(Re)defining Indigenous Intangible Cultural Heritage

(Re)defining Indigenous Intangible Cultural Heritage

By Tran Tran and Clare Barcham

NUMBER 37, June 2018

DISCUSSION PAPER

(Re)defining Indigenous Intangible Cultural Heritage By Tran Tran and Clare Barcham1

AIATSIS Research Discussion Paper No. 37

1 Wewouldliketothanktwoanonymousreviewersfortheircommentsandsuggestions,whichhavecontributedtothefinalversionofthepaper.

Firstpublishedin2018byAIATSISResearchPublications

©AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies,2018

Allrightsreserved.Apartfromanyfairdealingforthepurposesofprivatestudy,research,criticismorreview,aspermittedundertheCopyright Act 1968 (Cth) (theAct),nopartofthispapermaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopying,recordingorbyanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,withoutpriorpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.TheActalsoallowsamaximumofonechapteror10percentofthispaper,whicheveristhegreater,tobephotocopiedordistributeddigitallybyanyeducationalinstitutionforitseducationalpurposes,providedthattheeducationalinstitution(orbodythatadministersit)hasgivenaremunerationnoticetoCopyrightAgencyLimited(CAL)undertheAct.

AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudiesGPOBox553,CanberraACT2601Phone:(612)62461111Fax:(612)62614285Email:[email protected]:www.aiatsis.gov.au

Cover:KarajarriSeniorRangerJessBanguprovidingcaptionsforahistoricalAIATSISphotographiccollection.Photo:TranTran

Contents

Executive summary 4

Rethinking Indigenous knowledge 4

Intangible cultural heritage recognition internationally 7

Cultural heritage and its consequences in Australia 10

Heritageregistersandregistration 11

Nativetitleclaimsandevidence 14

Environmentallegislationandmanagement 15

Intellectualpropertyparallelsandfindingtheowner 16

Protection vs cultural practice 17

Communities and living archives 18

Conclusions 20

Reference list 21


4

Executive summary AsanationalInstitute,AIATSISworksattheintersectionofIndigenousandnon-Indigenousknowledges,playingan importantrole inthemediationofthoseknowledgesandsupportingtheirexpressionandprotectionviaourresearchandcollectionswork.

InMarch 2016 theAustralian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Act 1989 was amendedtoincludenewfunctionsforAIATSISincludingthedevelopment,preservationandprovisionofaccesstoanarchive,theuseoftheAIATSIScollectiontostrengthenIndigenousculturesandheritageandtheprovisionofadviceonthestatusofIndigenouscultureandheritage.Acriticalaspectofthesenew functions is the articulationof Indigenous knowledge, its scope and content aswell as existingmechanismsforrecognitionandprotection.

ThispapermapsoutthemultiplewaysinwhichIndigenousknowledgehasbeendefinedandunderstoodandhow it isgeneratedand recorded inAustralia,and reviews the implicationsof thesedefinitions.Thepapermakessuggestionsforpathwaysforwardforrecognising,protectingandrenewingIndigenousknowledge.

Thepaperidentifiesthat:

• There is no set definition for Indigenous knowledge although it has been reflected ininternationalinstrumentsasaformofintangibleculturalheritage,inintellectualpropertylawasIndigenousCulturalandIntellectualProperty(ICIP)andinnativetitleasasystemoflawsandcustoms.Accordingly,therearemultipleregimesofrecognitioninplacethathavemultipledefinitionsofIndigenousknowledge(orheritage).

• Heritage has been traditionally defined based on physical place and relics without asubstantial definition for intangible elements of heritage and the interlinkages betweenphysicalplacesofsignificanceandknowledgegenerationandprotection.

• Indigenousknowledgeisbetterunderstoodasexistingonacontinuumwithmultipleaspectsofphysicalandintangiblesignificance.

• Rightsbasedmechanismsforprotectionaremainlylimitedtoplacesanddonotprovideanyfurthermechanismsforpracticeandrenewal.

• Indigenouspeoplesarebestplacedtomakedeterminationsofsignificanceandimportanceand,accordingly,shouldbesupportedwithfundingandthroughgovernancearrangementsinordertodoso.

• Themosteffectivewaytoprotectculturalheritageandknowledgeistopracticeit.

Rethinking Indigenous knowledgeSpeakingforcountrymeanslookingaftercountry,‘You’repartofit.Andyouhavearightforthatcountry.’2

ThisstatementformedapartoftheevidenceprovidedbyPaulPatrickSampitosupportthenativetitleclaimoftheBardiandJawipeopleovertheDampierPeninsulainWesternAustraliain2005.FortheBardiJawipeople, andother Indigenouspeoples throughoutAustralia, cultural knowledge, legitimacyandstrengthareinterconnectedandlinkedtoplaceorcountry.OftenwhenaskedaboutthekeyprioritiesforIndigenouscommunities,organisations,familiesandindividualstheresponseisuniversal–togetbackout on country, supportwellbeing, teach younger generations and strengthen cultural connections.3

2 PaulPatrickSampicitedinSampivStateofWesternAustralia[2005]FCA777[343].3 TTranetal.,‘AdvicetotheExpertIndigenousWorkingGroupontheCOAGInvestigationintoIndigenousLandAdminis-

trationandUseonimprovingIndigenouslandadministrationframeworksandprocesses’,AIATSIS,12June2015.


5

Relationshipstocountryarenotonlyexpressed inphysical termsbutthroughtheability tocontinuetopracticeimportantsocialandculturaltraditions–rangingfromtheabilitytopracticelawtohavingculturally appropriatemedical services.Accordingly, theneed to recognise the critical links betweenwellbeingandaccesstocountryarewelldocumentedandareoftenexpressedintheneedtoprotectculturalheritage.4

Indigenousintangibleculturalheritage–orknowledge–isthestartingpointforengagementwithcountry.However,whenattemptingtounderstandwhatconstitutes Indigenousknowledge, theapplicationofnon-indigenousframeworkstothisprocessconfusesanddistortsitsdefinitionandprotection.Indigenousknowledgecomes inmultiple forms,and is linkedtophilosophicaland legal traditions, languageandeducation, stories, song and ceremonies. How these definitions applywithin a national context hasnotbeenbroadlyunderstoodor interrogated,norhastherebeenamodel forthepracticalassertionofAboriginal andTorres Strait Islander knowledges, let alone systematicmechanisms to restore lostconnectionstocountry.

Indigenousconceptionsofknowledgetendtooverlapwithintangibleculturalheritage(ICH)orIndigenousCulturalandIntellectualProperty(ICIP),nativetitle,heritageandenvironmentallegislation(discussedfurtherbelow)–allofwhichenablesomeformofrecognitionandprotection.5However,thewaysinwhichIndigenousknowledgehasbeenassertedwithin lawandpolicyhasnotalwaysbeenconsistent,timelynorculturallyappropriate. This struggle to reach an agreed definition is characteristic of the challenges of translatingIndigenousrelationshipstoland(andevidenceofthisrelationship)into‘something’thatisrecognisableandcapableofprotection.AsDeaconetal.aptlynotedmorethan10yearsago:

Wedonotyethaveastronghistoricalunderstandingofhowintangibleculturalformschangeovertimeandwhytheysometimesdisappearorshowsuchresilienceovertime.6

Theirobservationisstillrelevantnowinunderstandingwhyheritageissodifficulttodefine.Inassumingthatweunderstandwhatheritage isanddesigningrecognitionregimesbasedontheseassumptions,wehave inadvertentlynarrowed the ‘what’ofheritage that canbeprotected. Further, therearenoestablishedmeasuresforaccountingfororcapturingalltheelementsofIndigenousheritage.7

As a national research institute, AIATSIS is well placed to interrogatewhat Indigenous knowledge‘looks’likeandhowitcanbeassertedinapracticalway.Additionally,inMarch2016,theAustralian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Act 1989 was amended to introduce new functionsundersection5:

4 SeeforexampleJKWeir,CStacey&KYoungetob,‘Thebenefitsassociatedwithcaringforcountry’,literaturereview,AIATSIS,preparedfortheDepartmentofSustainability,Environment,Water,PopulationandCommunities,June2011;BereniceCarrington&PamelaYoung,Aboriginalheritageandwellbeing,DepartmentofEnvironment,ClimateChangeandWater(NSW),2011.Indigenoushealthnotonlyreferstophysicalwellbeingbutalsosocial,culturalandemotionalwellbeing:NationalAboriginalHealthStrategyWorkingParty,AnationalAboriginalhealthstrategy,NationalAboriginalHealthStrategyWorkingParty,Canberra,1989.Thefatalconsequencesoflossofconnectiontocountryhasbeendiscussedinthecontextofpaymentofcompensation:GriffithsvNorthernTerritoryofAustralia(No3)[2016]FCA900(‘TimberCreek’).

5 Indigenousknowledge(IK)isusedthroughoutthispaperinordertoremaininclusiveoftheelementsofICIPorIICHthatarenotrecognisedelsewhere.

6 HDeaconetal.,Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage:legalandfinancialinstrumentsforsafeguardingintangibleheritage,SocialCohesionandIntegrationResearchProgramme,HumanSciencesResearchCouncil,SouthAfrica,2004,pp.10,27.

7 TheStateoftheEnvironmentReportestablishes22indicatorsforassessingIndigenousheritageandlandscapesyetthereisverylittledataavailabletoprovideaccurateinformationonalltheseindicators:ESchnierer,SEllsmore&SSchnierer,‘StateofIndigenousculturalheritage2011’,reportpreparedfortheAustralianGovernmentDepartmentofSustainability,Environment,Water,PopulationandCommunitiesonbehalfoftheStateoftheEnvironment2011CommitteeDSEWPaC,webpage,viewed14November2017 <https://soe.environment.gov.au/sites/g/files/net806/f/soe2011-supplementary-heritage-state-indigenous-cultural-heritage.pdf?v=1488157317>.


6

a) todevelop,preserveandprovideaccesstoanationalcollectionofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslandercultureandheritage;

b) tousethatnationalcollectiontostrengthenandpromoteknowledgeandunderstandingofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslandercultureandheritage;

c) toprovideleadershipinthefieldsof:

(i) AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderresearch;and

(ii) ethicsandprotocolsforresearch,andotheractivitiesrelatingtocollections,relatedtoAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderpeoples;and

(ii) use (including use for research) of that national collection and other collectionscontainingAboriginalandTorresStraitIslandercultureandheritage;

d) toleadandpromotecollaborationsandpartnershipsamongtheacademic,research,non-government,businessandgovernmentsectorsandAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderpeoplesinsupportoftheotherfunctionsoftheInstitute;

d) toprovideadvice to theCommonwealthon the situationandstatusofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslandercultureandheritage.

Thesefunctionsinvolvethedevelopment,preservationandprovisionofaccesstoanarchive,theuseoftheAIATSIScollectiontostrengthenIndigenouscultureandheritageandtheprovisionofadviceonthestatusofIndigenouscultureandheritage.AcriticalaspectofthesenewfunctionsisthearticulationofIndigenousknowledge,itsscope,qualityandexistingmechanismsforrecognitionandprotection.

Thereisnoperfectdefinition–thetermsofrecognitionhavealwaysbeendeterminedbynon-indigenousinstitutions – however there can be a better process for recognition and protection. Indigenouscommunities‘oftenoutofexacerbationandexhaustion…willusetheverylegalsystemstheywishtoalterorsubvertinordertogainsometypeofcontrolovermaterialsthatarenolongerintheirpossession’.8 Whilethismightnotalwaysbethecase,thereisarealriskthatthepaucityofframeworksandprocessesinplacefortherecognitionof Indigenousknowledgecouldcompromisecommunitycontroloverandexpressionofculturalheritage.

