State of the Environment

2006

Indicator: NCH-07 Physical condition and integrity of a sample of Indigenous heritage places

Data

Physical Condition and Integrity of Indigenous Heritage
Places noted as destroyed or removed from Indigenous heritage place registers or inventories because of loss of values in the period 2001-2005, compared to the period 1995-2000, based on State and Territory registers [and the Register of the National Estate - no Indigenous places removed].
Register / Inventory ACT NSW NT Qld SA Tas Vic WA Ext Terr Total
State / Territory 1995-2000 1 91 3* N/A A N/A B * N/A D 118 E At least 213
State / Territory 2001-2005 N/A A N/A B 131 C N/A 0 F
Register of the National Estate
1995-2000		 * * * * * * * *
Register of the National Estate
2001-2005 [note 1/9/03-31/12/04]		 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0

*not provided for Tasmania and for non-sacred sites in Northern Territory
A Unknown in Queensland as condition given for when first recorded
B Applications for consent to destroy are referred to the relevant Aboriginal community
C Total 2001 to 2004 permits issued, with different impacts; 2001 - 27, 2002 - 42, 2003 - 26, 2004 - 36 [detail in Tasmanian data Excel]
D As industry and other parties deal directly with local Aboriginal communities listed in the Schedule of Part IIA in relation to consents under Section 21U of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, AAV does not hold data pertaining to the total number of sites damaged or destroyed per year.
E 1999-2000 only in WA
F No sites are removed from the Register in WA. Regardless of status, all information is retained for future reference and the possibility that people may report different information about places and thus alter assessments. See the explanation separately below regarding referrals and other statistical data on potential number of sites impacted.

Sources: State and Territory heritage agencies; Heritage Division, DEH

Places noted as destroyed or removed from Indigenous heritage place registers or inventories because of loss of values
Australia - 1995-2000 and 2001-2005
(based on State and Territory registers and the Register of the National Estate)
ACT NSW NT Qld SA Tas Vic WA Ext Terr Total
State / Territory Heritage Registers
1995-2000 1 91 3* na A na B * na D 118 E - >213
2001-2005 na A na B 131 C na 0 F - na
Register of the National Estate
2001-2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 na 0

Notes:
* not provided for Tasmania and for non-sacred sites in Northern Territory
A Unknown in Queensland as condition given for when first recorded
B Applications for consent to destroy are referred to the relevant Aboriginal community
C Total 2001 to 2004 permits issued, with different impacts; 2001 - 27, 2002 - 42, 2003 - 26, 2004 - 36
D As industry and other parties deal directly with local Aboriginal communities listed in the Schedule of Part IIA in relation to consents under Section 21U of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, AAV does not hold data pertaining to the total number of sites damaged or destroyed per year.
E 1999-2000 only
F No sites are removed from the Register in WA. Regardless of status, all information is retained for future reference and the possibility that people may report different information about places and thus alter assessments.

Sources: State and Territory heritage agencies 2005; Department of the Environment and Heritage 2005.

A Case Study: WA consents to destroy

Approval of 'Consent to Destroy' Indigenous Heritage Places
in Western Australia - 2001-2004
No of notices under s18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act Approval (includes conditional consent) Other (includes declines)
2001 57 44 14
2002 73 61 12
2003 91 75 17
2004 99 89 8
Total 320 269 51

Source: WA Department of Indigenous Affairs, 2005

Indigenous views of condition and integrity of their heritage places and objects

Indigenous views of the condition of Indigenous heritage was sought in a survey of Indigenous organisations on the state of Indigenous heritage undertaken for the 2006 State of the Environment (SoE) report. This study which surveyed 24 organisations across all states and the Northern Territory, of which 19 had some statutory responsibility or role with heritage, found the following pressures were causing slow deterioration of sites:

