APPARENTLY THE CITY OF LAUNCESTON IS EITHER DISINCLINED TO OR DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO APOLOGISE

CONTEXT NOTE: The mayor and his deputy were made aware of the TMAG's and the Royal Society's declared intentions and 'Town Hall' did not, and has not responded. It would seem that John Howard's BLACK ARMBAND VIEW OF HISTORY is adhered to in Launceston. Neither has the QVMAG responded thus far.

Launceston's Intransigent Cultural Recalcitrance Exposed

TMAG, Royal Society to apologise to Tasmanian Aboriginal community as part of petroglyphs return

‘Workers remove the 14,000-year-old Preminghana petroglyphs from their original location on the far-North-West Coast in the 1960s. They are part of a network of Aboriginal rock carvings.

Two of Tasmania's longest-running institutions will formally apologise to the Aboriginal community as part of the process in repatriating the Preminghana petroglyphs to their home on the far-North- West Coast.

The Royal Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery will offer paired apologies on February 15 "in recognition of the shared history of the organisations".

The text of the apology will be made available on the day. A TMAG spokesperson said it was part of the reconciliation process.

MORE ON THE PREMINGHANA PETROGLYPHS:

Aboriginal leader slams wait for rock carvings return

City of Launceston agrees to repatriate Preminghana petroglyphs

NAIDOC Week 2020: urgent call for petroglyphs' return

TMAG agrees to pass on final permit to Aboriginal leaders

"Whilst the apology event and the physical return of the petroglyphs are not happening on the same day, they are both a demonstration of TMAG's commitment to strengthening its relationship with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community," she said.

The Royal Society was involved in the practice of exhuming the bodies of Aboriginal Tasmanians before they would be dismembered and often displayed to the public.

The practice continued throughout the 19th century and included the mutilation of the bodies of the last "full-blooded" Aboriginal Tasmanians, Truganini and William Lanne.

TMAG included the remains of Aboriginal people in its collections.

Along with the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, TMAG stored the Preminghana petroglyphs after their removal in the 1960s.

The 14,000-year-old petroglyphs will be returned to their original location on the far-North West Coast in early March, involving transportation by truck and the possible use of a helicopter to lift the several-tonne rock carvings into place.

Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chairman Michael Mansell said the apologies from the two institutions were an important step.

"It signifies a change of attitude in Tasmanian society, reflected by two fairly conservative institutions who are now taking responsibility for their past actions, rather than just saying 'here's the petroglyphs, take them, we're not going to talk about what we did'," he said.

"They're saying 'let's open the books, and let's be honest and truthful about how we got them, how we disregarded the feelings of Aboriginal people, and did what we wanted to do because we were part of white society'."

END

OPINION

As Michael Mansell has said, this is an important step. Nonetheless, why isn’t the city of Launceston and the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QMAG) apologising as well?

Somewhat ironically Minister Jaensch, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, left it to Remembrance Day, Nov 11, 2020 to remember to ‘approve’ the petroglyphs’ handback.

Both Council and the QVMAG have much to do in regard to reconciliation and yet again they have been found wanting.

Michael Stretton’s assertion, or was he deeming it, and in open council, that the city’s councillors were not QVMAG Trustees was and is a flawed understanding of the councillors’ governance role in regard to the QVMAG’s collections.

Likewise, Mr Stretton’s assertion that the QVMAG’s petroglyphs were being “deaccessioned” which, on the evidence, couldn’t be so or even verified as there is no evidence of them ever being ‘accessioned’ – formally taken into the QVMAG’s ‘ownership’.

By extension, this implies that the petroglyphs were stolen, or on loan or on the very best construction ‘taken into the institution’s care’ given that that at the time it was imagined and assumed that Tasmania’s Aboriginal people became ‘extinct’ with Truganini’s death.

The Councillors were not required to approve the petroglyph’s “deaccession”. What they had the opportunity to do was to just hand them back to the pakana people given that there was no ‘demonstrable ownership’ in any context to relinquish – except perhaps by bureaucratic deeming.

It turns out that her death was all so convenient in the context of the colonial aftermath given that she had a sister living on Kangaroo Island and Fanny Cochrane Smith lived on in southern Tasmania until she died in 1905.

So, the QVMAG is deeply embedded in all this as an institution’s and by extension Council too. Clearly, both the City of Launceston and the QVMAG have obligations here and no amount of ‘history smoothing’ will absolve either.

Moreover, there are reports that the QVMAG has in its collection still a plaster cast of a petroglyph taken from Preminghana quite likely circa 1930.

Why is this not being discussed or has it – they?– been destroyed in some history sanitising process?

