Examination of Witness (Questions 300
- 319)
WEDNESDAY 10 MAY 2000
MR LYNDON
ORMOND-PARKER
300. You argue that the British Government should
in fact establish a policy on this.
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Yes.
301. Surely this should be a matter for the
museum trustees?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) I think this should be a matter
for museum trustees as far as my reading of the legislation goes.
To date I think that pressure needs to be brought on museums in
this country in terms of allowing access, documenting their collections
and making this information freely available to those who request
it. Time and time again I have come across this wall of silence
in some institutions, or some institutions even choose, for want
of a better word, to try and deceive researchers into thinking
that there is absolutely nothing in their collections whatsoever.
One curator wrote to me saying, "It would be irresponsible
of me to assist you." That sort of frustration by communities
is quite prevalent and it is not only Australia. It is Canada,
New Zealand, Hawaii and the like. What I am saying is, let us
not put all museums in the same boat. There are many museums out
there and universities who have excellent policies. To name a
few, Edinburgh University allows access to information and archives
and has a policy for repatriation, Oxford allows access to archives
and has a policy of repatriation, Exeter Museum, the Royal College
of Surgeons in London has allowed access to information and archives.
Some of these institutions have large collections but others completely
fail to acknowledge repeated requests.
302. Is there not a balance to be made between
the desire clearly by yourself for repatriation for good and perfectly
understandable reasons you have given, and the need for a wider
understanding of indigenous community populations which this type
of scientific activity on remains in museums in this country can
help achieve?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Absolutely. Again the fundamental
is rights of indigenous communities to have some sort of control
and ownership over their culture, just as British people would
like some control over their collections.
Derek Wyatt
303. Can I take up Mr Fraser's point? In the
wider world we need a better understanding of people. If all the
things in all our museums which have been collected over thousands
of years go back, we lose that knowledge and understanding. Christopher
said that there is a middle way. What is the middle way here,
because if we took everything back we would then lose an understanding
of what you are and what you have been as it were?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) One of the great myths is that
with claims for repatriation it means that absolutely everything
is going to be taken out of museums. I do not believe that is
the case. In Australia it has been proved that it is not the case.
Now in Australia we have museums, in co-operation with communities,
developing excellent exhibitions, we have outsourcing where museums
loan to Aboriginal communities back their cultural artefacts.
They are developing their own regional and local museums. They
also look at projecting that and showing other people around the
world how they best want themselves as a living vibrant culture
to be perceived. Who better than indigenous communities themselves
to work with museums, work with curators, about how they are going
to be represented? The Kelvin Grove is an excellent example of
repatriation now, and an exhibition which shows the true meaning
of what happens in South Dakota.
304. You say in some of your evidence that you
would like the British Government to establish a policy on this.
What do you mean by that?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) What we would like to see is a
policy and guidelines developed for good best practice which recognises
indigenous ownership rights to their cultural heritage. That does
not necessarily mean that we are saying, "Okay, everything
must go back." What we are saying is that museums must be
sensitive to these sorts of issues. I think with the development
of the Museums and Galleries Commission report on these issues
it is an excellent first step. Over the last three years that
I have been here it is one of the most positive steps I have seen
coming out of all of these issues. This Committee itself meeting
is a great step towards that.
305. You also referred to South America and
other countries in Europe. Do they have a better policy? Is there
a best practice somewhere we can look at?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) I have brought today a couple of
excellent documents which I am going to leave for the Committee
to look at, which are best practice documents. One is from the
Australian Museum in Sydney. There are best practices but what
I find is that countries with indigenous communities themselves
have developed excellent policies and guidelines for these sorts
of things. I have attached to my report the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander guidelines for dealing with communities and museums.
Yes, there are some excellent examples which I will leave with
you.
Mr Maxton
306. You did say that 25 per cent of museums
did not even bother to reply to your letters in the first instance?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Yes.
307. Are you backed by the Australian Government
in the work that you do?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Yes. My project is funded by the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which
is the Government Department responsible for indigenous affairs
in Australia. They have funded my organisation as an NGO over
the last five years to undertake this sort of project.
308. And you are quite entitled, presumably,
to make it quite clear in any letters you write to our museums
that you are in that position?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Absolutely, and my letters do not
go without supporting letters. One was from my academic institution.
The other one was from the Australian High Commission here in
London. In one instance even the head of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) wrote to several museums requesting
that they allow myself access to archives and information. Do
not forget that my primary role here is to document collections;
it is not to request broad base repatriation, only at the request
of communities.
309. You listed some universities and museums
that have good policies in terms of repatriation. How many have
actually repatriated human remains so far?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) In this country there have been
about a dozen. What I will do is put together a list for you if
you like.
310. I know you mentioned Kelvin Grove. That
is one of them, is it not?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Yes, for Australia. Would you like
me to name them?
311. Give me a couple of examples.
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Edinburgh University returned remains
in 1991. They are returning more shortly. There are several institutions
which have offered up remains for repatriation but have not gone
back yet, for example, Oxford University.
Mr Faber
312. 1990.
(Mr Ormond-Parker) And a few others. What I can do
is put together a detailed list of responses and do some statistics
on my own research over the last three years.
