ELIZABETH BEARE

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:14): I move:

That this house acknowledges and recognises Elizabeth Beare as the first of the colonists who arrived on the Duke of York on 27 July 1836 to set foot on South Australian soil.

It is with pleasure that I move a motion today to recognise Elizabeth Beare. Members may be aware that Elizabeth Beare was a young child who was recorded as the first of the colonists who arrived on the Duke of York on 27 July 1836 to set foot on South Australian soil. Recently, I did a tour of the West Terrace Cemetery to acknowledge and recognise important women in South Australia. Her little gravesite was there, bearing the epitaph of her favoured position of being recognised as the first person to stand on South Australian soil.

I am not a descendant of the Beare family. There are many in South Australia, including Mr Neil Miller, who is a member of our Kangaroo Island Pioneers Association. In short, it should be noted that, although the Beare family came to Kangaroo Island initially, Mrs Beare later died and Mr Beare took his children to raise them in Adelaide. Sadly, at quite a young age, little Elizabeth Beare died as a result of severe burns to her body when her nightgown caught fire and, aged 12 years, she was laid to rest in West Terrace Cemetery. So, she never had the opportunity as an adult to record and speak in any public manner of her privileged and recognised position.

But in recent times, this acknowledgement has come under threat. Most particularly, I and others have observed that, in the excellent series, Bound for South Australia 1836, which has been sponsored by History SA (formerly the History Trust of South Australia) and which had been developed, I think, magnificently in the lead-up to the 175 years of the State of South Australia last year, there has been a published article, titled 'First landings—the story of Elizabeth Beare'.

I commend it to members to have a look at but, in essence, it challenges and presents to a level of fantasy the Elizabeth Beare story, I think unfairly, and suggests that the two contemporary accounts recorded in the diaries of Captain Robert Morgan, who was then master of the Duke of York, and the first colonial manager, Mr Samuel Stephens, should, on the reliability test, supersede other accounts of what had occurred, remembering that the Duke of York was one of three ships that had left England months before to come to South Australia to establish the colony (then known as 'white settlement') and that it was the first to arrive on Kangaroo Island.

It is accurate that there have been two written accounts by these gentlemen, neither of which actually refers to the taking onto the foreshore of little Elizabeth Beare, held by Robert Russell, who was then a crew member on the ship and who placed her little feet on the sand. Neither refers to that incident at all, but they are claimed to be consistent. I would urge members to read it. In essence, I do not think they are consistent; that is the first thing. Secondly, only in Samuel Stephens' recorded account does he claim, 'I was the first who ever set foot on the shore as a settler in the Colony of South A.'

Samuel Stephens, I remind members, was someone who had a rather interesting history himself, but it is fair to say that his life culminated in many allegations of his reputation being tainted by drunkenness, news of which had been conveyed to governor Hindmarsh on his arrival in December 1836. Finally, after keeping poor accounts he was replaced by another manager. His appointment and services were suspended when he was charged with killing a sailor from one of the company's rival whaling fisheries. He later had an untimely death. However, if any account of his life was to reflect on the reliability of any statement that is self-promoting, it would have to be suspect. In any event, let me briefly explain to the house why those who have been recognised in history, not with contemporaneous notes but with significant notes and I think unchallenged history, ought to be given some credibility.

One, of course, is from the older brother, William Loose Beare, who, reminiscing in an article printed years later, tells how his sister, Elizabeth, was rowed ashore by crew members and placed on the shore, thus becoming the first of the colonists to set foot on South Australian soil. Then, of course, we have the crew member himself, Robert Russell, who also recalled in a printed article published in the local newspaper how he had been the first person from the ship to set foot on shore when he carried Elizabeth through the surf and placed her on the beach.

Israel Mazey wrote a letter to the editor of The Advertiser to correct an error in one of their articles which stated that Samuel Stephens was the first to land. Mazey was one of the crew who rowed the boat to shore and handed baby Elizabeth to Russell who then placed her gently on the shore. There are others, of course, such as the numerous memorials across the state recognising Elizabeth Beare in this capacity. I have referred to the headstone at her gravesite in West Terrace Cemetery which is inscribed 'First European settler to land in South Australia 27 July 1836.'

There is a memorial erected at Reeves Point on Kangaroo Island proclaiming it to be the spot that Elizabeth became the first to land from the ship. A plaque placed in the Pioneer Cemetery above Reeves Point states that Elizabeth was the first to land. Catherine Helen Spence (recognised in our parliament for her extraordinary work), the famous woman writer and journalist, wrote in her autobiography that Elizabeth Beare was the first white person to set foot on South Australian soil. These matters are not to be dismissed in history as some kind of fanciful story that has just developed and been kept as some kind of legend or myth through history. This practice is not unusual, as members would know, when a significant event occurs.