In the vernacular, it’s ‘FESS UP TIME’ and ‘fence mending time’ down at Launceston’s Town Hall!

Launcestonians are diminished by the city’s governance’s and ‘cultural custodians’ recalcitrance and it is time that they ought not be.

With respect,

Ray Norman

LETTER TO LAUNCESTON'S MAYOR ALBERT VAN ZETTEN

Cr. Albert van Zetten

Mayor City of Launceston

Default Chair QVMAG Trustees

 Date: Friday, 20 November 2020 at 7:21 pm 

To: Mayor , Councillor Danny Gibson , Michael Stretton Cc: Premier Gutwein , Minister Jaensch for Planning , Minister for Local Govt , Contact Us , Peter Sims , Contact Us

Subject: RE: The priminghana petroglyphs and NAIDOC .

Dear Albert and Councillors, ................................ Thank you for your email it is much appreciated albeit that despite you telling me on multiple occasions that the QVMAG had ‘accessioned’ the ppetroglyphs, neither you, nor Council, or indeed the QVMAG, have ever provided any evidence whatsoever of that being the case – except by assertion. ................................ It is something of a relief that a handback is finally in process, such as it is, blighted by bureaucratic humbug as it is, marked by cultural insensitivity as it is, retarded by serial administrative ineptitude as it is, and coming way, way too late as it does. If only the lessons to be learnt have been, there may well be a way forward emerging even yet. ................................ I can accept that ‘accessioning’ may have happened ‘contemporaneously’ in an effort to bureaucratically smooth over the embedded histories. However, any evidence of ‘accessioning’ happening in either the 1960s/70s/80s/90s has not been made available – arguably it does not exist. In the absence of evidence for the petroglyph’s ‘accessioning’ happening except by recent Machiavellian convenience, this renders your claim an exemplar of ‘truth by assertion’. Thus, your assertion is an unsubstantiated statement of ‘edited bureaucratic history’ – and in the end unavoidably diminishing. ................................ As you are no doubt aware, I’ve requested a copy of the ‘original accessioning document’ on a number of occasions and consistently that has been denied me on the grounds that when “edited documents/data” – paraphrased – is available they can be made available ‘to the public’. Such bureaucratic humbug fails the ‘pub test’ and any other class of evidence provision in any context – least of all in law. ................................ As I have said before, it is well past time to acknowledge that the QVMAG had never ‘formally accessioned’ this cultural material in a timely or formal way, as it clearly hasn’t been prior to this current process. ‘Ownership’ may even have been assumed on the grounds of ‘adverse possession’ and on the prevailing assumption that Truganini was the last of the First Tasmanians. This would not be unusual however, given the circumstances of the times and there will be many more instances of such ‘history smoothing’ if the truth be told – at the QVMAG and elsewhere. ................................ Council might only ‘deaccession’ – renounce formal ownership – the petroglyphs if they had ever been accessioned. If they were accessioned, how were they, when were they and by whom? ................................ The lack of evidence provided by the institution’s General Manager and Council’s General Manager’s (AKA CEO’s) inability and/or unwillingness to supply any unedited original documentation to establish ‘accessioned ownership’ is significant. Clearly the evidence does not appear to exist and this is more than troubling in regard to Council’s truthfulness, the QVMAG’s trustworthiness and by extension Council’s accountability and transparency right across the board! ................................ Peter Sims’ dedicated scholarship is, and should be, the ‘gold standard’ in regard to informing cultural decision making at hand here. It does you no credit at all to be attempting to garner unearned credibility on the strength and diligence of his work and his launching of his monograph at the QVMAG as you seem to be doing. ................................ Yesterday, November 19, we learnt a great deal about the lack of truth-telling and trustworthiness on behalf of government in regard to the potential criminal activity on the part of some Australian defence force personnel. This news is shocking. Also, it was revealed yesterday that Tasmania’s government is Australia’s most secretive. By extension this reflects poorly on the City of Launceston given the city’s propensity to rely upon SECTION 62/2 of the Local Govt. Act and the secrecy plus bureaucratic distortion it can facilitate and arguably does all too often. ................................ That famous quote of Saint Augustine’s, “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself” rings somewhat loudly in all this. Why not let the lion loose? ................................ Somewhat poignantly, John 8:32 also comes to mind ... “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” The Quran also has something to say to its adherents ... “Confound not the Truth with falsehood nor conceal it knowingly”. Also, Buddha tells us that there are three things that cannot hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the Truth. In any case, the observance of such wisdom found in the scriptures would be a good thing indeed. ................................ Personally, I have direct and personal evidence, and experience, of ‘bureaucratic bungling’ in regard to a gift to the QVMAG’s collections. Then came a rather clumsy attempt of a ‘cover up’. This being the case when it came to accessioning, it does no credit to the QVMAG’s institutional trustworthiness at all, when a ‘fess up’ would be much more helpful – and as in John 8:32, liberating. ................................ As in South Australia right now, when the truth is outed, advances can be, will be, and are being made. Substantiated and truthful expert advice exceeds political opportunism and ideology at every turn and it always will. ................................ As a regional city, Launceston is no longer the leader it once could lay claim to being, in the main because of faltering leadership and deluded self-assessment. The evidence is that the city is stagnating, and is incrementally losing its heritage status. Concerningly, the city has the highest rates of any regional city in Australia and along with its default position of secrecy, all this is an enormous burden for Launcestonians to bear on top of the COVID-19 crisis and climate change. ................................ It seems that ‘accessioning’ at the QVMAG may well have been a discretionary activity up until the present – and less than a diligent activity as is increasingly in evidence. Concerningly, it remains unendorsed by Council, the institution’s default ‘trustees’. ................................ In a ‘cultural institution’ in the colonial aftermath, as it is with the QVMAG and Tasmania’s dark, shameful and somewhat gothic histories, all this must be recognised. As an institution owned by the City of Launceston, and by extension its citizenry, the QVMAG must be trustworthy and accountable. I submit that this is far from being so. ................................ Your attempts at ‘truth by assertion’, contrary to any evidence as it is, does not serve either the institution or the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest, or indeed yourself, at all well. Likewise, Council’s non-delivery on appropriate, accountable and trustworthy governance for the QVMAG and Council’s largely “Machiavellian godless, scheming self-service" is bewildering to say the very least. ................................ History will be your judge and thus far Tasmania’s somewhat dark and distorted ‘histories’ diminish all who cling to them for whatever reason. As Nelson Mandela has alerted us, “history will judge us by the difference we make in the everyday lives of children.” ................................ In closing, somewhat interestingly the literature talks about “plaster casts being taken of the petroglyphs at Mt Cameron West” and implying that the QVMAG was somehow involved has gone unnoticed, unreported and overlooked. Indeed, there has been a deathly silence albeit that there are reports of one such cast being in the QVMAG collection, possibly currently, but not recognised as such apparently by current staff. This is an important historic artefact and if it has been destroyed, as has been suggested that it could have been, that would be a shameful act indeed. That it’s very existence is unacknowledged, that speaks volumes about the QVMAG, it’s management, its institutional credibility and its governance. ................................ All that said, I look forward to your, and Council’s, carefully considered advice and positioning in the light of the information available. ................................ Yours sincerely, Ray Norman

