Climbers may be barred from Uluru
Tim Wimborne / Reuters
Tourists use a chain to climb the world's largest monolith Uluru (Ayers Rock), about 220 miles from the central Australian town of Alice Springs. Many tourists climb the rock, although the Aboriginal owners request that visitors respect their sacred site and view it only from the ground.
An Australian government proposal to stop people from climbing the famed Uluru, in deference to the wishes of indigenous people, sparked debate today with lawmakers opposing the plan.
A draft management plan for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park called for a ban on people climbing the 348-metre (1,142 ft) rock, which is sacred to local Aborigine people and visited each year by 350,000 people, half of them from overseas.
The plan for Uluru, formerly known as Ayers Rock, could be implemented within 18 months, but must be approved by national Environment Minister Peter Garrett after a two-month public consultation, a spokesman for Garrett said.
"Kevin Rudd must veto any plans by Peter Garrett to shut down Australia's world-famous Uluru climb," said conservative politician and environment spokesman Greg Hunt.
"Visitors from around Australia and the world would be stopped from completing the majestic and exhilarating journey," Hunt said.
The world heritage-listed rock, famed for its shifting red-ochre colours, is a top tourist drawcard and is climbed by more than 100,000 people each year, despite its central desert location and against the wishes of indigenous people.
"You can't go climb on top of the Vatican, you can't go climb on top of the Buddhist temples and so on and so forth," local elder Vince Forrester from Mutitjulu township told state radio.
Forrester said traditional owners of the rock, which is 9.4kms (5.8 mls) in circumference, have wanted the climb closed since the park was placed in indigenous hands in 1985. The monolith features strongly in indigenous creation myth.
"Obviously you have to respect our religious attachment to the land too, so we're saying please do not climb Uluru. We've said it in all languages," Forrester said.
But outback Northern Territory Tourism Minister Chris Burns said his government did not back the indigenous proposal.
Hunt said the national government should not contemplate the closure of the rock at a time when Australia's tourism industry was under threat from the global financial crisis.
"Big Brother is coming to Uluru to slam the gate closed on an Australian tourism icon, the climb," he said.
But people responding to the state ABC radio website were divided, with some saying it was a "denial of the rights", and others calling for more respect of sacred areas.
"About time. We would be horrified if people were allowed to climb all over our churches or sacred sites," wrote Lilly.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited



Comments
you wouldn't expect visitors to start climbing St Pauls.
even if we get over the monolith misnomer problem, we come up with a second fact that undermines Uluru's claim at Worlds Greatest status. Uluru is not even the largest rock exposed over the surrounding country. Mt Augustus in Western Australia is much larger.
People need to get over the need to 'conquer' objects. Surely, the opportunity to view Uluru is sufficient reason to visit it. Whilst I don't subscribe to any form of superstitious claptrap, be that miraculous stories of sons of god being born of virgins or worlds formed by giant coloured serpents, there are sufficient conservation reasons to support the removal of climbers from the rock.
But the problem here is even deeper. You don't show respect for people who had their lands stolen (by people coming from the UK, actually), and who was killed and alienated since the white man set foot in their little corner of the world. What you are saying is basically add to their cultural genocide. Or are you one of those who think that the Western civilization is the best thing that could have happened to the world? Sorry, many of us don't think so. Then some ask why the dark skinned hate them... that's being self absorbed and oblivious.
As for informing tourists as to Aboriginal beliefs, there?s a cultural centre at the base of the rock and any tour guide will tell you in great detail about its significance.
Finally, we aren't going to get over "the need to conquer" anytime soon and if we ever do, we'll all be the poorer for it since we will also lose the motivation to conquer disease, poverty, war, etc.
And unlike many Mosques and temples, unbelievers are allowed to experience it in the same physical manner as those who are.
I agree "we" will not get over our need to "conquer" things it is part of our genome, and I agree that to is a good thing, however one would hope that as we can still or rather start to do so in a way that is more sensitive and respectful manner.
