Knowledge asserted in 1994 by a group of Ngarrindjeri women opposing a bridge to Hindmarsh Island, given to the federal minister's reporter in sealed envelopes marked for women only.
Material type
Restricted oral knowledge
Restricted to
Ngarrindjeri women with the relevant authority
Restriction mechanism
oral_only, social_sanction
Stated reason
Restricted women's knowledge that may not be disclosed to men or outsiders
Tradition origins
ancient
Recorded practice status
Unknown
Status as of
Not recorded
Status claims
Not recorded
Disclosure dates, source publication dates, tradition origins and dates of practice are separate.
What this disclosure covers
Inquires into whether the knowledge was fabricated; does not publish it.
The source
Report of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission (SRC-0036; authenticity: Unassessed)
Author
Iris Stevens (Commissioner)
Original publication
1995
Linked edition
Not recorded
Format
Court record
Provenance
court_filing
Rights of source work
Unknown
Identifiers
wikidata:Q5766130
Source content hash
Not recorded
Wikidata item is for the Royal Commission. Reported 19 December 1995. Dr Kartinyeri did not give evidence, and the sealed envelopes were not before the Commission (SRC-0037, para 133).
Claims about this item
These claims may cite other sources for the same restricted item. Supporting and contradicting evidence remain separate.
CLM-0007 · Other
The restricted women's knowledge about Hindmarsh Island was fabricated.
Claim support
Contradicted
Record review
Reviewed
Period
1994–1995
Locators
SRC-0036: report of 19 December 1995; SRC-0037: paras 133, 199, 330
Sources counted as independent
Not recorded
Supporting sources
Report of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission (SRC-0036; authenticity: Unassessed)
The Royal Commission (1995) concluded the whole of the women's business was a fabrication. The judgment records that Dr Kartinyeri did not give evidence to the Commission and that the contents of the sealed envelopes were not before it (para 133). In 2001 von Doussa J heard evidence from several Ngarrindjeri women supporting its genuineness (para 330) and was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that it was fabricated or was not part of Aboriginal tradition (para 199). The two bodies are independent and heard different evidence. Checked against the judgment text on 2026-11-04.
SRC-0036: Source authenticity is unassessed; this is separate from the truth of its assertions.
SRC-0036: No source-level content_hash is recorded; linked artifact hashes may identify excerpts, derivatives or metadata instead.
SRC-0036: The source text's rights have not been established.
SRC-0037: No source-level content_hash is recorded; linked artifact hashes may identify excerpts, derivatives or metadata instead.
CLM-0007: Claim support is contradicted; retain that qualification when quoting or training.
Evidence qualifications
SRC-0036 · source_authenticity_unassessed: Source authenticity is unassessed; this is separate from the truth of its assertions.
SRC-0036 · source_without_content_hash: No source-level content_hash is recorded; linked artifact hashes may identify excerpts, derivatives or metadata instead.
SRC-0036 · source_rights_unknown: The source text's rights have not been established.
DISC-0037 · record_unreviewed: Record review status is unreviewed; review is not proof of truth.
Reviewed means checked against a source. It does not establish source authenticity, independent corroboration or present-day practice.
Item notes
Its authenticity was the subject of a Royal Commission and later litigation. The content has not been published.
