Paper short abstract:

Over the last five decades Queensland has had three successive pieces of legislation for the purpose of protecting and managing Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Paper long abstract:

Over the last five decades Queensland has had three successive pieces of legislation for the purpose of protecting and managing Aboriginal cultural heritage. The first in 1967 employed a Relics paradigm to empower both amateur and professional archaeologists. The next in 1987 was an EIS paradigm enshrining assessment processes and the pre-eminence of professional archaeologists. Since 2003 the most recent Act has used a Native Title paradigm to empower select Aboriginal people. How governments have created authority and authoritativeness to determine the existence and significance of Aboriginal cultural heritage is central to understanding this history, and to critiquing the current regime. The most recent legislation, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, is intertwined with the Native Title Act 1993 in a way that has considerable implications, not least in terms how native title claims are progressed, and if the Aboriginal Party is indeed the right person for the right heritage.