FromanIndigenousperspective,thepriorities,argumentsandconcernshaveremainedconsistentovertime. Indigenousknowledgeprovides the fundamentalbasisof connection toplacesandprotecting,teachingandtransmittingknowledgeisinturnfundamentaltomaintainingculturalauthority.Accordingly,definitionsofIndigenousknowledgehavesoughttobepurposelyinclusiveandintentionallybroad.9

Indigenousknowledgesareinterconnected–thereislittledistinctionbetweenintangibleandtangibleheritage.InprovidingevidencefortheBanjimanativetitleclaim,SlimParkerstates:

ifyouhavelanguageyoucanpractiseyourLaw.LanguageandLawgotogether.YoucannothaveLawwithoutlanguage.Toknowthelanguageyouhavetobeabletospeakwitheachother,knowthenamesofplants,animalsandimportantplaces.…ifyouhavefluentlanguageandpractiseyourownLawasinmilguandWardirbaandsingyoursongsassociatedwithyourcountry,ngurra,youwillknowtheboundaryofyourngurra.10

The instances inwhich assertions of culture can occur remain largely contingent on opportunitiesetchedinconflictorthosecreatedbypolicymakers.Forexample,SlimParker’sevidenceledtothe

8 JAnderson&KChristen,‘“Chuckacopyrightonit”:dilemmasofdigitalreturnandthepossibilitiesfortraditionalknowledgelicensesandlabels’,MuseumAnthropologyReview,vol.7,no.1–2,2013,p.105.

9 Forexample,Janke&Frankelidentifymultipleelementsthatconstituteintangibleculturalheritageincludingknowledge(suchasscientific,agricultural,technicalandecologicalknowledge,spiritualandreligiousknowledge,knowledgeofkinshipandotherformsofgovernance),expressionsofculture(ceremony,danceetc.aswellaslanguages)anddocumentationofthisknowledge:TerriJanke&MichaelFrankel,‘Ourculture:ourfuture’,preparedforAIATSIS,1998.

10 BanjimaPeoplevStateofWesternAustralia(No2)[2013]FCA868,[453].


7

eventualrecognitionofthenativetitlerightto‘protectsignificantceremonies,artworks,songcycles,narratives,beliefsorpracticesbypreventing,byallreasonablelawfulmeans,anyactivityoccurringontheareawhichmayinjure,desecrate,damage,destroy,alterormisuseanysuchceremony,artwork,songcycle,narrative,belieforpractice.’11Whilethesearethelegalrightsflowingfromhisevidence,the list provided in the judgment does not reflect his words. Localised conflicts resolved throughspecific evidence provided in court proceedings for example, under heritage, native title or landrights legislation,arereliantonnon-indigenousunderstandingsof legitimacyandproof. Moreover,protectingaphysicalplaceorpieceofknowledgerequiresmorethanalegalright.

Inthispaper,wedonotseektodefinewhatIndigenousknowledgesshouldbe–thisisnotrelevanttounderstandingcurrent regimesofprotection. Instead,weargue that Indigenous individuals, families,communitiesandnationsshouldbeempoweredtoassertandpracticetheircultureinamannerthatmakesthemostsensetothem.ThispapermapsoutthemultiplewaysinwhichIndigenousknowledgeisdefinedandunderstoodandhowitisgeneratedandrecordedinAustralia,reviewstheimplicationsofthesedefinitionsandsuggestspathwaysforwardfortheongoingrecognition,protectionandrenewalofIndigenousknowledge.TheultimatepurposeofrecognitionandprotectionshouldbetosupportrobustknowledgestructuresthatunderpinIndigenouscultures.

Intangible cultural heritage recognition internationallyThe recognitionof cultural formsofproperty andproperty in cultural expressions grew largely fromthepostwardestructionofsignificantartefactsandmonuments,whichwerelargelyplace-basedandcentredonlandmarks,monumentsandobjects.Unsurprisingly,culturalheritagehasbeendescribedasa‘Western’constructwithitsplace-andobject-basedoriginsinformingthemajorityofmanyinternationallybasedmovements.12Critiquesoftheinitiallynarrowfocusofglobalheritageprotectionhavehighlightedastrongbiastowardsphysicalityor,inotherwords,tangibleheritage.13

Theseconceptshaveevolvedtorecognise intangibleexpressionsand,morerecently, theuniqueandspecificformsof Indigenousknowledge.14AndersonandGeismarrefertothegenealogiesofthinkingthathaveproducedtheseconceptsthatarejustasmuchsocialconceptionsandreflectionsofvaluesandbeliefsastheyarecodifiedwordsandconcepts.15Theydiscusstheideaofmultiplealliedconcepts–heritageandculturalproperty;communalpropertyandculturalpropertyforexample–whichmaybebetterexpressedasconflatedconcepts.16

11 BanjimaPeoplevStateofWesternAustralia(No2)[2013]FCA868,[655].SeealsoDanielvWesternAustralia[2003]FCA666(3July2003)wherethecourtrecognisesthefollowingrightsandinterests:

maintain,conserveand/orprotectfrominjury,desecrationdamage,destructionoralterationandpreventthemisuseofceremonies,artworks, songcycles,narratives,beliefsorpracticeswhichhavesocial,cultural,religious,spiritual,ceremonial,ritualorcosmologicalimportanceorsignificanttothecommonlawholdersassociatedwiththearea,bypreventingbyallreasonablemeansanyactivityoccurringontheareawhichmayinjure,desecrate,damage,destroy,alterormisuseanysuchceremony,artwork,songcycle,narrative,belieforpractice.

12 SeealsoFLenzerini,‘Intangibleculturalheritage:thelivingcultureofpeoples’,TheEuropeanJournalofInternationalLaw,vol.22,no.1,2011,pp.101–120;GLloyd,‘Thesafeguardingofintangibleculturalheritage:lawandpolicy:acasestudyofAngkor’,PhDthesis,UniveristyofSydney,2009;Deaconetal.,Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage,2004;JAnderson&HGeismar,‘Introduction’inJAnderson&HGeismar(eds),The RoutledgeCompaniontoCulturalProperty,Routledge,London,2017,8.

13 Thisbiasexacerbateswhathasbeendescribedasadichotomybetween‘primitive’and‘civilised’:Deaconetal,‘Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage’2004.TheideaofculturallandscapeshasbeenrecognisedinthecontextofAfricanheritage:UNESCO,SyntheticreportoftheExpertMeetingonAfricanCulturalLandscapes,23rdsess,UNDocWHC-99/CONF.204/INF.4,25May1999.

14 ForacomprehensivereviewofthedevelopmentoftheseprinciplesbytheUnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganisation(UNESCO)andWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation(WIPO)see:Deaconetal.,The subtlepowerofintangibleheritage,2004.

15 Anderson&Geismar,‘Introduction’,2017,p.4.16 Anderson&Geismar,‘Introduction’,2017,p.17.


8

Indigenousknowledgesarereflectedintheconceptof‘CulturalProperty’,anever-evolvingcategory–‘awayofdescribingculture,aformofsovereignty,aunitofpower,ameasureofvalue,apoliticalinstrument,…refer[ing]toawiderangeofdifferentthings,bothmaterialandimmaterial’.17AndersonandGeismarconceiveofIndigenousknowledgesasoperatingsomewherebetweenpublicandprivatepropertyandreflectedasaformofcollectiverightsandinterests.18Thisentirespectrumofrightsandinterestshasnotalwaysbeentraditionallyrecognised,onlysmallpartsofit.Accordingly,existingregimesarepoorlyequippedtosupportIndigenouscontrol,creationandownershipofinformation.Withintheinternationalcontext,The Rutzolijirisaxik Voluntary Guidelines for the Repatriation of Traditional Knowledge Relevant for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity seektodrawtogetherdiverseattemptstorecogniseIndigenousknowledge.19 Theseprinciples,developedinthecontextoftheimplementationofArticle8(j)oftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity,drawtogetherconceptsthatcouldpotentiallyapplymorebroadlytosupporttherecognitionofIndigenousknowledge.

Unfortunately,thereislittleconnectionbetweeninternationalconceptsandhowIndigenousknowledgeisexpressed inpractice.Nor is thereunderstandingofthecomplexityof Indigenousexperiencesandaspirationsfortheexpressionofknowledge.20OneofthemajorbarriersisconfusionoverthemeaningofIndigenousknowledge;otherbarriersarethepracticalmeasuresforensuringnotonlythecontinuedregenerationofIndigenousknowledgebutalsothecreationofaproductivecontextwhere,forexample,IndigenouslanguagesareabletobetaughtthroughoutAustralianschools.TheexactandpreciseroleofthegovernmentwithinthisprocessismadeclearbyGavinAndrews:

Thegovernmenthasaroleinheritage,becauseit’scollectivelyownedbythewholeofsociety;it’s‘theheritageofthepeople’.Heritagestartstodayandgoesallthewayback.Thegovernmentdoesn’thaveamanagementroleinculture.Thatbelongstotheindividual.Ifgovernmentwantsaroleinculture,it’saboutonlyofferingsupportforculturalexpression….21

Thereisnoonesetdefinitionforculturalheritage,letaloneforintangibleculturalheritageorIndigenousintangible cultural heritage.22 This lack of clarity is invariably perceived to be a problem. As Lloydnotes, ‘theconceptualizationof intangibleheritagehastheratherunflatteringreputationofbeinganafterthoughtwithinthescopeofculturalheritagepreservation’.23Fancioniaddstothisconfusion,notingthatthe‘increasingcomplexityinthewaysofthinkingaboutculturalpropertyhasbeenaccompaniedbyanincreasedcomplexityofthelaw’.24

Thereismorethanjustonewayofviewingculturalproperty:itreflectsnationalidentity,objectsandartefacts, expressions of human creativity and theneed for protection fromdestruction.25 The most relevantelementof culturalheritagewith respect to Indigenousknowledge is theprotectionof ‘thespiritual,religiousandculturalspecificityofminoritiesandgroups’.26Fromthisperspectivepolicyandlegalmechanismsoffering‘protection’provideonlyoneaspectofsupportforculturalexpression.Formsof intangible cultural heritage that are readily identifiable have had longstanding recognition – forexamplelanguage,music,dance,orcostume.

17 Anderson&Geismar,‘Introduction’,2017,p.1.18 Anderson&Geismar,‘Introduction’,2017,pp.11–13.19 TheRutzolijirisaxikVoluntaryGuidelinesfortheRepatriationofTraditionalKnowledgeRelevantfortheConservation

andSustainableUseofBiologicalDiversity,adhocopen-endedinter-sessionalworkinggrouponarticle8(j)andrelatedprovisionsoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity,UNDocCBD/WG8J/10/2,pp.13–16December2017.

20 JClifford,Returns,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA,2013.21 Carrington&Young,AboriginalHeritageandWellbeing,2011.22 Forexample,the1998StockholmIntergovernmentalConferenceonCulturalPoliciesforDevelopment

recognisedtheneedtodeveloppoliciestosafeguardintangibleheritage:Stockholm,Intergovernmentalconferenceonculturalpoliciesfordevelopment,UNDocCLT-98/Conf.210/CLD.19,30March–2April1998.