1. Lack of funding to ensure the integrity of Indigenous heritage - funding was both inadequate and uncertain;

2. Development - construction on Indigenous sites. Examples of housing estates, logging, quarries, wind farms, and marinas, which had destroyed Indigenous heritage, being constructed on what were once culturally significant sites;

3. The inconsistent / total lack of appropriate and timely consultation with local Indigenous communities about developments concerning the regions;

4. The lack of legal protection and enforcement to ensure that processes are followed;

5. The lack of management resources for local Aboriginal communities to physically manage their own cultural sites;

6. Lack of commitment among the newer generation of Indigenous people in the communities to care for country and carry on Indigenous traditions;

7. Restricted access to freehold and leasehold land, which impacted on the spiritual heritage- being unable to conduct ceremonies;

8. Infestation - pests, ants, weeds, etc.;

9. Weather - soil erosion and decay of Indigenous sites; climate change, flooding, fire management; and

10. Widespread farming - this had wiped out some species of vegetation that were once used by Indigenous ancestors for medicines.

Source: Open Mind Research Group 2005, State of Indigenous Cultural Heritage - A Survey of Indigenous Organisations, Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra, pp 32, 33

What the data mean

One of the fundamental questions relating to heritage is the condition and integrity of heritage places and items. There is no national or state / territory based system that provides information on this aspect. In many cases, the condition or integrity of a site is recorded at the initial site survey and documentation, but this is rarely updated, with little or no provision for further site monitoring at the state / territory level.

The above data provides some limited indication of the numbers of Indigenous sites, generally archaeological sites, that have been removed from site inventories because they have lost physical condition or integrity from an archaeological perspective. Some of these removals from site inventories result from the issuing of a legal permit that ‘consents to destroy’ a site, being approval to remove a site after assessment of its significance in consultation with the relevant Indigenous stakeholders. This often occurs where a proposed development will result in ground disturbance or removal, for example, in suburban development, road widening and other built construction.

In all states and territories such permits are often issued following the completion of environmental impact assessments undertaken by expert archaeologists and anthropologists, and following consultation with and/or the involvement of the recognised traditional owners and other relevant Indigenous groups. In some states and territories, the approval of the relevant Indigenous group is required for such a consent to destroy a site. Sites are fully documented for their archaeological data and artifacts collected for storage.

Other removals from inventories result from reported destruction or damage to a site or its values. There are few if any monitoring programs in place to regularly check on Indigenous sites, despite past programs with wardens or inspectors. The locations of many recorded archaeological sites are not generally made known to local residents, even Indigenous communities, and are often not highly visible or recognisable.

The data above does not report on losses of unknown, unrecorded and unrecognised sites that are destroyed and are not subject to environmental impact assessment processes. Apart from natural processes such as decay, erosion, aging and dying trees, a major loss is often incurred from grazing and agricultural processes. The rate of this loss and whether it is increasing is not known. The extensive and long-lasting drought across Australia is likely to have hastened such losses due to natural processes.

A Case Study: WA consents to destroy

The above data shows the yearly breakdown of notices submitted for consent to destroy and explained by WA Department of Indigenous Affairs:

"There have been a total of 320 Notices submitted under s18 of the Act between February 2001 and December 2004. This figure includes s18 Notices that were not the subject of a recommendation by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC), including those that were withdrawn by the landowner or were referred back to the landowner. This figure includes Notices re-lodged by landowners, as on each occasion that a Notice is re-lodged, it is treated as a new Notice for the purpose of the internal database that maintains meeting records. The ACMC has approved 269 s18 Notices. The remaining 51 s18 Notices have been the subject of other actions, such as withdrawal by the landowner or referral back to the landowner. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has consented to 269 s18 Notices and has declined consent to one s18 Notice. In each s18 consent sent by the Minister to s18 applicants, the Minister expressly advises applicants that it is an offence to fail to comply with the conditions attached to a consent.

