As part of right way; the question has been posed should we have an Indigenous authentication label? There are successful models in use. An Indigenous Swing Tag was developed for the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games. And New Zealand recently introduced a 3-tier tag system, the Toi Iho, Maori Made Mark. Have your say and vote yes or no. To read or make further comment on this issue see Trish Bernard's Keeping it Real Authentication Forum

Indigenous crafts people around the country grapple with the issue of authentication. In the face of cheap imports, the tourist market has difficulty identifying authentic Indigenous Australian craft.

There are high street shops in every city that sell “Aboriginal” artefacts and souvenirs to Australia’s valuable tourism industry. Cheap imitations made off-shore, this ‘Indig-kitch’, as Queensland Museum curator Trish Barnard dubs it, undercuts, undervalues and disrespects Indigenous culture. She asks:

“Why do we not have more control over self-presentation and the misleading hybrid product made by non-Indigenous makers currently available?”

For the many tourists who are in the country for only a short time, it is impossible to distinguish the original from the knock-off. For those lucky enough to travel to remote art centres, or to happen upon the few outlets for their work, the difference is plain.

Attempts to introduce authentication swing tags, along the lines of the internationally acclaimed Woolmark, have failed in the past. And there are procedural and enforcement problems that would have to be addressed.

But there are successful models. An Indigenous Swing Tag was developed by for the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games. New Zealand recently introduced a 3-tier tag system, the Toi Iho, Maori Made Mark.

“Toi iho Mark was developed in response to calls from Maori to assist to retain ownership and control of their Maori knowledge, imagery and designs and maintain the integrity of their cultural heritage in an increasingly commercial world.”

Christina Hurihia Wirihana, Deputy Chairperson, Te Roopu Raranga Whatu o Aotearoa, National Weaving Committee

However, like Australia’s short-lived 'Label of Authenticity' (introduced by the National Indigenous Arts Advocacy Association in 2000 and no longer in use) it is a "voluntary" systems, which, Barnard argues, makes them ineffective.

Gab Titui Cultural Centre’s submission to the Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Indigenous Visual Arts and Craft Sector (2007) noted that in order to improve the sector’s sustainability there was a need for:

Respecting and understanding of what knowledge can and cannot be shared through artwork with respect to individual communities’ law and lore. A related issue is that of intellectual property and copyright. A possibility is to develop a Torres Strait Island Art label or Certificate of Authenticity to guarantee authenticity.

The recently announced Indigenous Australian Art Commercial Code of Conduct focuses on the gallery sector and leaves retail outlets still relatively unregulated.

The issue is threefold:

For makers the incentive is that their work is recognized, respected and valued as an authentic expression of their culture. However, in order to work the scheme would have to limit the amount of cost the tag would incur, in time, fees and registration.

For retail operators it can be a simple economic decision, but a tag would establish confidence in sourcing authentic craft; and provide the ‘value-added’ basis for a higher retail ticket.

For buyers it would provide reliable identification on which to make a confident, informed choice.

Should we have an Indigenous authentication label? It is a complex issue, but make a first step on right way with a simple vote.

We want to know what you think.

VOTE ENDS 9 FEBRUARY 2010

Forum Coordinator, Merryn Gates