Scoping Study on Indigenous Involvement in Natural Resource Management Decision Making and the Integration of Indigenous Cultu

Scoping study on Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making and the integration of Indigenous cultural heritage considerations into relevant Murray-Darling Basin Commission programs.

REPORT to The Murray-Darling Basin Commission

by Forward NRM and Arrilla – Aboriginal Training & Development

FEBRUARY 2003

Acknowledgements This Scoping Study had a long period of incubation and has involved a large number of people, many of whom are referred to in this Report. The Indigenous Steering Group provided direction and feedback at various times during the data collection and writing- up phases of the Study. Staff at the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office, in particular Wendy McIntyre, Alison Reid and Mike Nolan, have assisted with logistics and administration of the copious amounts of paperwork which seem to be a necessary part of natural resource management issues today. Their assistance, patience and persistence is appreciated. Special thanks needs to go to Dr Rosemary Purdie whose interest and commitment to Indigenous involvement ensured this Project became a reality and whose advice and guidance was vital to the Project. In the final stages of this Study, Warwick McDonald of the Commission’s Basin Communities Program provided further direction and support.

The Project Team would particularly like to thank and acknowledge the many members of Indigenous communities who enthusiastically and willingly contributed to this Study in their own time and at their own expense. Their interest and commitment to natural resource management issues is tangible and genuinely refreshing, and the Project Team appreciated their frankness. Thanks must also go to the agency representatives who managed to find time in their busy schedules to address these often challenging issues.

The Project Team sincerely hopes that the insights, creative ideas, passion and commitment to change that were expressed by so many of the Scoping Study’s participants are reflected in this final Report. Drawing together the disparate, conflicting and often ambitious directions and perspectives of the numerous contributors was both challenging and rewarding; it can only be hoped that this Report, which carries the hopes for a more reconciled Australia, is read, comprehended and acted upon…

Enough of that, let’s get on with it…

The Project Team: Neil Ward, Shelley Reys, Jocelyn Davies, Jane Roots

This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and the MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used for commercial benefit and its source (Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Program title and Report title ) is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or the individual photographers and artists with whom copyright applies.

To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. They are presented to inform discussion for improved management of the Basin’s natural resources.

Table of Contents

Page Acknowledgements 2 1. Summary 7 2. Project Description 10 3. Methodology 12 3.1 Interpretation of the Project Brief 12 3.2 Involvement of the Indigenous Support Group 12 3.3 Consultation Processes 13 3.3.1 Locations 13 3.3.2 Questions for Participants 14 3.4 Data Collection 14 3.4.1 Indigenous Workshops 15 3.4.2 Government Interviews 16 3.5 Transcribing the Data 17 3.6 Literature Review 18 3.7 The Report 18 3.8 Limitations to the Scoping Study 19 3.9 Feedback to Participants 20 4. Importance of Involvement 21 4.1 Basis for Involvement 21 4.2 Ecological Issues and Indigenous Concerns 22 4.3 Cultural Issues and Indigenous Concerns 24 4.4 Natural Resource Management Systems and Indigenous 25 Concerns 4.5 Indigenous Rights and Native Title 27 4.6 What do Indigenous People Want? 28 4.7 Conclusion – Indigenous Perspectives 29 4.8 Government Agencies’ Views on Involvement of Indigenous 29 People in Natural Resource Management 4.9 Cultural and Spiritual Associations with Land 30 4.10 A Social Responsibility 30 4.11 Contemporary Indigenous Land Ownership 31 4.12 Legal and Policy Requirements 31

Page 4.12.1 State Obligations 31 4.12.2 National Obligations 33 4.12.3 International Obligations 34 4.13 Utilising Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives 35 4.14 Contributions of Indigenous Involvement to Broad Social and 38 Natural Resource Management Goals 4.15 Two Constructs of Indigenous Community 39 4.15.1 Local Indigenous Communities 39 4.15.2 Traditional Owner Communities 39 4.15.3 Distinguishing Between Traditional Owners and Local 40 Indigenous Communities 4.16 Aims for Indigenous Community Involvement 42 4.17 Summary 43 5. The Situation Now – Opportunities and the Reality 45 5.1 Indigenous Awareness of Issues 45 5.2 Indigenous Communication and Networks 47 5.3 Indigenous Experiences of Involvement in Natural Resource 49 Management Decision Making 5.4 Government Agency Perspectives 51 5.5 Jurisdictional Perspectives 53 5.5.1 Murray-Darling Basin Commission Office 53 5.5.2 Commonwealth Agencies 54 5.5.3 Queensland 55 5.5.4 New South Wales 55 5.5.5 Victoria 56 5.5.6 South Australia 57 Case Study 5.1: Strategies for Aboriginal Managed Lands 58 5.6 Protocols and Processes 59 5.6.1 Recognition and Respect for Traditional Owners 59 5.6.2 Agency Contact with Indigenous Communities 59 5.6.3 Agreements with Indigenous Groups 60 5.6.4 Roles of Agency Staff 60 5.6.5 Role of Indigenous Members on Natural Resource 61 Management Committees 5.6.6 Processes for Engagement 61

Page Case Study 5.2: Care or Control? Ngarrindjeri Participation in 62 Natural Resource Planning 5.7 Differences and Similarities Between Jurisdictions 63 5.8 Summary 63 6. Barriers to Indigenous Involvement 66 6.1 Lack of Understanding 66 6.2 Lack of Respect 69 6.3 The Culture and Capacity of Government Agencies 70 6.4 Capacity within Indigenous Communities 72 6.5 Lack of Outcomes 74 6.6 Summary 75 7. Improving Indigenous Involvement 77 7.1 Communication 78 7.2 Representation 79 7.3 Government and Organisational Culture 80 7.4 Resources 81 7.5 Indigenous Capacity Building 82 7.6 Involvement Processes 83 7.7 Negotiating Partnerships with Traditional Owners 84 Box 7.1 MOU: Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations 84 Box 7.2 On Ground On Country 85 7.7.1 Representation at Regional and Basin Levels 87 7.7.2 Indigenous Structures and Regional Decision Making 88 7.7.3 Requirements of Effective Traditional Owners 88 Involvement 7.7.4 Institutional Structures 89 7.7.5 Authority of Representatives 91 7.8 Culturally Appropriate Processes for Involving Local 93 Indigenous Communities 7.9 Indigenous People and ‘Mainstream’ Natural Resource 94 Management Committees 7.9.1 Indigenous Representatives on Committees 95 7.9.2 Indigenous People Providing a Broad Indigenous 95 Perspective 7.9.3 Indigenous-Only Workshops and Forums 96 7.9.4 Indigenous Advisory Panel 96

Page 7.10 Indigenous Involvement in Research 96 7.11 Indigenous Employment 97 7.12 Raising Awareness in the Non-Indigenous Community 98 8. The Way Forward: Principles and Actions 99 8.1 Principles for Indigenous Involvement 99 8.2 Actions 101 Action 1: Employment of Indigenous People in the Murray-Darling 102 Basin Commission Office Action 2: An Indigenous Unit within the Murray-Darling Basin 102 Commission Office Action 3: Performance Assessment in Management Positions 103 Action 4: Cultural Awareness Training 103 Action 5: Protocols for Meetings, Site Visits and Communication 104 Action 6: Indigenous Advisory Panel 104 Action 7: Indigenous Involvement on the Community Advisory 105 Committee Action 8: Capacity to Participate 106 Action 9: Communication and Intellectual Property 107 Action 10: Integration with Other Government Agencies at a Basin- 107 wide Level Action 11: Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and CoAG 108 Obligations Action 12: Reporting Back to the Indigenous Community 108 8.3 Summary 108 9. References 109 Appendices A Data Collected from Indigenous Workshops and Interviews 113 B Workshop and Interview Questions 152 C Project Information Sheet 154 D Project Brief 156 E Indigenous Support Group 163 F Indigenous Contacts and Networks 164

1. Summary The power of this Report of the Scoping Study on Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making is not in the originality of the information, but in the views and perceptions of the people interviewed that have been faithfully recorded, documented and analysed and which unfalteringly shows the chasm between the perception of the available opportunities for involvement and the reality experienced by Indigenous people.

For a few people, the Project’s findings will be obvious. This Report endeavours to reflect their experiences and knowledge that there is still much to be resolved at the interface of Indigenous perspectives and the management of natural resources. Hopefully, this Report provides encouragement and affirmation that their efforts are an important part of the groundswell of change in natural resource management.

For some senior government policy makers and leaders, it is hoped that this Report will illustrate the reality and shortcomings of the current levels of Indigenous involvement and will be used as a platform from which they can develop an improved understanding of Indigenous issues, thereby building a culture which will effectively involve Indigenous people in natural resource management. A set of principles to help guide this process of change are proposed in Section 8.

