LAUNCESTON PETROGLYPHS MORALITY AND ETHICS

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS

John Coulson’s September 8 letter in the Examiner where he somewhat laments the return of the petroglyphs to the Aboriginal community is interesting. It is apparent that he is clinging to a 20^th Century paradigm and asserting the pre-eminence of Anglocentic Western culture and its values in 2020.

Hopefully, Tasmanians are able to imagine a world view well beyond the such narratives. This Western slant on ‘history’ is all too often found in the narratives of the colonial aftermath that is Tasmania’s unhappy inheritance.

It is now patently clear that the QVMAG never actually ‘accessioned’ the petroglyph held in its collections. There was no need to do so given that it was assumed that the Trugannini myth was 'a truth'. Myth had it that she was the last of the First Tasmanians when these cultural artefacts were ‘taken into the museum’ from Van Diemen’s Company land.

This being so, it turns out that the City of Launceston’s recent ‘deaccessioning’ of these Aboriginal cultural treasures is a total fiction and something that cynically compounds Council’s unwillingness to provide access to the “unedited accessioning documentation” –  if it in fact exists or ever existed. Why might Council as the QVMAG’s default Trustees wish to smooth over the city’s histories via such Machiavellian bureaucratic manoeuvring?

Of course, these cultural treasures are the property of the descendants of the First Tasmanians. It is not drawing too long a bow to assert that the petroglyphs are ‘stolen’ and thus ‘plunder’ of a kind – a trophy even. The city’s mayor’s declarations about reconciliation and ‘doing the right thing’ are little more than empty rhetoric.

The Aboriginal community has every right to reclaim their cultural property and do with them as they see fit. More to the point, these petroglyphs should be returned forthwith and without the legal myth making or the charade of government approval. There is no legal principle to be upheld but there are moral and ethical judgements to be made.

Protestations such as John Coulson’s are hollow and are no longer relevant except in the writings of historians perhaps while recounting the excesses Western colonial expansion in Tasmania and in the world more widely.

Reconciliation in Tasmania might well begin with the return of what was disrespectfully, ignorantly and somewhat arrogantly removed from the place where these petroglyphs are deeply embedded in the cultural realities of Tasmania’s First People and as they have been for millennia.

One wonders what John Coulson and his ilk imagine they might do with the petroglyphs and what they imagine they might contribute to any kind of inclusive cultural discourse that cannot be achieved by the scholarship they have demonstrated neither the will nor the capacity to engage with at any level – political posturing yes, scholarship no.

LINK TO SUBMISSION

Date: Wednesday, 2 September 2020 at 4:26 pm
To: MAYOR <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: The QVMAG Petroglyphs

 

Dear Albert,

 

Sadly, yet again you need to be called out for your appalling performance on ABC News last night all of it of course reviewable on ABC iVIEW. Your determination that the QVMAG ever ‘owned’ the petroglyphs is entirely untrue, a fiction, and that is putting the kindest possible inflection upon it.

 

If the QVMAG had ever asserted ‘ownership’ of the petroglyphs the institution would have needed to ‘accession them’ into the collection. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever on the public record for that ever happening albeit that it might have. That is except perhaps at some mysterious point just before they were “deaccessioned” and at that now infamous council meeting. The ink on the documentation at that time was quite likely running wet in a futile attempt to smooth over history – it might well have been wet with blood. It does you no credit to sanction and promote this nonsense.

 

The Aboriginal community has called you out and if you had the wherewithal you would ensure that this ‘stolen cultural material’ is packed up in the suitable crates and handed back to the Aboriginal community just as soon as that can be done – like next Monday! Whatever the circumstances, stolen property is stolen property.

 

Any notion that ‘government approval’ is required is just not the case and if the State Government has an issue with ‘the council’ handing Aboriginal cultural property back, let them deal with that in the courts if they dare or are so inclined.

 

Your position in regard to this matter diminishes all those who dare to care about these matters and are disinclined to smooth over Tasmania’s colonial histories littered as it is with ethnocide, cultural genocide, massacres, systematic genocide and all manner of diabolical behaviours Christian colonialism sanctioned. The consequences of which is the inheritance of those wanting to understand themselves as Tasmanians in 2020.