Recently, I was reading a story of the history of the development of the Northern Territory, which members would know came from the support of the government. This parliament allocated funds for ships, supplies, personnel, and people charted with magisterial roles, etc., who were dispatched to the Northern Territory to try to ensure that we had the first telegraph link with the rest of the world. In fact, history shows that there was a race between the Eastern States and us in order to achieve that. Much energy and money from this state and blood, sweat and tears from explorers and the like was invested to ensure that was achieved—and it was.

In the course of things like that, when significant events occurred, it was not unusual for a child of the head party—the person who was vested with the responsibility from the Governor (whether a judicial role or whatever)—to be the one who was placed on the soil, on the riverbank, recognised with the flying of the flags, etc., and be the first to do something. I think using children in this way is a rather quaint and lovely tradition that could be kept up today when new frontiers are broken. They would be perhaps the most likely to outlive history (sadly, not for Elizabeth Beare) and be able to recount it in the future.

Sadly, as I said, little Elizabeth Beare did not survive past the age of 12 to be able to be part of that. I think it is a very sad day when we trample on her memory in this way without clear, incontrovertible evidence that supports a contrary position. Captain Robert Morgan was silent—silent, I repeat—in his history of what occurred. Whether in fact this little child had been secreted off in a boat with her father, the captain and members of the crew, as described, to place her on soil first, because there can often be rivalry between those who want to be the first to do things, surely is consistent with other historical events when children have been the selected party to be recorded in history with that honour.

I am a little concerned that this, having been published on the website rather unfairly, I think, suggesting that this is just a romantic account of history that has in some way been fed by family members, is rather mischievous in that it fails to recognise very significant unchallenged recordings of the event. Even in 1936, 100 years after landing—way before my time, I may say—there are photographic records now of the re-enactment of the first settlement in South Australia of a little child being placed on the beach. I think there was a little film made of it. The member for Finniss would probably recall that—he has probably seen it and might even be old enough to remember when it happened, but probably not.

Nevertheless, this is an important part of history. What turns on it? Not a lot in the sense of any entitlement, right, access to property, compensation or benefit—nothing. This little girl has long passed, but why should her memory be trampled without there being recognition in the proper manner? Members of the family and myself, on behalf of the KI Pioneers Association, have met with Ms Margaret Anderson of History SA, for whom I have high regard, and I applaud the work she does. Of course, we are in the middle of the history celebrations of the recognition of the state,.

We met with Ms Anderson some two months ago and asked that this be reviewed by History SA. Sadly, we have not had any response. I have advised her that I would be bringing this matter to the parliament, not as any challenge at all but simply to ensure that we do not allow this situation to prevail when there is an opportunity for it to be remedied. In this case, I think the article should be removed.

Professional historians might say, 'We will only rely when contemporary evidence is available, to discount others.' Of course, that has to be brought into the mix. As one who has looked at police notes many times in court cases, I understand the importance of contemporary notes and recognising that in the weight of evidence. However, in this case, I think we have failed, on the information that was contemporaneously recorded—other than a self-serving statement by a scoundrel like Samuel Stephens—if he should be able to overturn this historical record, which for so long has been revered, respected and properly acknowledged.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:29): On behalf of the government I have been asked to amend this motion to read:

That this house acknowledges that some believe Elizabeth Beare was the first of the colonists who arrived on the Duke of York on 27 July 1836 to set foot on South Australian soil. However, this house also recognises that this matter has not been settled by historians and that therefore it is not appropriate for parliament to pre-empt proper historical process.

In moving this amendment, I am advised that we should actually hasten slowly in this particular matter. Like many events in the past, it is not possible to say with certainty who was the first settler to set foot on the beach at Nepean Bay after the arrival of the first of the South Australian Company's ships.

Since there were already European residents on the island in 1836, the question itself is somewhat academic, especially as most of these residents remained as settlers in the new province. There were also children in the settlement at this time, but their presence has been disregarded because they were cross-race children born to European men and their Aboriginal partners. Setting that aside, there are two competing claims about who landed first—the colonial manager, Samuel Stephens (who claimed in his diary to be the first) and the two-year-old child, Elizabeth Beare.

There are two contemporary accounts of activities on 27 July, both apparently written on the day itself. The first was by Captain Robert Morgan, captain of the Duke of York, and the second by Samuel Stephens, the colonial manager. The full diary extracts from the day in question agree in all essential details with each other. Robert Morgan's diary says that after anchoring in Nepean Bay:

...at 10 or half past...we landed the colonial manager...and Mr Beare and we went to gather [together] to look for the lagoon but had to return unsuccessful, night coming on.