Creating the change in attitudes necessary to lift Indigenous involvement to a level which Australia can be proud, is achievable in the near future. The Murray- Darling Basin Commission office can play an important role in leading this change. This Report, through its recommended actions, provides clear direction for the first steps that will assist in the evolution towards creating truly inclusive and integrated involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Project and its genesis is described in Section 2, and the methodology used for the Scoping Study is outlined in Section 3. The consultations for this Project involved convening Workshops with Indigenous community members in eight locations throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. Over 120 Indigenous people enthusiastically gave their time to participate in these half-day Workshops, responding to a list of topics and questions designed to draw out their views on natural resource management decision making. Senior managers representing 14 government agencies involved in natural resource management in the Murray- Darling Basin were also interviewed, providing insights into agency attitudes and activities with respect to Indigenous involvement. Members of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council’s Community Advisory Committee’s sub-committee on Indigenous involvement were also consulted, and provided valuable input to this Report.

Section 4 describes the importance of Indigenous involvement from both an Indigenous and government agency perspective. Indigenous people expressed real concern about the current direction of natural resource management and believe their relationship to their Country qualifies and entitles them to take an important role in decision making. A discussion of the distinction between Traditional Owners and Local Indigenous Communities, the understanding of which is critical to government agency’s understanding of whom to involve in natural resource management, is also provided.

Australia’s international and national obligations towards involvement of Indigenous people are explored and discussed in Section 4. This is particularly important as the interviews with agency representatives revealed a lack of knowledge of the international and national context regarding government obligations and responsibilities to include Indigenous people in decision making. One of the major themes that arose from all of the consultations was that the issues of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management can not be separated from the broader social and economic circumstances of Indigenous communities.

Section 5 outlines the current efforts regarding communicating with and involving Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making. It exposes the wide gulf which exists between Indigenous and government perspectives on the effectiveness of the current efforts to involve Indigenous people. This is characterised by the fact that most government agencies are focussed on increased ‘consultation’ while Indigenous people are focused on ‘control’. In spite of the efforts to promote Indigenous involvement which are reported by some government sectors, the impression gained from participants at the Indigenous Workshops is that little or nothing is happening. The issues, concerns and aspirations put forward by Indigenous people make it clear that they want better outcomes for the protection and preservation of their Country.

Section 6 describes the barriers to effective involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management. There was an amazing amount of agreement regarding the numerous barriers and it was obvious that there was much goodwill that could be directed towards overcoming these obstacles. The most significant barriers to effective involvement centred around the lack of respect and understanding of Indigenous culture and its relevance to natural resource management. Non-Indigenous people often raised concerns about the Indigenous community’s capacity with respect to participating in decision making.

Section 7 outlines a number of changes that participants felt would improve Indigenous involvement. These cover culturally appropriate communication methods, representation by Traditional Owners and issues of accountability, the need for change in government and organisational culture, adequacy of resources to effectively participate and the need to build capacity within Indigenous communities. Also provided is a discussion of the effectiveness of

8 two community engagement models – The Memorandum of Understanding between government and the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, and Queensland’s ‘On Ground On Country’.

Section 8 recommends a set of principles and specific actions that if adopted, will enhance the tangible and meaningful involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making. Importantly, these recommendations were discussed and endorsed by the Project’s Indigenous Support Group. The actions were developed to be implemented and achieve results within a two-year timeframe, recognising the contemporary nature and the rapid evolution of the political and social agenda relating to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management.

Throughout the Report, key phrases and concepts have been highlighted in bold text. This was done to assist the reader in identifying the threads of the analysis which were woven together to create the fabric of the Report’s recommended principles and actions.

2 Project Description At the Ministerial Council Meeting held in May 1999, Council agreed with a number of recommendations from the Community Advisory Committee in relation to Indigenous and cultural heritage issues in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Ministerial Council “agreed with the Community Advisory Committee that Aboriginal participation in natural resource management and cultural heritage issues is a high priority strategic issue for the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative which needs to be addressed.” Furthermore, Council also agreed that “the Murray-Darling Basin Commission should invest resources in the initial evaluation and understanding of issues and practices of Aboriginal input into natural resource management and cultural heritage, in consultation with the Community Advisory Committee.” (MDBC 1999)

These two directives collectively provided the impetus and direction for this Scoping Study of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making in the Murray-Darling Basin.

As described in the Project Brief for this Scoping Study (refer to Appendix D), at the broadest level this Study is intended to provide direction to support the involvement of Indigenous stakeholders in decision making for natural resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin, and contribute to the development and implementation of mechanisms to ensure the protection and conservation of cultural heritage values of significant sites, places and landscapes.

Fundamentally, this Scoping Study was aimed at identifying: • key natural resource management issues and concerns of Indigenous people; • existing barriers inhibiting or preventing Indigenous peoples’ involvement in natural resource management decision making; • options to help overcome those barriers which reflect and address Indigenous needs; and • appropriate processes and mechanisms to facilitate and/or improve meaningful Indigenous involvement.

Consultation with Indigenous people, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office, State and Commonwealth natural resource management agencies along with a review of related literature were used to generate information upon which the Scoping Study is based.

In describing the actual scope of this Study, it is important that it is made very clear that the subject of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management is a major part of one of Australia’s critical and chronic social problems. Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the most disadvantaged people in this country. As numerous studies, reports and Royal

Commissions attest to, Australia’s inequitable or ‘tilted’ social structure stems from a history of discrimination, dispossession of land, separation of children from their families and widespread denial of cultures, language, traditional knowledge and spiritual wealth.

Involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management is only a part of addressing the racial and economic exclusion and the consequential entrenched socio-economic disadvantages faced by Indigenous people across the country.

In recognising the potential to contribute to the redressing of this social imbalance, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission has initiated this Scoping Study to identify what needs to be done. In many ways, the most substantial and real benefit of this Study is to record, and to a reasonable extent validate, the views of the Basin’s Indigenous people and natural resource management agencies on Indigenous involvement in natural resource management.

By writing down the issues and illuminating the real yet often unspoken or denied barriers to Indigenous involvement, the Study will contribute to a platform of truth from which governments can build a better, more inclusive community process for natural resource management.

There can be no doubt that this work is vital and necessary, and is well and truly due.

“I am hopeful that in time, the values of a dominant white community will be sufficiently flexible to encompass within it some of the valuable insights that Aboriginal people learnt in their 50,000 years’ occupation of its land. If this is possible, then Australia will not only be a more compassionate and caring society, it will be a society in harmony with itself and its environment.” The Honourable Clyde Holding MP, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 1984, from the forward of Kakadu Man by Bill Neidjie (1985).

3 Methodology This section of the report outlines the methodology adopted for the Scoping Study and describes the processes used to gather input from Indigenous people and government representatives. Design of the Scoping Study was strongly influenced by the Project Brief produced by the MDBC (refer to Appendix D), the Scoping Study’s Indigenous Support Group (refer to Appendix E) and the suggested process submitted by the Consultants in their tender.

3.1 Interpretation of the Project Brief The Project Brief described the project objectives, anticipated products and project outcomes. It also prescribed that the Scoping Study was to include workshops and/or discussions with selected Indigenous networks across or relevant to the Basin, workshops and/or interviews with relevant government representatives involved in natural resource management in the Basin, and a review of relevant literature and documentation of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management. The information required for the Scoping Study focussed around four aspects of ‘process’ which were distilled from the Project Brief, namely: the importance of involvement; the situation now in terms of the opportunities and the reality; barriers to Indigenous involvement; and recommendations and ideas arising from the consultation process. The discussions with Indigenous people and government representatives are the foundation of the report.

3.2 Involvement of the Indigenous Support Group The process for undertaking the Scoping Study was fortunate to be guided from the initial project tender review through to the ‘sign off’ of the Report by the Indigenous Support Group (refer to Appendix E).

The Indigenous Support Group was closely involved in determining and endorsing the locations for consultation with Indigenous communities, forming the questions and selecting the local community Indigenous advisors for each location. The intent of this involvement was to ensure that the consultation processes were undertaken in an equitable and culturally appropriate manner and that the Study was well positioned to faithfully ascertain and record a representative Indigenous perspective. Endorsement of the Indigenous Support Group was also obtained for the methodology and subsequent processes undertaken in the Scoping Study. The Indigenous Support Group met prior to the Consulting Team being selected and then assembled regularly at a number of locations within the Basin during the course of the work to monitor and provide input regarding the progress and development of the project.

3.3 Consultation Processes 3.3.1 Locations It was decided that to gain a representative Basin-wide feeling for the views and perspectives of Indigenous people, consultations needed to be undertaken in a range of locations, relatively evenly distributed throughout the Basin while taking into consideration logistical factors. Input was sought from the staff of the Human Dimension Program of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission Office and the Scoping Study’s Indigenous Support Group. As well as being distributed throughout the Basin, the locations nominated were a mixture of larger regional centres and smaller country towns and are shown below.