 

In this you do not represent people who seek justice and you seem hell bent on denying the facts in some futile attempt to rescue your reputation. That is sullied beyond redemption. For all our sakes do what needs to be done and do it now.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ray

Letter to the editor Sept 11 2020 Returning the Petroglyph

LINK TO LUCKMAN PAPER

I FOR one can't wait for the petroglyphs to be returned to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, it is well overdue and a positive step by all involved in the reconciliation process; acknowledging past wrongs and now rectifying these with reflection and compassion.

My community will treasure the return of these sacred stones and we will make our own decisions about what will happen to them at our own time.

After all, we should have the say in what happens to them now as we had no say when they were cut from our cultural fabric all those years ago.

Be assured, without a doubt we will care for them as they should be cared for and make all relevant decisions about the petroglyphs with as much love and with all the respect they have always deserved.

Tessa Atto, Ravenswood.

The Examiner Letters to the editor | September 8, 2020 Local News

Tasmanian relics shouldn't be owned by any one person' Returning the Petroglyphs HAVING these items locked up out of sight in the museum was of no benefit to anyone but one must query what Michael Mansell and the Aboriginal Heritage Council intend to do with them once returned. 

 One respects the significance heritage items like these have to the descendants of the first Tasmanians, but the fact is that they are Tasmanian relics and should not be the property of any one person or group. 

 Such heritage items must be protected but it does not follow that they therefore need to be locked away out of sight of the general community. 

The petroglyphs and similar heritage items give the opportunity for interaction and conversation between all of us and the Tasmanian Aboriginals, something which would be a significant step towards reconciliation. 

 Sadly however, there seem to be many in the Tasmanian Aboriginal community intent on claiming exclusive ownership of these Tasmania heritage items so the general community is prevented from access. 

 The politicisation of Tasmania's early history and associated heritage items is preventing interaction with the rest of us and is further accentuating divisions between those of us who have some Aboriginal heritage and those who do not. 

 This is against any concepts of genuine reconciliation. There are stories to be told of our ancient history and they belong to all Tasmanians, not just those with a claim to a particular descendance from the first Tasmanians. 

 Are the TAC and Reconciliation Tasmania prepared to respond positively to this challenge? 

 John Coulson, Dilston.

FOR CONTEXT SEE:

1. https://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ctee/Council/Submissions/John%20Coulson%20submission%2029%20March%202013.pdf

1. Letters to the editor, July 3, 2018: Letters to the editor John Coulson, of Dilston, shares his views on the sale of Anglican churches around Tasmania. John Coulson, of Dilston, shares his views on the sale of Anglican churches around Tasmania. I AGREE with the sentiments of Dick James (Letters, The Examiner, June 10) about the dubious morality of church sales needed to cover compensation for victims of abuse. .................. The sale of the Windermere Church is questionable both morally and legally. e. .................. What gives the church the moral right to sell a building, up kept by the community, with a gravesite of our ancestors? e. .................. My great-grandfather, along with other early residents of the area worked with Dr Matthias Gaunt to establish the facility and he, and my other relatives, are buried there. And one questions the legal position of the Windermere Church by the Anglican Church, which gives them as right to sell this community asset. Furthermore, not all funding from sales is to go to victims of abuse. e. .................. The church has the right to withdraw clergy from services to a church because of poor congregation attendance but extrapolating that to the right to sell property given to communities by early settlers is a step too far. e. .................. Yes, there is an obligation to assist those abused by the clergy, but not at the expense of communities who bear no responsibility for the criminal actions of a few. e. .................. John Coulson, Dilston.

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

EXAMINER JUNE 11 2020

Click on the image to enlarge

The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery will begin consultation with the state's Aboriginal community in the next few weeks to negotiate the return of sacred relics to them.

