An independent review examining Aboriginal art for a National Gallery of Australia exhibition has concluded that the paintings are free from interference and the exhibition is to be rescheduled.

The 28 artworks were originally planned to be showcased in the gallery's prominent winter exhibition titled "Ngura Pulka – Epic Country."

In claims originally published by The Australian newspaper, it was alleged non-Indigenous art workers had interfered with the paintings created by Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) artists.

Due to these allegations, the exhibition was postponed indefinitely.

To address the concerns, the National Gallery commissioned a review led by intellectual property law experts, barrister Colin Golvan and lawyer Shane Simpson.

The review has confirmed that the artists had full "creative control" over their work, and their paintings adhered to the National Gallery's provenance policy.

The report emphasises that the artists' own statements play a crucial role in determining the authenticity of the artworks, and all the artists involved asserted that the work was indeed their own without any hesitation.

"Without exception, the artists to whom we spoke unequivocally told us that the works under review in each case were made by them and expressly denied that there had been any improper interference in the making of their work," the review stated.

The review quoted several comments from artists, such as: "That is my painting; that is my work"; "It was only us Anungu people"; "No one added to it. It's from our hands, the family did this together".

The National Gallery said it accepts the findings and has agreed to reschedule the Ngura Pulka exhibition.

"The attack on our integrity and our art has been rejected and thrown into the rubbish bin where it belongs," it said in a statement signed by dozens of its artists.

APY Art Centre Collective general manager Skye O'Meara said the allegations were part of a deliberate effort.

"The attack on the integrity of the artists and their work, which has been debunked today, was an opening shot in a deliberate effort to destroy the Collective and its significant artistic, cultural and economic achievements," she said.

However, the situation is not yet resolved, as a second, broader investigation led by the South Australian government still looms over the artists and the art centre's general manager, Skye O'Meara.

While the National Gallery's investigation focused on ensuring that artists had "effective creative control" over their paintings, the South Australian review has a much wider scope.

It aims to examine allegations of intervention, concealment, and concerns related to providing a safe workplace.

Additionally, the review will assess the collective's governance, management, and practices.

The National Gallery faces potential repercussions if any unfavorable findings arise from the South Australian inquiry.

Such findings could not only impact the collective but also affect the exhibition. The duration of the review is currently unknown.

In response to the situation, the gallery expressed its willingness to cooperate with the government-led inquiry if requested, indicating that they may provide evidence to support the South Australian probe.

Ms O'Meara is confident the collective will again be cleared, and has characterised the allegations as "an opening shot in a deliberate effort to destroy the collective and its significant artistic, cultural and economic achievements."

There were some aspects of Wednesday's findings that would have been reassuring.

The initial allegations aired by The Australian featured a 50-second edited video ostensibly showing art workers interfering with a canvas, and investigators were unable to obtain an unedited version of this footage.

Also, two artists who claimed the work of other painters had not been done independently recanted and withdrew their evidence, while other witnesses failed to provide sworn statements.

"These inconsistencies meant that some of the most important allegations of direct and improper interference were, in our view, unsustainable," the review found.