Australian Society of Archivists
1999 Conference
Indigenous Peoples' Access Rights to Archival
Records
Sonia Smallacombe
In the past, the State and Commonwealth governments exercised
excessive and wide ranging control over the lives of Indigenous
Australians. Government dealings with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people were recorded on files and as a result, a large
collection of records exists in archives, much of which has lain
unread for generations. These records form an important part of the
cultural heritage of Indigenous Australians and access to these
records is vital for assisting people to trace their families,
communities and their histories.
Access to archival information has been a sensitive issue for
Indigenous people because we have traditionally been deprived of
access to information by the wider Australian society. Institutions
holding Aboriginal-related records have generally perpetuated harmful
and disempowering myths about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people. This is evident by the use of racist and offensive subject
headings in catalogues, access to secret and sacred material and the
general the lack of Indigenous involvement either as staff members, or
as representatives on boards and councils. As a result the majority of
Indigenous people have been reluctant to visit places which portrays
or displays them in an offensive manner or where there is a lack of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander presence. There is also the
added issue that in most instances these records exist in centralised
locations in capital cities, and across state borders, thousands of
kilometres away from the communities to whom they have relevance.
Today, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are determined
not only to reclaim their history via access to archival records but
also to take control of these records in order to safeguard the
personally sensitive information from public knowledge. The
determination by Indigenous people seeking to reclaim our histories
has challenged archival institutions about the lack of information
services and processes to facilitate access to information for
Indigenous communities. The challenge however, goes much further than
service provision. In her article The Construction of Silence,
Heather Moorcroft, Reference Librarian for the
Faculty of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies at the Northern
Territory University, refers to elements of the information ‘industry’
that have acted as the ‘gatekeepers’ of information and as a
result have had the important role of controlling the interpretation
of Australia's history.(1) While Moorcroft's article
refers to the Australian
Public Affairs Information Service (APAIS), her comments could
easily apply to archival institutions.
In her article ‘Who owns the Past? - Aborigines as Captives of
the Archives’, Henrietta Fourmile, a Murri academic, refers to
the issue of non-Aboriginal people maintaining collections of
information and documents concerning Indigenous peoples. She provides
a very strong illustration of how the past has always been in the
possession of those in power. She quotes Reuben Snake, a Winnebago
Indian:
To be Indian is having non-Indian control of the documents from
which other non-Indians write the version of your history. ...the
historical Indian may be the captive of the archives, but the key to
those archives is in the hands on non-Indian historians. ...for the
Native American this is more than just some intellectual game. What
is at stake for the Indian is his historical identity, and all that
can mean for self-image and psychological well-being. At stake also
is the very existence of tribes, and the validity of their claims to
millions of acres of land and to the compensation for injustices
suffered in earlier transactions with the federal and state
governments.(2)
Archival institutions such as libraries, museums and state and
federal archives have been provoked into re-defining and clarifying
their roles in contemporary Australian society by Indigenous
communities. While all peoples should have access to any service,
irrespective of their race, culture or ethnicity, exclusion policies
and practices do exist in these organisations towards Indigenous
peoples. Therefore, it is important that record holding institutions
seriously examine their policies and responsibilities if they wish to
include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as part of their
client group.
Access to archival records was highlighted in the recommendations of
the
Royal
Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The Royal
Commission was set up jointly by the Commonwealth, the States and the
Northern Territory on 16 October 1987 in response to concerns that
deaths in custody of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were
all too common and public explanations too evasive. The Royal
Commission investigated the deaths of 99 Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people in custody between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 1989. The
findings of the Royal Commission were set out in a report which
documented the extent of control by Governments over the lives of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. One of its most serious
concerns was that of the 99 deaths in custody investigated, 43 of the
deceased had been separated from their families as children. One of
the conclusions was that the enforced dislocation and family
breakdowns contributed to the high rates of arrest and imprisonment of
Indigenous Australians.(3)
The response by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to the
Royal Commission expressed strong support for measures to strengthen
Indigenous family and community links which had been outlined in the
Commission's recommendations. The issue of child care placement and
access to records where families had been separated were set out in
Recommendations 52 and 53.
