Indigenous Cultural Heritage Schemes in Victoria, Queensland and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

However, over several revisions the Burra Charter has reflected developments in heritage philosophy, embracing the notion that significance in heritage lies in its importance to people connected with it. Much of the revised content of the 1999 Burra Charter deals with the need to appreciate a broader range of significant heritage elements. Article 3 of the 1999 version now states that ‘conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings,’ while Article 12 stipulates that ‘conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has special associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place.’ New approaches to heritage protection By the mid 1980s, increased understanding of Aboriginal cultures and beliefs prompted governments and heritage practitioners to reassess their understanding of Indigenous heritage. Some jurisdictions produced new or amended legislation, including some acknowledgement, at least in a few very specific categories, of the possibility of non‐archaeological significance in Aboriginal heritage. In South Australia, new Acts were established in 1979 and again in 1988. The second of these was the current Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, which provides protection for archaeological sites and artefacts as well as objects and sites that are of ‘significance to Aboriginal tradition.’ 10 In Queensland, the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1967 was updated by the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Amendment Act 1976, which was itself replaced a decade later by the Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987. The latter of these provided some recognition of areas that were significant to ‘humans for any anthropological, cultural, historic, prehistoric or societal reason.’ 11 This allowed for some protection of items of non‐archaeological significance, although it remained open to much interpretation. 12 A pivotal event for new approaches to Indigenous heritage, at least in theory, was the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the ATSIHP Act). The limitations of existing state and territory legislation had become increasingly evident during a spate of incidents in the 1970s and early 1980s, including the controversial oil‐drilling of sacred sites at Noonkanbah Station in Western Australia in 1980. The intent of the ATSIHP Act 10 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA), s. 3 11 Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987 (Qld), s.5. 12 Ross, ibid. p.6. 5
was to provide a safety net for Aboriginal heritage where state and territory regimes failed to provide appropriate protection. It explicitly covered items and places of significance to ‘Aboriginals or Islanders in accordance with their traditions.’ 13 However, according to the 1996 inquiry into the ATSIHP Act by Justice Evatt, the execution of the Act remained easily manipulated due to the ways in which Ministerial discretion was exercised and the lack of scope for proactive protection. 14 Despite progress in some states, in other jurisdictions heritage legislation has changed little, although reviews of legislation and progress towards change are occurring in most circumstances. For example, Western Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 both remain in force, largely in their original formats, despite several recent reviews and inquiries. In New South Wales, the Heritage Act 1977 allows for Indigenous places to be nominated to the NSW Heritage Register if they are ‘considered of high significance to the cultural heritage values of the community or to the Aboriginal peoples of NSW’, 15 but there has never been a specific Act dedicated to Indigenous heritage. Aboriginal heritage is also incorporated into sections dealing with archaeological materials in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The Victorian government attempted to introduce new legislation in the 1980s to replace its Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972, but was prevented from doing so by the State Opposition’s Upper House majority. The Victorian government appealed to the Commonwealth for assistance, which, in response, amended the ATSIHP Act to include Part IIA, which provided specific protection for objects and places of particular significance to Aboriginal people in Victoria, in accordance with their traditions. This scheme remained in force until the recent enactment of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Consultation models: ‘Ask First’ By the 1990s, despite the persistence of ’relics’ legislation, processes and policies favouring consultation were typically implemented at agency level. These were manifested mostly in the form of direct contact between heritage agencies and 13 Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Commonwealth), 1984, Australian and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act1984: A guide to how the Act works. Australian Government Printing Office, Canberra. p.11. 14 Evatt, E., 1996, Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. Canberra, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Affairs. 15 http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/06_subnav_01_1.htm (accessed 1 April 2009). 6
Page 1: Indigenous Cultural Heritage Scheme
Page 4 and 5: © Commonwealth of Australia 2009 T
Page 6 and 7: Background to this Report The Gover
Page 8 and 9: Heritage Protection in Australia: a
Page 12 and 13: traditional owner groups and consid
Page 14 and 15: declare temporary or permanent prot
Page 16 and 17: Australians’ ‘aspirations for g
Page 18 and 19: Indigenous Heritage Protection in V
Page 20 and 21: (e) to promote public awareness and
Page 22 and 23: may also request further informatio
Page 24 and 25: The Regulations also provide a pres
Page 26 and 27: may also be delegated to the Secret
Page 28 and 29: Disputes regarding the production o
Page 30 and 31: • Registered Aboriginal parties o
Page 32 and 33: interest and expertise in the herit
Page 34 and 35: (2) A registered native title claim
Page 36 and 37: Categorising complex heritage via s
Page 38 and 39: Indigenous Heritage Protection in Q
Page 40 and 41: (b) recognising Aboriginal ownershi
Page 42 and 43: Categories 1‐4 require little to
Page 44 and 45: • Some hill and mound formations
Page 46 and 47: Importantly, for proponents, having
Page 48 and 49: The legislation outlines several ma
Page 50 and 51: (2) The database is intended to be
Page 52 and 53: likely to excavate, relocate, remov
Page 54 and 55: Aboriginal cultural heritage bodies
Page 56 and 57: observers to build a measured opini
Page 58 and 59: under section 23.’ 169 There is a
Page 60 and 61:
Indigenous Heritage Protection in t
Page 62 and 63:
The Sacred Sites Act refers the rea
Page 64 and 65:
A prescribed archaeological place o
Page 66 and 67:
• The need for the Authority to u
Page 68 and 69:
and • Deciding on whether or not
Page 70 and 71:
customs and beliefs as applied in r
Page 72 and 73:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) the
Page 74 and 75:
an agreement between custodian and
Page 76 and 77:
The land registration regimes admin
Page 78:
Levitus, R. 2007, ‘Laws and strat
show all

Indigenous Cultural Heritage Schemes in Victoria, Queensland and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?