Get a grip! Yes, there are many social problems existing within Aboriginal settlements but the root of many of these problems are symptomatic of their poverty and of the abuses suffered by these people throughout the ages; dispossession, disease and disregard of culture being just some of them.
Notwithstanding this, one of the principal concerns facing Uluru is the destruction of its sensitive habitat by those wishing to climb the rock. This alone is good reason to review the climbing of Uluru.
1. It is not 'Uluru'. Why are you now using this cretinous name? It is AYERS ROCK.
2. Height is measured in FEET, not metres. We defeated Napolleon, remember?
3. Distance is measured in MILES, not kilometres. Or can we expect the Independent to start printing articles in French next?
As for the sustantive issue in this report, the difference between climbing a rock as opposed to a church is that the latter would be damaged whereas the former will not be. It is a ROCK for goodness sake!
2/ Metres & kilometres are also a measurments. We may have defeated Napolleon but we no longer rule the world! 3/ Churchs of significance are made of stone (rock) and therefore no more/just as damagable as rock.
Irrespective of who arrived in Australia first, the present reality is that the two races now have to co-exist and that requires give and take on both sides; in the circumstances a return to the situation that prevailed before the first white settlers arrived may not be possible.
It's also rather revealing that you talk about the 'condition of Uluru being returned the aborigines'. Why do you think late-comer settlers who took away Uluru from the locals in the first place have any right to dictate conditions on its return? I steal something from you and then I impose conditions on returning the stolen goods to you. I think not. Why isn't it enough to watch that rock from a short distance?
In general, I agree with you that the two races have to co-exist. Unfortunately, the balance sheet is rather unfavorable for white folks to take the moral high ground, so they should show more tolerance. Especially, when it comes to deeply meaningful native symbols. Why do Westerners always want to conquer things? I guess 500 years of bad and bloody habits die very hard.
Following on from this and addressing the fundamental issue of whether the aborigines actually have rights in the legal sense, just because someone once owned something which was then taken over by someone else doesn?t mean they can come back at a later date and demand its return. If that were the case Britain could start asserting land rights over parts of France, or Germany over Western Poland, or Jordan over Israel, for example. This being the case, I think the aborigines are doing rather well and the imposition of a condition for commercial reasons that ultimately benefits everyone is a small price to pay.
Regarding your rather bold assertion that it?s only Westerners who want to conquer things, I suggest you look at numerous other global examples of aggressive rivalries between different peoples and races, starting with the conduct of the Japanese in the Second World War and then proceeding to the excesses of Pol Pot. It?s not just Westerners, it?s everyone. And as stated earlier, the desire to conquer also encompasses the desire to conquer, disease, poverty, etc, and we would all collectively be worse without that.
And finally, the reason why it is not enough to admire Uluru from a short distance is because there is a fantastic view from the top. It?s that simple.
I do not give a flying f*ck about our attitude, our policies, and our religion. You only have to imagine what it would be like if a stranger decided to move into your house, have sex with your wife, move your children to other families and schools, indoctrinate you with a new religion, a new language, new food and clothes. All without your consent. Either we are a 'winner takes all' society, or we believe in the UN declaration of human rights. Wikipedia 'Mount Kailash' and you will find that this mountain has been sacred for thousands of years, long before you and your pale ancestors were born, and it has NEVER been climbed. By ANYONE. EVER. If any one was caught scrambling on the roof of the Vatican or St Paul's Cathedral, they would be arrested. The NAME of the ROCK IS ULURU and has been for thousands of years. Ayer never owned it. It is the spirit of this nation, this land. So all you cute whiteys can go back to Stonehenge and eat your fish and chips. Mark my words: Climbing on ULURU WILL BE BANNED.
Could a raised walkway be put into place, this will stop erosion which is a real threat and also prevent the feet actually touching the abo sacred rock?