Recommendation 53 states:
That Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments provide access
to all government archival records pertaining to the family and
community histories of Aboriginal people to re-establish community
and family links with those people from whom they were separated as
result of past policies of government. The Commission recognizes
that questions of the right of privacy and questions of
confidentiality may arise and recommends that the principles and
processes for access to such records should be negotiated between
government and appropriate Aboriginal organisations, but such
negotiation should proceed on the basis that as a general principle
access to such documents should be permitted.(4)
The Going Home Conference
The response by archival institutions to Recommendation 53 of the
Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody appeared to be
moving slowly and as a result some Indigenous communities put pressure
on government departments to urgently address and implement the Royal
Commission's recommendations. This was highlighted at the Going Home
Conference, organised by the KARU Child Care Agency in Darwin in
October 1994.
The Going Home conference brought together over six hundred Stolen
Generation people in the Northern Territory. The issue of access to
Commonwealth archival records was discussed in detail (the N.T was the
responsibility of the Commonwealth government until 1978).
Recommendations that came out of that conference was: the
establishment of an Advisory Committee that would ensure that
Aboriginal people had access to any information concerning them; the
Commonwealth Archives employ Aboriginal staff to assist Aboriginal
people who wish to access archival material; that Finding Aids be
created; and that fee charges for photocopying be waived. These
concerns later formed the basis for the Memorandum of Understanding
that was signed between the Northern Territory Stolen Generations and
National Archives and later with the Northern Territory Archives in
1997.
Publication and Guides
One of the concerns that Indigenous people have is the publications
and guides to Indigenous-related records which are available in
Commonwealth and State archives search rooms. A majority of Indigenous
people remain largely ignorant of the existence of these records and
documents. As Henrietta Fourmile points out, Indigenous communities
are economically impoverished and access to historical and cultural
resources imposes a considerable financial burden. Indigenous people
living outside of the major centres where archival material are
located cannot afford the cost of travel or the expense of
photocopying material. More importantly however, there is the concern
that reference and guides are written in a language that appeals to
only a small, educated, elite group. These guides are generally
produced by white academics for the benefit and enjoyment of white
researchers and are produced with little, if any input from Indigenous
communities.
Sensitive Information
In regards to sensitive information,
National Archives will be used
as an example. Most records in National Archives that are more that
thirty years of age are publicly available, although some are
restricted under
s33
(1) (g) of the Archives Act 1983 to protect personal
information where its disclosure would involve an unreasonable
invasion of a person's privacy. Some records are also restricted for
national security reasons. The practice of having all records over
thirty years of age publicly available presents a dilemma for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples because the
Aboriginal-related records contains personal information such as the
names of individual people. This is evident in Institutional files
which contain lists of Aboriginal children who were confined to
government or church Institutions. Personal information in these files
also include children's medical problems, behavioural problems, family
information and letters from parents either protesting their
children's removal or requesting to visit their children. In
Aboriginal communities, most people know each other, either
individually or through family groups, therefore an individual or
family members researching their histories inevitably see information
about other people. Also, family members often find information about
members of their own family which had, for various reasons, been kept
from them. Consequently, it is extremely important that processes are
in place so that information of a personal and sensitive nature is
protected from becoming public knowledge.
Access to highly sensitive or restricted information is often
considered to be extremely important for Link-up purposes and
therefore needs to be accessed by Indigenous peoples. Restricted
information often refers to sexual relations, intellectual capacity,
psychiatric illness, criminal records and medical illness such as
leprosy and sexually transmitted diseases. Access to this type of
information is best provided with counselling. Last year, I did a
brief survey of National and State archives and found there were very
few, if any, counselling services provided for those Indigenous people
accessing their records unless it was through Adoption agencies and
Link-Up Services.