__________________________'

FINALLY THE MINISTER ACTS

NB: Somewhat interestingly this news has only been reported on Tasmanian ABC News, radio & TV, despite the considerable number of items posted leading up the Minister's decision. It seems that the 'political class' wish to privilege Eurocentric cum 'settler' bureaucratic processes in order to maintain whatever authority they might wish to hold. It seems ‘cultural acknowledgement’ comes with meaning much of which need not be celebrated.

MORE HISTORY SMOOTHING

From: Ray Norman Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 12:58 pm To: Mayor , Councillor Danny Gibson , Premier Gutwein Cc: Minister Jaensch for Planning , Minister for Local Govt , Contact Us , Peter Sims Subject: The priminghana petroglyphs and NAIDOC Dear Albert and Councillors, Firstly, I acknowledge and appreciate your apology today on behalf of Council, it must be said that it is a significant step forward albeit a long time coming. We are all diminished by events of the colonial aftermath and the consequent ‘placemaking’ and ‘cultural landscaping’ that brings us to the point where the past can no longer go unacknowledged. Thank you for your public apology today! Where to now? I respectfully suggest, given all that is now known, that at Council’s very next meeting you invite Michael Mansell and a group of First Tasmanian Elders along and formally hand the priminghana petroglyphs back to the Aboriginal community in order that they can return these ‘cultural treasures’, their treasures, to their rightful places – no ifs, no buts, no bureaucratic humbug. It is time to acknowledge that these cultural treasures were removed from where they belong on the erroneous and self-serving assumption that the First Tasmanians were not there, underscored as that assumption was by the assertion of and presumption of, Terra Nullius. It is also time to acknowledge that the QVMAG has never ‘accessioned’ this cultural material in order that it, as an institution, might ‘deaccession’ it. This is evidenced by the institution’s and the GM/AKA CEO’s inability and unwillingness to supply any original unedited documentation to establish ‘accessioned ownership’. Clearly it does not exist and this is more than troubling! It is also time to acknowledge Peter Sims’ decades of tireless and dedicated scholarship now published in his very recently published monograph dedicated to this topic. Peter Sims needs to be acknowledged as the premier authority par excellence in regard to the histories attached to this internationally important cultural material. Handing it, and entrusting it, to today’s First Tasmanians is an obvious way of doing so and I submit now is the time to do so. To reiterate, the petroglyphs, on the evidence, were never ever in any way whatsoever ‘owned’ by the QVMAG. Therefore, it is nothing short of insensitive, history smoothing, bureaucrat humbug to insist that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs needs to approve their hand back. To insist upon it diminishes us all and the opportunity is in your hands to right a monumental wrong albeit one perpetrated in ignorance. You lead the default ‘trustees’, and in law, as you would know, the ignorance of a law is not a defence! Yours sincerely, Ray Ray Norman The lifestyle design enterprise and research network  eMAIL 1. 7250 WEBsites: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/

