Use this for a deeper dive into what’s wrong – and how to fix – the Tasmanian Govt’s draft Aboriginal Heritage Bill
Help protect Aboriginal heritage in Lutruwita / Tasmania
The Tasmanian Government has released the draft Aboriginal Heritage Bill 2026. This Bill is meant to replace Tasmania’s outdated Aboriginal heritage laws. It should be a historic opportunity.
But the draft Bill does not yet meet the moment.
223 years ago, Aboriginal people in Lutruwita / Tasmania stopped having ownership and control of their own cultural heritage. Rock carvings, middens, burial places, cultural landscapes, stories, objects and sacred places are not just “heritage items”. They are living connections between Country, Ancestors, Community, identity and future generations.
The central problem with the Bill is simple:
It does not return Aboriginal heritage to Aboriginal ownership and control.
Instead, it keeps Aboriginal heritage within a government-controlled system. It recognises Aboriginal people as “custodians” and “knowledge holders” but does not give the Tasmanian Aboriginal community ownership, authority or final decision-making power over its own heritage.
Tasmania can and must do better.
This is a chance for Parliament to right a wrong. It is a chance to replace a failed system with laws based on Aboriginal ownership, self-determination, Free, Prior and Informed Consent, and genuine protection.
This is a submission is an opportunity for people power and to show there is a much better way to go that the Government’s Bill.
You do not need to be a lawyer. You do not need to comment on every clause in the Bill. The most powerful submissions will be clear, personal and principled. They can be short – even a single sentence – or long. What’s important is to have your say by emailing your submission.
Our key message
The Aboriginal Heritage Bill 2026 should not proceed in its current form.
It should be rewritten so that Aboriginal heritage is owned and controlled by the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, protected by strong laws, and managed according to Aboriginal self-determination and Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
What’s wrong with the Bill:
1. The Bill does not restore Aboriginal ownership of Aboriginal heritage
This is the fundamental issue.
The Bill says Aboriginal people are “primary custodians” and should be “primarily in control” of Aboriginal heritage. But “primary” is patronising.
Aboriginal heritage belongs to Aboriginal people.
The law should say this clearly. It should not treat Aboriginal people as advisers, consultees, stakeholders or partial custodians of our own heritage. It should recognise that Aboriginal people have the right to own, control, protect, access, manage and make decisions about their cultural heritage. Australia has endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) for this very reason.
Submissions can say:
“I oppose the Bill because it does not restore Aboriginal heritage to Aboriginal ownership. The Bill should recognise the Tasmanian Aboriginal community as the owners and decision-makers for Aboriginal heritage, not merely as “primary custodians” or people to be consulted. Consultation doesn’t offer control.”
2. The Bill keeps power with the Minister and Government
The Bill would create an Aboriginal Heritage Council. That sounds positive, but the Council would still be appointed by the Minister, not chosen by the Aboriginal Community.
The Council’s powers would also be weak. Key decisions would still sit with the Minister, the Secretary of the Department, and government-controlled processes.
This matters because Aboriginal heritage protection should not depend on political discretion. It should depend on Aboriginal authority.
Submissions can say:
“The Aboriginal Heritage Council should be chosen by, accountable to and trusted by the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. It should have real statutory powers to protect heritage, not merely advise the Minister or operate within a government-controlled process.”
3. The Bill maintains a double standard between Aboriginal heritage and non-Aboriginal heritage
Tasmania already has strong laws for historic European cultural heritage. The Tasmanian Heritage Council has significant powers to register places, intervene in planning decisions, stop works that are likely to harm heritage and require conditions.
The draft Aboriginal Heritage Bill does not give the proposed Aboriginal Heritage Council equivalent powers. It does not close the gap but, instead, perpetuates the two-tier system:
- colonial heritage from the last two centuries receives stronger practical protection;
- Aboriginal heritage, which may be tens of thousands of years old, globally significant and irreplaceable, receives weaker protection.
This double standard is unacceptable.
What submissions can say:
“Aboriginal heritage should receive protection that is at least equal to, and preferably stronger than, the protection given to non-Aboriginal historic heritage in Tasmania. It is discriminatory for colonial heritage to receive stronger legal protection than Aboriginal heritage.”
4. The Bill does not properly implement Free, Prior and Informed Consent
The principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent means Aboriginal people must be able to make decisions before actions are taken that affect their heritage. It is not the same as consultation. It’s the cornerstone of UNDRIP.
Consultation means government or developers ask for our views.
