Letter to the Prime Miniser of Australia

Dear Mr Howard

No doubt you are aware of the present legal challenge by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Corporation (TAC) to the decision of the British Natural History Museum in relation to the Indigenous remains held by that Museum. Put simply, the TAC is concerned at the persistent activities of the Museum in desecration of the remains of our ancestors.

The Centre for Indigenous Cultural Policy shares the views of the TAC on this matter.

The Centre has been recently established to reflect the views of Indigenous Queenslanders that the repatriation of their ancestral remains and cultural artefacts is part of the continuum of concerns about the direction for Indigenous art and culture. The Centre sees that ownership and control of contemporary expressions of art and culture are also part of that continuum.

We believe that the actions of the British Natural History Museum are out of step with the spirit of the agreement reached between you and the Prime Minister of Great Britain on this matter that was signed in July 2000.

The Centre for Indigenous Cultural Policy is at present, with the support of the Queensland Government, consulting with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to identify their views on the proper means to handle ancestral and human remains. The clear view that is emerging from these consultations is certainly that this important material needs to be handled with care and dignity, and should be repatriated intact to the traditional owners of the material.

In short, we believe that on this issue the views of the Commonwealth Government and the Traditional Owners of Queensland are in line.

I would like to propose a joint approach to the Prime Minister of Great Britain on this matter. I have also written to the Premier of Queensland with a similar proposal. The outcome we would seek is that the matter be resolved in line with the spirit of the Agreement with the UK, and that repatriation of these remains proceeds forthwith, with no further desecration.

At this point, I plan to travel to the UK early next week with Michael Mansell of the TAC to attend the Hearing. You may like to consider how the interests of the Commonwealth Government in this matter, which is of great significance to indigenous Australians, should be represented at this Hearing.

I look forward to hearing your urgent response to this important concern.

Yours faithfully

Bob Weatherall
Chair
14 February 2007

Repatriation of Ancestral Remains - the Queensland Position

The Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs released the. Draft Version 2.00 Queensland Government Policy on the Protection and Return of Significant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Property in 1993. The Policy’s principal objectives are to:

• Recognise the ownership and custodial rights of Australia’s Indigenous peoples with respect to movable significant cultural property which is currently in the possession of public institutions both in Australia and overseas:

• Facilitate the return of such property to the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or communities; and

• Require holders of private collections to return cultural properties to their rightful owners where possible.

The Queensland legislation

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 intends that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage should be protected.

The Acts recognise that Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people who have a traditional or familial link with Aboriginal human remains are the owners of those remains regardless of how they have been held previously. They may at any time ask the State to return the human remains to them.

Five fundamental principles underlie the main purpose of the Act. These are that:

1. The recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage should be based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge, culture and traditional practices;
2. Aboriginal people should be recognised as the primary guardians, keepers and knowledge holders of Aboriginal cultural heritage;
3. It is important to respect, preserve, and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of Aboriginal communities and to promote understanding of Aboriginal cultural heritage;
4. Activities involved in recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage are important because they allow Aboriginal people to reaffirm their obligations to 'law and country'
5. There is a need to establish timely and efficient processes for the management of activities that may harm Aboriginal cultural heritage.' (Part 1, Division 2, s 5).

However, there js as yet no clear and unambiguous process that empowers Indigenous decision making surrounding the identification, storage, care and eventual repatriation of Indigenous human remains.

The legislation also includes provisions regarding blanket protection of significant sites, duty of care, the establishment of a cultural heritage register, assessment of significant sites, development of management plans, allocations of permits, stop work orders, penalties and prosecution. However, again, the means by which Indigenous peoples and communities manage and make decisions on these matters continues to be unclear and under resourced across the state.

Repatriation - the Australian situation

Statutory Obligations

At the present time there are no statutory obligations placed on Australian museums and collecting institutions, Commonwealth, State or Territory, regarding care and management of human remains.

Museums Australia – policy and guidelines

Museums Australia is the peak national and professional body representing the Australian museum and gallery sector.

Museums Australia has adopted the “Continuous Cultures, Ongoing Responsibilities” policy which outlines its principles and guidelines for working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage. The policy emerged from a survey of 48 Australian museums, art galleries, state libraries and archives with significant collections of Indigenous material. While it is a valuable guide for collecting institutions throughout Australia, it has no enforcement powers.

This is a continuation of a policy called Previous Possessions, New Obligations, which was launched in 1993. the plain English version of this policy, which was released for Indigenous communities and small museums and galleries is now the most widely distributed version.

National Museum of Australia

Under Section 21(c) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1987, the National Museum of Australia (NMA) is identified as a Prescribed Authority, on behalf of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, for the purposes of safe-keeping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human remains for which the Minister cannot identify the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community.

This includes provenanced and unprovenanced remains that have been returned to Australia from overseas institutions and placed in the NMA Repository.

The Museum has no authority to be a repository for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human remains under any other legislation.

AAAC National Task Force on the Return of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Property.

On 22^nd October 1993, the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council (AAAC) National Task Force established “National Principles on the Return of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Human Remains and Significant Cultural Property”.

The Principles call for recognition of Aboriginal ownership of ancestral human remains and cultural property and emphasise the pre-eminent role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the repatriation process.