This is exactly what anyone would expect a captain to do on first landing in a place that had no formal settlement. He took the two senior company officials and several sailors with him and went to look over the beach and its surrounds, looking in particular for the lagoon marked on the old charts that was a possible source of fresh water.

Samuel Stephens' diary records the same events, except that he adds the claim that, 'I was the first who ever set foot on the shore as a settler in the Colony of South A,' as the member for Bragg has said. He then adds, 'We rambled a little while in the bush then examined the shore for some distance and returned at dark well pleased and well tired.' Of course, it is highly likely that the first to land the boat was actually a sailor, which may explain why Stephens adds the words 'as a settler' to his account, but it hardly matters. Although the two accounts differ a little in the detail they record, they are consistent in all essentials with each other.

The first time an account of an alternative version of events was recorded was in 1886, at the time of celebrations of the first 50 years of the colony. On 27 July 1886, the Register newspaper published an article by 'SS' who claimed to be the descendant of one of the pioneers. In researching this article, he spoke to Robert Russell, former second mate on the Duke of York, who 'spun him the yarn' he had earlier recounted as fact.

This story claims that, as the ship approached Kangaroo Island, the passengers began to bicker amongst themselves about who would be first to land. Captain Morgan decided to confound them by asking Russell and another sailor to take the two-year-old Elizabeth Beare ashore so that she could be the first. It is an appealing story and may actually have happened, but there is no hint in the 1836 sources that it did.

The main impediment to accepting this much more romantic tale is that the man who apparently was the instigator of the event, Captain Morgan, makes no mention of it either on the day or thereafter, although he records a great deal of other detail around the landings. He also records the day he took the children ashore himself some two weeks later. It seems very unlikely that he would have omitted this event from his diary if he had indeed organised it.

As might be expected from accounts 'remembered' after such a long period of time, there are many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the newspaper accounts and in Robert Russell's 'yarn', but it is the story that is widely accepted as fact amongst pioneer families from Kangaroo Island. They have tried to convince History SA to change the story told in the Bound for South Australia website, but of course this site is based on the original sources, which include no reference to it.

Last month, History SA received a delegation from the Kangaroo Island Pioneers Association, which included the member for Bragg in her role as patron of the association, and at that meeting the member for Bragg and others disputed the account of Samuel Stephens. History SA has concluded—and said as much on the Bound for South Australia site—that while it is impossible to say with certainty that Elizabeth Beare was not the first settler to set foot on shore (although Russell actually claims this honour for himself since she was a mere baby and had to be carried), there is no convincing evidence that she was and, after weighing all the evidence, it is more likely that it was indeed the much disliked Samuel Stephens.

History SA has not yet advised the Kangaroo Island Pioneers Association that this may be their likely decision, as they wish to examine several other sources to be sure that there is no earlier reference to the incident than that of 1886. On behalf of the government I am advised the subject of this motion is one of those events that is disputed in history. Unfortunately, the records of the past are not always as clear or complete as we would like, and this is one such occasion, notwithstanding Catherine Helen Spence's entry—as she was not there herself, it would be very difficult for her to know certainly. Elizabeth Beare's place is still part of history, and I do not think anyone doubts that. In this case, I am told, while there are two contemporary accounts of the events, they are broadly consistent with each other and neither makes mention of the two-year-old child, Elizabeth Beare.

I am further advised that Elizabeth Beare's story did not appear until some 50 years later and that the public version of the story that appeared at this time contained many inaccuracies and inconsistencies. In cases such as this, where there is disputed evidence of past events, it is the government's view the decision should be left to historians and that it is not the place of parliament to make such judgements. Without irrefutable evidence, I therefore commend the amendment to the house and note the member for Bragg's connection, deep interest and continuing contribution to Kangaroo Island and its history, and the preservation of history more generally in South Australia.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:35): I am absolutely amazed. I just find it absolutely, totally and completely ridiculous that the member for Florey should stand up and try to change the course of history. My children—

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: On behalf of the government.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: You've had a go, Frances. My children happen to be seventh generation Kangaroo Islanders and there is absolutely no doubt on the island—and that includes the KI Pioneers Association and longstanding residents (whose history goes right back and who include the member for Bragg)—over what took place on Kangaroo Island on 27 July 1836.

