If Tasmania’s Aboriginal community distrusts the State's cultural institutions they have every reason to do so. There has been so much to be dealt with and so, so much looking the other away in the aftermath of colonial settlement.  

The QVMAG managed to celebrate its 125th Anniversary without acknowledging Aboriginal people at all, that is Tasmanian or mainland people and their cultural production. In Launceston, it is an issue that runs deep . [LINK]

The fact that it has taken as long as it did for the QVMAG [LINK] to install anything like its First Tasmanians exhibit [LINK] is almost beyond belief. Thus this exercise ofrepatriating cultural material with ‘human remains’ that is now being played out, comes with a full quota of contention. No doubt we will  all see where it all goes in time.

Against this backdrop it is timely that a few things get to be said in regard to the governance of Tasmania’s public musingplaces. The first thing that needs saying in Tasmania is that these ‘operations’ need to be purposeful.  After that they need to be accountable to their ‘Communities of Ownership and Interest’ [2] (COI)  – and that is not always the case in Tasmania.

In regard to the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG), in general its ‘appointed Trustees’ are diligent in regard to 21^st C museology and the effort required to peruse ‘best practice’ and the implied standards that come with all that.

Conversely, in regard to the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG), as a consequence of a ‘political accident’ the city’s Councillors are the institution’s default ‘Trustees’. Thus, politicians become ‘accidently trustees’ –  people who did not seek to be either appointed or elected to their positions ‘museum trustees’. This is arguably a less than satisfactory circumstance and one that all too often mitigates against ‘best practice’ – not to mention accountability and transparency.

The role of a musingplace’s Trustees is to govern the institution in the context of the multiple levels of ‘trust’ invested in them directly and indirectly by their COI. That is, determine operational policies and the strategies employed to realise those policies and fulfil the institution’s ‘purpose’. On the other hand, it is management’s role and function to implement the policies via the strategies determined by the institution’s governance/trustees. Fundamentally, at the QVMAG the roles and functions of ‘governance’ and ‘management’ have become blurred and arguably to the operation’s detriment.

Arguably, this is anything but ‘best practice’. The modus operandi at the QVMAG as an institution falls short of what is desirable.  Generally, the shortfall can be traced back to its ‘governance’ or the lack of it – or even its paucity.

So, shortfalls are essentially political – and sadly by default in Launceston given the QVMAG circumstances. Likewise, given Tasmania’s histories, Aboriginal histories in particular, it is hardly likely that Tasmania’s Aboriginal community would be predisposed to be automatically trusting politicians of any complexion relative to cultural sensitivities and sensibilities in Tasmania. Over quite a long time the QVMAG has hardly covered itself in glory in regard to dealing with either Launceston’s or Tasmania’s colonial histories in context with Aboriginal histories.

The TMAG, because of its ‘appointed expert Trustees', and the institution’s increasingly meaningful engagement with the with the State’s Aboriginal community, has quite a different story to tell. Albeit far too late, Aboriginal cultural sensibilities and sensitivities have become more deeply embedded in that institution’s purposefulness along with its programming and operational museology. Consequently, the cultural research community’s trust is growing in accord with the institution’s accountability, transparency and academic professionalism.

The ‘official realisation’ that the QVMAG’s collections had within them contentious and sensitive cultural material is only a surprise to those who have faint engagements with the institution. This is generally the way things go in musingplaces that place uncritical collecting before research and cultural interrogation and scholarship. Nonetheless, once there is acknowledgement of an issue a way forward surely follows. That is usually so in a 21^st C context irrespective of most of the backgrounding that precedes ‘the issue’.

Within ‘musingplace networks’ – Tasmania and further afield – there is an increasing number of anthropologists working with a diversity of sensitive cultural material.  These people are capable people who are developing new/better understandings of multidimensional cultural realities, often within musingplaces yet typically at arms-length. Alongside them there are their professional colleagues, nationally and internationally scholars, working within in various institutions and typically working collaboratively.

Within Tasmania, I am aware of at least independent three eminently qualified scholarly anthropologists, all with a working knowledge of Tasmanian cultural collections and local cultural realities. Moreover, they and their collective professional scholarly networks would be worthy of the trust required to ensure that, as a function of their independence, appropriate decision making took place relative to the contentious cultural material that is now the subject of the QVMAG’s concerns.

It appears as if the kind of ‘trustful outcome’ that might come with an engagement with such qualified people is not being considered or even on the radar. Arguably, this class of professional networking would bring ‘trust’ to the decision-making, the decision-making of the Trustee/Governors/Councillors – ideally proactive decision-making in this instance. The work that is before ‘the institution’ is largely the business of governance but it seems that the QVMAG’s ‘governance’ is almost totally unaware of situation in play. Moreover, it is likely that this is, for whatever reason, being ‘bureaucratically engineered’.

Aboriginal leader raises alarm on museums human remains

EMILY BAKER, Sunday Tasmanian

ABORIGINAL leader Michael Mansell will write to a Launceston museum to clarify if unidentified human remains in its collection are those of Indigenous Tasmanians.

The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery has advertised for a paid intern to help identify the origins of a small number of human remains and make recommendations on their repatriation.

Museum cultural services and creative arts director Tracy Puklowski said yesterday it was believed the specimens — deposited at QVMAG in the early 20th century — had been loaned from a museum outside Australia.

“We have no evidence to suggest Tasmanian Aboriginal remains are among these specimens,” Ms Puklowski said. “The items we wish to research are believed to have originated from another museum outside Australia.

“The practice of exchanging collection items with other museums was a common practice in the 19th and early 20th centuries.”

Aboriginal Land Council chairman Michael Mansell said yesterday the state’s institutions had given a guarantee in 1984 that their collections did not include Tasmanian Aboriginal remains.

But he questioned why the QVMAG would be looking at repatriation if the remains were not of indigenous people.

“We’ll have to wait and see but by crikey it’ll be extraordinary [if they are],” Mr Mansell said.

“This would be extraordinary news if they kept it from us. I hope I’m wrong.

“We’ll seek clarification of it.”

Britain’s Natural History Museum decided in 2006 to repatriate the bones of 17 Tasmanian Aboriginals at the request of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. They were returned to Tasmania the following year.

Mr Mansell said Tasmanian Aboriginals remained in an ongoing dispute with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery in Hobart to have rock carvings from Preminghana, on the state’s West Coast, returned to Aboriginal hands.

“We asked at least 10 years ago for them to hand them over and take them back at their cost to its original spot,” Mr Mansell said.

.................................

If the Tasmanian Aboriginal community distrust the State's cultural institutions they have every reason to. There has been so much to be dealt with and so much looking away. The QVMAG managed to celebrate its 125th Anniversary without acknowledging Aboriginal people, Tasmanian or mainland, and that it has taken as long as it has for the QVMAG to install anything like its First Tasmanians exhibit is almost beyond belief. This exercise that is now being played out comes with a full quota of contention and we’ll see where it goes.