Queensland is unique both in its biodiversity and its First Nations cultural heritage, often intertwined with the raw natural beauty of the diverse landscapes of its Land and Sea Country.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Database in Queensland contains over 50,000 cultural heritage sites and places that are significant to First Nations peoples in the state, with many more yet to be officially recorded. Many of these sites fall into Queensland’s five (of a total 9 across Australia) UNESCO world heritage listings, including the Great Barrier Reef, the Daintree Rainforest and K’gari (Fraser Island).
Despite this extraordinary cultural heritage across both Land and Sea Country, Queensland is also a site of globally significant coal, petroleum, gas and minerals. With mineral and energy resources that are yet to be fully explored or reach production, the Queensland Government continues to position the state as a preferred region for mining and other resource extraction and development. This poses a significant threat to sites of cultural heritage significance for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In particular, it risks undermining First Nations self determination and sovereignty, and overriding land rights that have been fought for by First Nations peoples for over 230 years.
Queensland was the last state to introduce cultural heritage legislation and was also regarded as having the worst heritage record in Australia prior to the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.
The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 creates a framework to protect places or objects of cultural heritage significance for aesthetic, architectural, historic, scientific, social or technological reasons. In practice, the Act mainly protects built European heritage such as historic buildings. It does not apply to First Nations cultural heritage.
The main pieces of legislation concerning cultural heritage in Queensland are the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) (ACHA) and the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (QLD) (TSICHA), which were introduced as a replacement of the Queensland Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estates) Act 1987.
The ACHA and the TSICHA are in effect identical in their aims to provide effective recognition, protection and conservation of areas and objects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural significance. Both the ACHA and the TSICHA specify that it is not necessary for an area to contain markings of other physical evidence indicating Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander occupation, emphasising the intangible aspects of cultural heritage.
An important element of the ACHA and the TSICHA are the cultural heritage duty of care guidelines. These guidelines outline where and how parties are expected to engage with First Nations peoples and management plans prior to any activity taking place, in order to ensure that appropriate consultation and caution are exercised on land where First Nations cultural heritage is located. These guidelines apply regardless of whether or not the area in question has been recorded in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Database and Register, and are intended to protect against harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage.
These guidelines, however, have proved problematic in practice. In 2021, a case was dismissed by the District Court which charged a Cape York pastoralist with alleged breaches of the Guidelines while clearing 500 hectares of privately owned land, despite experts and Traditional Owners arguing that the area held a “rich archaeological tapestry with rock art, stone tools, burial sites, and scarred trees.”
Queensland has seen some positive reform when it comes to protecting cultural heritage on Sea Country. In 2005, Girringun Aboriginal Corporation secured the first ever Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement (TUMRA), a formal agreement between saltwater Traditional Owners groups of the Djiru, Gulnay, Girramay, Bandjin, Warragamay, and Nywaigi peoples, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA). The agreement developed a framework for the sustainable co-management of Munamudanamy (Greater Hinchinbrook Island area) in North Queensland, while maintaining traditional practice and connection to Sea Country.
One example of this is managing the cultural take of protected marine species of dugong and turtle. Dugong and turtle species are sacred to the six saltwater groups that make up Girringun, being used in cultural ceremony and as familial totems. Under the TUMRA framework, an arrangement was reached to limit the number of species taken from further limited legal hunting areas, to ensure the “conservation of, and sustainability of traditional hunting”.
Girringun’s ongoing TUMRA program has allowed for limited First Nations ranger powers to enforce compliance around Hinchinbrook Island, for instance maintaining protection of sacred underwater sites and dealing with illegal fishing practice within the TUMRA range. First Nations rangers having their own compliance capacity is a strong step toward better co-management of the reef and region in tandem with greater respect for First Nations self-determination. Additionally, TUMRA funding has allowed for research partnerships to gather ecosystem data and monitoring marine species, and has increased pathways for young First Nations people pursuing marine sciences. Girringun’s framework has also served as the precedent for a series of further agreements along the length of the Great Barrier Reef, which now stands at 10 separate TUMRAs covering 43% of the Park’s total coastline.
Overwhelmingly, First Nations peoples in Queensland report that cultural heritage protection in the state is inadequate, that cultural heritage destruction is widespread, and that the current legislation is failing in its purpose.
The Senate report A Way Forward (produced after the inquiry into the destruction of Juukan Gorge) found that “stakeholders in Queensland raised various issues about the application of the State’s cultural heritage legislation. Evidence suggests that threats to and destruction of cultural heritage is a constant occurrence in the State.”
In 2019, the Queensland Government launched an inquiry into how Queensland’s cultural heritage laws (both the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (QLD) and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld)) could be reshaped and strengthened. The Government is currently finalising its review. While a release date for the final report is unclear, a summary of proposed changes can be found here. Several of these proposed changes reflect the wishes of First Nations peoples and communities – most notably:
Many sites of concern in Queensland highlight the limitations of the ACHA and the TSICHA, and underscore many First Nations peoples’ insistence that the Acts are not adequately recognising, protecting and conserving First Nations cultural heritage. A few of these are highlighted below.
