Issue 4: Palawa kani and the use, spelling, pronunciation and writing of Tasmanian Aboriginal languages under the Policy

There was a clear view expressed across submissions that many Aboriginal community organisations and local groups are seeking opportunities to inform Aboriginal and dual naming in Tasmania. There was unanimous support for the expansion of languages used to inform dual naming to include other Tasmanian Aboriginal languages, local knowledge and for proposals to be based on sound history and research.

Question 4.1: Should a revised Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy refer to the Aboriginal and dual naming of Tasmanian places and features in ‘Tasmanian Aboriginal languages’ and to ‘palawa kani’ – noting that the TAC’s palawa kani program can continue to inform name proposals under the Policy?

All of the ten respondents who responded to this question supported the expansion of language/s to inform Aboriginal and dual name proposals to include Tasmanian Aboriginal languages other than palawa kani.

One respondent ‘acknowledged the effort that the Tasmanian Aboriginal [Corporation] has put in over that time to revive language but [we] would have been more supportive if [we] were consulted about the development of palawa kani’. This submission noted that broader Aboriginal community support for palawa kani was more likely if other Aboriginal groups were able to contribute to its development, use and promotion .

Respondents did not support the exclusive use of palawa kani to inform Aboriginal and dual name proposals, with one submission stating that ‘[proposals] should reflect the original, authentic language of the clan of that area, not the reconstructed palawa kani [language]’ . Three submissions expressed concern that the ‘present policy allows palawa kani to dictate the use, spelling, pronunciation of a contrived language for Tasmanian places and geographical features’ to the exclusion of other organisations and languages. This same submission states that it ‘considers the application of palawa kani to place names [to be] offensive as it is directed by a western linguistic construct’ .

Responses note a preference for the broader application of Tasmanian Aboriginal languages to inform Aboriginal and dual name proposals noting that palawa kani could continue to inform proposals. One Aboriginal community response indicated that they ‘offer another language option’ for use in place names . One local government submission supported in principle ‘consistent application of language such as palawa kani. However, the final name determined should be considered based on the greater weight of historical evidence and local references where this exist[s]’ .

Question 4.2: Should a revised Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy allow for name proposals to be informed by any Tasmanian language or group – if supported by historical evidence and research?

There was unanimous support across the 14 respondents that responded to this question, noting that responses to previous questions also related in part to this issue.

One respondent stated that historical evidence and research should be the primary basis upon which Aboriginal and dual name proposals are informed, regardless of whether they are put forward by Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal people . However, another respondent stated that ‘historical evidence through research, as well as local community consultation, should be the guide to any decision for any dual name and not necessarily based on the weight of evidence’ .

Two submissions noted they would support ‘name proposals providing they are informed by the diverse Tasmanian [Aboriginal] languages and supported by historical evidence and research’ .

Question 4.3: Should a revised Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy provide a preference for name proposals to be informed by the language / languages or the original people of the place or feature to be named?

Ten of the 11 respondents to this question agreed that a revised Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy should provide a preference for name proposals to be informed by the language or languages or the original people of the place or feature to be named.

One Aboriginal community submission noted that ‘place name proposals [should be brought] back to the community that is affected by the name changes and request referencing to the source of knowledge in regards to chosen names. Local communities [should have] primacy based on local knowledge of country and histories in that particular area’ .

Another submission noted that ‘great care should be exercised by the [Nomenclature] Board before any decision is made, certainly until there is a general acceptance of any proposal and any such information should be deferred and not imposed on the community which to some is offensive’ .

Question 4.4: Should a revised Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy, where more than one name is recorded or known for the one feature or place, adopt the name with the greater weight of historical references as the Aboriginal or dual name?

Eight respondents supported the adoption of one name, where more than one name is recorded or known for a feature or place to be named. Two respondents provided specific commentary pertaining to this issue.

One non-Aboriginal submission referred to a Canadian model ‘where a single place is often named differently by different communities, naming recognises the names used by all the communities with a historical or traditional interest in the location’ .

One non-Aboriginal submission argued that ‘if there is too much debate, then it would surely be better to not force a dual name. If there is already a name in place for the area, stick with it’ . One local government submission noted that any revised Policy ‘where more than one name is recorded or known for the one feature or place, should give way to local Aboriginal community support’ .

Question 4.5: Should a revised Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy, where a place or feature has more than one name describing parts of the feature or place, appropriately name each part based on historical evidence and research?

There were divergent views across the nine respondents who responded directly to this question.

Two Aboriginal community organisations indicated they supported the retention of all known names where they can be validated by historical research and knowledge - ‘that where a place or feature has more than one name describing parts of the feature or place, appropriately name each part based on historical evidence, local knowledge and research. [If] there are authentic references to more than one name, they should be retained where it is culturally appropriate to do so’ .

One local government submission recommended that ‘where a place or feature has more than one name describing parts of the feature or place should be named singularly for clarity, however in exceptional circumstances this principal [sic] could be waived. In this circumstance the decision should be based on local Aboriginal group support’ .