Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This government takes its responsibility towards the protection of cultural objects very seriously. That is why I speak in support of the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 2012, introduced by the Minister for the Arts to ensure the protection of objects brought to this country for the purposes of loan for exhibitions to recognised institutions. I understand from the minister that this bill has had a lengthy gestation period to ensure appropriate input from arts institutions in Australia, and indeed from overseas, so that they have had sufficient opportunity to consider and respond to the government's discussion paper on the matter. I note from the list of submissions on the arts department website that almost all the major Australian cultural institutions have responded. I also note input from the British Museum, referencing the legislation passed by the UK government in 2007.

The minister outlined the reasons for the need for this legislation succinctly in his second reading speech. I note he said the following:

... in the past 10 years it has become increasingly difficult for Australia's major galleries, libraries and museums to secure overseas loans.

He continued:

... foreign lenders are increasingly reluctant to loan to Australia's major cultural institutions in the absence of national legislation.

In essence, this legislation will apply to cultural objects if they are imported into Australia on loan for temporary public exhibition under arrangements involving an institution that has been approved by the minister. The protections will apply to approved collecting institutions which meet the criteria specified in the bill.

I note that the legislation provides special consideration be given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in relation to cultural materials. In addition, ATSIC objects defined as class A are exempt. These include: human remains; bark and log coffins; secret sacred ritual materials; rock art; and dendroglyphs—carved trees. Other ATSIC materials and objects—or class B—will be the subject of special consultation for the proposed loans, with the communities to be actively involved in discussions prior to any objects coming to Australia on temporary loan.

The provisions in the bill relating to ATSIC objects were an area where there were differing opinions in the submissions to the discussion paper. I am pleased with this outcome. It is useful to consider some specific examples of how the legislation as a whole might operate. The Council of Australasian Museum Directors provided an example in their submission to the discussion paper. They said:

The ban on museum loans to the United States of America by Russian museums, following a perceived threat to immunity for loaned objects, indicates the seriousness with which other countries take this issue.

The CAMD cites a journal article published online, 'US-Russia cultural cold war continues', The Art Newspaper, 26 May 2011, which describes a situation in the US. The US state and federal authorities became involved in proceedings involving the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Russian government over 38 works of art on loan. A group in Brooklyn had won a judgement that Russia return a group of religious manuscripts seized during the Bolshevik revolution after the Second World War. This had major repercussions for other cultural institutions in the US, not only in relation to Russia but also in relation to the precedent set for lending institutions around the world. It meant that objects on loan could be seized and not returned to the country or institution which had loaned the objects.

Closer to home, the National Library of Australia in its submission provided an example of the difficulties facing Australian cultural institutions prior to the introduction of this legislation. I quote:

For example, the Library is partnering with the State Library of New South Wales in 2012 to produce an exhibition of works on paper by J.W. Lewin, widely considered Australia's first professional artist. Under the terms of reference of the current PMCH [The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986] control list, all of the works that have been requested from British institutions could be considered Class B Australian Protected Objects. As this category does not give credence to how many other works by Lewin are held in Australian collections, the automatic exemption of such works from any anti-seizure legislation might be viewed by lenders as an attempt to repatriate this Australia-related material by proxy. This would render the loan of such material without an accompanying anti-seizure guarantee an unattractive prospect for the lending institutions involved.

The bill outlines specific requirements in relation to the nature of the Australian 'borrowing' institutions. The explanatory memorandum states on page 1 that:

Objects normally in a foreign country, will be protected if they are imported into Australia on loan for temporary public exhibition under arrangements involving institutions approved by the Minister. Certain institutions will be able to apply to the Minister for approval and the Minister may approve the institution for a specified period of not more than 60 months. Objects of any description will be protected from the time of their importation into Australia to their export, to a maximum of two years. Objects on loan for a period of longer than two years will not be protected unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Clause 5 provides the definition of those cultural institutions:

… an organisation in Australia that collects and publicly exhibits objects that are of interest for archaeological, artistic, ethnological, historical, literary, scientific or technological reasons. It must also be either established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (except for those laws prescribed in the regulations) or be prescribed in the regulations. A borrowing institution could include, but is not limited to, a Commonwealth, State or Territory art gallery, museum, library or archive and it may be a legal person or not.

The bill makes it clear that the institutions seeking approval must demonstrate the necessary expertise, rigour, capacity and resources to meet the demands of ensuring the object meets the high standards required in determining providence and be able to provide the curatorial standards required in relation to loan objects.

It supports the necessity for Australia to meet its international obligations under the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The bill also provides for potential exhibitors who do not fall within the clause 5 definition of borrowing institutions. This includes people who have a temporary loan arrangement with a lender of the object and who have a temporary loan arrangement with an exhibiting institution for the object or the parent of such an institution. Occasionally, an institution may be involved in a loan arrangement that has been organised by another party, in essence an exhibition facilitator.

Australia has a proud history in its support for the treatment of movable cultural objects. In 2009, the minister undertook a review of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 and the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Regulations 1987. One aspect of this review included discussion of whether Australia should ratify the Unification of Private Law Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995, the UNIDROIT convention. Currently, Australia, at the request of a foreign state, is able to seize illegally exported objects that have been imported. PMCH does not allow for private action to be taken through the courts to seek the return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. It is important that Australia continues to build on its past record to combat illicit trade in cultural heritage objects. This ratification is currently being considered. In appendix 2 of its 2011-12 annual report, the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport notes:

The Department, in response to requests from the relevant governments, returned more than 120 protected objects to the Arab Republic of Egypt, nine protected objects to the Republic of Peru and two protected objects to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

While Australia is determined to protect its own cultural heritage, it continues to honour its international obligations to assist in the protection and repatriation of the cultural heritage of other nations. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context