Map of Murray-Darling Basin and Workshop Locations

The eight locations chosen and agreed for the Indigenous people’s workshops were Moree, Murray Bridge, Mildura / Buronga / Wentworth, Menindee, Albury / Wodonga, Dubbo, Bourke, and Cunnamulla, drawing participants from Goodooga, Narrabri, The Coorong, Raukkan, Manunka, Lavington, Thurgoona, Grenfell, Sydney, Brewarrina, Wanaaring, Gilgandra and St George. Some of the Workshop participants were from the following tribal areas: Wirradjuri, Barkindji, Weilmoringle, Enngonia, Ngemba, Kamilaroi, Kooma, Kunja, Mardygan, Badjiri and Budjiti. Please note that the spelling of these areas may vary – the above spelling was taken from the groups themselves. Also note that not all tribal groups are included and this list should be regarded as a sample of diversity only.

3.3.2 Questions for Participants Two different sets of questions were composed and endorsed by the Indigenous Support Group to extract the views, experiences and ideas of the groups interviewed. The questionnaires are provided at Appendix B.

The twelve questions for the Indigenous consultations were designed to be culturally appropriate and to elucidate Indigenous perspectives on the elements identified in the Project Brief. These questions were intended for use in a two- to three-hour community workshop and discussion format. The Indigenous questions were wide-ranging and open-ended; they also aimed at ensuring that at least one or two areas and/or issues with which participants would feel relatively comfortable were covered, assisting participants to feel more at ease with the process.

The seven questions for representatives of government agencies were designed to be conducted in one-on-one interviews or in very small groups over a period of about 40 minutes. They more directly addressed the issues outlined in the Project Brief, anticipating that the interviewees were generally senior level experienced government employees who were familiar with this type of interview and data gathering process.

3.4 Data Collection Two fundamental approaches were agreed upon at the outset of the Scoping Study: The first was that anonymity of responses would be ensured in the report, thereby assisting in obtaining full and frank participation from all participants. The second was that the consulting team would use interview and workshop processes which would encourage quality participation of individuals and accurate and objective recording of responses.

3.4.1 Indigenous Workshops Indigenous input was gained primarily through workshops undertaken in the eight locations shown in the map. At the outset of the Study, a commitment was made to take an approach, when addressing the standard set of questions at the Workshops, that was completely flexible, iterative and adaptive to the needs and requirements of the communities being visited. The Workshops were designed to take between two and four hours each, depending on the time constraints and directions set by the participants. Indigenous local community advisors, some of whom were recommended (and all of whom were endorsed) by the Indigenous Support Group, were employed in each of the eight locations to assist the consultants. One of their major tasks was to recommend and arrange for the hire of venues which were considered to be ‘neutral ground’, to advise and steer the consultants around any issues associated with Indigenous community politics that might hamper the consultative process. To this end, they provided venues to hold the Workshops, ensured that invitations to attend the Workshops were distributed widely and equitably and provided advice on timing and workshop format.

Invitations were also forwarded to a wide range of Indigenous organisations such as Local Aboriginal Land Councils, ATSIC Regional Offices and State representative bodies.

The Indigenous local community advisors also developed local credibility for the Scoping Study, encouraged participation in the Workshops and took care of the local logistical needs such as catering and transportation arrangements.

The following people were engaged in the role of Indigenous Local Advisors: Doug McGrady Moree, New South Wales Clyde Rigney, Jnr Murray Bridge, South Australia Kevin Thorn Mildura/Buronga/Wentworth Cheryl Johnson Menindee, New South Wales Ray Armatt & Allan Murray Albury/Wodonga Charles Wilson Dubbo, New South Wales Barry Edwards Bourke, New South Wales Peter Seckhold Cunnamulla, Queensland

Prior to each Workshop, an information sheet written in plain English and outlining the Scoping Study and the process for the Workshop was distributed as widely as possible to participants (refer to Appendix C).

For each of the Indigenous community Workshops, the twelve questions were written on butcher’s paper and attached to the walls of the meeting room in view of all participants. The direction and order of the discussion of the issues and questions were set by the participants, and their views were recorded on butcher’s paper as they were raised. Care was taken in recording comments and ideas to ensure ownership of the messages and transparency of the process.

Accuracy and meaning was tested by reading the comments back, out loud, during a review session of the Workshop.

As demonstrated by freely giving their time to attend the Workshops and their willingness to contribute to the Study, all of the participants were highly interested or involved in natural resource management issues.

A total of 127 people participated in the Indigenous community Workshops.

The Workshops were attended by a broad cross-section of the Indigenous community at each of the locations. Across the eight Workshops, the gender ratio was approximately 50:50, although it did range from over 80% women in one location to 100% men at one of the smaller Workshops. Participants ranged from Elders to younger people in their late teenage years.

Many of the participants had been involved in representative community roles in a range of Indigenous related issues. Most of the participants (98 out of 127) had not been involved in formal natural resource management government committees or forums nor had they been employed by government to work on land or water management issues.

Membership of catchment management organisations were the most common form of involvement (six out of 127), followed by two people who had been employed to undertake heritage surveys. The other individual examples of Workshop participants’ involvement in natural resource management covered a range of roles such as membership on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s Support Group for this Scoping Study, State area-based consultative committees, ATSIC natural resource management portfolio committees, MDBC Fish Strategy advisory group and vegetation management committees. About ten people mentioned that they had previously attended one-off meetings on natural resource management topics such as vegetation management.

3.4.2 Government Interviews In designing the interview process for the government agency representatives, an assumption was made that leadership in steering the agency’s directions, including the setting of priorities and engendering commitment, were generally vested in senior management through to the Chief Executive Officer/Director General levels. It was also assumed that people in these positions were most likely to take an interest in Basin-wide issues and influence Basin-level policies. Therefore, government agency senior staff members were deliberately targeted in order to ascertain the attitudes and aspirations of their respective organisations. It was also considered a reasonable assumption that accountability for performance and the work attitudes of their agency should rest with them. It follows then, that it could be expected that the expressed individual view and interests of senior agency employees would directly reflect how their

16 agency may be performing with respect to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management.

It was also recognised that availability to participate in the Scoping Study would be a factor in interviewing senior staff, and the interview process was designed to take approximately half an hour. Where possible, appointments were made to allow for additional time if individuals wished to have more input to the process. This was utilised three times.

Four Community Advisory Committee members and a total of 62 government agency staff were interviewed from the following agencies:

• Commonwealth (8 staff): ATSIC, Environment Australia, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia • Murray-Darling Basin Commission office (12 staff) • New South Wales (12 staff): Department of Land and Water Conservation, National Parks and Wildlife Service • Victoria (7 staff): Department of Natural Resources and Environment (including Aboriginal Affairs Victoria ), Parks Victoria • South Australia (12 staff): Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Attorney General’s Department, Department of Environment and Heritage • Queensland (11 staff): Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Environment Protection Agency, Department of Primary Industries Contact was made with the Australian Capital Territory representative for MDBC issues who declined to be involved as it was not felt that this Study was particularly relevant to natural resource management in the ACT.

3.5 Transcribing the Data The outcomes from the Indigenous Workshops recorded on butcher’s paper were consolidated into key messages, views or concepts and recorded, forming the Indigenous community data set (refer to Appendix A). The process of consolidating the Workshop findings, by necessity, required a degree of judgement and careful consideration of intent. The varied and broad experience and background of the Consulting Team, along with their insights derived from jointly running the Workshops and personal commitment to faithfully and fearlessly present the Indigenous communities’ views, were part of ensuring truly representative final outcomes.

The interviews of government agency representatives were recorded in a more traditional manner, without audio recording but with as much accuracy as possible. This resulted in copious quantities of notes which also required

17 judicious editing. Some comments are included in the data set without change, while other answers and statements were edited for clarity and to reduce the length, using the interviewee’s words wherever possible. The complete set of responses from government agency representatives can also be found at Appendix A.

3.6 Literature Review A brief library index search was undertaken to compliment the references sourced by the Consulting Team and additional documents provided by participants in the Scoping Study. A list of references is provided at the end of this Report. This information has been incorporated throughout the report to broaden the context of the Scoping Study and to demonstrate that many of the views offered by the Study participants were representative and not anomalous. It is worth noting that only one study was found that directly related to (and parallelled) the focus of the Scoping Study (Thomsen, 2001), although there are numerous reports and documents which mention the issue of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management, especially as it relates to Native Title and the protection and management of specific cultural heritage sites.

3.7 The Report The Scoping Study Report draws together the data collected from the Workshops and interviews along with a review of current literature and contemporary studies and, through the experience and knowledge of the Project Team and the Indigenous Steering Group, provides an analysis and interpretation of the importance of Indigenous involvement, the opportunities and realities of the current situation and the barriers to involvement. The Report culminates in a discussion on how Indigenous involvement can be improved and makes a number of recommendation for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. The Report carries the support and endorsement of the Indigenous Support Group.

The Report also contains all the raw data from the Workshops and interviews which reveals the breadth of issues, perspectives and aspirations and provides the reader with an opportunity to assess the commonalities and differences recorded by the Project Team.

In writing and editing the final Report Project Team is aware that many people who will be interested in the contents of the Report will not have the time to read it comprehensively due to its size. Therefore, sections of the text which the Project Team considered to be noteworthy, critical to the message or indicative of the discussion, have been highlighted in bold text.