The museum's board in December decided to return petroglyphs cut from stone on the North-West Coast once necessary arrangements and approvals were in place in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act. ............................ The City of Launceston council at its ordinary meeting on Thursday will also decide whether petroglyphs held by the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery will be repatriated. ............................ TMAG director Janet Carding on Wednesday said the museum was undertaking the community consultation required under the Aboriginal Heritage Act so the TMAG board could apply for a permit to move the relics. ............................ She said discussions were underway to work out how the artefacts could be returned and where they would be returned to. ............................ Ms Carding said she had a series on consultation meetings scheduled over the next few weeks with various Tasmanian Aboriginal organisations. ............................ "I'll be getting their feedback, I'll be compiling a report, and that will go into the permit application," she said. ............................ "As soon as we put the permit application in, we hope there will be a swift resolution. ............................ "I appreciate that it is a matter of anxiety for some people that it has taken some time." ............................ Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chairman Michael Mansell said the complex process was due to antiquated legislation which was under review. ............................ "We're at a stalemate," he said. ............................ "The act isn't working properly." ............................ Mr Mansell said despite some stalling in the repatriation process, he remained confident the Aboriginal community would have the petroglyphs returned to them in September. ............................ However, Ms Carding said she could not commit to a return by then. ............................ "We need to make sure we do the consultation properly," she said. ............................ Launceston council's cultural services general manager, Tracy Puklowski, wrote in Thursday's meeting agenda there were a range of opinions held by different Aboriginal groups as to the best outcome for the petroglyphs. ............................ She said these ranged from relocation to the area where they were found to display for future generations.

...

Land handbacks discussed with Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein Matt Maloney National

 Land returns were discussed between Premier Peter Gutwein and Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chairman Michael Mansell on Wednesday for the first time since Mr Gutwein took leadership. ............................ After the meeting, Mr Mansell expressed positivity that the pair could form an effective working relationships to sort out issues that still aggrieved the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. ............................ He said there would be another meeting with the Premier in July to further discuss the list of options for genuine reconciliation put to him, such as dedicated seats in Tasmanian Parliament. ............................ "What I've put to them is something we can collectively work towards," he said. "He seems to be onboard in wanting to do something. ............................ "What it is, he didn't say, but there was a big difference between talking to him and other Liberal ministers over the years when you know that you are not getting through to them." ............................ Mr Mansell said it was his view the government's review of land handbacks was a stalling process. ............................ He said he expected the next stage on land returns would be further discussed at the July meeting. ............................ Mr Mansell said it had been 15 years since the last land return by the government. ............................ Mr Gutwein said the government was committed to improving social, cultural and economic outcomes for the state's Aboriginal people. ............................ He said Wednesday's meeting had been constructive. ............................ "We discussed a number of matters including the return of petroglyphs, joint land management and the future of land handback arrangements along with other matters," Mr Gutwein said.

TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND GOVERNANCE

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

The Tasmanian Aboriginal community will push for a treaty and two seats in Parliament when representatives meet Premier Peter Gutwein this week.

It will be the first time advocates have sat down with Mr Gutwein since he became Premier in January.

Aboriginal Land Council chair Michael Mansell said he had been overwhelmed by the support at Black Lives Matter rallies in Tasmania and across the country.

Mr Mansell, who spoke at the Launceston rally on Saturday, said the government should set up a Treaty Commission.

"The Commission should be armed with a draft treaty to be used for broad community consultations about how a treaty might work in practice," he said.

"The treaty could be based on sharing sovereignty with Aboriginal people, establishing a reparations fund and making a land settlement."

A treaty also would provide for two Aboriginal seats in the House of Assembly and three per cent of state gross domestic product, or about $93 million to provide housing and to run programs and services and protect Aboriginal heritage.

Mr Mansell said in an inclusive society, governments should try to focus on values of fairness and justice.

"It has been recognised throughout commonwealth countries that treaties and reparations comprise essential values in modern societies where the original people have suffered severely under European invasion.

"Aboriginal people and our representatives have pressed successive Tasmanian and Federal governments to address these fundamental remedies without success. That is no reason to walk away from the opportunity now before us."

Mr Mansell said people who attended Black Lives Matter rallies wanted to know how to achieve equality.

"There has been an outpouring of support and goodwill and ordinary people want to know how to express their views and support change," he said.

"They are looking for political leadership but no politicians are listening.

"We need to build on that momentum. Justice costs nothing."

The meeting will be held on Thursday.

Mr Gutwein said: "I look forward to meeting with Michael Mansell this week to discuss matters of importance to Tasmania's Aboriginal communities."