23 Lloyd,‘Thesafeguardingofintangibleculturalheritage’,2009.24 FFancioni,‘Thehumandimensionofinternationalculturalheritagelaw:anintroduction’,TheEuropeanJournal

ofInternationalLaw,vol.22,no.1,p.10,2011.25 Fancioni,‘Thehumandimension’,2011;Anderson&Geismar,TheRoutledgeCompanion,2017.26 Fancioni,‘Thehumandimension’,2011.


9

TheUnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization(UNESCO)hasdevelopedadefinitionofintangibleculturalheritagethatincorporatesknowledgeproductionandtransmission,27flowingfromthe 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (CSICH) and the 2005Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.28

TheCSICHcreatedanimportantcounternarrativetophysicalheritagebyintroducinga‘culturalrightsdimension’.29 The inclusion of intangible cultural heritage also reflects the recognition of Indigenousknowledge with deference to local decision-making power.30 Similarly, the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity identifiestheneedtoestablish localsystemsforclassifying,acquiringandsharingknowledge;addressingtheneedsofcommunitiesandtheirmembers;ensuringfree,priorandinformedconsentandestablishingagreedtermsforsuchprocesses;supportingfullparticipationandpartnerships;sharingbenefitsaswellastheprotectionofrightstoconfidentiality;andrightstoreviewand/orownresearchpublications.31

TheCSICHalsoprioritisescommunityengagementinitssafeguardingofintangibleculturalheritage.KurinassertsthatthesignificanceoftheCSICHisthatit‘shiftsboththemeasuresandonusofsafeguardingworktotheculturalcommunityitself.’32ThishasextendedtoaproposalbytheIntergovernmentalCommitteefortheSafeguardingofIntangibleCulturalHeritagethatcustodiansofintangibleculturalheritagebenefitfromthe‘moralormaterialinterestsresultingfromsuchheritage’thusbringingtheprincipleofbenefitsharingintotheintangibleculturalheritageparadigm.33

TheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation(WIPO)hasalsocarriedoutsubstantialworkinthedevelopmentof ICH. In itsworkWIPO refers not to intangible cultural heritage but rather to traditional knowledgeand traditional cultural expressions.WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property andGeneticResources,TraditionalKnowledgeandFolklorehasdevelopeddraftprovisionsfortheprotection

27 UNESCOdefinesintangibleculturalheritage(ICH)astraditional,contemporaryandlivingatthesametime,inclusiveinthesensethatitcontributestosocialcohesion,identityandasenseofcommunity,isrepresentativeandembeddedwithincommunitiesandisrecognisedbythem:UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganisation(UNESCO),‘Whatisintangibleculturalheritage?’,website,viewed15May2018, <https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003>.

28 Article2(1)oftheCSICHdefinesintangibleculturalheritageas: thepractices,representations,expressions,knowledge,skills–aswellastheinstruments,objects,

artefactsandculturalspacesassociatedtherewith–thatcommunities,groupsand,insomecases,individualsrecognizeaspartoftheirculturalheritage.Thisintangibleculturalheritage,transmittedfromgenerationtogeneration,isconstantlyrecreatedbycommunitiesandgroupsinresponsetotheirenvironment,theirinteractionwithnatureandtheirhistory,andprovidesthemwithasenseofidentityandcontinuity,thuspromotingrespectforculturaldiversityandhumancreativity.ForthepurposesofthisConvention,considerationwillbegivensolelytosuchintangibleculturalheritageasiscompatiblewithexistinginternationalhumanrightsinstruments,aswellaswiththerequirementsofmutualrespectamongcommunities,groupsandindividuals,andofsustainabledevelopment.

29 JBlake,‘UNESCO’s2003ConventiononIntangibleCulturalHeritage:theimplicationsofcommunityinvolvementin“safeguarding’’’,inLSmith&NAkagawa(eds),Intangibleheritage,Routledge,NewYork,NY,2009,p.46.

30 Blakenotesthat‘theinclusionoftheideaofICHwithinthebroaderrubricofculturalheritageprovidesopportunitiestodemocratisetheprocessbywhichwegivevaluetoheritage,givingalargerroletolocalpeople’:Blake,‘UNESCO’s2003Convention’,2009,p.46.

31 Article8(j).TheseprincipleshavebeenfurtherdevelopedintheIndigenouscontextviatheAIATSIS‘GuidelinesforethicalresearchinAustralianIndigenousstudies’(GERAIS)inrelationtoresearchwhichupuntilthispointhasbeenappliedtotheresearchfunctionsofAIATSISexclusively.However,manyoftheprocessesadvancedunderGERAISareintheformofprivatetreatyorcontract,whichisbasedonavoluntaryethicalnegotiationprocessratherthanabroaderframeworkthatcanascribeavaluetothepractice.Thisestablishestheneedfornewtoolsandmethodologiesthatempowerlocalbasedapproaches.

32 RKurin,‘Safeguardingintangibleculturalheritage:keyfactorsinimplementingthe2003Convention’,InternationalJournalofIntangibleHeritage,vol.2,2007,pp.10–20.

33 LJing,‘Exploringthenarrativeofheritagethroughtheeyesofthelaw’,KajianMalaysia:JournalofMalaysianStudies,vol.35,2017,pp.185-207.


10

of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. The draftprovisions contemplate secret/sacredknowledgeasrequiringuniqueprotections,andsuggestthecreationofanauthoritytoadministerrightsaswellasasystemofprotectionsutilisingadatabaseofregisteredtraditionalknowledge.EvidentinWIPO’sdraftprovisionsisafocusonthepreventionofmisuseandexploitationoftraditionalknowledgeandtraditionalculturalexpressions.WIPOhasalsoattemptedtodevelopadocumentationtoolkittoaidinprotectingIndigenousknowledges.34Abetterunderstandingofheritageisthatitexistsina‘continuumofportability’,withtheintangibletakingprecedenceoverthetangible.35

Thereissignificantmovementinthedevelopmentofprinciples,guidelinesandtoolsbasedonrecognitionofIndigenousculturaldiversityandlocallydefinedneeds.Thelanguageandapproachof instrumentssuch as the Rutzolijirisaxik Voluntary Guidelines attempt to capture theopen-endedand communitydefinednatureofknowledgeprotectionandownershipwithaspecificfocusonrepatriation.Inassessingthe Australian context, the legal rules that support heritage recognition provide ‘a key indicator ofthe responseby government to threats andpressures toheritage’.36 Accordingly,while internationalstatementsofferguidanceandcandirectstatepracticetofocusonintangibleheritage,recognitionandprotectionremainsdefinedbystatebasedlegalandpolicyinstitutions.37

Cultural heritage and its consequences in AustraliaState government institutions, legislation, policies andprocesses have a defining role in theways inwhich Indigenous knowledge canbe recognisedandprotected. This influence involvesnotonly thedefinitionofheritagebutthestandardsofprooforlegitimacytobeapplied,theadministrativedecisionmakingprocessesandsupportingstructuresofauthorityandmoreimportantlythegenerationofnewknowledgeandrecordings.

34 See:WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation(WIPO),‘Documentingtraditionalknowledge–atoolkit’,WIPO,Geneva,2017.

35 Article2(1)oftheCSICHdefinesintangibleculturalheritageas: thepractices,representations,expressions,knowledge,skills–aswellastheinstruments,

objects,artefactsandculturalspacesassociatedtherewith–thatcommunities,groupsand,insomecases,individualsrecognizeaspartoftheirculturalheritage.Thisintangibleculturalheritage,transmittedfromgenerationtogeneration,isconstantlyrecreatedbycommunitiesandgroupsinresponsetotheirenvironment,theirinteractionwithnatureandtheirhistory,andprovidesthemwithasenseofidentityandcontinuity,thuspromotingrespectforculturaldiversityandhumancreativity.ForthepurposesofthisConvention,considerationwillbegivensolelytosuchintangibleculturalheritageasiscompatiblewithexistinginternationalhumanrightsinstruments,aswellaswiththerequirementsofmutualrespectamongcommunities,groupsandindividuals,andofsustainabledevelopment.

Blakenotesthatthe‘inclusionoftheideaofICHwithinthebroaderrubricofculturalheritageprovidesopportunitiestodemocratisetheprocessbywhichwegivevaluetoheritage,givingalargerroletolocalpeople’:Blake,‘UNESCO’s2003Convention’,2009,p.46.Jing,‘Exploringthenarrativeofheritage’,2017;

Article8(j).36 Schnierer,Ellsmore&Schnierer,‘StateofIndigenousculturalheritage2011’,p.20.37 Marrienotes:

Whilethedefinitionofthe‘intangibleculturalheritage’givenintheConventionisverybroad,thetextofwhatisconsideredworthyofsafeguardingwillultimatelybethoseitems,componentsofthisheritageenteredintotheinventoriesestablishedandmaintainedbythestate.Forexample,acriticallyendangeredIndigenouslanguagemightbeexcludedwhilethethreatenedknowledgeandtechniquesofhowtomakeauniquebasketofoneofthelasttraditionalweaversandspeakersofthatlanguagemaybedigitallyrecordedindetailforposterityandenteredonthelistforsafeguarding.

HMarrie,‘TheUNESCOconventionforthesafeguardingoftheintangibleculturalheritageandtheprotectionandmaintenanceoftheintangibleculturalheritageofindigenouspeoples’,inLSmith&NAkagawa(eds),IntangibleHeritage,Routledge,NewYork,2008,p.177.


11

Heritage registers and registration HeritagelegislationinAustraliaispredominantlyfocusedonphysicalobjects(‘relics’)andplaces(‘sites’)identifiedandplacedonadatabaseorregister.38ThisidentificationisinitiatedonareactivebasiswithIndigenousheritage registration largelydrivenbydevelopmentpressure.39 Policy statements suchasthose fromthe thenDepartmentofSustainability,Environment,Water,PopulationandCommunities(DSEWPaC)aspiretobroadenculturalheritagetoencompass‘bothnaturalandculturalheritage(bothtangible and intangible), whether formally listed or not, and both Indigenous and non-Indigenousheritage.’40 However, despite policy recognition of the artificial ways in which heritage is separatedbetweentheintangibleandtangible,thisrecognitionhasresultedinverylittledirectlegislativechangeand if anything, a regression inheritageprotectionhasoccurred.41 Thereareotherpersistent issues– including questions of ownership, the need for categorisation and the resulting disaggregation ofIndigenousknowledge,andtheprivilegingofnon-indigenousexperts.

InboththeNorthernTerritoryandTasmania,Aboriginalheritagelegislationappliesonlytosites.TheTasmanianlegislationalsorequiresthatsitesarelocatedwhereaspecifiedrelicorobjectisfound.WesternAustralia’s protectionsextendonly to sites andobjects. SouthAustralian andQueensland legislationprotectsobjects,sites,andremains.Thisdistinctionexistsbeyondheritagelegislationtoconservationanddevelopment legislation. For example, theNational Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)protectsonlyAboriginalplaces.42ThisissueisalsoprevalentintheWest Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)wherethe2014amendmentsseemtodecreasethelevelofprotectiontoAboriginaltangibleandintangibleculturalheritage.43

38 PMcGrath&ELee,‘ThefateofIndigenousplace-basedheritageintheeraofnativetitle’,inP.McGrath(ed.),Therighttoprotectsites:Indigenousheritagemanagementintheeraofnativetitle,AIATSIS,Canberra.2016,pp.1–25.Website,viewed17May2018<http://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/products/book/the_right_to_protect_sites_indigenous_heritage_management_in_the_era_of_native_title.pdf>.