The Summary of the Report (Section 1) is an amalgam of the Section Summaries contained in the body of the Report.

3.8 Limitations to the Scoping Study With any process attempting to address particular elements of long term, large scale social issues, there is rarely sufficient time to deconstruct and understand the complexity and interactions with the other elements of the issues.

Such is the case with this Scoping Study which attempts to address Indigenous involvement in natural resource management in isolation from the broader Indigenous issues facing Australia. Whether more time should be directed to understanding and describing the issues is doubtful, when an opportunity to harness the current and obvious goodwill to develop a vision and start the change process is so apparent and needed. An approach which is iterative and adaptive and demonstrates a real commitment to change can create a foundation of substance upon which real partnerships and involvement can be built.

In a more specific sense, this Study did not target government agency staff in lower levels of management or field positions where the most interaction with Indigenous communities occurs. It is likely that, had this been done, local examples of Indigenous involvement in specific projects and communications would have surfaced, some of which would not necessarily be ordained by the organisation. Alternately, more overt examples of exclusion would also have become apparent. In either case, no doubt some opportunities to learn from valuable and hard-won experience and add to the recommendations in the Report have been forgone. This view was essentially validated in several interviews with government agency staff and through personal knowledge of members of the Consulting Team involved in natural resource management agency field operations.

The sample size of both the Indigenous community Workshops and the government agency representatives was not exhaustive, nor perhaps statistically meaningful. A larger sample size would have enhanced the robustness of the findings, however, the commonalities in responses within the data obtained validates the usefulness of the Scoping Study, given the objectives and aims of the project.

Finally, the Scoping Study did not provide for or specifically set out to look at the differences between the aspirations and attitudes of government agencies and the actions actually taken by them. It may be a useful exercise at some point in the future to highlight or assess individual agency or jurisdictional approaches to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management when there is a framework from which to consider a Basin-wide approach.

3.9 Feedback to Participants During the Indigenous Workshops, participants were asked if they wished to receive a summary of the Scoping Study Report. There was an overwhelmingly positive response, and contact details were collected by the Consulting Team. Distribution of the Report Summary to all participants and a program of revisiting the Indigenous communities, where Workshops were held, to explain the findings should be undertaken following the completion of the Report.

4. Importance of Involvement

Introduction Prior to considering the issues of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management, it is important that the reasons for involving Indigenous people are clarified, understood and accepted. Indigenous people are concerned and angry about the decline in health of the Murray-Darling Basin and see much of the cause of the current situation as being due to the lack of a holistic and respectful approach to the land and its resources. For a range of reasons, particularly their spiritual and cultural ties to Country, they want to be involved and feel they have an indisputable role and important contributions to make.

Government agency staff who participated in the Scoping Study generally expressed strong support for Indigenous involvement as an important part of ensuring that resource management decisions are effective and accountable. Agency representatives also indicated a strong desire to be socially responsible and many stated that inclusive Indigenous processes would assist in Reconciliation efforts.

Together these two perspectives converge to create strong individual and collective desires to right past wrongs, and to make natural resource management more inclusive and integrated. As important as these perspectives are, a number of overarching international and national obligations place statutory requirements on government to respect and acknowledge the role of Indigenous people in decision making processes that affect their culture.

4.1 Basis for Involvement Participation in natural resource management is commonly advocated as an opportunity for Indigenous people to influence decision making with their perspectives. Issues and concerns were raised by Indigenous people during the consultation process about the quality of the environment, the health and functioning of ecosystems, the human health consequences of the current management of natural resources.

‘Concern’ is not an adequate word to convey the strong feelings that many of the Indigenous people consulted hold about these issues. They are more than ‘concerned’ about the poor health of the Murray-Darling Basin; they are “angry and upset”. Their anger is directed at the mainstream management systems that have presided over degradation, and at the sectors of society that have profited from the exploitation of land and water which has led to such degradation. Fundamentally Indigenous concern, extending to deep-seated stress and anger, is about the environmental degradation that has occurred, its direct and indirect

21 impacts on the Murray-Darling Basin ecosystems and landscapes including resources of special cultural value to Indigenous people. This is exacerbated by the fact that this degradation has occurred with no benefit, indeed with huge destructive impact on Indigenous peoples’ cultural and economic health and wealth.

These sentiments were expressed by Indigenous participants at a number of Workshops, in the following terms: “We are the Traditional Owners of the land and water, however we do not benefit from the prosperity of the farmers’ use of land and water. The land was given to the farmers/businessmen (some of them from overseas) for free or not much many years ago, and they now gain enormous wealth from the use of it - cotton, pecan nuts, houseboats, grapes. Business continues to profit from the use of our land and water, without partnerships or negotiation with the land’s Traditional Owners. Indigenous people will continue to get poorer while the rich get richer through disrespect for the land’s custodians.“

The increase in government’s interest in promoting Indigenous participation in natural resource management decision making coincides with the widespread recognition and acknowledgement of the ecological crisis of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDBC 2001). Therefore it should not be surprising that Indigenous people are very often cynical about the opportunities offered to them to influence natural resource management through participation. As one Workshop participant put it: “they stuff it up and then come to us to fix it up”.

4.2 Ecological Issues and Indigenous Concerns A great many Australians are concerned about the symptoms of ecological dysfunction in the Murray-Darling Basin. Is the Indigenous perspective distinctive?

The ecological issues and concerns that Indigenous people raised in consultations for this Scoping Study, are similar to those that have been raised by many other community members. Recent research and management priorities of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and State government natural resource management agencies are, for the most part, directed at the issues which were raised by Indigenous people, such as salinity, land clearing, low water flows, vegetation health and declining fish stocks. However there is a fundamental difference in the concerns that Indigenous people have about these issues in comparison to non-Indigenous society. This arises from the interrelationship between natural resources, culture and health in Indigenous perspectives and experiences, which makes up the Indigenous perception of their landscape. This is described by Deborah Rose:

“People talk about Country…they speak to Country, sing to Country, visit Country, worry about Country, feel sorry for Country, and long for Country. People say that Country knows, hears, smells, takes notice, takes care, is sorry or happy. Country is not a generalised or undifferentiated type of place…rather, Country is a living entity… with a consciousness , and a will toward life….Country is multi-dimensional – it consists of people, animals, plants, Dreamings, underground, earth, soils, minerals and waters, surface water, and air. There is sea Country and land Country; in some areas, people talk about sky Country.” (Rose 1996)

The ecological issue that was most commonly raised by Indigenous people in consultations was water quality - pollution of waterways and the occurrence of blue–green algae. A particular focus for Workshop participants in Bourke and Moree was Indigenous people’s concern about the impacts on humans as well as on the environment of “pesticides and chemicals that leave residues on the land and in the rivers and lead to poor health for humans, livestock and vegetation”. It could be expected that Indigenous people will suffer disproportionately from environmental health effects of agricultural chemical use – due to factors such as poverty, their common work experience as agricultural labourers and their day-today contact with the River. Research to confirm this has not been undertaken as far as it could be established, although the broader literature on Indigenous health clearly indicates that factors such as historically poor housing and sanitary infrastructure contribute to high exposure to environmental health hazards by Indigenous people in many places. Peart and Szoeke’s (1998) study of recreational swimming in isolated Indigenous communities, including two in the Murray-Darling Basin, confirms that children are commonly swimming in rivers and waterholes, regardless of the health risks from livestock, blue-green algae and other possible contaminants.

The flow regimes of rivers was another very common issue raised in consultations. Indigenous people said that irrigation takes too much water from the rivers. The consultations did not distinguish between the irrigation impact of various cropping types or regimes – with cotton, rice, vines and fruit orchards all being implicated.

A big factor underlying Indigenous concern for riverine health is the decline in size and abundance of native fish. This issue was raised at all of the Workshops, with particular references to sores on some fish, indicating sickness, being made by Workshop participants at Cunnamulla and Bourke. Indigenous identities, cultures and traditional economies in the Murray-Darling Basin are closely connected to riverine activities, and particularly fishing. The capacity of the environment to sustain Indigenous people and their culture has been destroyed by, as noted in these consultations, “the epidemic of carp”, willows, low water levels and “putrid water”. Many of the Workshops participants specifically noted the decline that they have experienced in the abundance of native fish, invertebrates such as Bogong Moths and birds. They frequently said that

“polluted water prevents healthy cultural practice”. As Peter Thompson has observed, fish are such an important part of Aboriginal lifestyles on the Murray and Darling Rivers that natural resource management actions that are “good for the fish will also be good for blackfellas” (Thompson 1999).

The environmental flows issue is highlighted by the experience of Ngarrindjeri people, at the bottom end of the basin in South Australia, now witnessing the mouth of the Murray closing up. Indigenous people have a special connection here and throughout the Murray-Darling Basin to a functioning and healthy ecosystem, again a reflection of their holistic view of the natural environment around them. Their cultural landscape was created by their ancestors with powerful rivers full of a diverse range of fish and other food sources – an awesome and yet sustaining landscape. This is in marked contrast to the culturally conditioned attitudes of non-Indigenous people who, in many ways, saw the Murray-Darling Basin’s rivers as a ‘resource’ which needs to be harnessed and controlled in order to be productive.

