Published Works
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
1 - 5 of 5
-
Item
-
ItemCultural Heritage on the Move: Significance and Meaning.( 1996)This article appears in a special issue of 'Law in Context', entitled "Law and Cultural Heritage", edited by Martin Chanock and Cheryl Simpson. As Australians' 'cultural cringe' has diminished in recent years there has been a developing interest in 'things' Australian. This interest is reflected in those laws which seek to preserve Australian culture. In particular indigenous heritage has been the focus of much protective legislation for it is thought to be distinctly Australian. The natural landscape too has actively been promoted and connected with an Australian identity and this is also apparent in laws which preserve the environment. Debate about what properly depicts 'Australia' indicate that while there may be much consensus as to the need for legislation to protect both the built and natural environments there are many different interpretations of the concepts which are key elements of the legislation, viz, 'heritage' and 'culture'. These terms are vague and subjective and may well shift in meaning when applied to different aspects of 'the things we wish to save'. The cultural heritage of immovable things, buildings or sites may be read or interpreted differently to that of movable cultural objects such as aircraft or a painting. This article examines the problematic nature of these concepts in the light of new legislation which protects cultural heritage objects, namely the "Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth)". The article will focus on non-indigenous 'cultural heritage' objects as determined by this legislation in an attempt to see if these protected objects provide any meaning for a national identity. Under the Act certain cultural property will not be allowed to be exported from the country. The Minister makes the final decision on these matters. Where there is a dispute over the Minister's decision the matter may be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. To date there have been a small number of these cases which have come before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review. It is these cases which will be examined.
-
ItemPublic Health Law.( 2004-08)Public health is a matter of concern at all levels of government. The effective management of public health starts with local government. It is at this grass roots level that a proactive approach to potential public health issues can benefit many citizens by the application of simple remedies that can have a positive health outcome. For example, the fencing of backyard swimming pools in recent years has no doubt saved young lives. Another public health issue that needs addressing is public safety in relation to motorised wheel chairs, commonly referred to as 'gophers'. Local government needs to be proactive in the maintenance of safe public spaces and implementing appropriate legal regulation in the interests of public health.
-
ItemAnzac heritage or Anzac history: Truth or Fiction?( 2000)In recent years, the protection of heritage has been discussed in many parts of the world. In Australia, new laws have been passed, such as "The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1998 (Cth)", "The Heritage Act 1993 (SA)", "Heritage Amendment Act 1988 (NSW)", "Heritage Act 1995 (Vic)". Heritage has acquired a beatific image in popular culture (see for instance the cover of this issue of the "AltLJ"). However, in a diverse Australia the struggle for ownership of the past has lead to disputes about which heritage should be protected and to debates as to the level of protection that should be provided. As more 'things' have been included in the definition of cultural heritage, so too has protection of these 'things' been sought through the legal system. Thus legal definitions of cultural heritage can be cast in a narrow restrictive way to limit heritage to tangibles such as buildings, sites or objects. Conversely, legal definitions can be broad enough to encapsulate intangibles such as religion, folklore, oral history and living culture. When we consider all these points, it becomes obvious that the process of legislating for the protection of cultural heritage requires decisions as to what is to be protected, how it is to be protected and why it is to be protected. Legislators and regulators do not just protect items, they protect items understood in particular ways. The significant past is chosen - treating a war medal as something which should be protected to preserve what is quintessentially Australian is very different from treating it as a minor piece of Victorian bronze work. Further, in choosing the significant past, legislators and regulators are not just responding to demands made by some members of the public or by historians. They are also acting to shape the public's view of how the past is politically laden.
-
ItemWhich Truth? Australian identity - culture and politics.( 2002)Is it true to say that Australia is a tolerant, multicultural and open society? Or does it retain vestiges of a past steeeped in the idea of a 'white Australia'? Or is there truth in both images of the country? Perhaps the truth is that the image the nation wishes to portray is the former while there is another truth tucked away in the minds of many. The image of Australian culture as represented in the international arena takes two forms: that of high culutre, and the culture of everyday life. Cultural agreements between a number of countries emphasise the exchange of cultural activities which are generally referred to as 'high culture,' such as the visual and performing arts. The culture of everyday life is played out through the media and provides insight into aspects of government and our politicians. A critical examination of the images of Australian culture in its various guises indicates that the messages an international audience may receive are very mixed indeed.