39 See,forexample,Commonwealthlegislation:AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderHeritageProtectionAct1984(Cth),EnvironmentProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999(Cth),ProtectionofMovableCulturalHeritageAct1986(Cth);NewSouthWales:NationalParksandWildlifeAct1974(NSW),HeritageAct1977(NSW),EnvironmentalPlanningandAssessmentAct1979(NSW);Queensland:AboriginalCulturalHeritageAct2003(Qld)andTorresStraitIslanderCulturalHeritageAct2003(Qld);ACT:HeritageAct2004;Victoria:AboriginalHeritageAct2006(Vic.);Tasmania:AboriginalRelicsAct1975;SouthAustralia:AboriginalHeritageAct1988(SA);WesternAustralia:AboriginalHeritageAct1972;andNorthernTerritory:HeritageConservationAct1991 and AboriginalSacredSitesAct2006.ForareviewofearlyIndigenousheritagemanagementinAustraliasee:Schnierer,Ellsmore&Schnierer,‘StateofIndigenousculturalheritage2011’.Thereareatleast11heritageregistersinAustraliawhichlistsitesandlocationsofobjectsofsignificancetoAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderpeoples.TheSouthAustralianandQueenslandregistersarespecifictoAboriginalandTorresStraitIslandercultureandarenotpubliclyaccessible.TheNorthernTerritorydoesnotlistAboriginalsitesorobjectsonitsregisterasthesehaveautomaticprotectionundertheHeritageAct.Oftheremainingstate,territoryandnationalregisters,13,658of151,235(or9%)oflistingsareofsignificancetoAboriginalorTorresStraitIslanderpeoples.Approximately13,000ofthesearelistedontheTasmanianAboriginalHeritageRegister.

40 RMackay‘AustraliaICOMOS–Stateoftheenvironment2011workshop–summarynote’,reportpreparedfortheAustralianGovernmentDepartmentofSustainability,Environment,Water,PopulationandCommunitiesonbehalfoftheStateoftheEnvironment2011CommitteeDSEWPaC,webpage,viewed14November2017<https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/ba3942af-f815-43d9-a0f3-dd26c19d83cd/files/soe2011-supplementary-heritage-icomos-workshop-notes.pdf>;RMackay,‘DSEWPaCIndigenousAdvisoryCommitteeStateoftheenvironment2011workshop–summarynotes’,reportpreparedfortheAustralianGovernmentDepartmentofSustainability,Environment,Water,PopulationandCommunitiesonbehalfoftheStateoftheEnvironment2011CommitteeDSEWPaC,2011,webpage,viewed14November2017<https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/ba3942af-f815-43d9-a0f3-dd26c19d83cd/files>.

41 The2011StateoftheEnvironmentreportnotedthatlegislativechangesovertimehaveweakenedtheprotectionofIndigenousheritage:Mackay‘AustraliaICOMOS;2011.

42 NationalParksandWildlifeAct1974(NSW)ss84,p.86.43 AmbelinKwaymullina,BlazeKwaymullina,&LaurenButterly,‘Opportunitylost:changestoAboriginalheritage

lawinWesternAustralia’,IndigenousLawBulletin,vol.8,no.16,pp.24-27,Jan/Feb2015.


12

The Aboriginal Languages Act 2017 (NSW)isonepieceoflegislationwhichdemonstratesanincreasingrecognition of intangible cultural heritage. However, it does not recognise the relationship betweenthetangibleandintangible,andinparticulartheimportanceofconnectionstocountryinthepracticeoflanguage.Toitscredit,thelegislationisaimedatincreasingthepracticeoflanguagesasitsmeans ofprotection.

Thedisaggregationoftangibleandintangibleextendsbeyondheritagespecificlegislationtolandandwater legislation and policy where certain Indigenous knowledge is isolated for the purpose of thelegislationandcanfurtherresultintheneglectofintangibleculturalheritage.Forexample,theWater Act 2007 (Cth) provides considerationof Indigenoususesof theMurrayDarlingBasin; however, theknowledge gathered for this purpose is disconnected from the cultural importance of place.When‘development’ occurs and has the potential to impact upon heritage, the considerations are largelyrelatedtothephysicalarearatherthantheintangibleconsequencessuchasalossofaccesstothesite,ordisruptiontosonglines.44‘Development’canalsooccurwithoutconsultation.ForexampletheWest Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972(WA)providesthatintheprocessofallowingthedestructionofordamagetoanAboriginalsiteorobject, there isnostatutoryrequirementtoconsultTraditionalOwnersandnoappealmechanismforTraditionalOwners,thusleavingnoplacefortheconsiderationofintangibleculturalheritage.45

Allofthesepiecesoflegislationarelargelyfocusedonavoidingdisturbanceoftangibleheritage;theyseektoavoiddamagingheritagesitesorplacesratherthanprovidingforpositiveactionstopromotethepracticeofintangibleculturalheritage.Asaconsequence,thedocumentationofheritageisbasedonconstellationsofdevelopment(ordevelopmentthreatstoheritage)ratherthansystematicrecordingorthetransmissionofknowledge.Ensuringthemaintenanceofthestories,songlinesorpracticesneedstobeprioritisedastheseprovideforthesignificanceoftangibleheritage.

AnincreaseintherecognitionoftheholisticnatureofintangibleculturalheritageisevidentinrecentchangestosomepiecesofstateAboriginalheritagelegislation.TheNewSouthWalesgovernmentisintheprocessofreviewingitsculturalheritagemanagementlegislation.46Itsproposedchangesincludeadefinitionofculturalheritagethatcontainstangibleandintangibleelements.InVictoria,changesweremadein2016toexpandprotectionbeyondAboriginalplaces,objectsandancestralremainstoincludeAboriginalintangibleheritageencompassinganyknowledgeorexpressionofAboriginaltraditionoranintellectualcreationorinnovation.Thisincludesoraltraditions,performingarts,stories,rituals,festivals,socialpractices,craft,visualarts,andenvironmentalandecologicalknowledge.47

Anumberofstatebasedheritagelawsincludebroadaimstorecognisecontrolandownershipofheritagebutveryfewcontainspecificprovisionsthatenableownership.48Forexample,theQueenslandlegislationsetsoutasaprinciplethatAboriginalpeopleshouldberecognisedastheprimaryguardians,keepersandknowledgeholdersofAboriginalculturalheritage.However,thelegislationthengoesontocreate

44 DepartmentofEnvironmentandHeritageProtection(Qld),‘Developingheritageplaces:usingthedevelopmentcriteria’2013,webpage,viewed17November2017<https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/assets/documents/land/heritage/gl-heritage-development.pdf>;OfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW),‘Developmentandheritage’2017,website,viewed17November2017,<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/Heritage/development/index.htm>.

45 WestAustralianAboriginalHeritageAct1972(WA).46 OfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW),‘Aboriginalculturalheritagereforms’2018,OfficeofEnvironmentand

Heritage(NSW),website,viewed31May2018,<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/achreform/>;‘Aproposednewlegalframework:AboriginalculturalheritageinNSW’,2017,OfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW),website,viewed31May2018,<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/a-proposed-new-legal-framework-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-in-nsw>;OfficeoftheEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW),‘AboriginalCulturalHeritageBill2018’2018,OfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW),website,viewed31May2018<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/draft-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-bill-2018>.

47 AboriginalHeritageAmendmentAct2016(Vic)s59.48 Schnierer,Ellsmore&Schnierer,‘StateofIndigenousculturalheritage2011’.


13

apresumptionthattheStateownsAboriginalculturalheritageexcept inthecaseofhumanremains,secretorsacredobjects,orotherownershipconfirmedundertheAct.49TheVictorianlegislationsimilarlyprovidesthat,inprinciple,allregisteredAboriginalintangibleheritageshouldbeownedbyarelevantAboriginalpartybutprovidesdetailabouttheoperationofsuchownershiponlyinrelationtoancestralremainsandsecretorsacredobjects.50IntheNorthernTerritory,decision-makingpowerrestswithanauthoritywhichisnotboundbythecustodians’input.51OtherstatessuchasWesternAustraliadonotincludeanykindofrecognitionofownershipwhatsoever.

Acommonformofrecognitionofheritageislistingin,forexample,Australia’sNationalHeritageList,whichpurportstorecogniseplacesofoutstandingheritagesignificanceincludingIndigenousplaces.However,thiskindofrecognitionrequiresthatsignificantintangibleheritagebeassociatedwithaparticularplaceinordertogainrecognition.52Thenotionofidentificationhasalsobeenstronglylinkedtoauthenticationfrom‘experts’creatinganintellectualandeconomicmarketfornon-indigenousheritagepractitioners.53 UndertheWest Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972(WA)theassessmentofsignificanceisbasedonanthropologicalandarchaeologicaldiscourse,potentiallyvaluingnon-indigenousexpertsoverthelivingknowledgesofAboriginalpeople.54

49 AboriginalCulturalHeritageAct2003(Qld)s20.50 AboriginalHeritageAct2006(Vic)s12.51 HeritageAct2011(NT)s75.52 AustralianHeritageCouncil,‘GuidelinesfortheassessmentofplacefortheNationalHeritageList’,webpage,

viewed17November2017,<http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/8b50f335-42e8-4599-b5e0-ac643f75475f/files/nhl-guidelines.pdf>.

53 TheIndigenousAdvisoryCommittee(IAC)highlightsthemultiplechallengescreatedby‘heritage’withrespecttolisting,identificationandtheseparationofnaturefromculture;theIndigenousAdvisoryCommitteeisastatutorycommitteeestablishedin2000undersection505AoftheEnvironmentProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999(Cth);LenzerinistressesthatICHisbyitsverynature‘dynamic’andthatwhiletheCSISHhas‘createdamodelforsafeguarding’ICH,asculturalheritageis‘inventoried,classified,declaredasofficialtreasure,keptundersurveillance’itlosesmuchofitsqualitythatmadeitsignificantinthefirstinstance:Lenzerini,‘Intangibleculturalheritage’,2011.Also,asMcGrathrecognises,‘thebusinessofIndigenousheritagemanagementisverymuchanon-Indigenousenterprise’withlittleinputfromIndigenousactors:McGrath&Lee,‘ThefateofIndigenousplace-basedheritage’,2016.SeeMackay,‘AustraliaICOMOS–Stateoftheenvironment2011’,foracontrastingperspective.