As well as these general issues of water quality and quantity, Indigenous people raised some more specific issues about riverine environments and their use. Concern was raised about: • the weir at Cunnamulla because of poor flow management across the weir, leading to siltation. The weir also prevents fish passage; • riverbank erosion causing collapse of trees; • soil erosion leading to exposure of burials; • tourism use and associated riverine development, including the marina, canal residential estate and bridge at Hindmarsh Island; • the number of houseboats on the Murray and the pollution they cause; • removal of burls from trees for furniture making; and • polluted stormwater and sewerage going into the rivers.

In terms of broader land use, Indigenous people at several Workshops raised concerns about pastoral use leading to degradation of vegetation through overstocking. Vegetation clearance and dust were raised as specific concerns at one Workshop.

At another Workshop it was noted that the impacts of uranium mining on the Great Artesian Basin’s water resources and wildlife. While the link between this concern and Murray-Darling Basin management issues is obscure, it is indicative of a general Indigenous concern about the capacity of current natural resource management systems to predict and manage adverse environmental impacts.

4.3 Cultural Issues and Indigenous Concerns As some of the discussion above indicates, Indigenous concerns about cultural resources and community values cannot be readily separated from concern about the natural environment. One of the overarching frustrations that

Indigenous people expressed with ‘mainstream’ approaches to environmental management is the treatment of Indigenous culture as something that is an add- on or that can be ‘protected’ by identifying discrete sites that are of cultural significance and buffering these from impact. The cultural significance to Indigenous people of the overall landscape and of healthy and functioning ecosystems becomes invisible in a ‘site’ based approach to Indigenous heritage management.

Thus Indigenous people identified ‘hot spots’ where Indigenous participation in natural resource management decision making is being sought. These invariably are issues where there are identifiable sites of Indigenous cultural heritage significance, for instance: “[government officers] are required to consult [with Indigenous people] only when a stakeholder (e.g. farmer, business) wants to destroy a culturally significant site.” and “Lake Victoria is considered a ‘hot spot’ so Indigenous participation is sought out. Other water and land issues are just as important in this area, but get overlooked and our participation is not sought nor welcomed.”

However, notwithstanding their concern about broader landscape management issues, the Indigenous people consulted for this Scoping Study commonly raised concerns about damage to or destruction of specific heritage sites and culturally significant landscape features. The instances noted include: • sand hills in Cunnamulla; • scarred trees, burial grounds, and artefacts in Bourke; • suspected removal of topsoil revealing burials in Moree; • removal of artefacts near Hume Weir in Albury/Wodonga; • farmer’s inability/unwillingness to recognise sites and destroying them in Dubbo and Mildura; and • Lake Victoria where lowering of water levels in the water storage basin has exposed burials on eroding shorelines.

It was noted at the Workshops that much of this destruction occurred due to land users not recognising or identifying the sites during project planning. Legislation which protects Aboriginal heritage sites is clearly ineffective if changes in land use and land management practice are allowed to proceed without effectively taking into account the risk of disturbing or destroying these sites.

4.4 Natural Resource Management Systems and Indigenous Concerns A lack of confidence amongst Indigenous people in the capacity of contemporary management systems to effect positive natural resource change in the Murray- Darling Basin is revealed in some of the sentiments commonly expressed in the consultation Workshops:

• “permission is given to farmers to do whatever they wish to do with the land and water”; • “there are no Environmental Impact Statements for water/land areas before or after extended use”; • there is poor coordination between States with respect to natural resource management: “One hand doesn’t know what the other is doing”; • as well as salinity, the “infrastructure itself set up to control salinity” is also of concern; and • “water usage is not well-monitored or policed”.

Such concerns go beyond the issue of whether or not there has been effective Indigenous participation in decision making. However, at many of the Indigenous consultation Workshops, people said that their limited or non-existent participation in natural resource management is also an issue for them. The lack of Indigenous input into proposals for land use developments was a commonly raised concern. Where there have been opportunities for Indigenous input, one concern is that these do not extend beyond the local dimension, so there may be “no say over what happens in other upstream tribal areas/States, yet it impacts our quality of water supply.” There is also concern about lack of information, for example, “not being informed of what [water quality] treatments are being used” and, commonly, “no feedback from governments and from community representatives who sit on government committees”. The extent of current participation and the reasons for non-participation that are put forward by Indigenous workshop participants are discussed in detail in Sections 5 and 6 of this Report.

A major concern is the lack of respect and recognition that management systems have paid to Indigenous rights. One example commonly raised at Workshops was in relation to fishing licences. “We have to pay for a fishing license…should not have to…this is our cultural right”. This concern is undoubtedly highlighted by the restrictive arrangements under new fishing license provisions for all of Victoria and for coastal New South Wales.

While access to fish is restricted by regulation and by environmental degradation, it is also physically restricted by private tenures and fences. Many groups raised the legal and physical restrictions on their access to the River Murray as a concern. Faced with what they see as unauthorised restrictions on their capacity to practice their culture, Indigenous people’s general lack of confidence in ‘mainstream’ management systems is transformed to overt disregard for the rules constructed under those systems. For example: “Many groups illegally trespass onto grounds that will enable them to fish, as a result of negative responses from farmers declining permission in the past. Many see trespassing as an unfortunate thing to have to do, and are aware of the consequences, however their cultural ties to the land and water are stronger than their fear of the legal repercussions.”

4.5 Indigenous Rights and Native Title In raising their concerns at the Workshops Indigenous people frequently referred to their cultural rights and their rights as Traditional Owners, as variously noted in the discussion above. At two Workshops, ‘native title’ was raised as a separate issue or concern. It is useful at this point to explore its relevance to Indigenous peoples’ issues and concerns about natural resource management decision making.

Native title, in the aftermath of the Mabo decision of 1992, held the promise for Indigenous peoples that ‘mainstream’ natural resource management systems would at last have to recognise and respect their multi-faceted attachment to lands and waters – their rights not only to participate in natural resource management decisions, but to hold some power in relation to those decisions; to have their views listened to seriously and to realise a difference in the outcomes from decisions; to control some aspects of natural resource use or at least to be engaged in negotiations about decisions, rather than tokenistic consultations; to realise some benefit to themselves from the use of their traditional lands and waters, rather than only seeing benefit go to others; and to gain recognition for their knowledge of Country and experience which such status could provide . Ten years later, after legislative changes and court decisions have progressively refined the legal meaning of ‘native title’, it is clear that Indigenous people in much of the Murray Darling Basin will not achieve these outcomes from recognition of native title. Recognition of native title, to the extent that it eventually occurs at all in the Basin, will undoubtedly be confined to very small parcels of land and to requirements that native title holders be informed or consulted about ‘mainstream’ natural resource management decisions.

For many Indigenous people, ten years of engagement with the legal processes for recognition of native title has been divisive, time consuming, frustrating and bitterly disappointing. This is the broad reason why ‘native title’ per se is raised as a concern in the consultations for this Scoping Study. Although the Mabo case, the Native Title Act and the native title claims process that the Act provides for are undoubtedly a major driver in enhanced ‘mainstream’ concern for Indigenous participation in natural resource management, outcomes for more effective Indigenous participation in broader decision making arenas will not come directly from native title processes. They may come through negotiation. However, because ‘power’ is structurally stacked against Indigenous peoples, outcomes from such negotiations do require that non-Indigenous people show “their respect …and their willingness to sacrifice some of their own preferences to make room for [Indigenous peoples] to realise things that are important to them." (Wooten 1992 p125).

For many Indigenous people, ten years of the native title regime has been a diversion from a much longer struggle for recognition and respect for their unique place in natural resource management decision making – as Traditional Owners,

27 custodians of cultural landscapes, as carers for their Country, and as peoples for whom culturally specific approaches to the use and management of natural resources are critical to their identity and esteem. Although in the Murray- Darling Basin, the effectiveness of native title has been severely reduced as a strategy for Indigenous people to gain a voice in mainstream natural resource management decision making that might help achieve these outcomes, other processes are being pursued. The Murray Lower Darling Indigenous Nations Group is a prime example, and at the Workshop consultation at Albury/Wodonga a missed opportunity was noted. Concern was expressed that: “a proposed MOU between the Murray Lower Darling Indigenous Nations Group and the MDBC was not signed”. They perceived that the chance was there but that negotiations had ceased.

4.6 What do Indigenous People Want? Indigenous people want protection and preservation for their natural and cultural heritage. Some consistent themes about power, recognition, respect and negotiation emerged in the Workshop discussions.

Recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights and capacities to exercise control in natural resource management decision making was seen by Workshop participants as critical. Control of cultural heritage by Indigenous people and land ownership are mechanisms which Workshop participants see would shift power in natural resource management decision making so that Indigenous people have an influential voice.

