|
During the struggle, Raynes received a major shock: “I was gobsmacked. The Attorney-General was threatening to have my access to the whole of the correspondence of the Aborigines Department, all 170 boxes of it, revoked.”
Here is how Raynes describes the unfolding struggle:
In 2001, I was given permission by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (DAAR) to view the correspondence files labelled CRG 52/1 of that department, dating back to 1866. This allowed him to research on the Aborigines Department in Adelaide under the last Chief Protector, William Richard Penhall.
For two years, I spent many long days at State Records’ public reading room at Netley, reverently opening up box after box of dusty correspondence. By November 2003, I was aware that several pieces of the historical jigsaw were missing. I had heard of several significant files in the possession of the Crown Solicitor’s Office (CSO).
On State Records’ advice, I rang the CSO who told me that the files in question could contain the legal opinion of the Crown Solicitor, around 1940 or 1950, and so would not be made available. They suggested I write to the Attorney-General Michael Atkinson for permission to view them.
On December 23, 2003, I wrote to the Attorney-General. I was told the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was responsible for the matter. This was totally unsatisfactory to me. The files, though the property of DAAR, were held by the Crown Solicitor, who was denying me access. I pointed this out to the Attorney-General and in February 2004 I was finally told the matter was “receiving attention”.
Three weeks later, I rang the Attorney-General’s office. I was told the response to my request was in its “final stages”. When I asked if I could speak to the person working on it, I was told there were several people involved and “No, you cannot talk to them”.
I wrote to the CEO of DAAR, asking for help. He did not even acknowledge my letter. In March 2004, with still no answer from the Attorney-General’s offic, I rang them. I was again refused the name of the person dealing with the matter. In April, Michael Atkinson advised me that the files in question had documents that attracted “legal professional privilege” in court proceedings, and I would not be able to see them. His letter ended: “I have written to DAAR and asked it to withdraw your authorisation to access files from GRG 52/1 until that series of documents has been checked.” This meant my access to the whole correspondence of the Aborigines Department, all 170 boxes of it, was revoked.
On June 30 2004, I wrote to the CEO of DAAR, asking for access to a single file from another government record series, GRG 52/10, which had had a 100-year restriction placed on it. File 8 of 1927 of that series contains, I believe, an application by Penhall for the position of superintendent of Point McLeay Station. This file is of great interest to me.
In his response, the CEO ignored my request, simply stating that my access to GRG 52/1 had been revoked. On July 12, I rang DAAR and explained that it was GRG 52/10 that I was interested in and asked for a fresh determination on this. The person I spoke to promised to get back to me soon. I am still waiting, eight months later.
In the meantime, I asked the CSO for access to three other files from the original GRG 52/1. File 64 of 1949 contained correspondence between Penhall and the Assemblies of God Church; file 88a of 1950 was on Aboriginal deaths at Ernabella Mission; and file 3 of 1953 included a flyer for a meeting of the Aboriginal Advancement League in Adelaide.
I was sure that none of these files contained any advice from the Crown Solicitor. Yet the DAAR now told me that every time I wanted to look at anything from GRG 52/1, it would have to be retrieved from State Records and examined for the presence of Crown Solicitor’s opinion.
If the file I wanted contained no such document, a request for its release would be put to the CEO of DAAR, who would then make a request to the Attorney-General. I reiterated my interest in the three files, and the worker promised to examine them. I also asked for a clear outline of this new access regime, in writing. Eight months later I am still waiting for this letter, and still waiting for access to these three files.
It appears I have been effectively banned from accessing any of the government records I need to complete my research. How are we supposed to write historical accounts of the government, let alone South Australian legal histories, if we are not allowed to view such documents?
|
