Letter to The Minister

Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2020 at 8:22 pm
To: Minister Elise Archer MP <elise.archer@parliament.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Premier Gutwein <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>
Subject: The ‘preminghana petroglyphs’ currently held by the QVMAG

Dear Minister,

Thank you for your response to my submission to you regarding access to “Information on the public record“ and I do absolutely understand the position that you have taken and your rationale for doing so. I have been attempting to find a way forward in regard to gaining access to the information I am seeking and the GM/CEO has invited me to go to the Ombudsman and that is something that I/we may need to do. That said, I’m more inclined to be seeking improved understandings of the cultural imperatives in play in regard to this matter rather than engage in some exercise in Machiavellian game playing.

Nonetheless, your advice, given SECTION 333 of the Act, does bring into focus a number of issues, being:

• Firstly, there is SECTION 62/2 of the Local Govt. Act which, in my experience, essentially negates all other provisions/protections in the Act given that a general manger, apparently, has unfettered discretion do what she/he finds “necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act” albeit that somewhat concerningly this is not an ‘emergency provision’; and 

• Given this SECTION 62/2 provision’s application, typically when the Ombudsman instructs that information be provided it comes redacted to the point where the exercise does not illuminate very much at all; and also

• The provision renders the election of ‘Councillors’ somewhat pointless given that a general manager can override the determinations of ‘the elected 12’ – and in Launceston it has happened.

I only mention this to contextualise the dilemma one faces, for inexplicable reasons, when seeking information for all manner of reasons. However, I’m quite certain that you know most of this already. I am also mindful of your government’s Good Governance Guide –http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/380427/Good_Governance_Guide_June_2018.pdf

What information am I seeking and why? I am working with various people – academics, cultural thinkers, anthropologists, et al – in the community towards gaining better understandings of the cultural realities in operation in Tasmania. Acordinngly we are engaged in a ‘literature search’. Quite simply, it is not possible to interrogate Tasmanian cultural imperatives without being faced with issues to do with colonialism, its aftermath and of course Aboriginal cultural and social understandings of ‘place’, the layered plus the layering of ‘ownerships’, Aboriginal cultural landscaping and the pakana and palawa people’s cultural realities and sensibilities.

That said, and your declared disinclination to interfere in ‘local governance’ I submit that the circumstance at hand goes well beyond what might be regarded as interference – and indeed local governance. Therefore, I ask that you consider the situation in hand – my personal discrimination issues aside – from the interfacing Ministerial perspectives that you hold, you might be able to bring to bear – the Arts, the Law, Heritage and your past tenure as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

I regard to the ‘preminghana petroglyphs’ currently held by the QVMAG, the information that has been coming to me– culturally contextualise information for the most part – in recent times suggests the following:

• The petroglyphs were ‘removed’ from ‘preminghana’ – Mt Cameron and apparently on VDL land at the time– for the purpose of “protecting” them from the elements and some perceived rigours of ‘the environment’ given their apparent fragility and vulnerability and in recognition of their ‘deemed importance’;

• The petroglyphs were (are?) held at the QVMAG on loan, in trust, whatever, depending upon understandings of the time, that charactorised Tasmanian Aboriginal people as being “extinct” with ‘ownership of the land and everything on it in law’ resting with the VDL Company presumably given that these ‘cultural artefacts’ were taken, with permission, from company land; and

• The petroglyphs, apparently, were not “accessioned” meaning that they were not, and may never have been, formally registered as ‘the property of the QVMAG’, nor apparently have they ever been ‘owned in law’ by the institution, and have essentially remained ‘on loan’ to the institution, ‘in trust’, until the present. Therefore, the proposition that they can be ‘deaccessioned’ is problematic at best – and arguably it is an outrageous assertion that lacks all credibility.

• Thus, unless by means of ‘adverse possession’ via their ‘abandonment’ by the VDL Company presumably, whatever, the petroglyphs have never been ‘a possession of’’ the QVMAG and/or ‘owned in law’ by the institution albeit ‘held in trust’ by the institution over a rather long period of time. 

• Indeed, these cultural artefacts have always been ‘possessed in lore’ by the pakana and palawa peoplewho have ‘collective cultural property’ invested in these cultural artefacts/petroglyphs and by extension, they belong with and to Tasmania’s pakana/ palawa people. Moreover, they belong to, and on, pakana land at preminghana and in the custody of the people who likewise belong to and on pakana land and especially so given that they are members of the oldest known continuing cultural reality on the planet.

• Therefore, I submit that the somewhat patronising ‘legal machinations’ currently being asserted is culturally inappropriate, blighted by Machiavellian bureaucratic imperatives and outmoded ‘colonially inspired’ processes, seeking as is in evidence, some imperative to ‘win’ whatever cultural credibility that is salvageable in this ‘whole messy business’ that is in the main driven by culturally inappropriate imperatives in evidence. Indeed, the acronym ‘WHMM’ – Western [aka White] Histories Matter Most – resonates rather loudly, and somewhat uncomfortably, here.

• Moreover, the refusal of the QVMAG and indeed the City of Launceston’s GM/CEO to provide access to the “accession documentation of the preminghana petroglyphs [he] can advise as follows: We do not offer access to our unedited registration material because they are legal documents and can contain confidential information. They generally contain little if any cultural information and as such are not considered research documents” seems to suggest that (A) that in fact there is no record of ‘accession/acquisition’documentation asserting ‘ownership’ and that would not be surprising given collection imperatives of the time or (B) there is ‘registration’ documentation suggesting/acknowledging the ‘on loan status’ of this culturally sensitive and culturally significant material. If both or either scenario applies and it is deemed ‘culturally embarrassing’ editing the records is inappropriate to say the very least. Here we need to be dealing with ‘the facts’ rather than be seen to seen to be, or even imagined as, ‘doctoring the books’ and this level of unprofessional behaviour must not be tolerated in any way. 

Even the somewhat embattled British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is quoted as saying that we should not be editing our past and there is poignancy in this given the world wide BLACK LIVES MATTER movement with its postcolonial undercurrents. Also, George Monbiot known for his environmental and political activism and writing in the Guardian saying “lying about history, censoring and editing is what the political establishment does. The histories promoted by successive governments, especially those involving the UK’s relationship with other nations, are one long chain of lies. Because we are lied to, we cannot move on. Maturity, either in a person or in a nation, could be defined as being honest about ourselves. We urgently need to grow up” ... well, albeit from afar there are resonances in his ‘critique’ that in turn resonate in Tasmania – even in Launceston’s Town Hall. Sadly, there has been a lack of inclination apparent to wrestle with cultural complexities and in the end, it becomes diminishing is so many ways.

Against, this backgrounding I submit that you are in an almost unique position to lead in a more inclusive reconciliatory way forward given your collective ‘ministerial roles’ – present and past. Also, Premier Gutwein’s declared hand in regard to this matter and his current approval ratings, and his willingness to talk with Michael Mansell et al, this should place ‘the government’ in a position whereby a positive way forward can be brokered and via which more inclusive understandings can be aspired to.

For myself, I will continue to stand on the sidelines observing, commenting and pondering ways via which more inclusive 21^st C understandings might be arrived at and aspired towards. I/we will also continue to do the literature search and collate the material online in as transparent and open a process that we can realistically achieved.  

I look forward to your considered response with interest.

Yours sincerely,

Ray Norman

CLICK ON THE MAGE TO ENLARGE