54 McGrath&Lee,‘ThefateofIndigenousplace-basedheritage’,2016.Therearealsohighratesofauthoriseddestruction:Schnierer,Ellsmore&Schnierer,noteforexamplethat,in2007,ofatotalof79compliancenotificationsonly1hasbeensuccessfullyprosecuted.Further,thereare‘inconsistentviewsonIndigenousheritageissuesbetweenstateagenciesandcommunitiesorpeakbodies’withanoverallperceptionof‘noaction’:Schnierer,Ellsmore&Schnierer,‘StateofIndigenousculturalheritage2011.ThisviewwasalsoreiteratedbytheInternationalCouncilonMonumentsandSites(ICOSMOS):Mackay,‘AustraliaICOMOS’,2011.Forexample,inNewSouthWalestheNSWAboriginalLandCouncilhasprovidedasummaryoffindingsandrecommendationsfrompreviousreforms,notingthatverylittleactionhasoccurred:NewSouthWalesAboriginalLandCouncil,‘Oursites,ourrights:returningcontrolofAboriginalsitestoAboriginalcommunities–asummaryofkeyrecommendationsofpastAboriginalheritagereviewsinNSW’,reportpreparedbyPolicyandResearchUnitofNSWAboriginalLandCouncilDecember,2010,website,viewed14November2017 <http://www.alc.org.au/media/61784/110215%20our%20sites%20our%20rights%20final.pdf>.Therehasbeensomepositivemovementinlimitedcircumstancesandonasmallscale,whichhasnotbeenappliedconsistently.InevidenceprovidedbySharonHodgetts,shenotesthat‘[t]heculturallandscapeincludesAboriginalsites,howeveritalsoincludestheareabetweensitesconsistingofthenaturalandspirituallandscape.Theareabetweensitesandmovingfromonesitetoanotherthroughthelandscapeisajourneyofconnectionandlearning.Thisispartoftheintangibleaspectofourspiritualculturalbeliefsystemreligionthereisnoconceptualdivisionbetweennatureandculture’:DarkinjungLocalAboriginalLandCouncilvMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure&Anor;AustralianWalkaboutWildlifeParkPtyLimited(ACN115219791)asTrusteefortheGeraldandCatherineBarnardFamilyTrustvMinisterforPlanningandInfrastructure&Anor[2015]NSWLEC1465[207].TheAustralianCommitteeoftheInternationalCouncilonMonumentsandSites(AustraliaICOMOS)hasalsoidentifiedtheinterconnectionsbetweentangibleandintangibleheritage:Mackay,‘AustraliaICOMOS’,2011.


14

TherehasbeensomemovementtowardtherecognitionoftraditionalconceptionsofIndigenousheritage–particularlygreatercommunityconsultation,inclusionandrecognition–asheritagebodiesareincreasinglyalignedwithnativetitleandlandrightsgovernancestructures.55Forexample,theproposedNewSouthWaleschangesseektoaffirmAboriginalpeople’sauthorityover theirownheritagebyestablishing theAboriginal Cultural Heritage Authority (which incorporates local Aboriginal land councils and nativetitlebodies)andholdsdecision-makingauthorityovertheconservationandmanagementofAboriginalculturalheritage.56InVictoria,heritagelegislationestablishesanAboriginalHeritageCouncilthatconsistsof11TraditionalOwnerswhoareappointedbytheMinisterforAboriginalAffairs.ThecouncilassessesapplicationsprovidedbyRegisteredAboriginalParties(RAPs)whoareresponsibleforlocalculturalheritagedecisionmaking.57 TheQueenslandmodelmandates localised agreement-makingwith proponents forcertaintypesofdevelopments–aprocesswhich facilitatesAboriginal identificationandassessmentofheritage.Thisvoluntaryprocessalsoincludesthedevelopmentofaculturalheritagemanagementplan.58

Ownership of and control over heritage is expressed as an aim of law and policy but there is littleprovisiontoenablethis,noristheresupportfortheongoingpracticeofintangibleculturalheritage.Theprotectionsofferedarelargelyisolatedwithinheritageandotherformsofrights-basedlegislationseektoensureheritageremainspreservedasitcurrentlystands–asdotsonamap–ratherthanseekingtofacilitateprotectionthroughtheactivepracticeofculture.59

Native title claims and evidence Thereisadifferentsituationundernativetitlelegislationandcaselaw.TherelationshipsthatAboriginalandTorresStrait Islanderpeopleshavewithcountryprovidetheevidentiarybasisandlegalprooffortherecognitionofnativetitleandlandrights–animperfectattempttorecognisethatin‘AboriginalandTorresStrait Islandersocieties, songandceremonyserveastitledeeds to land’.60Nativetitleutilisesstoriesofsignificanceinordertorecognisetraditionalrightsandintereststhatareprotectedwithinapropertylawframework.Similarly,landrightsisagrantofatenurebasedon‘proof’ofsignificanceortraditionalaffiliationwithaplace.

While there is ‘greater legal and public recognition of the intangible qualities of the relationshipbetweenpeopleandplace–andthefactthatintangibleculturalpracticegivesrisetotangibleheritage–thereremainsafundamentaldistinctionbetweentheplace-basedrightsofnativetitleandthestate’smanagementofIndigenousplace-basedheritage.’61

55 Forexample,inQueenslandandVictoriatherehasbeengreaterinclusionofIndigenousgovernancestructuresindecisionmaking,movingawayfromministerialresponsibilitywithanIndigenousadvisorybody.

56 OfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW),‘Aboriginalculturalheritagereforms’,2018,NSWEnvironmentandHeritage,website,viewed31May2018,<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/achreform/>;OfficeoftheEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW),‘AboriginalCulturalHeritageBill2018’2018.

57 VictoriaamendedtheAboriginalHeritageAmendmentAct2006in2016toprovideforthe‘protectionofAboriginalculturalheritageandAboriginalintangibleheritage’:AboriginalHeritageAct2006(VIC),section1(a).WherethereisnoRAPdecisionmakingrevertstotheDepartmentofPlanningandCommunityDevelopmentortheAboriginalHeritageCouncil.

58 QueenslandHeritageAct1992(Qld)s81.59 MunjerireachesthesameconclusionintheiranalysisoftheapplicationoftheNationalMuseumsand

MonumentsofZimbabweAct25/11asdescribedbyMunyardadziManyangainvolvingthecontraventionofthelegislation.Munjerinotes:

Thereissomeseriousdisconnectionintheinterpretationofthepurpose,meaningandtheapplicationofintangibleculturalheritage.Allpartiesmaybereadingthesamescript,buttheirinterpretationismuchinfluencedbytheinterestsoftheactors, andtheissuesatstake’,

DMunjeri,‘Followingthelengthandbreadthoftheroots:somedimensionsofintangibleheritage’,inLSmith&NAkagawa(eds),Intangibleheritage,Routledge,NewYork,2008.

60 GKoch,Wehavethesong,sowehavetheland:songandceremonyasproofofownershipinAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderlandclaims,AIATSISresearchdiscussionpaper,no.33,AIATSISResearchPublications,Canberra,2013,p.37.

61 McGrath&Lee,‘ThefateofIndigenousplace-basedheritage,2016,p.2.


15

Under theNative Title Act 1993 (Cth) rights and interests are recognisedbasedon section223. Therecognitionof Indigenousknowledgewithinthenativetitlecontext is incidental.AsstatedbyJusticeFrench(ashisHonourwasthen)theprinciplesofMabo ‘embodytherulesofwhatissaidtoconstitutelegal “recognition” of Indigenous relationships to land defined by traditional law and custom’ but ‘[t]heydonotoperatedirectlyuponthoserelationshipsorthetraditionallawsandcustomsfromwhichtheyarederived’.62TheconnectingelementthatJusticeFrenchdoesnotmentionisthattheIndigenousknowledgereflectedinsong,ceremonyandothermeansisevidenceofthoserelationshipstoland,andformsthebasisofnativetitlerecognition.InState of Western Australia v Ward,63JusticesBeaumont,vonDoussaandNorthrecognisedthattherearebothsecularandspiritualaspectstoconnectiontocountrywithobligations to care for country, such as burning, havingboth apractical element – theburningitself–andan intangibleelement–knowledgeofwhatandwhentoburn.Both theseelementsarerecognisedaspartofnativetitle.64Similarly,physicalsitessuchaspermanentundergroundwaterspringsaresignificantnotonlyfortheirpracticalvalueinanariddesertregionbutalsoinenforcingrelationshipstocountry–enablinglivedpracticesofcaringforculturallyandecologicallysignificantsites.65 This was a key issue in the recent decision of Forrest on behalf of the Ngurrara People v State of Western Australia66 wherePeterMurrayexplains:

ThatcountryhasbeenourNgurrara,ourhomeandcountrysincethetimeoftheDreaming.Iknowthatfromthestoriesmyoldpeoplewhoweretoldbytheiroldpeople.AsayoungpersonIwalkedacrossourNgurraracountrywiththeoldpeople.Theyshowedmespecialplaces.Theyshowed and told me things like where the jilas (waterplaces)are right through thecountry.Places likeParkalSprings,JindnguSprings,Balguna and Muningambin.TherearemanyotherplacesInowlookaftertheseplacedandvisitthemoften.ThroughtheRangerworkIdoitmakesiteasierformetotaketheyoungerboysoutandteachthemabouttheseplaces.

AsaNgurrara RangerImakesurethattheseplacesarenotdestroyedbytheinvasionofferalanimals.Thishelpskeeptheseplacedstrong,helpskeepthestoriesstrong,andthiskeepsourculture strong. I have a responsibility both as aNgurrara Ranger and a traditional owner toprotectandcarefortheseplacesthatarespecialtous.Thatiswhyouroldpeopletellusabouttheseplaces,thepaintings,thesongsandthestories.Theytellussoweknowwhattoprotectandhowtoprotectit.

Peter’s evidence demonstrates the interconnected nature of physical places, cultural practice andidentitythatcannotalwaysbedisaggregatedintodiscreteformsoflegalprotection.HisstoryisoneofmanyfromthenativetitledeterminationsthathavebeenmadesincethepassingoftheNTA–supportedbyaffidavits,filmrecordingsandconnectionreportsthatcontainiterationsofIndigenousknowledge.

Environmental legislation and managementOutsideoftherealmofheritage-orland-basedlegislation,Indigenousknowledgesarealsorecognisedandrecordedasaformofecologicalknowledge(orTraditionalEcologicalKnowledge)linkedtoknowledge

62 RobertFrench,‘TheroleoftheHighCourtintherecognitionofnativetitle’,Western Australian Law Review,vol30,no2,p. 145,2002.JusticeFrenchlaterbecameChiefJusticeoftheHCAin2008.

63 [2000]FCA191,[866].64 StateofWesternAustraliavWard[2000]FCA191,[866],wheretheynote:

thesecularandspiritualaspectsoftheaboriginalconnectionwiththelandaretwinelementsoftherightstotheland.Thus,theobligationtocareforcountryhasasecularaspect–burningtheland–andaspiritualaspect–acquiringknowledgeofritual.Theprotectionofritualknowledgeisrequiredbytraditionallaw.Traditionallawtreatsbothelementsasincidentsofnativetitle.Thereisnoreasonwhythecommonlawrecognitionofnativetitleshouldattachtooneincidentandnottheother.Becausecommonlawrecognitionisaccordedtotheentitlementtolandasdefinedbytraditionallawsandcustomsthecontraryconclusionshouldfollow.

65 ForanexampleoftheseinterconnectionsonKarajarricountrysee:SarahYu,NgapaKunangkul(LivingWater):reportontheAboriginalculturalvaluesofgroundwaterintheLaGrangeSub-Basin,TheWaterandRiversCommissionofWesternAustralia,Perth,1999.

66 [2018]FCA289.


16

ofplants,animalsandseasons.However,thischaracterisationisdisconnectedfromtheculturalpracticesthatenabletheactiverenewalofthisknowledge.Othercontemporaryformsofknowledgeareevidencedviarangerprograms,which–whileprovidingaccesstocountry–alsoservethenationalandinternationalconservationobjectivesoftheAustraliangovernment.67

Land management regimes that tend to protect nature alongside Indigenous knowledge includethe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), various National Parklegislationand landdevelopment legislation.Withinthiscontext, Indigenousknowledge is framedbyenvironmentalaimsandculturebecomessecondarytoanybiodiversityvaluesassociatedwithaplace.Thisenvironmentallyembeddeddefinitionofculturalheritageignoresthefactthat‘natural’heritagecanbeprotectedthroughlandmanagementalonewhileculturalheritagerequiresthemaintenanceofbothculturalpracticeandphysicalplaces.

