Developers of Tasmanian golf course fights allegations of interfering with Aboriginal relics on the site

The lawyer for a golf course developer accused of interfering with Aboriginal relics has told a court alleged disturbances were minimal at best and are open to dispute. Mary Ann’s Island, which plans to build a course and recreation space at Arm’s End in southeast Tasmania, is fighting court charges relating to the site. The company has pleaded not guilty to four counts of destroying, damaging, defacing, concealing or interfering with an Aboriginal relic without a permit between 2014 and 2022. Prosecutor Letitia Fox told Hobart Magistrates Court a gravel road at the site had encroached on shell middens, the remains of meals once gathered and eaten by Aboriginal people. Pipes were placed where shell middens were clearly visible, while tyre treads had “squashed” middens into the ground, she said on Thursday. Two of the charges relate to weed management works at the site not covered by a permit obtained by the company. However, Mary Ann’s Island’s lawyer Craig Mackie said the alleged interference was definitely open to dispute and was “minimal at best”. The company had taken genuine steps to be respectful to Aboriginal heritage and had employed Indigenous people to carry out the weed management. Some of the charges related to an existing road “more than 100 years old”, Mr Mackie said. The area has been farmed for a century and was subject to intense usage including current public walking tracks, he added. An archaeologist who inspected the area in 2022 noted sparse scatters of shell midden material and there were reasonable grounds that they constituted relics, Ms Fox said. Mr Mackie said it was in dispute whether the shells constituted a midden and it was possible they could have accumulated naturally or been placed there by birds. The case is expected to hear from more than a dozen witnesses at a hearing, which has not yet been allocated a date. Mr Mackie said witnesses would give evidence to refute the midden claims. The charges against the company are on the grounds it didn’t knowingly interfere with the relics but was reckless or negligent, Ms Fox said. Some of the alleged inference relates to contractors employed by the company, the court was told. The area contains 31 Aboriginal heritage sites, Ms Fox said, and the company has permits to undertake work at 10 of the sites subject to conditions. 13YARN 13 92 76 Lifeline 13 11 14