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.
BACKGROUND
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.
Relevant Legislation
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.”
TUMRAs and Sea Country
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.