Thisartificialviewofculturalheritagealsodriveslandmanagementpractices.Forexample,rangerworkplanscanbeoverlyinfluencedbytheprioritiesoffunders,whichmaynotmatchkeyprioritiesidentifiedbytraditionalownerswhoareseekingtorestorecountry.68Orrangersmayhavelimitedopportunitiestorecordknowledgeorstoriesandrevisitareasofcountryaboutwhichthereislittleinformation.Asaresulttheremaybesignificantinformationaboutkeysites,plantsandanimalswithoutthedocumentationortransmissionofinformationtobettermanagethespecificandholisticelementsofcountry.

Intellectual property parallels and finding the ownerIntellectualpropertylawprovidesoneofthemostpowerfulanalogiesfortheprotectionofIndigenousknowledge as a ‘mechanism for identifying specific kinds of knowledges, creating a value for thisknowledgeandestablishingconditionsforhowitcanbeassessed,usedandshared’.69However,amajorpre-conditionforprotectioniscertainty–insomethingthatcanbeowned,quantifiedandidentifiedwithamajorunderlyingassumptionthatheritageisownedor‘ownable’.70Thechallengesofidentifyingandcategorisingownershipasadynamicandcontext-baseddefinition,asopposedtoaonce-offnominationprocess,createfurthercomplexitiesintheapplicationof‘recognition’processes.

Heritage is iterative and constantly recreated in the present (from the past), whereas intellectualpropertylawfundamentallyseekstoprotectcommercialrightsandinterestsratherthan‘promotingthemaintenanceandlongevityofparticularformsofculturalorintellectualexpressionorendeavour’.71This,inadditiontothe‘gaps’intheintellectualpropertylawsystemandthebiastowardtangibleproperty,results in intellectual property law offering limited ‘protection’ to Indigenous knowledge. Temporalelements of ownership, for example, in the tangible record or recordings made by non-indigenouspeoplealsoneedstobereconsideredinthecontextofdefiningownershipovermultiplepointsoftime.

The‘gaps’withinthisexistingframeworkwithrespecttoIndigenousintellectualpropertyandheritageillustratehowIndigenousknowledgeorculturalheritagedoesnotmeettheexpectationsofregulatorsin a manner that can ensure ‘protection’. 72 Equally, definitions of cultural heritage and knowledgewiththeadditional layerof ‘intangibility’donotmeetIndigenousexpectationsanddemandstohavetheir knowledge recognised as valuable and ultimately protected. The issue of authenticity placesIndigenousknowledgeswithinaframeworkas‘unique’withoutanypathwayformanaging,maintaining

67 TTran&RKennett,‘ReclaimingIndigenousknowledgeinlandandseamanagement’inNStoianoff(ed.),Indigenousknowledgeforum–comparativesystemsforrecognisingandprotectingIndigenousknowledgeandculture,LexisNexis,Chatswood,NSW,2016.

68 TTran&LLangford,NegotiatingthesharedmanagementofMatuwaandKurarraKurarra,AIATSIS,Canberra,2015.69 Anderson&Christen,‘“Chuckacopyrightonit”,2013,p.71;Anderson&Geismar,TheRoutledgecompanion,2017.70 TheworkofWIPOhighlightssomeofthelimitationsofintellectualpropertylawinrecognisingandprotecting

ICH:MartinSkrydstrup,Towardsintellectualpropertyguidelinesandbestpracticesforrecordinganddigitizingintangibleculturalheritage:asurveyofcodes,conductandchallengesinNorthAmerica,WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation,Geneva,2006;Anderson&Geismar,TheRoutledgecompanion,2017,pp.14–15.

71 Marrie,‘TheUNESCOconvention’,2008.72 Deaconetal.,Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage,2004.


17

orsupportingitsprotectionandtransmission.Forexample,theProductivityCommission’srecentInquiryintoAustralia’s Intellectual PropertyArrangements did not include Indigenous knowledgeswithin itsanalyticalframeworknoritsspecificdraftfindingsorrecommendations.73Similarly,recognisedculturalrights(relatedtosacredsitesand,equally,decisionmaking)areanafterthought in landuseplanningandhousingdevelopment.74Asidefromthisinherentbiastowards‘physicality’–andthelargelyreactivenatureofstate-basedheritagelaw–thereisarguablynoreasontoseparatetheprotectionofintangibleor tangible heritage within the multiple regimes of intellectual property, property, native title andheritagelegislation.

Stories,songs,ceremonies, language,manufacturingtechniquesandknowledgeaboutthepropertiesandmanagementofplantsandanimals,amongmanyotherthings,arecentraltoIndigenouscultureandwellbeing.Aboveandbeyondland-basedformsofrecognitionishowIndigenousknowledgeisrecorded(filmed,reportedorphotographed)asapartoftheevidence-gatheringexercise.QuestionsofownershipconfinedtophysicalobjectsignorethecurrentsignificanceandautonomyofIndigenouscommunitiesinthepresent.Constantfocusonphysicalobjects,depositedorownedbynon-indigenouspeopleinthepast,isultimatelyareplayofdispossession.

Protection vs cultural practiceState-basedinstitutions,processesandpolicies–whiledifferent,intersectingandsometimesconflicting–createtheplatformuponwhichheritageisdecided.Thisplatform(reflectedinpolicyattitudes,fundingandlegislation)supportstheproductionandauthorisationofheritageandknowledgeprotection.Thedefiningcontextforculturalheritagerecognitionhassignificantimplicationsfortheeffectivepracticeofculture.Forexample,fundingarrangementscanskewprioritiesascommunitiesadapttopredefinedprograms,sothataccesstoinformationtorevitaliseorpracticecultureisconstrainedbyrightsandpermissions decided by non-Indigenous researchers and there is further disconnection betweencountryandpeople.

Australia’sIndigenousAdvisoryCommitteehasclearlystatedthatthereisa‘lackofprotectionprovidedto“protected”areas’withthe‘cumulativeeffectofslowlylosingspiritualvaluesasmoreandmoresitesaredamagedtothepointthattheirvalueisnolongerthere’resultinginthe‘incrementallossofIndigenousknowledge’.75 Anderson and Christen note that there is also ‘very little in the way of progressive,flexiblesolutionsthatoffer Indigenouspeoplesalternativeengagementswith legalsystemsandtheirrepresentatives’.76Investmentinprocessesthatenablebottom-upcontrolandengagementareacriticalelementofthepositiveprotectionandgenerationofIndigenousknowledgeandheritage.Oneofthekeyelementsofthisprotectionistherenewalofheritageviaculturalpractice.77Deaconhasarguedthat‘themostsuccessfulincentivesandsafeguardingstrategieswillinvolvetheuseofintangibleheritageformsasspringboardsfornewculturalexpressionthathaverelevanceandmeaninginthemodernworld.’78 Deaconprovidesthatbroadcasting isonewayof ‘safeguardingdialects,marginalised languageforms

73 AIATSIS,AIATSISsubmisisontotheProductivityCommission’sInquiryintoAustralia’sIntellectualPropertyArrangements,no.DR583,AIATSIS,2016.

74 CStacey&JFardin,‘Housingonnativetitlelands:responsestothehousingamendmentsofthenativetitleact’,Land,Rights,Laws:IssuesofNativeTitle,vol.4,no.6,p.93,2011.This‘unflattering’reputationasanafterthoughthasbeenwellrecognisedbyothers:Lloyd,‘Thesafeguardingofintangibleculturalheritage’,2009.

75 Mackay,‘DSEWPaCIndigenousAdvisoryCommittee’,2011.76 Anderson&Christen,‘“Chuckacopyrightonit”’,2013.Similarly,Munjerinotesthat‘freeingratherthanfreezing

theconditionsunderwhichintangibleculturalheritageexistsandoperatesisthebestsafeguardforintangibleculturalheritage.Suchconditionsarebestsetbythecommunitiesthatgenerateandperpetuatethatheriatge’:DMunjeri,‘Followingthelengthandbreadthoftheroots’,2008,p.148.

77 Munjerinotes:‘Whatmakesintangibleculturalheritageuniqueisthatittargetsthepeople,groupsandcommunitiesthatenacttheintangibleculturalheritage’,DMunjeri,‘Followingthelengthandbreadthoftheroots’,2008,p.141,seealsopp.135,148.

78 Deaconetal.,Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage,2004,p.3.


18

andoral traditionswhile giving themnew currency and relevance today’.79 The legal profession andpolicymakers’prioritiesrarelyalignwiththoseoftraditionalowners,thuslimitingprocessesthatenablebottom-upcontrolandleadingtoalackofpolicydirectedtowardincreasingculturalpractice.

InreflectingontheexperiencesofIndigenousresearchersKathSchillingandRayKelly,Carringtonnotesthatgovernmentshavea‘responsibilitytoengagewiththeculturallivesandlivedheritageofAboriginalcommunitieswithwhichtheywork’andnotesthat‘forthem[SchillingandKelly]theroleofgovernmentistocreatewaystoworkwithinaculturalcontextthatbenefitscommunities.’80Similarly,theIndigenousAdvisory Committee has noted the ‘lack of effective Indigenous engagement regarding projects torecord Indigenous knowledge’ or ensure its interconnection with concepts of looking after countryappropriately.81Thereproductionofknowledgeisasequallyimportantasitsprotection.SpeakingfromtheNewSouthWalescontext:‘OneofRay[Kelly]’sdrivingconcernswastofeedtheknowledgegained…backtoAboriginalcommunitiestostimulateaprocessofculturalrevival.’82Protectionisonlyapartofthesolution–renewalisthemissingelement.Withouttheabilitytoaccess,reuseandcreatenewmeaningfromexistingmaterials,theobjects,recordingsandothercollectedmaterialsbecomesastatic‘snapshot’ofintangibleheritageasopposedtobeingapartofalivingandthrivingelementofIndigenouscultures.83

Communities and living archivesIndigenousknowledgehasdiverseorigins,subjectmatterandformsoftransmission.84 Cultural archives haveadefiningroleinhowtheycansupportculturalpracticeandrevitalisationviaexistingcollectionsandexpertise.ThephysicalandconceptualdisaggregationofIndigenousknowledgeisproblematicasitlendsitselftoexternalisingassessmentsofsignificanceandvalue–despitethe‘deeplysubjective’natureofthisprocess.85Thereisnooneexternalorganisationorgroupofpeoplesthatshouldbemakinganyvaluestatementsonwhatissignificant.Article31ofthe2007DeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoplesstates:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their culturalheritage,traditionalknowledgeandtraditionalculturalexpressions,aswellasthemanifestationsof their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds,medicines,knowledgeofthepropertiesoffaunaandflora,oraltraditions,literatures,designs,sportsandtraditionalgamesandvisualandperformingarts.Theyalsohavetherighttomaintain,control,protectanddeveloptheirintellectualpropertyoversuchculturalheritage,traditionalknowledge,andtraditionalculturalexpressions.86

Centraltothisdefinitionistherespectaffordedtodifferentculturalworldviewsandnarrativesaswellasarefocusingonlocaldefinitionsofsignificance.87AsMathéaptlynotes,thegatekeepingfunctionofarchivinginstitutionslocksIndigenouspeopleswithinadeficitmodelaslackingthecapacitytoimplementthegovernanceoftheirownarchives.88

InrelationtoarchivingofIndigenousknowledge,whatistrulylackingistheabilityofcollectingbodiestodevelop,maintainandformrelationshipswithrelevantcommunitiesinordertoaskthesequestions

79 Deaconetal.,Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage,2004,p.61.80 Carrington&Young,Aboriginalheritageandwellbeing,2011,p.5.81 Mackay,‘DSEWPaCIndigenousAdvisoryCommittee’,2011,p.2.82 JohannaKijas,Revival,renewalandreturn:RayKellyandtheNSWSitesofSignificanceSurvey,Departmentof

Environment&Conservation(NSW),2005,p.9.83 HofmeyrcitedinDeaconetal.,Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage,2004,p..[Insertpagenumber.]84 Tran&Kennet,‘ReclaimingIndigenousknowledge’,2016.85 Deaconetal.,Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage,2004,p.9.86 TheUNDRIPwasfinalisedin2007andformallyratifiedbyAustraliain2009.Thedynamicandlivednatureof

knowledgeisalsoembodiedinArticle2oftheCSICH:Lenzerini,‘Intangibleculturalheritage’,2011,p.7.87 AlsorecognisedintheConventiononBiologicalDiversity.88 BarbaraMathé,‘Whosepicturesarethese?Indigenouscommunityaccessandcontrolofdigitalarchives’,Girona,

2014,webpage,viewed17November2018<http://www.girona.cat/web/ica2014/ponents/textos/id240.pdf>.