Protection and preservation activities were seen by Workshop participants to be ‘caretaking’ the land and waters. Part of this is protection of significant sites, such as through ‘keeping places’ established over areas of significance. Another aspect is continuation of cultural practice, under the management of Elders. More broadly, education and awareness of the environment is important, together with environmental studies undertaken before decisions are made about commercial or other uses of land.

The foundation for protection and preservation of natural and cultural heritage is seen by Workshop participants as being through recognition of the links between the land and its Indigenous peoples. Symbolic recognition is important but consistent practical actions are also necessary. At one Workshop, participants spoke of the importance of recognising the totems of Indigenous peoples in various parts of the Murray-Darling Basin and that regional management plans should reflect this recognition in the way these species are managed. For example, Indigenous people do not feel that they have “any real opportunity to be involved in decisions regarding any of the States’ kangaroo management programs”.

There are parallels from the south island of New Zealand in the management of Taonga, species that are ‘treasured’ by Ngai Tahu people. In contrast to the situation for Indigenous people in the Basin, Ngai Tahu are involved in decision making about the management of these species through mechanisms that are part of the Agreement concluded in 1998 between the Crown and Ngai Tahu for settlement of Ngai Tahu claims under the Treaty of Waitangi (Puentener 2001).

4.7 Conclusion – Indigenous Perspectives Indigenous people consulted during this Scoping Study were angry about the current situation and were cynical about the prospects for Indigenous participation in ‘mainstream’ natural resource management decision making processes resulting in the outcomes they want, given the track record to date.

The depth and holistic nature of Indigenous people’s concerns about the natural environment and their Country, combined with the poor track record of ‘mainstream’ management of the Basin’s land and water resources, makes a strong case for a new integrated approach to natural resource management, incorporating a collective vision and involvement of Indigenous people in future natural resource management decision making.

Although some of the natural resource management issues and concerns raised by Indigenous people at the Workshops are amongst the high priority issues and concerns of government, Indigenous and non-Indigenous community sectors, such as water flows, others, such as impacts of tourism, are not. In all cases, the motivation of Indigenous people in raising these issues is different to that of other people. Indigenous issues and concerns derive from personal and collective perspectives in which the Murray-Darling Basin is a cultural landscape, owned by Indigenous peoples who have the responsibility for its care and the rights to benefit from its use. Disregard for this Traditional Ownership and associated responsibilities have been part of the process of cultural landscape degradation now being described as an ecological crisis. There are strong parallels here with the social and economic situation also facing Indigenous communities.

4.8 Government Agencies’ Views on Involvement of Indigenous People in Natural Resource Management In the interviews, government agency representatives revealed considerable goodwill towards the involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management and identified a number of reasons why they consider it important and/or useful. Several themes recur in these reasons: Indigenous cultural/spiritual associations and values; governments’ social responsibilities; and legal or policy requirements. Outcomes from involvement that are seen by government agency representatives as valuable include the contribution of Indigenous knowledge to improving natural resource management decision

29 making and the contribution that Indigenous involvement in government processes can make to Reconciliation.

4.9 Cultural and Spiritual Associations with Land Indigenous cultural/spiritual associations and values, Traditional Ownership and custodial responsibilities were factors often cited by agency representatives explaining their perspective on the importance of Indigenous involvement. Traditional Owner input was seen by agency representatives as important because of Indigenous people’s affinities to the land and rivers and connection to Country. Indigenous people are seen as “the original custodians of the Country”; the “true and original natural resource managers”.

One view expressed from South Australia is that Indigenous involvement in resource use decisions is not as important in the parts of the State within the Murray-Darling Basin as it is in northern South Australia, because contemporary Indigenous people’s relationship to land is stronger in the north of Australia. This view of a stronger relationship to land may also apply to Queensland, though it was not specifically expressed in consultations for this Scoping Study. Certainly, government recognition of Traditional Ownership through grants of land rights has been more widespread in northern Australia, including Queensland.

4.10 A Social Responsibility A very common perspective amongst agency representatives is that Indigenous people need to be involved in natural resource management decision making because agencies need to take the views of all stakeholders and community groups into account. In this perspective, Indigenous people are a subset of the community with particular views and needs which warrant consideration. Involving Indigenous people is part of the broadening of government decision making process, moving towards more involvement of communities in general, and recognition of the diversity of community views.

Some agency representatives identified a more specific social responsibility for Indigenous involvement compared to other community involvement because of the marginalisation of Indigenous people and their socio-economic disadvantage: “they are a disengaged group and are generally disadvantaged”. Involvement is seen as potentially part of breaking the “cycle of dispossession and dislocation”. It is seen by some agency representatives as important because Indigenous people are “disenfranchised given the wealth they have not received; they have a historical relationship with the land and have not benefited financially.” Two interviewees noted that Indigenous people have been left behind in relation to economic outcomes from natural resource allocations and need to catch up. In general, there was widespread recognition of the social responsibility of government as a main reason why Indigenous involvement is important.

The expectations from the broader Australian population for Indigenous involvement were acknowledged by some agency representatives, while another commented that “there is pressure to include Indigenous people because it is considered politically correct”. These two comments undoubtedly mean the same thing, but they do suggest there are some inevitable differences amongst agency representatives in the extent of their personal commitment to facilitating Indigenous involvement.

4.11 Contemporary Indigenous Land Ownership Aside from the question of Traditional Ownership, some agency representatives commented that, in a contemporary sense, a few Indigenous people are now ‘real players’ in natural resource management, as landowners “in their own right”. These comments refer to situations where title to some, typically small, areas of land in the Murray-Darling Basin have been granted to Indigenous groups or where properties have been purchased by Indigenous groups.

Although title to some land is now held by Indigenous groups, as one Murray- Darling Basin Commission representative commented, Indigenous people need to be involved in natural resource management decision making “because they don’t own land”. This is one reason they have been marginalised from mainstream decision making processes, in which land ownership often carries authority.

The size and diversity of Indigenous land ownership in the Murray-Darling Basin allows both these contrasting perspectives to be valid. Across most of the Basin, Indigenous land ownership, as recognised in the government land tenure system, amounts to only a very small proportion of the land.

4.12 Legal and Policy Requirements

4.12.1 State Obligations In some cases agency representatives nominated policy requirements as the reason why Indigenous involvement is important.

There was frequent comment on this from Queensland agency representatives, where Indigenous involvement is part of the Premier’s Charter, and a Ten Year Partnership Agreement and strategic planning to include Indigenous issues at the policy level has been started. While a number of key areas addressed deal with Indigenous involvement in social and economic concerns, there is also specific reference to involvement in land, heritage and natural resource management through increasing awareness, acknowledgement and recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples in all aspects of land use planning, including cultural heritage (Queensland Government 2001).

Victorian agency representatives also referred to a corporate commitment through an Indigenous Partnership Strategy (DNRE 2001) and corporate planning, and a culture within the agency which regards Indigenous involvement as important. Given the clear policy directives suggested by these comments, it is not surprising that Victorian agency representatives also said that the “staff who are out on the ground know it is important and support engagement [of Indigenous people]”.

Legal requirements were referred to by some agency representatives as requiring Indigenous involvement in two contexts – under the Native Title Act in certain circumstances, and in relation to Indigenous cultural heritage at a more general level. A commonly expressed view, particularly by Commonwealth agency representatives, was that the high requirement for Indigenous input to contemporary land use decisions results from Indigenous populations having been historically concentrated along the banks of rivers and near wetlands. These environments are also now the focus of non-Indigenous land use, hence there are lots of cultural sites with legal requirements for protection.

However, neither the Native Title Act nor legislation for protection of Indigenous heritage sites necessarily requires involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management or specific consideration of their rights and interests. There is, for example, no legislation in the Murray-Darling Basin or elsewhere in Australia analogous to the New Zealand Resources Management Act 1991. That Act, whose purpose is to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources, requires that all persons exercising functions and powers shall recognise and provide for ‘the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, waters, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga” as a matter of “national importance”. It also requires that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be taken into account and that particular regard be had in decision making to kaitiakitanga, the Maori ethic of stewardship. In some tribal areas, processes for putting these requirements into effect have been negotiated as part of the settlement of Maori claims under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Ngai Tahu settlement in the South Island specifically recognises Maori mana (culturally based authority/power) in a wide range of sites, coastlines and rivers and sets out consultation and consent processes which require Ngai Tahu involvement in management decisions which affect those areas such as development approvals, regional and local authority plans (Innes 2001, Goodall and Cant 2001, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu 1998).

In contrast to this, the circumstances which will ‘trigger’ the operation of the Native Title Act are quite narrow in the Murray-Darling Basin context. They also typically only require that native title groups be notified about a proposal, with the implication that they should also have the opportunity to comment, rather than a more interactive process of participation in decision making.

Various roles are set out for Indigenous people in decisions about protection of Indigenous heritage sites under different applicable State and Commonwealth legislation. In some cases the relevant agency (for example, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) has long standing procedures for quite extensive involvement of Indigenous people in its decisions about site protection, even though this is not required by legislation. However procedures for Indigenous involvement in protection of heritage sites are not structured in a way that acknowledges Indigenous interests in the broader cultural landscapes of the Basin.

