Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

STREHLOW RESEARCH CENTRE BILL 2005


Bill presented and read a first time.

Ms Scrymgour (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to repeal and replace the current Strehlow Research Centre Act. It will clarify the role of the Strehlow Research Centre Board and the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts. It will also overcome the difficulty that the existing legislation provides, with two parallel lines of authority in relation to management of the affairs of the Strehlow Research Centre. The current Strehlow Research Centre Act gives the Strehlow Research Centre Board a wide range of functions relating to the establishment and operations of the Strehlow Research Centre.

The Public Sector Employment and Management Act and the Financial Management Act provide the legislative framework for the regulation of the management of financial affairs for government organisations with the responsibility for the proper, efficient and economically administration vested with the organisation’s chief executive officer.

The overall intention of this bill is to ensure that the chief executive officer, under the Financial Management Act and the Public Sector Employment and Management Act is responsible to government for the financial management of the Strehlow Research Centre. It is proposed to repeal and re-enact the Strehlow Research Centre Act, establishing the Strehlow Research Centre Board whose main functions will be to advise the minister on the activities of the Strehlow Research Centre, and to hold the cultural collections of the Strehlow Research Centre on behalf of the Territory.

The government is committed to ensuring that the cultural assets held by the Strehlow Research Centre remains the legal responsibility of the board. The government is also committed to ensuring that, where this is consistent with the needs and expectations of Aboriginal traditional custodians, there is the potential to return elements of the Strehlow Research Centre cultural collections back to Aboriginal traditional custodians, with rights over the material under traditional law. As a result, items from the Strehlow Research Centre’s collection can only be disposed of with the agreement of at least six of the seven members of the board, as well as the minister, under sections 7(3) and 23.

The Strehlow Research Centre has experienced an increasing level of demand from traditional custodians in Central Australia to store cultural objects on their behalf. The new bill ensures that the Strehlow Research Centre is empowered to source ethnographic objects and archival material on behalf of the traditional custodians. The intention is that objects or materials stored in this way will not represent part of the collection as defined under the act, and that approval of the board and the minister would not be required for the owner to remove them from the Strehlow Research Centre.

The intention is not to make the Strehlow Research Centre a repository for cultural materials owned by other arms of government or by the general public. Instead, the intention is that the Strehlow Research Centre would store cultural materials relating to Central Australia at the request of the traditional Aboriginal custodians of that material. It is intended that any such arrangement would occur at the discretion of the Strehlow Research Centre.

In proposing this bill, the intention is not to affect current board members. Clause 28 in the new legislation allows for current membership of the board to be maintained for a period and to be eligible for reappointment. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the current members of the board for their past commitment, and I look forward to working with them under the new act. I commend the bill to honourable members.

Debate adjourned.

Continued from 12 October 2005.

Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition appreciates the briefing that was provided, which was of great assistance in understanding the need for this legislation. The opposition will also raise comments regarding this legislation which are, in a general sense, supportive, but do raise concerns which will form the basis of a couple of questions. I would ask the minister to reassure the House of the security of the treasure trove which is unique, which I do not know enough about. I know what we have in the Territory, because of the work of Mr Strehlow, is of extraordinary value and it is to ensure that that valuable asset is duly protected.

As I said, I do not know enough about this, and I do not believe there are many people in the Territory or nationally who understand the depth and the intricacies of this collection. One reason, it is difficult to access and, second, the material that has been documented is of such a high order that it is difficult for the lay person to even understand the underlying concepts.

We recognise the incredible work that was undertaken by the likes of Mr Strehlow, who spoke German and invested his time, to learn not only the languages, but the culture and the secrets of an ancient people. He has provided us with a great service, and we are the custodians of that which he has put in place. I understand the bill is to allow the minister to have oversight of this collection in a way that was not permitted under existing legislation.

I understand, and I would like the minister to reassure me and the House, that the board still plays a significant role in the protection of the integrity of the collection. I do note, with some understanding of the enlarged facility that is provided through this legislation for the bringing in of sacred objects into the collection for the safekeeping, so it becomes a repository of sacred objects. I have been privileged to be advised on a couple of occasions of highly sacred objects that are hidden around our community, where they have been entrusted to members of the community for safekeeping. They are sometimes kept in warehouses, in bookcases and under beds. So that provision is fully supported: that we provide a repository, a place where these sacred objects can be kept and safeguarded.

The other side of it, though, is the ability that this legislation creates for the disposal of objects that are included in the collection. That raised my concern. I have not had the time to investigate this in any depth, but I raise the concern and I ask the minister to advise the House of the threshold that must be passed before an object is removed from the collection. The minister would be more aware than I am of the power of these objects and how they could be misused. I need to know as one who is here for a time to ensure that the safeguards are in place so that the deeper issues are protected, that is the maintenance of culture into the long term and used for the enhancement and strengthening of things that are falling away, and being lost from memory. If objects are removed from the collection, I hope that they would be returned to the collection ultimately, and I would hate to see objects removed from the collection and lost forever.

So, going back to the beginning, it appears to me that this legislation creates and enhances the capacity of this collection to be a repository of sacred objects so that objects could be kept there for safekeeping and borrowed at times, and taken out for appropriate use, but documented records kept, and hopefully they are returned to the collection for future generations.

It is that issue of the protection of the collection. The collection is for the safeguarding and protection of culture. If those collections are removed, perhaps for private use, maybe for divisive use - I do not want to enlarge on that but the minister would know what I am talking about - that they are used in the long term and the eternal benefit of the culture rather than the temporal benefit of those who want to advance a particular issue at a particular time, and so that the integrity of the collection if maintained.

My understanding is the collection was put in place because many ancient people, who sensed that the ancient cultures were under threat, entrusted these objects and their stories to Mr Strehlow so that the culture could be protected and that is my concern. It is the concern of opposition that the integrity of this collection is maintained as we do know the capacity for the disposal of objects. I will wait to hear what the minister says with regards to that and that the minister can ensure us of the protection of the integrity of this collection.

Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow spokesperson for his comments. He raised a couple of things and I will just go through them. In regard to the security, one of the first issues that he had raised in regard to the centre, there is a vault which probably houses the most culturally sensitive items. I can assure the member for Blain that any access into this area must be by admission. No one can just walk in and look at these items; you must seek admission prior to going in.

You also highlighted some concerns about the powers of the minister under that legislation and it does say in clause 7: 'The minister has power to do all things necessary or convenient for the purposes of the Centre.' However, the minister cannot dispose of objects from the collection without the consent of at least six or seven members of the board. With the whole issue of repatriation there have been some requests and people have been looking at some of these culturally sensitive items being repatriated back to communities

The board will be looking at some stringent guidelines for considering requests to repatriate some of these items. If you look at the membership of the board there is a broad base of expertise and knowledge in the area and current guidelines for access to the objects. There are some traditional owners who have been demonstrating a cultural right to gain access to particular objects and they will be able to apply to the board for the return of these goods. However, there will be that criteria in regard to the repatriation of objects, so it will not just be given to people. Given the cultural sensitivity and the safekeeping of those objects and the purpose of why they were there, there would be a number of guidelines stipulated as to the removal or allowance of those objects to be out.

You quickly touched on how there were people who were worried about the safekeeping of the objects. We share those concerns about safekeeping with theft and damage, and TGH Strehlow, with that same concern many years ago, was seen to be able to look after these items. Therefore the centre was established to continue to protect the culturally sensitive items when they were offered for sale after Strehlow's death.

It is pretty straight forward as it allows the operations of the centre to come in line with the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. It still allows the board to make the decisions and oversee the cultural sensitivity of the objects.

Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.

 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]