PETER SIMS MONOGRAPH – Tasmanian Aboriginal Rock Art : PREMINGHANA (Mount Cameron West)

 

About the author (2020)

This volume is one of a series of self-published monographs on Tasmanian Aboriginal rock art. The author as a member of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies provides an illustrated chronological reference to this rock art (petroglyph) site from 1828 to the present.

Bibliographic information

Title	Tasmanian Aboriginal Rock Art: Preminghana (Mount Cameron West)
Author	Peter Sims
Publisher	Peter C. Sims, 2020
ISBN	0908010125, 9780908010127

This monograph is the 4th in a series by the author on Tasmanian Aboriginal rock art sites. This publication traces the history of the site from 1828 to the present using both published references, the results of expeditions and personal records on this site, the land hand-back of an area that included the petroglyph (rock art) site to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community as an Indigenous Protected Area, and the planned hand-back to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community of the petroglyphs taken from the site by museums. Featured in this landscape edition are many photos in colour from the author's collection and from institutional records that illustrate the site considered of national significance prior to it being covered with sand/vegetation as a conservation measure.

NAIDOC WEEK 2020, The Preminghana petroglyphs and The Examiner

 NOVEMBER 9 2020 - 5:30PM

NAIDOC Week 2020: Preminghana 

petroglyph return stalls, despite 

agreements reached in August

• 

  Adam Holm

 The Preminghana petroglyphs - ancient Aboriginal rock carvings - during their removal from the West Coast in the 1960s. Picture: supplied

Despite Tasmania's major museums and the City of Launceston agreeing to repatriate the Preminghana petroglyphs to the West Coast over three months ago, the Aboriginal community claims it has not received any updates from the state government.

The Launceston council submitted a permit application with the government in late-August, which required the approval of Aboriginal Affairs Minister Roger Jaensch.

The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania believed this decision should have been easy for the government, but concerns were growing over further delays.

ALCT chair Michael Mansell said approval from the minister would allow the issue to progress to determining the physical way in which the ancient rock carvings could be returned.

 The Preminghana petroglyphs remain in storage at the QVMAG in Launceston and at TMAG in Hobart.

"We can't do that without the tick off from minister, Roger Jaensch," he said.

"Once we get the technical approval, the land council would meet with the premier, the minister and representatives of the museums, with advice from a person in Queensland who is regarded as a national expert in the repatriation of rock art.

MORE ON NAIDOC WEEK 2020 IN TASMANIA:

• Launceston mayor apologises for times council 'got it wrong' on Aboriginal affairs
  
• With few land returns since 2005, Tasmanian Aboriginal community asks: "why?"
  

"We've been a bit surprised that by the end of August the museums had put their applications in, and now we're in November and we've heard absolutely nothing from the government."

The rock carvings are about six-foot in height and were removed from their position on the West Coast in the 1960s. They are part of a 20-kilometre network of carvings in the area that give insight into Aboriginal history.

The ALCT made a formal request in December last year for the repatriation of the petroglyphs from the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. TMAG agreed to the proposal.

In June, the City of Launceston voted to remove them from the QVMAG collection, and an application was submitted with the government in August.

Mr Mansell initially hoped to have the matter dealt with by September.

Mr Jaensch said the government is waiting on "final advice" from the director of Parks and Wildlife.

"I expect to receive this imminently, and a decision will be made on the permits following receipt of that advice," he said.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

NOVEMBER 9 2020 - 5:30PM

NAIDOC Week 2020: Tasmanian Aboriginal community questions stalled land returns process

• 

  Adam Holmes

 The West Coast Aboriginal landscape - stretching from the coast near Marrawah south to the area near Pieman River - is among the areas the ALCT hopes to have returned to the Aboriginal community. Picture: Adam Holmes

Fifteen years since the Tasmanian Government's last significant return of land to the Aboriginal community, the land council is asking this question during NAIDOC Week 2020: "what is the problem?"