On top of that, we had the former premier, Mike Rann, over there last year for the 175^th anniversary, who was very strongly moved on that day. I took him down to the old cemetery and we discussed the history of the place. It just seems to me as though the government does not want to in any way, shape or form support what the member for Bragg's motion puts in the parliament. We do not want the course of history changed. I find it absolutely ridiculous that History SA did not even have the courtesy or the decency to go back to the KI Pioneers Association (of which I am also a patron), either chapter, the one in Adelaide or the one on Kangaroo Island. They did not have the decency to go back to the organisations.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: They did not have the decency, member for Florey. What they did was set you up to come in here to preach the party line to the parliament on this, and I find it outrageous. I can tell you what, it will not go down too well on the island. It will not go down very well at all with the KI Pioneers Association. I do not know why you want to try to twist the course of history around. Samuel Stephens, be in no doubt, was an absolutely useless drunken fool. It is well recognised. The member for Bragg adequately dictated to the house the history. She has done copious amounts of work on it, but oh no, History SA has to get up there and try to turn it round. They cannot bear to think that someone else might have more knowledge than them.

Why on earth you would not seek to support this motion defies comprehension. It is not going to go away. If you want to change the course of history over what is agreed, and has been agreed for 175 years, by coming in here and preaching from the current latter day brainstormers in History SA, I find it very disappointing. It will go down like a lead balloon. Many people in South Australia would not even know where the first settlement was. They would not know when it happened and as South Australia progresses they will know even less.

The fact is that the Kangaroo Island community, through the local council and through the Pioneers Association chapter there and the Pioneers Association chapter in Adelaide, keeps this thing going and keeps it alive. We get nothing each year. The former premier, Mike Rann, came over last year, but, by and large, it just escapes and disappears. It is singularly the most important day in South Australia's history, in my view. We have argued about Proclamation Day being 28 December for years. South Australia started when Elizabeth Beare set foot on Kangaroo Island on 27 July 1836. There is no question about that. Why you cannot accept it I do not know. I am very disappointed with the government's response to the member for Bragg's motion. We will keep battling away on it, I can tell you.

I cannot understand the logic. It seems to me that History SA has a bent towards the KI Pioneers Association; they do not offer much in the way of support, I might add. I just find it amazing. I support the member for Bragg's motion.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:40): I am actually astounded that a member of the parliament would be reporting to us today that she is speaking on behalf of the government, that a motion such as this would even capture the attention of the Australian Labor Party enough to have a government position on this. It seems to me, on the proposed amended motion, that the government, having said, 'Let's move slowly on this,' should suggest that this motion should be amended in this manner, when the very basis upon which they seek to remedy history and support History SA, that that organisation itself has not even come back with a response. It claims is that it is still investigating. They have not reported that to myself or any other members of the group that went to them, including, I can confirm, a descendant of the Beare family.

The Beare family is apparently a very expansive group. They live in Adelaide and other parts of South Australia because, as I said, the widower and his children moved to Adelaide after the untimely death of Mrs Beare, and they have really taken up most of their history in South Australia on mainland Australia. So the people of Kangaroo Island are not vested with this particular responsibility to protect the interests of Elizabeth Beare. She is a daughter of South Australia, of all South Australia, and needs to be recognised.

I thank the member for Florey for making a contribution. I am quite astounded that the government would like to keep the limbo type of status of this when it could be remedied, even though others in the current state may take the view that there is a challenge to some of this information. It could be simply remedied by removing this article from the website. Others will go on researching and looking at a number of issues in relation to the establishment of South Australia, and in this case the first colonists, but I am disappointed that the government should make some type of pre-emptive strike to remove this recognition in history, to relegate it to the unknown and to a status that it has not been the subject of until the article published by History SA.

If we are going to take it back to a level playing field, let us get rid of the article and let us support this motion. If and when comprehensive evidence to the contrary comes to the fore and dismisses it, then and only then should that be quelled. As the member for Finniss has indicated, the former premier came to Kangaroo Island last year and gave the State of the State address on Settlement Day, which was appreciated and which, of course, was in recognition of an important event.

There has never been a challenge to 28 December 1836 as Proclamation Day. That is and remains the recognised day, not only of the establishment of the colony but indeed of the proclamation of government. That is a very important day: it was a day in which, uniquely in the world of settlements, South Australia was going to become a colony which respected its Indigenous first residents in the area which was mapped out to be colony of South Australia.

South Australia was at the forefront of ensuring that there would be a protection of freedoms enshrined in the community that was going to be developed here. We have a very proud history in South Australia, including Proclamation Day. I am very disappointed that the government will attempt to strike down what has been the history for 174 years as a result of an article by one historian.

The house divided on the amendment:

Majority of 7 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.