Although the Carmichael mine site, situated in the Galilee Basin on the unceded lands of the Wangan and Jagalingou people, is known to contain significant First Nations cultural sites that are thousands of years old – and despite a lack of free, prior and informed consent from Traditional Owners – Bravus Mining & Resources (formerly Adani) were approved to detonate the site and expand the mine in 2019.
On the significance of the site, Adrian Burragubba – a Nagana Yarrbayn Senior Elder and spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) Cultural Custodians and other Traditional Owners – explains:
“The site was an ancient stone tool making area that our people utilised for thousands of years. These artefacts are a reminder of who we are – they must not be destroyed. Some artefacts have been collected, but thousands more have been blown up and bulldozed into piles.”
Burragubba further stated that the concerns of Traditional Owners had been ignored and that information about the works “had been misleading”.
Despite there already being a ‘no’ vote from W&J communities on three separate occasions for Adani’s proposed works, on April 16 2016, a meeting was held in the city of Maryborough as a last-ditch effort by Adani to engineer support for the mine. Adani claimed that W&J families voted in favour of an Indigenous Land Use Agreement for the mine with a result of 294 ‘yes’ votes to one ‘no’. Adani was later accused of discreetly paying thousands of dollars to recruit people to vote in favour of the mine, including Aboriginal people with no link to its Queensland mine site. One W&J representative said he was paid $2,000 by Adani to boost numbers at the meeting. Proud W&J Man Craid Dallen claimed that ‘rent a crowd’ tactics were used to gain votes by funding attendance through transport, accommodation and food.
Not only was the vote conducted outside of the land of the Traditional Owners who were to be directly affected by the expansion, Native Title holders also claimed they were led to believe that their refusal of the project would result in the extinguishment of their Native Title rights.
“They disrespect us, they disrespect our law, they disrespect our protocols…And they disrespect our self- determination by trying to control our people: by buying people off and getting our people to fight against each other.”
Adrian Burragubba, leader of the W&J Family Council
Since the expansion, fears of further environmental impact have been raised regularly. In 2022, a group of W&J Traditional Owners occupied their ancestral lands near to the mine in protest and conducted a continuous cultural ceremony for over a year. In 2024, W&J Traditional Owners launched a federal court case against the Queensland Government citing violations of human rights law, following evidence of potential hydrocarbon pollution in the Doongmabulla Springs sacred site.
In May 2019, a group of Zenadth Kes (Torres Strait Islanders) called the Torres Strait 8 lodged a landmark human rights complaint with the United Nations against the Australian Government. The complaint accused the Commonwealth of breaching their fundamental rights to culture and life by failing to act on climate change.
In September 2022, the UN Human Rights Committee found that the Federal Government had violated its obligation to the people of Zenadth Kes in their inaction towards tackling the impacts of climate change. In November 2022, a group from the Torres Strait 8 demonstrated on Parliament House Lawns. Their immediate request was a bid to have their homes saved and to request significant funding for longer term adaptation measures to ensure the islands can remain habitable. This bid forms part of a larger movement led by Torres Strait Islanders seeking greater recognition of their self-determination and regional sovereignty, outlined in a four point plan called ‘The Masig Statement – Malungu Yangu Wakay (Voice from the Deep)’.
While the UN finding in this case sets a positive precedent, there are pressing questions about the extent to which the Federal Government can and will adequately address cultural heritage concerns in Zenadth Kes, and First Nations cultural heritage more broadly. These concerns were seemingly validated when in 2023, the Federal Government acknowledged the case and the adverse climate impact on the Torres Strait 8, but rejected calls to provide compensation. This represents a larger issue in global climate justice surrounding the non-binding nature of climate targets and the lack of coherent sanctions for non-compliance or environmental wrongdoing.
The Torres Strait 8 four year campaign has brought the climate change vulnerability of many First Nations communities to public attention. With contributions from academic researchers over a number of years, local Zenadth Kes leadership has made significant progress towards an holistic Torres Strait Regional Adaptation and Resilience Plan 2016- 2021, which suggests that if climate change continues to accelerate, up to 2,000 Torres Strait Islanders will be displaced to the mainland by the end of the century due to rising sea levels. The Queensland Government has so far maintained its commitment to action in its Cape York and Torres Strait Regional Resilience Strategy, but it remains to be seen whether this resilience plan will manifest into a meaningful climate response, particularly for Zenadth Kes.
Across Queensland, First Nations sacred sites continue to be vandalised and treated with general disregard. In 2023, a police investigation was opened after a sacred well estimated to be 5,000 years old was filled with concrete west of Windorah.
“If it was a church or something like that and someone graffitied it, it would make national news and the people would be up in arms about it,” he said. “Yet Indigenous sites get destroyed every day of the week and not much was done about it.”
Josh Gorringe, Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation
That same year, vandals used power tools to carve a religious message into a section of rock on Mount Beerwah, a culturally significant site to the Jinibara people that is associated with ceremony and birthing practice. Additionally, the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation published a media release criticising a trend of unlawful selfies with rock art in Restricted Access Areas within Carnarvon National Park.
These acts have only consolidated First Nations calls for stronger legislative protections of cultural heritage sites and greater accountability for actors who inhibit or destroy them.