Mr Maxton
313. We have concentrated perhaps almost entirely
so far on the human remains issue which is clearly related to
the community and the desire of the community to have those remains
restored and buried or whatever they want to do with them. But
of course this repatriation is not just about human remains. It
is also about other cultural objects having been taken from indigenous
peoples, not just from Australia but around the world. What do
you think we ought to be doing about those?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Again developing policies in this
country in the first instance to deal with requests and make information
about collections known and freely available to those that request
it. Of course I would go with the case by case basis which is
set out in the guidelines and to assess it as it is. The onus
of proof again always seems to be on indigenous communities to
prove ownership whereas I believe there should also be some onus
on museums themselves and universities to prove that they have
legal title to this material in the first place.
314. On human remains I think that is straightforward
and I do not think I would disagree with you. But when it comes
to other cultural objects there is also the problem of ensuring
that they are available not just for that particular community.
I would accept the point about ownership but it does not necessarily
follow that just because you own it you are necessarily going
to have to have it back in that particular community, particularly
if it may then be lost in some way or other.
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Again I guess it is a case by case
basis and it is an area which I do not particularly delve into
in my professional work as such.
315. You say a lot of your work is archive work
and finding out who has got what and where it is in this country.
Are you putting that into some sort of electronic form which is
then available so that the rest of us can know what it is?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) At this stage we are putting it
into a database and I will have to refer to my organisation about
how freely available it is.
Mrs Organ
316. I wonder if you would give me some idea
of the size and number of institutions? You have talked about
the fact that you have had returns from a dozen or so institutions.
Roughly how many human remains do you believe are here and how
many institutions are holding Aboriginal artefacts or human remains
in this country? Are we talking about a dozen or 430, just some
idea?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) I estimate between 2,000 and 3,000
human remains of Aboriginal origin are held in this country. At
this stage again it is very difficult to say because some of the
major holding institutions have in the past refused to disclose
details of their collections. I would say between 20 to 30 institutions
hold those remains.
317. Those that do not reply, do you think it
is ignorance of what they hold, lack of a good bureaucratic system,
or is it, do you think, that they do not have legal title for
what they hold?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) I think it might be all of the
above. In some instances they do not know what they have. No-one
has researched the material for quite a number of years or even
since it was brought over to the institution. This may have a
lot to do with lack of funding of museums and institutions, lack
of resources to properly document their collections. A whole range
of issues probably compact to bring about those sorts of responses.
318. You mentioned some of your successes that
you have had in repatriation but when other artefacts or human
remains have been offered up, and for instance you mentioned Oxford,
they have not gone back. What are the reasons for that? What is
the problem? What is holding it up if they agree to it but it
does not happen?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) There is a whole range of reasons
why that may not happen. One of the first reasons is back in Australia
it could be a lack of resources or a proper keeping place for
the material itself, lack of burial sites for the community, it
is not the right time to return the material, a whole range of
reasons. Once communities have been given the right to their material
they have realised that museums are sensitive to these issues
but it is like a sigh of relief saying, "They are going to
tell us, they are not going to study it, they will inform us if
anything is going to happen to it." In some of those cases
that is possibly what happens.
319. If one of the reasons might be that the
institution in this country is concerned about what will happen
to whatever is going back and how it is displayed or how it is
used or whatever. Has there been any commitment from the Australian
Government to assist your Foundation so that money is put in so
that artefacts and human remains can be housed appropriately?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) Yes, but not necessarily from my
organisation. What we do is assist in outsourcing to communities
themselves that may be funding for a local regional museum, funding
for a keeping place. It may be accessioning of property, a burial
site, it may be sealing off a rock burial cave, whichever is appropriate
for that particular community concerned. It may be having a section
in the local Christian cemetery, a whole broad range of scenarios
come up. In the first instance, for instance if remains in this
country are unprovenanced, that is, we do not know exactly, we
know they are Australian but we do not know where they originally
came from, the holding institution is the National Museum in Canberra.
Australian Government policy is slightly hesitant in terms of
returning unprovenanced material in the first instance because
of lack of storage facilities in the National Museum, a whole
broad range of issues would come up in response to that.
320. You are obviously based here in the United
Kingdom because there is the link between Australia and Britain
and we assume that the majority of Australian artefacts are here.
I wonder if you could just tell me do you have any contacts with
other countries: America, European countries? Where else in the
world?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) We have had dealings with the United
States and in particular with NAGPRA 1, which is the legislation
which deals with repatriation, museums in Canada, New Zealand,
Hawaii, France, Germany, European countries, and not only in terms
of museums but also universities in those countries.
321. But are the quantities significantly less
elsewhere?
(Mr Ormond-Parker) For the rest of the world it is
probably very similar to Great Britain. For instance, we estimate
about 2,500 to 3,000 in the rest of the world, if not more. At
this stage it is an area of research which we are developing and
are going to be working on in the near future.
Chairman: Mr Ormond-Parker, that was
a very valuable session and we are grateful for your help.
1 NAGPRA is the Act administered by US National
Parks and Wildlife Service.
| 
