Talk:Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some Additional Refs, for Proposed Expansion[edit]

  • [1] Allens Arthur Robinson (2004) Queensland moves to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage. Focus Native Title
  • [2] Brisbane Indigenous Media Association (2008) "Cultural Heritage Bodies". Talking About Country Newsletter 11 pg 4
  • [3] Deanna Cartledge, (2004) A New Approach To Protecting Indigenous Cultural Heritage In Queensland, Paper by Local Government Queensland's Native Title and Indigenous Heritage Project Officer, given at Queensland Local Government Heritage Services Conference, Museum & Gallery Services Queensland.
  • [4] Department of Natural Resources and Water (2008) Cultural Heritage: Fact Sheet
  • [5] Department of Natural Resources and Water 'Significant Places' webpage
  • [7] High Court of Australia's Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [1981] HCA 50
  • [8] Jonathan Fulcher (2006) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage on the Eastern Seaboard. Minter Ellison
  • [9] Land Rights Queensland (2000) Cultural Heritage: The Main Points of Difference (showing Indig working group vs Qld Govt differences)
  • [10] Mike Rowland and Malcolm Connolly (2002) Towards GIS Mapping and Spatial Modelling of Archaeological Sites in the Southeast Queensland Bioregion
  • [11] Anthony Seiver (2005) Defining the Offence of Unlawfully Destroying Aboriginal Heritage. Indigenous Law Bulletin 11.
  • [12] Susan Shearing (2006) ONE STEP FORWARD? RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN STATE AND TERRITORY INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE LAWS
  • [13] Long, Stephen (2005). Abstract for Gidyea Fire: A Study of the Transformation and Maintenance of Aboriginal Place Properties on the Georgina River PhD Thesis, School of Architecture, The University of Queensland.

Bruceanthro (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 cases, for expansion[edit]

This was an application for an injunction to prevent destruction of 'protected' Aboriginal cultural heritage which failed because transitional provisions to the Act allowed for decisions made prior to the Act's commencing .. to proceed without fear of breaching the Act .. and in this case the Gold Coast City Council had made decision to proceed with the Coomera Water project on 29 April 2003 (prior to the Act's commenciong)
Powerlink submitted a cultural heritage management plan to be approved and registered by the Minister, to which Jagera people objected on such grounds as the way an archaeological 'expert' was to be selected and the amounts that Aboriginal heritage monitors will be paid .. with the Tribunal's president ruling in favour of Powerlink and setting standards such as $300 per day pay for Aboriginal monitors etc
This is another application for a cultural heritage management plan to be approved and registered, despite some members of the Aboriginal parties opposing it's approval, primarily on grounds of percieved inadequate survey of Aboriginal heritage likely to be damaged by the by-pass .. being an objection which was overruled (and plan approved) on the Tribunal's reckoning of what is or is not sufficient standard.
This is another application for cultural heritage management plan to be approved and registered, in this case in relation to building 750 bed hospital at Southport. Couple of samples of cultural heritage had been found at the site, leading it to be assumed more of heritage significance would be found .. and Aboriginal people not happy to let couple hold sole responsiblity and control over protecting that heritage .. wanting instead to see archaeologist involved on site .. this being a position generally agreed, in part, by the Court

Bruceanthro (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act history[edit]

Compilation of refs, for proposed article expansion, as follows:

19900000: [14] FAIRA, an Aboriginal research organization for Action Research reviews and critiques Queensland's legislation[edit]

A. Marrie, The Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987: A Critique, Consultant's Report to FAIRA, Brisbane, (March, 1990) concludes and advises:

"The Cultural Record Act is a legislative blue print for the obliteration of much of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage of Queensland. Under the authority of either an unsympathetic Minister, or a Governor-in-Council aggressively opposed to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests, this Act can be used to wreak the utmost havoc on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage with no avenues of recourse save the federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984-1987"

For almost 2 years Queensland Government representatives in the new Goss Government had been promising to consider new legislation to replace the previous government's legislation. Now, in March the Minister for Environment and Heritage confirmed they would look at new legislation .. perhaps releasing a Green Paper .. though in the end a Green Paper and new legislation is introduced only for 'historical' or 'European' heritage .. and the promise of newer, better indigenous protection is left suspended ...