When the Aboriginal Land Act was introduced in Tasmania in 1995 - resulting in the Aboriginal Land Council - more than 55,000 hectares of land covering 15 areas was returned.

Ten were returned in 1995, and Parliament approved two more in 1999 and 2005, but none since, apart from private landowners transferring portions of their land to Aboriginal stewardship.

With the 2020 NAIDOC week theme "Always Was, Always Will Be", the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre has sought to put renewed pressure on the government for answers.

 Areas near the Bay of Fires and Mount William National Park are among those the Tasmanian Aboriginal community hopes to have returned. Picture: Adam Holmes

In his address at the flag raising ceremony, the TAC's Adam Thompson said that without "concrete acts" to repair damage, the week would pass again with "shallowness".

"The return of those lands was the very first meaningful step on the long road to restitution. But after 2005, the conversation abruptly stopped," he said.

"In the last 15 years, the only meaningful acknowledgement that this land is as it has always has been Aboriginal land has been through the generosity of private citizens.

"It is both a triumph and a tragedy that restitution for the wrongs of the past is being carried out by individuals rather than the collective acts of government.

MORE ON NAIDOC WEEK 2020 IN TASMANIA:

• Launceston mayor apologises for times council 'got it wrong' on Aboriginal affairs
  
• 'We've heard nothing': delays continue in return of Preminghana petroglyphs to West Coast
  

"Why during NAIDOC Week cannot the premier announce the returns of stolen lands? Why? What is the problem?"

Areas that the ALCT hopes will be returned next include those near the Bay of Fires and wukalina/Mount William on the East Coast, and the West Coast Aboriginal landscape stretching from near Marrawah south to the area near the Pieman River, according to chair Michael Mansell.

The ALCT has a vision of improving recognition of these areas under its stewardship, including rebuilding villages on the West Coast.

"We need our own people looking after our own heritage, then improving the quality of the presentation for visitors by people who are authentic and can talk about what the rock carvings mean and rebuild the villages," Mr Mansell said.

The nirmena nala rock shelter in the Derwent Valley was returned in 2015.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Roger Jaensch said the government was reviewing the model for returning land, but COVID had delayed a second round of consultation.

"The government is looking at potential options for land returns, and will continue to have conversations with Tasmanian Aboriginal communities on areas of land that are of interest to them," he said.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

NOVEMBER 9 2020 - 5:30PM

NAIDOC Week 2020: Mayor apologises 

for the times 'we have got it wrong' on 

Aboriginal affairs

• 

  Adam Holmes

 Mayor Albert van Zetten spoke at the launch of NAIDOC Week in Launceston on Monday, while Nathan Pitchford delivered a traditional dance as a welcome. Picture: Neil Richardson

Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten has apologised for the times the council "got it wrong" in its dealings with the Aboriginal community, but has promised it will listen closely and act upon concerns in the future.

Cr van Zetten spoke at the flag raising ceremony at the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre on Charles Street on Monday morning to launch NAIDOC Week 2020, delayed from July due to COVID.

He said the council was committed to ensuring the Aboriginal community was brought along in its decision-making.

"I do want to apologise for the times we have got it wrong," he said.

"We are continuing to learn and understand. I think what we need to continue to do is to continue to listen, and continue to try to understand where you're coming from, and we want to do that.

"Please be patient with us as we try to go on that journey together.

MORE ON NAIDOC WEEK 2020 IN TASMANIA:

• With few land returns since 2005, Tasmanian Aboriginal community asks: "why?"
  
• 'We've heard nothing': delays continue in return of Preminghana petroglyphs to West Coast
  

"Yes, sometimes we're slow to learn, but we are getting there. I know that I have come a long way in 10 years and I'm sure the community will continue to come along as well."

Cr van Zetten pointed to last year's Australia Day decision as evidence the city was moving in a positive direction.

The decision drew some negative feedback from various parts of the Launceston community, but the mayor said it was the council's responsibility to ensure all of the community was brought together, and they would not shy away from showing leadership.

"I know that I got a lot of negative comments from doing that - and we will get that - but we want to continue to work so we can bring all of the community together, it's not just about one or the other, it's about all of us trying to work together," Cr van Zetten said.

In recent years, the council's refurbishment of Civic Square drew criticism from the TAC due to its history pavers including John Batman, but having limited reference to the city's Aboriginal history. The council last year voted to begin working on a Reconciliation Action Plan