The Greens have launched a scathing attack on the government’s proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Relics Act.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The government proposed a raft of changes to the 1975 Act following the defacing of Aboriginal artwork thought to be 8000 years old in the state’s Central Highlands.
Suggested amendments included tougher penalties for vandalism of Aboriginal heritage, the removal of an ignorance defence and the removal of an 1876 cut-off date referring to the death of Truganini, implying anything made after that date had no heritage value.
The Greens have argued the proposed changes do not go far enough.
“The Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 is arguably the most racist and culturally damaging legislation on the Tasmanian statute books,” reads the party’s submission.
“It is disappointing that the Tasmanian Liberal government has avoided addressing the need for new, more respectful, empowering and effective legislation and taken the soft option of amending legislation which has disempowered Aboriginal Tasmanians and done little to protect their cultural heritage.”
Heritage Minister Matthew Groom acknowledged community support for a new Act in a statement in June.
“In proposing to amend the Act we recognise that some in our community would prefer that the Act be replaced in its entirety. The experience of previous governments that have attempted to do this over recent decades has not been positive,” he said.
“In consultation with the Aboriginal community, we have come to the view that the best approach is to address areas of immediate concern now while at same time recognising that there needs to be further ongoing engagement with the Aboriginal community and the broader community on other opportunities to address in full the problems with the Relics Act.”
Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre chief executive Heather Sculthorpe said it was “fantastic” the government was looking to fix the Act’s problems quickly but said the community was concerned an extensive review would not take place.
“We might have been wrong to settle for quick changes because that may mean they won’t get around to developing legislation and surprise surprise, it’ll be another election and they’ll be off the hook,” she said.