19

inthefirstplace.Currentlinearmodelsofrepatriationengenderaone-size-fits-allapproachwherebyIndigenous knowledge is recorded, assessed according to third-party standards, collected, accessedbyothersandeventuallyreturnedtocommunities.ThisisacautiousyethomogenisingnarrativethatentrenchesperceiveddeficitsinIndigenousgovernanceanddecision-makingcapacity.However,manycommunitieshavebeenachievingthegradualgovernanceandsecurityoftheirownarchives.Forexample,theKarajarrihaveworkedwithAIATSIStoreturnmaterialincludingarchivalmaterialoflawandceremonyrecorded in the1960sand1970s, recordnewmaterial,andsupport thedevelopmentofcommunityprotocolsforthemanagementoftheirmaterials.ThishassupportedKarajarritoleadrevitalisationworktoreinvigorateculturalpracticesinneighbouringgroups.ThisworkhasalsocontributedtotheculturalwellbeingandauthorityoftheKarajarripeopletodevelopaculturalbusinessarmwhichsupportsotherinitiatives including bushmedicine production and the establishment of a cultural centre.89MervynMulardyarticulatedthat:‘fortheKarajarri,a40yeargapbetweenthemostseniorknowledgeholders[likehimself]andtheyoungestboyswhoshouldgothroughlawhasbeenclosedinoneyear.’90

Therestillremainsan importantandcriticalroleforarchivestomaintainthestandardandqualityofrecordings –making the past accessible in the present and ensuring its protection into the future.However, ‘for what purpose’ and ‘to what ends’ should be determined by the relevant Indigenouscommunitiesorpeoplesaffectedbythatknowledge.Reflectingonacentury-oldimage,Mathé notes:

Theseimagescansparkthememoriesofelders,remindthemofstoriestheyheardfromtheirparents and grandparents: stories disappearingwith their native language. So there is someurgencytogettheseimagesbacktowheretheyoriginatedwheretheirdescendantscanrecordthestoriesandsavetheirhistoryinatribalarchive,libraryormuseum.91

TheissuesidentifiedbyMathémagnifywithrespecttothemultipleprocessesthroughwhichIndigenousknowledges are recorded and collected. Attempts to reconnect disparate collections create newdilemmas–whatweretheconditionsthatledtothecollectionofthematerialsandwhatlimitationsonaccesswereoriginallyapplied,aretheystillrelevantandcantheyberenegotiatedbycommunitiesandfinally,howcannewaccessrightsbemanagedintothefuture?Disputesoverhowknowledgeisacquiredandownedinthefirstinstanceisafurtherchallengeforcollectingandresearchbodieswhohavesoughttoreturnculturalknowledge.

Oneofthekeymeasuresofdecolonisationisacleardistinctionbetween‘practicedculture’and‘performativeculture’.92Intangibleculturalheritagehasalsobeendefinedasaformofculturalcapitalthatispassedontofuturegenerations,viaculturalactivity,identityformationandculturalmaintenance.93Overseasjurisdictionshavemovedaway fromrights-basedapproaches that suffer from theneed toquantify, categoriseanddefineinordertoaccessprotection.Indigenousknowledgeisbroaderthanthismechanicalprocessandassignificantsitesorplacesbecomeirrevocablychangedthroughhumanandnon-humanaction,indigenousculturesandtraditionswillstillpersistandthrive.AsWiessnernotes,‘traditionalhumanrightsconceptshadtobeadjustedandredefined’withindigenousdemandsforrecognitionchallengingindividualisticandexclusiveconceptionsofproperty,redefiningself-determinationasnotonlyapoliticalmovementbutalsoanopportunitytocontinuetoflourishasadistinctiveculturalgroup.94

InBritishColumbia,theprotectionofintangibleculturalheritageisembeddedinthepracticeofalivedcultureandthemechanismsthatenablethis–includinglanguagerevitalisation,supportfortheartsand

89 AIATSIS,SubmissiontotheClosingtheGapRefreshpublicdiscussionpaper,April2018,webpage,viewed1June2018,<https://closingthegaprefresh.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/submissions/aiatsis_ctg_refresh_submission_-_final_publish.pdf>.

90 AIATSIS,SubmissiontotheClosingtheGapRefreshpublicdiscussionpaper,April2018.91 Mathé,‘Whosepicturesarethese?’,2014.92 MichaelG.Doxtater,‘Indigenousknowledgeinthedecolonialera’,AmericanIndianQuarterly,vol.28,no.3/4,

pp.618–620,2004.93 Deaconetal.,Thesubtlepowerofintangibleheritage,2004.94 SWiessner,‘Theculturalrightsofindigenouspeoples:achievementsandcontinuingchallenges’,TheEuropean

JournalofInternationalLaw,vol.22,no.1,pp.121–140,2011.


20

reinvigorationofculturalpractices.Suchfundingisnotdirectedatdefinitionorprotectionregimes,suchasinthenativetitlesectorinAustralia,butatculture-basedprojects.ProfessorTaiaiakeAlfredarticulatesculturalheritageasaformofknowledge–measuredviathestrengthofrestitutionwithinthecontextofdecolonisation.AccordingtoProfessorAlfred,thetruemeasureofthesuccessoflandrights,compensationandself-governanceistheextenttowhichyoungergenerationsdevelopstrengthandconfidenceintheirindigeneity.95Accordingly,anyrightsandrecognitionregimeisnotanendinandofitself.

Indigenous knowledges, while embedded within relationships to country, subsist beyond them andare strengthened through continuing practice and acknowledgement.One of theways inwhich thelimitationsofrights-basednarrativescanbeaddressedisviathecreationofa‘favourableenvironmentforthepreservationoftheauthenticityandintegrityof intangibleculturalheritage’.96Anothercriticalandobviouselementisthe‘adequateparticipationbythepeoplesandcommunitiesconcernedinthemanagementoftheirownintangibleheritage’.97AsIndigenousknowledgeischaracterisedbyaspectrumoftangibleandintangibleelements,thereissubstantialvalueinidentifyingthe‘intangible’aspectsofculturalheritage.‘Intangible’encouragestherecognitionofapreviouslyignoredelementandenablesashiftinpowerrelationships;intangibleredefinesauthenticityandcreatesnewcriteriaofsignificance;intangibleadds toexistingknowledgeaboutheritage,creatinganopportunity to learn thestoriesofsignificancerelatedtoaparticularsiteorconstellationofsites;andintangiblesupportsthedevelopmentofnewmechanismstosafeguardorprotectIndigenousknowledge.98

ConclusionsIndigenousknowledgescannotbebrokendownintocomponentsthataremeasurable,ownableandowned.Thisfragmentationisreflectedinthemultitudeofregimesthathavebeencreatedinorderto ‘protect’ Indigenous knowledgeand is furtherexacerbatedby strongdistinctionsbetweenbothtangibleandintangibleheritage,andnaturalandculturalheritage.Conversationsareoverlyfocusedonprotectionasaprimaryaim,andofteninisolationandwithoutunderstandingoftheinterlinkagesbetweengettingcountrybackandgeneratinganumberofsocial,ecologicalandeconomicoutcomes.The closest analogy for Indigenous knowledge protection is property law –whether it be physicalland (via native title, land rights and heritage legislation) or intellectual property. However, theseframeworkscreateaspacewherecountryandculturecanbeascribedtoanidentifiableownerthatself-replicatesinlegalandfinancialframeworksoralternatively,istreatedasbeingsouniquethatitisdisregardedaltogether.99

There is a struggle to definewhat Indigenous knowledge is, yet no one has asked the communitiesandindividualsconcernedhowtheydefineitorwishtoseeitprotected.Themultitudeofprocessesthat Indigenouscommunities invoke inordertoprotecttheiraccessto landbysharingandassertingknowledgeshascreatedanewenvironmentwheretherearesubstantialrecordings,registers,databases,films, images and geospatially located points of songs, stories and ceremonies relating to plant andanimal life, landscapes,behaviours,weatherandseasons,missionandpastoral lifeandtechnologicaldevelopments. Access tomaterials documenting Indigenous knowledge, and access to processes toenablerenewal,isfundamentallyapartofprotectingandpreservingIndigenousknowledge.OneofthekeyelementsforIndigenouscommunitieswithinthisprocessisthecapacitytoregulatehowheritagecanberenewed,withcontrolovercommunityaccessbeingacriticalpartoftheprocess.

95 TaiaiakeAlfred,‘Culturalstrength:restoringtheplaceofIndigenousknowledgeinpracticeandpolicy’,paperpresentedattheAIATSISSymposium,Canberra,11February2015.SeealsoDoxtater,‘Indigenousknowledgeinthedecolonialera’2004.

96 Lenzerini,‘Intangibleculturalheritage,2011,p.119.97 Ibid.98 ForanaccountoftheimpactofIndigenousheritagedestructionsee:JackyGreen&SeánKerins,‘Developingthe

north–acasestudyfromtheGulfCountry’,paperpresentedattheAIATSISOccasionalSeminar,Canberra,20February2015.

99 Stacey&Fardin,‘Housingonnativetitlelands’,2011.


21

ThemultipleformsandsubjectsofIndigenousknowledgescreateanewpolicycontextwhereAIATSIScanplay a key role inmapping the scopeand contentof knowledgesaswell as interrogatingnewregimesandprocessesfortheirrecognition,protectionandusebyandforthebenefitofIndigenouscommunities. What is essentially missing from current models of repatriation and definitions ofIndigenousknowledge isanycommunitysay inwhat is recorded, returnedandessentiallydeemedas significant. Moreover, the direct alignment of Indigenous knowledge structures and culturalrelationshipswith governance arrangementswill have a direct positive impact on how Indigenousknowledgesareenactedintheeveryday.

Reference listAIATSIS2016,AIATSIS submisison to the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Australia’s Intellectual Property

Arrangements,no.DR583,AIATSIS,Canberra.AIATSIS2018,Submission to the Closing the Gap Refresh public discussion paper,AIATSIS,April.Alfred,Taiaiake2015,‘Culturalstrength:restoringtheplaceofIndigenousknowledgeinpracticeandpolicy’,

paperpresentedattheAIATSISSymposium,Canberra,11February.Anderson,JaneandHaidyGeismar2017,‘Introduction’inJAndersonandHGeismar(eds),The Routledge

companion to cultural property, Routledge,London,pp.1–9.Anderson, Jane and Kim Christen 2013, ‘“Chuck a copyright on it”: dilemmas of digital return and the

possibilitiesfortraditionalknowledgelicensesandlabels’,Museum Anthropology Review,vol.7no.1-2, pp.105–126.

