AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

					ABN 13 110 628 970

	Australian
Archaeological
Association
PO Box 6565
St Lucia QLD 4067
AUSTRALIA
mailbag@australianarchaeology.com
www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au	

25 October 2002

Mr Brenton Holmes
Secretary of the Committee
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Suite S1.57
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Mr Holmes

Papua New Guinea, other South Pacific countries and cultural heritage

I am writing on behalf of the Australian Archaeological Association regarding the place of cultural heritage matters in the Senate Inquiry into Australia’s relationship with Papua New Guinea and the other South Pacific countries listed in the terms of reference. This Association is Australia’s only national body representing professional and avocational archaeologists from all parts of the discipline, including the many involved in cultural heritage management in the private and public sectors. The Association has an international membership, and some members also represent international professional organizations at executive level, such as the World Archaeological Congress and the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, as well as bodies such as Australia’s learned academies.

Two important things are made clear by the submissions to the Inquiry from the ANU, AusAid, Austrade, Defence, DIMIA and DFAT:

•	Papua New Guinea and most other South Pacific states face a multitude of economic, social and political problems which will intensify unless addressed expeditiously. In particular, declining revenues from primary industry will exacerbate existing social difficulties and worsen the prospects for efficient, effective governance.

•	The deterioration of the economic, social and political situations in our near Pacific neighbours has grave consequences for Australia’s strategic environment in the near, medium and longer terms. Without prompt, effective action to promote nation-building underpinned by sustainable development, more states will fail, more aid and other forms of intervention will be needed and myriad problems linked with border control will emerge or worsen. Pacific markets for Australian goods and services will decline or disappear at the same time, as will any flow-on from the Pacific to the Australian tourist industries.

The Austrade submission also states unambiguously that ‘tourism is big business’, and a key to sustainable development. Much of the tourism in the countries in question is ‘cultural tourism’, which in turn is based on the cultural heritage of those nations. Cultural heritage must be managed effectively if a solid foundation is to be provided for a tourism industry which can sustained over the long term.

The same can be said about nation-building. Heritage provides the ‘cultural capital’ needed to build a coherent and unified vision for a nation and its future. This fact is well understood in the West, where it is the subject of considerable scholarly scrutiny and where it supported by substantial efforts of governments at the local, state, national and international level (think of ANZAC Day, the War Memorial in Canberra, Gallipoli, the Somme and the Kokoda Track, for instance). The relationship is also plainly understood in the Pacific countries in question. The importance of cultural heritage to the nation is described in Papua New Guinea’s constitution, for example, while archaeological findings are routinely advanced as evidence for past communities of culture which underwrite national and international relationships today. As Australia’s Consul-General in Noumea can attest, such was the case at a recent archaeological conference in New Caledonia, which not only brought together scholars from around the world, including many from Australia, but also saw the meeting of representatives of every Pacific country from Papua New Guinea to Samoa and Tonga to celebrate their common descent from a group known as “the Lapita people”, who first settled the region around 3,500 years ago.

On the foregoing basis, the members of this Association would argue very strongly that cultural heritage and its expert management are vital to the future of Papua New Guinea and the other South Pacific states considered by the Senate Inquiry. Yet we note that Australian governments have made less and less effort over recent years to promote such an obvious and relatively inexpensive avenue for Australia to be involved in improving the futures of her near neighbours and thus improving her own strategic and economic environments. Today Australia does almost nothing in this regard, but there is very considerable scope for her to develop her near Pacific neighbours’ capacities through:

•	education and training in cultural heritage management and cultural heritage tourism, 
•	assistance with the provision of heritage management and heritage tourism infrastructure, 
•	on-going support to help sustain and enhance the physical and human resources of museums, heritage management programs and heritage tourism projects, and
•	increased funding for basic archaeological and cultural heritage research to be conducted by Australian researchers in collaboration with their Pacific Island colleagues.

Serious policy work is required without delay. The members of this Association would welcome the opportunity to participate in the Inquiry’s deliberations as it passes through its public consultation and formal hearing phases.

Yours sincerely

Ian Lilley

Associate Professor Ian Lilley
Secretary and Past President