19960000: [15] Public Reviews and Critiques of Queensland Heritage legislation[edit]

  • Evatt, Hon E. 1996, Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. [Presented to the Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal and TSI Affairs], Canberra, August 1996.
  • Ritchie, D. 1996, Australian Heritage Protection Laws: An Overview, paper presented by D. Ritchie at the AAS/AIATSIS Workshop on Heritage Issues, 14- 15 February 1996


In association with the Evatt review of commonwealth legislation, there is a combined public review and critique of Queensland's cultural heritage protection legislation, with Richie concluding Queensland ‘has one of the worst site protection regimes in Australia’

19980000: [16] & The Case of the Missing Blanket: Indigenous Heritage and States' Regimes[edit]

New Commonwealth heritage legislation is circulated as a Bill .. ostensibly having had regard to outcomes of the Evatt review (see above) .. intending to withdraw degree of Commonwealth involvement in cultural heritage protection by requiring State's to undertake own cultural heritage protection to a minimum national standard .. primarily be submitting new heritage schemes to the Commonwealth for Commonwealth certification and/or approval.
Queensland's existing legislation remains inadequate .. and as it's anticipated a Commonwealth will expect compliance with a National standard .. it is necessary for Queensland to submit a new scheme to the anticipated standard. Queensland Government therefore announces it'll review the adequacy of the existing cultural heritage legislation (the Cultural Records Act) (See here)

19990100: South East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement[edit]

Following 19 seminars and work done over 4 months towards the end of 1998, Indigenous Cultural Heritage Management "Guiding Principles for Forest Management" for the forested areas of South-East Queensland are developed (together with local native title representative bodies) .. which includes the following principles:

"1.0 Aboriginal cultural heritage values are holistic and evolving. Cultural heritage includes the spiritual, physical, social and economic environment and the inherent process of the teaching of Aboriginal culture."

"7.1 Cultural heritage places should not be seen or managed in isolation from the forest landscape, or the spiritual, social and economic environment in which they exist."

"7.2 The cultural heritage of forests should be identified and protected as part of the long term planning for forested areas, with appropriate Aboriginal involvement. Cultural heritage surveys should be conducted before long term land use decisions are made and land use decisions must protect and be consistent with the cultural significance of landscapes and places."

19990400: Resources lacking for cultural heritage consultation[edit]

After years of indigenous organizations and people expressing concern about the ineffectiveness of the state's then existing heritage legislation (Cultural Record (Landscape Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987) the State announced a review of it's heritage legislation, for which submissions were to be made by 29 March 2009.

Perceived major shortcomings of the legislation are identified as follows:

  • existing Government interpretations of "Indigenous Peoples needs" do not take into account contemporary understanding of the rights of Indigenous Peoples;
  • deals primarily with archaeological evidence and data without regard for contemporary Indigenous People's relationships with important sites;
  • denies, ignores, or excludes Indigenous Peoples' landscapes;
  • does not recognised Indigenous people's ownership of cultural property.

20000200: Update on cultural heritage legislation[edit]

Chair of the Queensland Indigenous Working Group (QIWG), Terry O'Shane, asserts that there are no current heritage laws protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage in an effective, meaningful way (which is tantamount to cultural genocide). It seems that State had on 22 December 1999 released a draft cultural heritage protection model for consultation .. and Aboriginal advocates are urging Commonwealth Government that it should not approve the State scheme as it failed to recognize the internationally endorsed, inherent right of Indigenous peoples to own, control, administer and govern their own cultural heritage

20000225: Statewide Forum on Indigenous cultural heritage[edit]

Chairperson of Queensland Government's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board, Bob Anderson announced that, in cooperation with QIWG, a Statewide forum on indigenous heritage is to be held .. to enable elders, traditional law makers, and Aboriginal peoples with authority to compare and contrast State proposed and QIWG proposed models of cultural heritage protection. It seems the AITS Advisory Board, as Qld Govt's primary source of independent policy advice, would not themselves respond or recommend a preferred approach to heritage legislation, but, rather, assist people to become informed and respond as they see appropriate/proper.