Coast is far from clear for sacred Tasmanian Aboriginal rock art’s return

EXCLUSIVE MATTHEW DENHOLM
 TASMANIA CORRESPONDENT
 JUNE 7, 2020

For millennia, Tasmania’s Aborigines chronicled their stories in stone, carving them into the rocks and cliffs of Tasmania’s wild Tarkine coast for future generations. Now some of these remarkable ancient petroglyphs are part of a very different story.

And it’s not a happy one for the descendants of those rock-carving storytellers, nor for the broader Tasmanian community that is still working to reconcile a bloody history of Aboriginal dispossession and conflict.

In 1962, a large intact section of petroglyph from the rugged coastal area of Preminghana, in the state’s remote northwest, was sawed from its rock face and sent to Hobart’s Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. Other sections that apparently broke away naturally were taken to Launceston’s Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery for display

A long struggle to have the ­petroglyphs returned to the Aboriginal community appeared to have succeeded in December, with the TMAG committing to the move. However, the process has stalled and some Aboriginal groups are mystified as to why.

The Australian has learned the return of the cultural treasure has become tangled in red tape, consultation and hand-wringing, as well as differences among Aboriginal groups.

Experts, meanwhile, warn the priceless rock art, likened by some authorities to treasures of ancient Egypt, will rapidly disintegrate if it is returned, unprotected, to its original coastal site.

Michael Mansell, chair of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, has called for state legislation to break the deadlock and have the petroglyphs returned to Preminghana. “There’s nothing to consult about. Just get on with it — legislate, make them do it,” Mr Mansell said.

“The stories of how and where Aboriginal life began … are carved into these rocks. Whenever major events took place in the sky, that’s carved into the rock. When there was a significant meeting of the tribes … you can see the markings.

“There is a whole coastline of these markings. It’s like a big ­jigsaw puzzle, and when they took away these slabs and put them in museums, they took away the middle piece.”

It seems everyone — the ­museums, the government and all Aboriginal groups — accept the petroglyphs should return to the Aboriginal community. But in ­recent years, the state government has broadened its indigenous consultation to include a range of groups, not just Mr Mansell’s long-established ALCT and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre.

Some of these newer groups have different ideas about what should happen to the rock carvings. Some favour a museum of their own to house them, others want guarantees of access to Preminghana, owned by ALCT.

Mr Mansell said the property had public access, but Rodney Dillon, co-chair of the Tasmanian Regional Aboriginal Communities Alliance, said some people wanted guarantees of access to the carvings and of their protection from erosion and vandalism.

“The museums have a responsibility to all Aboriginal people in the state to see what we all think should happen,” Mr Dillon said. “There’ll be angst on who gets them and where they go. I think we all have a common view that they should go back to where they came from. My fear is that someone will want to have them (exclusively) and hold on to them.”

Peter Sims, a rock art expert who saw the petroglyphs in situ in 1961 before they were removed and is writing a study on them, said they must return to the Aboriginal community. However, he warned they would “disintegrate” rapidly if exposed to the elements and rising sea levels.

“That’s my greatest fear,” he said. “It would only last a short ­period of time if left out exposed. It would have to be protected in some way, (for example) with a shelter and Perspex.”

Albert van Zetten, mayor of the City of Launceston, which runs QVMAG, said the council would on Thursday make a decision on the way forward, but was trying to balance “a range of opinions held by different groups”

“Council is genuinely committed to making sure they return to the Aboriginal community and we’re trying to work towards the best outcome,” he said.

 It appeared a permit was required under the Aboriginal Heritage Act to move the carvings from museum storage. While some argue this is akin to requiring a permit to return stolen goods, it is a position taken by TMAG and confirmed by the state government.

As part of the permit application process, the (TMAG) board is consulting with Aboriginal community organisations and individuals about the repatriation,” said TMAG director Janet Carding.

Premier Peter Gutwein wants the petroglyphs returned “as soon as possible”, blaming delays on the COVID-19 restrictions.

 At Preminghana, Aboriginal rangers Victor Ralph and Tim Lowery believe a way can and must be found to bring the carvings “back home”. “This is where they belong. They should never have been taken in the first place,” Mr Ralph said.