Due to the change in the manner that s18 Notices have been submitted during the reporting period, (either for sites or for the land), it is not possible to make a meaningful analysis of the number of sites subject to s18 Notices. Despite the different submission methodologies it is possible to estimate that approximately 80 sites have been presented to ACMC for consideration at each of their six meetings during 2004. It can be estimated that during 2001 approximately 50 sites were presented for consideration for s18 Notices. Therefore, there is a trend toward greater number of sites being presented for consideration. However, it cannot be said that there is a greater number of sites being destroyed as a result of these considerations. Occasionally proponents, (agencies, companies, etc), present submissions and do not proceed with actions, despite consents being granted. As there is no requirement under the Act to report on compliance it is difficult to refine figures further."

Indigenous views of condition and integrity of their heritage places and objects

This data provides a limited snapshot of the views of 24 Indigenous organisations, varying from land councils to cultural centres, with different roles, statutory or otherwise, in regard to heritage places and objects. The responses highlight concerns about insufficient and inconsistent resources, inconsistent involvement through consultation, a lack of enforcement and a lack of inter-generational continuity in commitment to heritage protection.

The responses indicated a concern beyond the physical condition and integrity of heritage sites to the spiritual integrity of sites that relevant Indigenous community members could not access on private or leasehold land and thus could not maintain culturally.

Data Limitations

The data on recorded sites and heritage removed from state or territory inventories because they have been destroyed, damaged or have lost their values, provide only a surrogate indicator for the condition of Indigenous heritage places. They do not reflect the number of sites destroyed that are not known to the relevant heritage agency, nor the loss of integrity for other reasons. The data are not complete, for example, the data on the numbers of ‘consents to destroy’ were not made available. They are therefore inadequate to provide trends through time in any one state or territory, or across state borders.

These site inventories do not generally assess sites for their heritage significance until a potential impact on them is perceived, such as a development proposal. Thus other than their physical description, little may be known of their other heritage values, for example their significance to the local community, although this is increasingly sought as part of joint recording. There is however no recording of the loss of such values in the above limited data.

No sample survey was attempted to assess the condition of Indigenous places for the 2001 SoE report, or for the 2006 report so there are no comparable data for on-ground condition assessments as for historic places. See NCH-06 Physical condition and integrity of a sample of historic heritage places .

Other surrogate indicators such as protected areas under joint or sole control by Indigenous communities, and the extent of consultation with Indigenous communities, are dealt with under Responses to Conserve heritage . Whilst important they do not address the fundamental question of condition, integrity and appropriate management of the places.

A Case Study: WA consents to destroy

This case study provided by Western Australia highlights the difficulty in collecting comparable data across states / territories for known and permitted destruction of Indigenous sites. It does not assist in finding a way to understand more comprehensively the physical condition and integrity of all known sites, and as a result of predictive modeling the potential condition and integrity of unknown sites.

Indigenous views of condition and integrity of their heritage places and objects

The above comments, whilst from too small a sample to provide certainty, do have a resonance with past commentary from Indigenous groups suggesting the issues identified are still of concern for the protection of Indigenous heritage places and objects. This is despite numerous programs over the past decade, such as joint management arrangements and heritage management training, to involve and empower Indigenous communities to maintain their heritage. The data do not provide any comprehensive understanding of issues for Indigenous organisations in regard to the physical condition and integrity of their heritage places and objects.

Issues for which this is an indicator and why

Natural and Cultural Heritage — Condition and Integrity of heritage - Physical condition and integrity of heritage 

One of the fundamental questions relating to heritage is the condition and integrity of heritage items. A sample is the best available surrogate for the measure of the condition and integrity of Indigenous heritage on a national scale.

Other indicators for this issue:

Key

   Links to another web site
   Links to data in the DRS
   Opens a pop-up window

Before you download

Some documents are available as PDF files. You will need a PDF reader to view PDF files.
List of PDF readers 

If you are unable to access a publication, please contact us to organise a suitable alternative format.