4.12.2 National Obligations Within Australia, the Final Report of 1991 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody has at least two recommendations which address Indigenous involvement in decision making and cultural protection: Recommendation 188 which states that governments must negotiate with appropriate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities to determine guidelines as to the procedures and processes which should be followed to ensure that the self-determination principle is applied in the design and implementation of any policy or program or the substantial modification of any policy or program which will particularly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and Recommendation 315 which states that there is a need for joint management of National Parks, greater Aboriginal involvement in all spheres of park management and recognition of Aboriginal control of Aboriginal culture (RCIADIC 1991).

The Council of Australian Governments has also endorsed a framework for Indigenous involvement, committing in November 2000 to an approach based on “partnerships and shared responsibilities with Indigenous communities; program flexibility and coordination between government agencies; and a focus on local communities and outcomes” (CoAG 2000). This approach forms the basis of a Reconciliation framework under which relevant Commonwealth and State Ministerial Councils are to develop action plans for improving social and economic outcomes for Indigenous peoples within a twelve-month period.

The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council states as an objective of their draft Action Plan: “to recognise the aspirations, interests and contributions of Indigenous peoples to the management of Australia’s natural resources and to promote the effective involvement of Indigenous peoples in the management and sustainable use of natural resources” (NRMMC 2001).

Further, it outlines specific actions which directly address Indigenous involvement in natural resource management through building partnerships and sharing responsibilities with Indigenous organisations, groups and communities, and the

33 re-engineering of appropriate programs to meet the needs of Indigenous people. The intended outcomes of these actions are: • greater participation and partnerships with Indigenous people; • increased Indigenous linkages with natural resource management and resource management agencies; and that • natural resource management agencies’ policies, products and services will encourage maximum participation by Indigenous people. (NRMMC 2001)

The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council has yet to respond to the Council of Australian Governments’ Reconciliation framework.

In addition, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, in their Documents of Reconciliation (Strategies) ‘Sustaining the Reconciliation Process’, in encouraging federal, state, territorial and local governments to maintain leadership in the reconciliation process by “including Indigenous people in decision making processes, through the increased participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in leadership positions, through the provision of opportunities to develop leadership skills and providing cross cultural awareness courses within the workplace.” (Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation 2000)

Some government agencies, including Environment Australia, have followed up on the Reconciliation approaches and have developed their own Reconciliation Action Plans which identify awareness raising, capacity building and community involvement in decision making as key themes for contributing to Reconciliation (Environment Australia 2001).

In New South Wales, a ‘Statement of Commitment to Reconciliation by NSW Public Sector Chief Executives’ affirms that as a group, and through the work of individual agencies, Chief Executives will “respect Aboriginal people’s relationship to their ‘Country’ and commit to progressing the NSW Government’s commitment to protect and support Aboriginal cultural heritage, commit to promoting partnerships between public sector agencies and Aboriginal people, and commit to actively support a better future for all Australians based on respect for the land we share, valuing Aboriginal heritage and justice and equity for all.” (NSW EEO 1999).

4.12.3 International Obligations Australia has international obligations under human rights standards which now recognise that the right to self-determination extends to Indigenous peoples and includes rights to effective participation on decisions affecting themselves and their traditional lands and territories. The three main conventions to which Australia is a party, and relevant clauses are: • The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) (article 5 (c) and (e)vi);

• The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (articles 1 and 27); and • The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (article 1)

The first article of each covenant states that all peoples have the right of self- determination and add that, by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the UN Committee monitoring the ICERD) recommends that governments “ensure that members of Indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interest are taken without their informed consent” (General Recommendation 23, paragraph 4(d), quoted in ATSI-SJC 2001).

Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, which has not been ratified by the Australian government, though is widely supported by organisations, states that “Indigenous people and their communities…have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identification, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development” (Collings 2002).

An approach of this nature, formally adopted by Australian governments, would help achieve international and social obligations with respect to influencing natural resource management agendas in favour of more appropriate and comprehensive Indigenous involvement.

4.13 Utilising Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives Many agency representatives recognised a positive contribution to natural resource management outcomes from Indigenous knowledge, providing “an insight into what the country was like prior to development” and as having “an understanding of the land and lots of information to impart”. As well as valuing this knowledge for its practical application, for example “as useful in rehabilitation”, some agency people noted the value of Indigenous perspectives in fostering more holistic and respectful approaches to natural resource management: “We don’t always have the knowledge to manage natural resources in a respectful manner”; “We don’t understand the real issues in the context of conservation”; “Without [Indigenous] views we don’t have the full picture”.

Agency representatives commented that “Indigenous perspectives can enrich thinking” as well as improving decision making processes and outcomes. One representative saw value in the “practical point of view of Indigenous people”.

Another commented that “Indigenous approaches to land management demonstrate ecological and human linkages that non-Indigenous land managers only talk about”.

The value of Indigenous knowledge in natural resource management is also recognised in the International Convention on Biological Diversity, which has been ratified by Australia. Article 8(j) states that:

“Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: subject to national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of such knowledge, innovations and practices.” (UNEP/CBD 2002)

Australia responded to this Article in the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (Australia 1996) by including an objective of recognising and ensuring the continuity of the contribution of the ethno-biological knowledge of Australia's Indigenous peoples to the conservation of Australia's biological diversity. Review of the National Strategy in 2001 concluded that this objective had not been achieved:

“There has been some advance over the last few years in the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, and cooperation with Indigenous people, in land management and cultural heritage activities, especially on sites with significance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There is still a need to ensure that ethnobiological knowledge is preserved within Indigenous communities. To date cooperative ethnobiological programs are limited and do not appear well-coordinated Australia-wide. Concerns have been raised about the lack of protection that would be given to Indigenous people's intellectual property rights were they to offer information. There is a need to respect Indigenous people's knowledge as an expression of a way of life and cultural identity as well as a tool for biodiversity conservation.” (ANZECC 2001)

At the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in May 1998, it was noted that, because Article 8 (j) of the Convention is subject to national legislation, the Convention ultimately “stands or falls” on this issue. It was also noted that Indigenous and local communities are eager to see the formulation of a set of standards or guidelines for national legislation regarding the implementation of Article 8 (j). “Laws which empower Indigenous and local communities by requiring their representation on statutory bodies will

36 be more likely to ensure their concerns and interests are considered at the decision making levels of government.” (COP/CBD 1998a)

The recommendations from the Conference of Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity relating to the status and trends of the biological diversity of inland water ecosystems and options for conservation and sustainable use, recommended that Parties “involve, as far as possible and appropriate, local and Indigenous communities in the development of management plans and in projects that may affect inland biological diversity; implement Article 8(j) as related to inland water biological diversity; and encourage the involvement and participation of affected parties including end-users and communities in policymaking, planning and implementation” (COP/CBD 1998b)

This direction has been reflected through provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). For the first time in a piece of Australian environmental legislation, the EPBC Act makes extensive reference to Indigenous people and their rights in natural resources. Its objects include:

• to recognise the role of Indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity; and • to promote the use of Indigenous peoples' knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of, and in cooperation with, the owners of the knowledge.

The Act sets out an assessment and approval process for matters of national environmental significance including World Heritage properties, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, Ramsar wetlands and nuclear actions. It provides for agreements between the Commonwealth and State governments which will accredit State approval processes on these matters provided they meet best practice standards. In making such agreements, the Commonwealth Minister must have considered the role and interests of Indigenous peoples in promoting the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources in the context of the proposed agreement, taking into account Australia's relevant obligations under the Biodiversity Convention. In making recovery plans for species and ecological communities, threat abatement plans and conservation plans for marine, migratory and conservation dependent species, the Minister must also take into account the role and interests of Indigenous people in the conservation of Australia's biodiversity. Models for the operation of the EPBC Act in relation to access to biological resources in Commonwealth areas for new commercial uses are under development. Consideration is being given to how Indigenous intellectual and cultural property should be taken into account, and mechanisms for Indigenous people to share in benefits (Vounard 2000).

The EPBC Act establishes an Indigenous Advisory Committee whose members are appointed for their expertise, rather than as representatives of their

37 communities. Its role is to advise the Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage on the operation of the EPBC Act, taking into account the significance of Indigenous people's knowledge of the management of land and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (EA 2001).

These recent developments indicate that at a national level Australia is responding to directions set through The Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity for the involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making. However, achieving Indigenous involvement in the implementation of these legislative and policy directions in the Murray Darling Basin is affected by the same barriers as apply to other opportunities, as discussed in Section 6.

4.14 Contributions of Indigenous Involvement to Broad Social and Natural Resource Management Goals Some agency representatives commented on the importance of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decisions for the broad social goal of Reconciliation. A view from the Community Advisory Committee is that involvement can help overcome cynicism amongst Indigenous communities towards the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the government in general. A South Australia perspective is that creating alternative ways to involve Indigenous people and negotiate issues will contribute to positive community-government relationships.

