AAA SUBMISSION ON THE EFFICACY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE ACTS IN QUEENSLAND

annie.ross@uq.edu.au

This submission has been prepared by the Australian Archaeological Association Inc. (AAA). Members include professional archaeologists, Aboriginal people (many of whom are also professional archaeologists), archaeology students, and others with an interest in Queensland Indigenous heritage.

The AAA has presented evidence that the Queensland Indigenous Cultural Heritage Acts do not meet their principal aim ‘to provide effective protection and conservation of Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage’. In particular,

1. The Acts do not provide adequate protection for non-physical heritage;
2. Duty of Care provisions only consider surface archaeological remains, thereby ignoring important buried heritage;
3. Significance assessment is separated from the CHMP process;
4. Indigenous intellectual property is not recognised.

The AAA has documented four main failings of the Acts:

The four main issues:
Issue/Description
1 Duty of Care/The Duty of Care Guidelines do not allow for identification and assessment of significant intangible heritage, nor the assessment of buried and potentially very old and important heritage remains.
2 Identifying Indigenous Parties/The use of Native Title as the basis for identifying Indigenous Parties is flawed and requires modification to ensure that all traditional owners with a connection to country are able to participate in heritage management.
3 Significance assessment and CHMPS/The separation of significance assessment from the CHMP process is not acceptable as best practice cultural heritage management.
4 Database and Register management/The processes for placing heritage onto the Database or Register will not ensure adequate planning information is available, nor will they allow for the recognition of Indigenous living heritage.

The AAA proposes a number of solutions to these problems, including:

• A greater role for the regulatory authority in oversight of Duty of Care, with a wider recognition of the impacts of land use on intangible and buried heritage;

• A more equitable process for recognising Indigenous Parties;

• The re-establishment of mandatory site investigation and significance assessment as an integral part of the CHMP process;

• A more flexible approach to heritage registration, especially on the Database;

• The recognition of Indigenous intellectual property;

• The establishment of a Queensland Indigenous Cultural Heritage Board to provide advice and oversight of Indigenous heritage management in Queensland.