some anguished wailing emanating from the greater Fremantle area. Yeah, that was me. The next day, I enlisted the assistance of one of our technical dudes at work, hoping he might be able to identify why these official government emails kept disappearing in front of my eyes. Being an expert in such things, he peered at my monitor for a while, then shrugged. Eventually, he asked someone in our Melbourne office to do something about it, presuming it's some sort of spam filter that prevents employees from applying for e-visas on company time. Or something like that. If I'm trying to find a positive in this scenario, it's that I've determined I'm not actually an enemy of the Turkish state. I'm just an enemy of technology in general. What a relief. As it stands, though, I still don't have a visa for Turkiye. If my research has served me well, it is possible to get a visa on arrival, but that would involve joining a queue at Istanbul airport after a 21-hour journey, which is what I would quaintly refer to as the 'worst case scenario'. In addition, I have lost my faith in technology, which might be problematic in the future.