Access Restriction Guidelines
Access restrictions to what is deemed ‘highly sensitive
material’ within archival institutions are applied using
guidelines that often do not take into account the needs or cultural
sensitivities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Consequently, the access guidelines are based on Anglo-Australian
sensitivities which often ignores and offends the cultural
sensitivities of Indigenous peoples. For example, photographic
collections of deceased people are, in some communities, subject to
embargoes which stipulates that the names and photographs of the
deceased be withdrawn until a certain period of time has passed or
when the respective community decides that this information can be
made public. Another side to this issue is that in the past, the white
community did not like to reveal that some people had Hansen's disease
(leprosy) so this information was deemed ‘highly sensitive’.
In contrast, within Aboriginal communities, most people had relatives
who had leprosy and they were accepted as part of the community (when
they were not banished to remote treatment stations by the
authorities). The attitudes of the white community to isolate and
reject people who had leprosy was not always evident in Aboriginal
communities.
Racist and insulting language is evident throughout records on
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Archival institutions
make the claim that the original documents and terms are retained in
accordance with usual archival practices because they provide an
insight into the attitudes of the time and the context in which the
records were created. This type of information causes a great deal of
anger and distress to Aboriginal people. These records also include
assertions and allegations about individual people which is incorrect,
racist and personally offensive.Indigenous people are requesting that
they be given the opportunity to provide a correcting statement to be
placed on their personal files so that future generations will be made
aware of their concerns.
A majority of Indigenous peoples, having had very little contact
with archives are suddenly being made aware that not only their names
but other personal information exists in records. Further, that this
information is available to anyone who carries out archival research
and that it is probable that researchers had seen information about
them that they themselves had not viewed. The reaction to this
revelation by some sections of the Indigenous community is
understandably, quite hostile.
Researchers are extremely interested in accessing Aboriginal related
records in archives and this is evident by a number of publications
produced by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics. There is
concern by Indigenous peoples that personal information is being
extracted from records, photocopied and being reproduced in
publications. Often, personal information is being obtained without
the knowledge or the consent of the person whom the information
concerns. A couple of years ago, I was told of an instance where a
white researcher wrote a personal account of an Aboriginal person in
one of her publications. The Aboriginal person concerned had never met
or spoken to the researcher. The information was gleaned from archival
records. Hopefully, this kind of practice is now firmly in the past.
Who owns these archival records? Repatriation and ownership of
records is a sensitive issue for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples. Archival institutions make the claim that the legal ownership
of the records is vested with state and commonwealth governments.
While the bulk of archival records were written by government
officials and their agents, the Indigenous voice can be found among
the records either in letters of protest and petitions or through
information gleaned from Indigenous people by government officials and
their agents (police, missionaries, pastoral owners and workers and
welfare officers etc.). This information includes intimate details of
individuals, family and clan groups from which these records were
compiled. Therefore, Indigenous peoples argue that they should own
these records.
The lack of information in our own communities to re-unite family
members is becoming increasingly difficult by the passing of our
elders. As a result, vital information is not being passed on to the
generations who are seeking information about their families.
Therefore, access to genealogies, mission records and welfare reports
are vital for people who want to recover their cultural identity that
has been denied to them. Henrietta Fourmile makes the point that
alienation from our cultural heritage has not only resulted in
physical separation but our ownership rights (to our cultural
heritage) are not recognised by law in this country.
As Indigenous people we face enormous hurdles when exercising our
right to manage and take control of our records in record holding
institutions. Government legislation too often supports the rights of
record holding institutions and therefore, there is still alot of
tension to be resolved and worked through between record holding
agencies and Indigenous communities. A question I will ask is who is
responsible for supporting those Stolen Generation members who read
their files and then realise they were told a pack of lies by staff in
the institutions? Rob Riley, an Aboriginal leader who committed
suicide in a lonely motel room in April 1996 suffered from the
unresolved pain of being separated from his family at an early age and
on reading his personal file, he was overwhelmed with great sadness.
Rob and I worked together at the Northern Land Council in Darwin in
the early 1980s. Rob's death is a painful realisation that archival
information is extremely powerful because it contains very sensitive
and very personal information.
Footnotes
(1) Moorcroft, H ‘The Construction of Silence’
(1993) p27
(2) Fourmile, H ‘Who Owns the past?’
(1989) p 2
(3) Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: Overview of
the Response by Governments. (1992)p24
(4) ibid. |