20000300: QIWG encourages all Indigenous Queenslanders to oppose legislation[edit]

Comments on the Queensland State Government's proposed cultural heritage legislation are to be made by 13 April 2000, with new draft legilsation proposed to be presented in Parliament by June 2000. The State released its proposal after a period of intensive discussions during 1999 during which QIWG presented the State with a preferred model .. which had nothing to do with what the State are now proposing:

"QIWG members, who include Queensland's native title representative bodies, believe that the draft model completely fails to deal with the problems associated with Queensland's existing cultural heritage legislation. Indeed, in their view, the draft model is more about streamlining approval processes for developers than about offering effective protection for Indigenous cultural heritage."

In contention is the extent to which 'ownership' of indigenous heritage is given to indigenous peoples themselves (vs State) .. and the extent to which indigenous peoples are assisted and empowered to protect their own heritage (vs State). It seems in the state model, on almost all dimensions (including access to heritage, intellectual property in heritage, and significance assessments) the State has taken most/all ownership and powers ..

20000513 Premier gets cultural heritage rights message[edit]

Following a three day 'State wide' forum held in the Brisbane City Hall's 'Ithaca' Auditorium' .. in time for close of submissions to proposed Queensland model of cultural heritage .. indigenous participants march a bark painting of cultural heritage principles (the Ithaca Statement) to personally deliver to then Queensland Premier Peter Beattie.
Included in the Ithaca statement here is a request for the State to discard it's model heritage legislation, disband it's current consultation and negotiation processes, and, instead, form a predominantly indigenous task force made up of nominees from indigenous groups .. to undertake more substantial, better resourced consultations and better ensure better regard is had for international human rights and indigenous rights laws etc

20010400: New Cultural Heritage Legislation: One Small Step for Murris, One Giant Leap Forward for the Queensland Government[edit]

Following public consultations, submissions made and other events (above) in April 2001 Queensland Government released an amended cultural heritage model/proposal .. for legislation to replace the replace the "..archaic and ineffectual Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987 (Qld).." .. and Aboriginal employees with Queensland's Environmental Protection Agency (managing Cultural Records Act):
- identify faults of Cultural Records Act as, primarily, providing handkerchief (vs blanket) protection, & an outdated ideology usurped by, and largely abandoned following the Mabo native title decision
- conclude that:

"The CRA is seemingly well intentioned in proclaiming to ‘provide for the preservation and management of all components of Landscapes Queensland and the Queensland Estate’, yet it is so fundamentally flawed in its structure, outdated in its ideology and poorly supported in its administration that for Indigenous people it can only be seen as an embarrassing failure from a distant past era. The proposed new legislation may improve protection for Indigenous cultural heritage through the introduction of a cultural heritage duty of care, a cultural heritage management planning process and recognition of Indigenous ownership of cultural heritage . However, the true test for the Queensland Government will be its level of commitment to the implementation and enforcement of the new legislation. This we cannot predict"

20030603: Appropriations Bill - Funds for new legislation[edit]

Budget commits $3.5 million over five years for implementing new cultural heritage legislation for effectively recognizing and protecting Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander heritage .. plus providing a practical and workable way to handle cultural heritage impacts

20030821: The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2003 is introduced to Parliament[edit]

Hon Stephen Roberston, Minister for Natural Resources and Mines introduces the Aboriginal Heritage Act into parliament, with the following general explanation:

"..the Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987 .. is widely regarded as an ineffective and impractical tool to protect and manage impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, which has led to excessive financial costs, administrative duplication and delays. [A] review was needed to provide effective protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage and to create flexible and workable processes for addressing land use impacts with certainty in a timely and cost-efficient way."