Consent means Aboriginal people have authority.
The Bill should embed Free, Prior and Informed Consent into the process for drafting the law and into every decision made under the law.
What submissions can say:
“The Bill should be rewritten to require Free, Prior and Informed Consent for decisions affecting Aboriginal heritage. Consultation after decisions have already been framed by government is not enough. Aboriginal people must have decision-making authority over Aboriginal heritage.”
5. The Bill falls short of UNDRIP and Dhawura Ngilan
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage. Australia has endorsed it. Tasmania has ignored it.
Dhawura Ngilan: A Vision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage in Australia and the Best Practice Standards in Indigenous cultural heritage management and legislation provides a nationally recognised pathway for best-practice heritage protection. It calls for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage to be managed according to community ownership, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at the centre of decision-making. Australia has created it. Tasmania has ignored it.
The Bill should use these standards as its foundation.
What submissions can say:
“The Bill should be rewritten to properly reflect UNDRIP, including self-determination and Free, Prior and Informed Consent, and the recommendations of Dhawura Ngilan. Tasmania should not pass heritage laws that fall below national and international best-practice standards.”
6. The Bill still allows harm to Aboriginal heritage
The Bill creates permits, management plans, exemptions and defences. This means the system still allows for authorised harm to Aboriginal heritage.
A strong law should start from a different principle: That Aboriginal heritage must be protected. Destruction should be prohibited except in the most exceptional circumstances, and only as the last resort and with Aboriginal consent.
What submissions can say:
“The Bill should begin with a presumption of protection. It should not operate as a permit system for damaging or destroying Aboriginal heritage. Any harm to Aboriginal heritage should be a last resort, subject to strict tests and Aboriginal consent.”
7. The Bill does not properly protect cultural landscapes and intangible heritage
Aboriginal heritage is more than objects or archaeological sites. It includes cultural landscapes, stories, knowledge, language, songlines, spiritual connections, practices and relationships with Country.
The Bill does not adequately protect intangible heritage, and cultural landscapes are protected only if they are registered by the Government. This is too narrow.
What submissions can say:
“The Bill should protect Aboriginal heritage in its full living meaning, including cultural landscapes and intangible heritage such as knowledge, stories, language, practices and spiritual connection to Country.”
8. The Bill should be rewritten with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community
The answer is not to tinker with a flawed Bill. The answer is to reset the process.
New Aboriginal heritage laws should be co-designed with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community as Tasmania’s Government has previously committed to. But it’s ignored its own commitment on this Bill. Aboriginal people should author the principles, scope and framework of the law. Parliament’s role should be to recognise and enact that authority.
What submissions can say:
“Tasmania’s Government has committed to Aboriginal-led co-design. This Bill is the perfect opportunity to apply it. It should work with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community to rewrite the Bill so that it is based on Aboriginal ownership, control, protection and consent.”
What the Bill should do instead:
A strong Aboriginal Heritage Act should:
- Recognise that Aboriginal heritage belongs to Aboriginal people.
- Return and restore ownership and control of Aboriginal heritage to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community.
- Establish an Aboriginal-controlled heritage body chosen by the Aboriginal community.
- Give that body strong powers to register heritage, stop works, require protection, refuse damaging proposals and enforce the law.
- Provide protection at least equal to non-Aboriginal heritage laws.
- Embed Free, Prior and Informed Consent in every decision affecting Aboriginal heritage.
- Fully reflect UNDRIP and Dhawura Ngilan.
- Protect tangible and intangible heritage, including cultural landscapes, stories, knowledge, language and spiritual connection to Country.
- Integrate Aboriginal heritage protection into planning laws from the earliest stage of any development process.
- Start from a presumption that Aboriginal heritage must be protected, not managed toward destruction.
Optional personal paragraph for Aboriginal community members
I am a Tasmanian Aboriginal person / member of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community. Aboriginal heritage is not abstract to me. It is part of who we are, where we come from and what we are responsible for passing on. Decisions about Aboriginal heritage should not be made for us. They should be made by us. This Bill does not return our heritage to our ownership and control, and for that reason it must be changed.
Optional personal paragraph for broader public supporters
I am not Aboriginal, but I believe Tasmania has a responsibility to protect Aboriginal heritage and respect Aboriginal authority. It is wrong for Aboriginal heritage to receive weaker protection than colonial heritage. It is also wrong for decisions about Aboriginal heritage to remain under government control rather than Aboriginal ownership and consent. I support the Tasmanian Aboriginal community’s call for stronger laws.