AustralianHeritageCouncil2009,‘GuidelinesfortheassessmentofplacefortheNationalHeritageList’,website,viewed17November2017<http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/8b50f335-42e8-4599-b5e0-ac643f75475f/files/nhl-guidelines.pdf>.

Blake,Janet2009,‘UNESCO’s2003Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage:theimplicationsofcommunityinvolvementin“safeguarding”’,inLSmithandNAkagawa(eds),Intangible heritage,Routledge,NewYork,NY,pp.45–73.

Carrington,BereniceandPamelaYoung2011,Aboriginal heritage and wellbeing,DepartmentofEnvironment,ClimateChangeandWater(NSW),Sydney.

Clifford,James2013,Returns,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.Deacon,Harriet, LuvuyuDondolo,MbuleloMrubataandSandraProsalendis2004,The subtle power of

intangible heritage: legal and financial instruments for safeguarding intangible heritage, SocialCohesion and Integration Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town,SouthAfrica.

DepartmentofEnvironmentandHeritageProtection(Qld),‘Developingheritageplaces:usingthedevelopmentcriteria’ 2013, webpage, viewed 17 November 2017 <https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/assets/documents/land/heritage/gl-heritage-development.pdf>.

Doxtater,MichaelG2004,‘IndigenousKnowledgeintheDecolonialEra’American Indian Quarterlyvol.28,no.3/4,pp.618–633.

Fancioni,Franceso2011,‘Thehumandimensionofinternationalculturalheritagelaw:anintroduction’,The European Journal of International Law,vol.22,no.1,pp.9–16.

French,Robert2002,‘TheroleoftheHighCourtintherecognitionofnativetitle’,Western Australian Law Review,vol30,no2, pp.129–166,

Green, Jacky and Seán Kerins 2015, ‘Developing the north – a case study from theGulf Country’, paperpresentedattheAIATSISOccasionalSeminar,Canberra,20February.

Janke,TerriandMichaelFrankel1998,‘Ourculture:ourfuture’,preparedforAIATSIS,1998.Jing,Lee2017,‘Exploringthenarrativeofheritagethroughtheeyesofthelaw’,Kajian Malaysia: Journal of

Malaysian Studies,vol.35,pp.185-207.Kijas, Johanna 2005, Revival, renewal and return: Ray Kelly and the NSW Sites of Significance Survey,

DepartmentofEnvironment&Conservation(NSW),Hurstville,NSW.


22

Koch,Grace2013,We have the song, so we have the land: song and ceremony as proof of ownership in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land claims,AIATSIS researchdiscussionpaper,no.33,AIATSISResearchPublications,Canberra.

Kurin, Richard 2007, ‘Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage: key factors in implementing the 2003Convention’,International Journal of Intangible Heritage, vol.2,pp.10–20.

Kwaymullina,Ambelin,BlazeKwaymullinaandLaurenButterly2015,‘Opportunitylost:changestoAboriginalheritagelawinWesternAustralia,’Indigenous Law Bulletin,vol.8,no.16,pp.24–27.

Lenzerini,Federico2011,‘Intangibleculturalheritage:thelivingcultureofpeoples’,The European Journal of International Law,vol.22,no.1,pp.101–120.

Lloyd,Georgina2009,‘Thesafeguardingofintangibleculturalheritage:lawandpolicy:acasestudyofAngkor’,PhDThesis,UniveristyofSydney.

Mackay,Richard2011,‘AustraliaICOMOS–StateoftheEnvironment2011workshop–summarynote’,reportpreparedfortheAustralianGovernmentDepartmentofSustainability,Environment,Water,PopulationandCommunitiesonbehalfoftheStateoftheEnvironment2011CommitteeDSEWPaC),webpage,viewed 14 Novembver 2017 <https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/ba3942af-f815-43d9-a0f3-dd26c19d83cd/files/soe2011-supplementary-heritage-icomos-workshop-notes.pdf>.

Mackay,Richard2011,‘DSEWPaCIndigenousAdvisoryCommitteeStateoftheEnvironment2011workshop– summary notes’, report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability,Environment,Water, PopulationandCommunitiesonbehalf of the Stateof theEnvironment2011Committee DSEWPaC, webpage, viewed 14 November 2017 <https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/ba3942af-f815-43d9-a0f3-dd26c19d83cd/files/soe2011-supplementary-heritage-state-indigenous-cultural-heritage.pdf>.

Marrie,Henrietta2008,‘TheUNESCOconventionforthesafeguardingoftheintangibleculturalheritageandtheprotectionandmaintenanceoftheintangibleculturalheritageofindigenouspeoples’,inLSmithandNAkagawa(eds),Intangible heritage,Routledge,NewYork,pp.169–192.

Mathé, Barbara 2014, ‘Whose pictures are these? Indigenous community access and control of digitalarchives’,Girona,2014,webpage,viewed17November2018<http://www.girona.cat/web/ica2014/ponents/textos/id240.pdf>.

McGrath,PamelaandEmmaLee2016,‘ThefateofIndigenousplace-basedheritageintheeraofnativetitle’,inP.McGrath(ed.),The right to protect sites: Indigenous heritage management in the era of native title,AIATSIS,Canberra,pp.1-25.Website,viewed17May2018<http://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/products/book/the_right_to_protect_sites_indigenous_heritage_management_in_the_era_of_native_title.pdf>.

MunjeriDawson2008,‘Followingthelengthandbreadthoftheroots:somedimensionsofintangibleheritage’inLSmithandNAkagawa(eds),Intangible heritage, Routledge,NewYork,pp.131–150.

National Aboriginal Health StrategyWorking Party 1989,A national Aboriginal health strategy, NationalAboriginalHealthStrategyWorkingParty,Canberra.

NewSouthWalesAboriginalLandCouncil2010,‘Oursites,ourrights:returningcontrolofAboriginalsitestoAboriginalcommunities–asummaryofkeyrecommendationsofpastAboriginalheritagereviewsinNSW’, report preparedby Policy andResearchUnit ofNSWAboriginal LandCouncil, December,website, viewed 14 November 2017 <http://www.alc.org.au/media/61784/110215%20our%20sites%20our%20rights%20final.pdf>.

OfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW)2017,‘Developmentandheritage’,website,viewed17November2017<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/Heritage/development/index.htm>.

Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW) 2017, ‘A proposed new legal framework: Aboriginal culturalheritage in NSW’, Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW), website, viewed 31 May 2018 <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/a-proposed-new-legal-framework-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-in-nsw>.

OfficeoftheEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW)2018,‘AboriginalCulturalHeritageBill2018’2018,OfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW),website,viewed31May2018,<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/draft-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-bill-2018>.


23

OfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(NSW)2018,‘Aboriginalculturalheritagereforms’,website,viewed31May2018<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/achreform/>.

The Rutzolijirisaxik Voluntary Guidelines for the Repatriation of Traditional Knowledge Relevant for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity,adhocopen-endedinter-sessionalworkinggrouponarticle8(j)andrelatedprovisionsof theConventiononBiologicalDiversity,UNDocCBD/WG8J/10/2,13–16December2017.

Schnierer,Eloise,SylvieEllsmoreandStephanSchnierer2011,‘StateofIndigenousculturalheritage2011’,report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment,Water,PopulationandCommunitiesonbehalfoftheStateoftheEnvironment2011CommitteeDSEWPaC,webpage,viewed14November2017<https://soe.environment.gov.au/sites/g/files/net806/f/soe2011- supplementary-heritage-state-indigenous-cultural-heritage.pdf?v=1488157317>.

Skrydstrup, Martin 2006, Towards intellectual property guidelines and best practices for recording and digitizing intangible cultural heritage: a survey of codes, conduct and challenges in North America,WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation,Geneva.

Stacey,ClaireandJoeFardin2011,‘Housingonnativetitlelands:responsestothehousingamendmentsofthenativetitleact’,Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title,vol.4,issuespaperno.6.

Stockholm, Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development,UNDocCLT-98/Conf.210/CLD.19,30March–2April1998.

Tran,TranandLindseyLangford2015,Negotiating the shared management of Matuwa and Kurarra Kurarra,AIATSIS,Canberra.

Tran,TranandRodKennett2016,‘ReclaimingIndigenousknowledgeinlandandseamanagement’,inNatalieStoianoff (ed.), Indigenous knowledge forum – comparative systems for recognising and protecting Indigenous knowledge and culture,LexisNexis,Chatswood,NSWpp.97–114.

Tran,Tran,PamelaFayeMcGrath,RodKennett,LisaStrelein,ClaireStaceyandDonnaBagnara2015,‘AdvicetotheExpertIndigenousWorkingGroupontheCOAGInvestigationintoIndigenousLandAdministrationandUseonimprovingIndigenouslandadministrationframeworksandprocesses’AIATSIS,12June.

UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganisation(UNESCO)1999,Synthetic report of the Expert Meeting on African Cultural Landscapes,23rdsess,UNDocWHC-99/CONF.204/INF.4,25May.

UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganisation(UNESCO),‘Whatisintangibleculturalheritage?’website,viewed15May2018<https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003>.

Weir, JessicaK, Claire Stacey andKara Youngetob2011 ‘Thebenefits associatedwith caring for country’,literature review, AIATSIS, prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,PopulationandCommunities,webpage,viewed17November2017<https://www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/workingoncountry/publications/pubs/benefits-cfc.pdf>.

Wiessner,Siegfried2011,‘Theculturalrightsofindigenouspeoples:achievementsandcontinuingchallenges’,The European Journal of International Law,vol.22,no.1,pp.121–140.

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) 2017, ‘Documenting traditional knowledge – a toolkit’,WIPO,Geneva.

Yu,Sarah1999,Ngapa Kunangkul (Living Water): report on the Aboriginal cultural values of groundwater in the La Grange Sub-Basin,TheWaterandRiversCommissionofWesternAustralia,Perth.

Dr Tran Tran is a research fellow based in the Indigenous Culture and Heritage team at AIATSIS. Tran completed her PhD on the way in which knowledge structures are translated into legal and political institutions in the context of water management in the Canning Basin Western Australia. Her work is focused on translating community governance and decision making processes into policy and practice. Previously, Tran worked in the Native Title Research Unit and managed the Native Title Representative Bodies Knowledge Management Project and PBC capacity building project. Tran’s current research focus is community storytelling, archiving and repatriation and she is a researcher on the Preserve Strengthen and Renew in Community project.

Clare Barcham joined AIATSIS in 2015 and is a Research Officer in the Indigenous Culture and Heritage team. She is currently completing a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) and a Bachelor of Development Studies at ANU. Clare’s research interests include Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights, native title law, and sustainable development.

AIATSIS Research Publications

ISSN 2204888XISBN 9781922102744

Indigenous knowledges cannot be broken down into components that are measurable, ownable and owned. This fragmentation is reflected in the multitude of regimes that have been created in order to ‘protect’ Indigenous knowledge and is further exacerbated by strong distinctions between both tangible and intangible heritage. This paper maps out the multiple ways in which Indigenous knowledge has been defined and understood, how it is generated and recorded in Australia and reviews the implications of these definitions. We argue that Indigenous individuals, families, communities and nations should be empowered to assert and practice their culture in a manner that makes the most sense to them.

(Re)defining Indigenous Intangible Cultural Heritage

Documents

Transcript of (Re)defining Indigenous Intangible Cultural Heritage