"When a draft model for new legislation was released in December 1999, the Premier described it as a 'first step' towards developing new legislation intended to form the basis of community discussion on how new legislation should be drafted. After major revisions and review developed through extensive consultation, the result is the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2003"

It's reported that 'blanket protection' of Aboriginal heritage is substituted for a need for a need/right to access sites (within Queensland Heritage Act 1992). The guidelines upon which the blanket protection is to be founded remain to be gazetted. Penalties are increased 10 fold and damaging 'registered' cultural heritage can attract a prison sentence of up to two years.
It's announced the bill creates a cultural heritage database containing 14 000 records of sites and objects that have been recognised over a period of 80 years
The significance of cultural heritage is expected to be undertaken by Aboriginal parties, but there is a requirement that such assessment be consistent with authoritative anthropological, biogeographical, historical and/or archaeological information
Proponents are, by agreement with identifiable Aboriginal parties (identified by Aboriginal heritage bodies), able to opt out of the legislation and it's duty of care/ heritage protection requirements
Cultural heritage plans are mandatory where 'high impaact' developments are required to produce an EIS .. and Integrated Planning legislation is amended to make the Department of Natural Resources will act as the 'concurrence' agency where heritage is actually on the Department's cultural heritage register


20031028: Opposition, through Jeff Seeney, lends its support[edit]

  • the opposition would not have supported the December 1998 draft model cultural heritage legislation, but otherwise congratulate the State in having found greater balance between competing interests during the intervening period .. noting, in particular, that while there may have been more than 10 000 years of heritage orginally .. that amount of heritage is already considerably diminished and people have otherwise lost much of the kind of knowledge and connection necessary to see heritage a real issue
  • some concern is expressed that the detail of the 'duty of care' guidelines is not before them, and advises much about the Act's likely impact and effectiveness etc will hinge upon the form those guidelines will ultimately take


20041124: Ministerial Statement by Hon Stephen Robertson re: Film Proposition[edit]

It seems the joint Australian-UK film production called The Proposition was filmed out at Winton, Queensland, and came under the provisions of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act .. such that a cultural heritage management plan was negotiated for the film (which includes Aboriginal historical material), heritage near the built town site was fenced off, inductions were held, a model established .. and the Department commissioned a documentary be made of the whole to promote the Act etc


20051104: A new law makes film-makers respect indigenous culture [edit]

Bruceanthro (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of reported breaches of 'duty of care'[edit]

Also for possible discussion and inclusion in proposed article expansion, find below a growing listed of statutory 'duty of care' breaches reported in media etc

050225: [17]

Nanango Council approves a feedlot without requiring a cultural heritage assessment, and a Wakka Wakka representative asserts that the place, and the bunya trees at that place are sacred.

050407: [18]

Ancient human remains (bones and coffins) from the Carnarvon, belonging to the Bidjara people are reported as having been stolen by an ex-ranger plus anthropologist, and hidden from the Bidjara people

060217: [19]

Department announces it will not prosecute the company Santos for its delay in telling local Aboriginal people about a significant burial site on land inside the company's exploration lease. Wangkumurra people found out about the massive Aboriginal camping site and burial ground in the Cooper Basin nine months after Santos discovered it. The Government's now issued a warning to Santos, but says the company fully cooperated with the investigation and it's already improved its internal processes for dealing with cultural heritage issues. And it's taken remedial action to protect the site.

060301: [20]

Wangkumarra people report to Department that Santos will be damaging cultural heritage sites (however they have too insufficient detail of actual places under threat to prevent work proceeding)

071022: [21]

Gubi Gube elder, Eve Fesl, asserts State has disregarded the cultural heritage impacts of the Traverston crossing dam, having failed to conduct a cultural heritage survey .. It just goes to show what they think about Indigenous cultural heritage. What they think about us, they don't care," she said..." they're not giving a damn about us, about the dam so to speak, that they're prepared to wipe out the sacred fish of the Gubbi Gubbi people."


Bruceanthro (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aboriginal_Cultural_Heritage_Act_2003&oldid=1197862818"