Paper short abstract:

We present a case of failure in enacting Indigenous self-determination. Failure resulted from interpretation and application of institutional policy, rather than from flawed policy. Consistency and objectivity are critical in enacting self-determination but cross-policy awareness is more critical.

Paper long abstract:

We present a recent case study whereby an Indigenous elder in South Australia proceeded to enact Indigenous self-determination but was thwarted in doing so by the South Australia Museum (SAM). In this case self-determination was to be expressed in two steps; taking control and ownership of his ancestral remains and in initiating external scientific analysis of those remains. His ancestral remains had been repatriated to his community many years previously, under the Australian Government repatriation policy. The authority of the elder in taking these steps was not questioned by the SA Museum. Instead the Museum resisted acknowledging his right to take control and ownership of the remains without written consent from the SAM Board. The requirement presented by SAM is argued here to be in disregard of the principles of repatriation but also non-compliant with other key institutional policies. In all, this has led to a failure to enact Indigenous self-determination. Our paper presents an alternative pathway, whereby achieving success in enacting self-determination is more likely. Our discussion will focus on the benefit of cross-policy awareness, consistency and objectivity. Additionally it is imperative that institutions undertake consistent consultation rather than on a ' as needs' basis.