Discussion paper (PDF - 459 KB)

Immunity from Seizure for Cultural Objects on Loan - Discussion Paper 20116. Periods of Dispossession, Occupation or Nationalisation of PropertyShould immunity be provided for objects for which provenance gaps exist during known periods ofwar, looting or theft, for example Europe in 1933-45 and 19th century colonial North Africa? What isa reasonable amount of information that should be provided for objects in this circumstance?It is internationally recognised that in particular periods of history, cultural objects, have been thetarget of theft, compulsory acquisition by Governments or occupying powers, or nationalisation(including, but not limited to, 1933-1945 in the areas of Europe occupied by the Axis powers, and1917-21 in revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union). In such circumstances accurate and crediblerecords are not always kept or such records are unreliable, which can make it difficult to ascertain thetrue provenance of an object. It is also possible that the provenance of an object for which ownershipwas transferred in these circumstances has been deliberately given a false provenance in order to hideits illicit history and/or transfer of possession or ownership. There are several internationalorganisations which work to seek artworks and cultural objects missing from such periods; the Art Lossregister is one example.The Australian Government is interested in gaining input on this issue – how should such items bedealt with under the immunity provisions? Should immunity be granted if the lender and borrower candemonstrate best practice in investigating provenance? How should best practice be measured? Whatstandards should be introduced/used (for example code of ethics, a requirement to state that the ArtLoss Register, ICOM Red Lists, etc. have been checked)? Should all objects which have disputedprovenance from these eras be refused immunity?7. Inter-country and inter-state loansIf Australian objects, including Australian Protected Objects (APOs) were included as eligible forcoverage under potential immunity from seizure legislation, should coverage also extend to loansbetween Australian states and territories which may not have an international element (i.e. theobjects are from Australian collections, not international collections)?Initial representations to the Australian Government on this matter have suggested objects on loanwithin Australia (from one state or territory to another) should also be eligible to provide protectionfrom particular state and territory laws which may allow unforeseen claims.Should legislation include state to state coverage? Do you foresee any problems or issues with offeringimmunity domestically? Are you aware of any State or Territory laws which have been implemented toallow the capture of objects upon their entry into a particular jurisdiction and which may be affected bythe implementation of domestic immunity from seizure legislation?13