The Principles were adopted by the governments of the Commonwealth and each State and Territory; they also committed to progress the development of an overarching and collaborative legislative and policy framework on repatriation. The Principles were also picked up in the draft Repatriation Policy of the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC).

However, in spite of attempts by ATSIC in the 13 years since then, no national framework has been established and no Government has mirrored the minimum standards of the ATSIC draft document or have set any statutory obligations in place.

Repatriation of Ancestral Remains - International provisions

Indigenous remains and sacred materials found their way into overseas institutions and individual collections through the long history of invasion and takeover of Indigenous peoples and their property. There are two major policies that cover the handling of these collections.

UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage

The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World Heritage Convention) was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1972. To date, more than 170 countries have adhered to the Convention.

The Convention aims to encourage the identification, protection, and preservation of earth’s cultural and natural heritage, including sites with archaeological, scientific, ethnological, or anthropological value.

UK. Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums

In 2004, the British Government passed the Human Tissues Act, which for there first time allows museums in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to release the remains in their collections. The July 2004 consultation, Care of Historic Human Remains, showed widespread support within the museum sector for guidance on the issue and the publication ‘A Guide for the Care of Human Remains in Museums’ was consequently published in 2005.

Policies, Policy Analysis, Policy Making And Implementation

Indigenous people across Australia are in the process of addressing what policies should:-

• Underpin the governance system of our communities and organizations,

• Guide economic and social development strategic planning and implementation,

• Inform the carriage or management of the pertinent issues of the day.

However, what is not taking place is the construction of a policy standards system within which all policies and policy making should be framed.

Policies can be both particular directions and a set of principles that an organization or government choose to create and follow.

A policy standards system relates closely to the set of principles part of policy making, if such a system were to be incorporated within Indigenous communities and organizations, then the necessary political, economic and social solutions will become more coherent, manageable and achievable.

After the initial analysis/critique, discussion and negotiation regarding the current circumstance or status of situations and the required direction chosen, then the infrastructure of the standards system should be constructed.

The Centre assists and support Indigenous communities and organizations at all points of policy development but especially at the last stage of putting in place the policy standards system.

There should not be an assumption that such a policy standards system will be a mirror image of government systems.

A policy standards system is a kind of soft infrastructure with several layers:

• The first layer is the body of technical expertise – a government agency, a national forum or a private association – that writes the standard. In the case of the Centre involvement in writing the standard, this would take place only after extensive research and appropriate consultation with Indigenous stakeholders.

• The second layer is the mechanism for assuring that services, activities (or goods) that claim to meet the relevant standard do in fact conform to the standard, that is, compliance to that standard.

• The third layer is the audit system that ensures that the assessment is working properly. This is like an accreditation and recognition system.

The Centre adds two further layers:

• A layer between the first and second layers - a comprehensive skills training and policy advice and education phase delivered by the Centre to the community councils, organization staff and spokespeople for particular issues.

• A final layer consisting of the documentation of the construction of the whole policy standards system, the process of this documentation would have its own training and education component. Included in this documentation would be the findings of any research (papers, statistics or models) carried out in relation to the services and/or activities in question.

The Centre’s model of policy standards system applied assists Indigenous people to become more familiar in a constructive way with the culture of policy making that would enable them to manage entities and discharge responsibilities more effectively instead of seeing such systems as problematic or overwhelming.

The Centre’s vision for policy setting

Interest in cultural heritage is growing on an international scale as a development and identity issue. Aboriginal Australia is rich and unique in terms of history, cultural expression, knowledge and experience, both ancient and modern. The aim of the Centre is to develop cultural policies that protect and preserve the ancient legacy for future generations of Indigenous people, promote and advocate community and economic development, strong, supportive families, accountable, competent government and effective educational systems

The aim is also to promote and provide assistance for this process, in order to share knowledge; contribute to a genuine appreciation of Indigenous cultural heritage and the arts, respectful of its integrity and of peoples for whom it constitutes a living environment, in an equilibrium to be found between economic and social development and the preservation of cultural and cultural heritage.

The central core of any culture is the ethical or value system to which members of that culture adhere; the manifest expressions of culture are political, social and economic structures. The ethical centre provides the guide/compass point for human and spiritual action and intent.

The political, social and economic structures provide the boundaries and extensions of outcomes arising from that action and intent. How to measure this cultural praxis and its aspirations, outcomes and effects on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, along with impact of Westernisation, is the task that the Centre has set itself.

The vision

For Indigenous Peoples, the expression of culture often spans across a spectrum of activity: according due respect to their ancestors and their traditional cultural artefacts; caring for country and waters; attending to ceremonial duties. It also incorporates contemporary expression of culture – in dance, visual arts, film, media and literature.

The link between Indigenous culture and the “health” of Indigenous community is also clear, and strong.

Too often, though, the task of interpreting and even expressing Indigenous culture is taken up by non-Indigenous people and institutions. This not only brings the potential for wrong views to emerge, but deprives the Indigenous community of the right and the privilege of representing their culture to others themselves. Community health may consequently suffer.

Queensland is the home to two distinct Indigenous cultures. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in remote, regional and urban areas each practice their cultures in rich and diverse ways, and this rich expression of cultures should be treated as a cultural asset to Queensland.