Some agency representatives commented that better outcomes will be achieved for water property rights with Indigenous involvement. Opportunities for Indigenous people to have a reserved seat at the negotiating table on water allocation have all but disappeared as the meaning and application of ‘native title’ has been progressively narrowed. Nevertheless, Commonwealth agency representatives in particular recognised that lack of Indigenous involvement in water rights issues risks further polarising the debate.

One Murray-Darling Basin Commission representative commented positively that “Indigenous [people] can enrich decision making processes and outcomes through being good listeners, patient, tolerant and focussing on substance”. However, as the discussion of issues and concerns of Indigenous workshop participants earlier in this report indicates, Indigenous people’s approach to decision making is certainly not always characterised by patience and tolerance and there is often much emotion as well as substance in their input. It is important that processes for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management do not rely on Indigenous people being patient and non- emotional since this is an unrealistic expectation.

4.15 Two Constructs of Indigenous ‘Community’ In developing approaches to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management, it is useful, indeed important, to draw an analytical distinction between two different constructs of Indigenous ‘community’. ‘Community’ is a much used word in relation to Indigenous people and their participation in decisions. Government representatives often talk about consulting with the ‘Indigenous community’ and about ‘Indigenous community involvement’ in decisions. ‘Community’ is often used in these contexts without any questioning about what it means.

As outlined above, agency representatives, through their input to this Scoping Study, have identified that Indigenous involvement is important for social reasons – to help redress the status of Indigenous people as a disadvantaged minority – and for cultural reasons – because Traditional Owners have custodial responsibilities through Indigenous custom. Two different constructs of ‘Indigenous community’ are relevant in addressing these different aims.

4.15.1 Local Indigenous Communities One kind of Indigenous ‘community’ comprises all the Indigenous people who live in a locality or region – the ‘local’ Indigenous community. Involvement of this community is relevant to the broad social goals that governments have to redress in terms of Indigenous socio-economic disadvantage. In the Murray Darling Basin there are few places with a majority population which is Indigenous, so this ‘local Indigenous community’ is usually a subset of the broader community of the locality or region.

4.15.2 Traditional Owner Communities The other important construct of ‘Indigenous community’ is the ‘community of Traditional Owners’. Involvement of this community is particularly relevant in natural resource management decision making. The Traditional Owner community is a similar concept to the ‘native title group’ as defined in the Native Title Act, in that it consists of all the Indigenous people who have rights and responsibilities for lands and waters under their own customs and traditions. Since recognition of native title can only occur in defined circumstances, for example where native title has not been ‘extinguished by freehold and analogous tenures’, it is more appropriate to talk about a group or community of Traditional Owners in relation to involvement in natural resource management than it is to talk about a ‘native title group’.

Due to past policies and practices of assimilation and the separation of family members, Traditional Owners rarely, if ever, all live in the same place. Often the places where they live are widely scattered and many Traditional Owners do not live on their traditional Country. Thus Traditional Owners are not always

39 members of the local Indigenous communities that exist on their traditional Country, and not all members of those local Indigenous communities are Traditional Owners.

‘Tribe’ or ‘clan’ membership, kinship and ties to a particular place or region are the broad characteristics that link members of ‘Traditional Owner communities’ together. As Sutton (1998) concludes from his review of anthropological literature about Indigenous peoples in south–eastern Australia, clan-based descent groups have proved to be very resilient notwithstanding the extent of dislocation and dispossession from Country that Indigenous peoples in this part of the continent have experienced.

Traditional Owner communities became more visible, and more publicly prominent, when the High Court Mabo decision appeared to offer some promise that their Traditional Ownership rights would be recognised by governments. Prior to this, there was no incentive for Indigenous people in south eastern Australia to organise their contemporary governance around Traditional Ownership ties. Indeed government policy dealing with Aboriginal affairs has discouraged them from doing so since it has typically operated on a model of Indigenous organisations which are constituted to deliver services to all members of the ‘local Indigenous community’. ‘Traditional Owner communities’ continue to be poorly resourced and this often makes them difficult to contact.

4.15.3 Distinguishing Between Traditional Owners and Local Indigenous Communities In practice, the distinction between the ‘community of Traditional Owners’ and the ‘local community’ is complex and it can be very hard for people outside these communities to be clear about how it operates in practice. It is important to note that it also causes much tension within these communities. Sutton (2001a&b) has presented authoritative analysis of anthropological models relevant to understanding the issues. He draws a very useful distinction between Indigenous people who hold ‘core rights’ over Country in terms of Indigenous customary law, and those who hold ‘contingent rights’ as a result, for example, of their relationship to the people who hold core rights, or due to their long standing attachment to an area that has developed through historical circumstances. Sutton (2001b) warns that frequently ‘it can be impossible for the outside observer to come to ‘certainty’ as to ‘who exactly’ holds which rights in what areas’.

Within the Murray Darling Basin, where formal organisations have been established by Indigenous people to represent ‘Traditional Owner communities’, they are often known by a tribal or language group name. Elders Councils have been established in some areas with or without government support and encouragement. Elders Councils may be organisations whose purpose is to represent Traditional Owner communities, through the Elders of those

40 communities, but this is not necessarily the case. In some situations Elders Councils comprise respected members of local Indigenous communities, including both Traditional Owners and others. Heritage committees may also be ambiguous in regard to who they are constituted to represent. In both cases, it is necessary to understand more about the constitution of the organisation and its membership before drawing conclusions about the extent to which it represents only Traditional Owners or the local Indigenous community, or both. NSW Local Aboriginal Land Councils have dual accountabilities as they represent Indigenous people who live in the Land Council region as well as Indigenous people who have ties to that region but do not live there.

Native title groups and management committees established by Indigenous people to pursue native title claims are always constituted by Traditional Owner communities rather than the other Indigenous people who live in the region of the claim. There are frequently questions raised about the extent to which these groups represent all Traditional Owners, and the Native Title Act 1993 contains procedures designed to ensure that they do. One of the functions of Native Title Representative Bodies under the Native Title Act is to certify that native title claim applications are authorised by all the persons in the native title group and that the application describes or identifies all such people. This function is critical to establishing the ‘certainty’ that governments and resource developers, and in many cases Indigenous people themselves, are looking for in their interactions with the Native Title Act. Claim certification, which is part of the procedures in the Native Title Act for registration of native title claims, gives a third party endorsement that the people who have lodged and are managing a native title claim have the authority of all the Indigenous people who might hold native title in part of the claim area. The process provides a basis for confidence that the authority of the native title group in negotiations will not be undermined by dissent amongst Indigenous people.

The outcome from this situation is that, where an Indigenous group has a registered native title claim or has been certified by the relevant Native Title Representative Body even though its claim has not proceeded to registration, that group should be accepted as authoritatively constituting the Traditional Owners of the applicable region. Native title rights and interests will only legally apply to some parts of the land and waters within the boundary of the claim area, but Traditional Ownership of lands and waters can also be represented through the group.

In the case of other Indigenous organisations, outsiders cannot reliably judge whether they represent Traditional Owners or the local Indigenous community or a combination of both, or if the organisation does represent Traditional Owners, whether it includes all people who are Traditional Owners.

There is not much literature that has attempted to analyse this situation. However Smith (1989) and Peters-Little (1999) explore some of the impacts of

41 governments’ universal application of the ‘local Indigenous community’ model, Macdonald (1997) presents examples of how the different basis of ‘community’ are represented in Indigenous organisations in central New South Wales; Davies and Moore (2001) discuss the interface between Traditional Owner and local communities in Local Aboriginal Land Councils in New South Wales and Davies (forthcoming 2003) discusses it in an Australia wide context.

4.16 Aims for Indigenous Community Involvement Where governments seek involvement of Indigenous people with cultural responsibilities for land and resources, then governments need to engage with the ‘Traditional Owner’ community. In natural resource management decision making, it is appropriate that governments pay most attention to effective involvement of the Traditional Owner community because in Indigenous custom it is the Traditional Owners who ‘speak for Country’. In addition to their rights as citizens, Traditional Owners have distinctive rights for participation in resource management - rights that arise from Indigenous customary law and which place responsibilities on government to ensure Indigenous participation and subsequent benefit from use and management of their traditional Country. Support for the Traditional Owner perspective came through strongly in consultations for this Scoping Study.

However, as discussed above, governments may also seek Indigenous involvement in decision making out of a purely social motivation, because Indigenous people are a disadvantaged group in society whose cultural distinctiveness results in them being poorly engaged by general processes for community participation in natural resource management. When these are the aims of Indigenous involvement, then logically governments would engage with the ‘local Indigenous community’. Members of ‘local Indigenous communities’ have as much right as other citizens to have access to opportunities for community participation. Governments may particularly seek involvement of the local Indigenous community in relation to important social outcomes – for example, as part of programs to improve Indigenous health or employment status.

The distinction between ‘Traditional Owners’ and ‘local Indigenous communities’ is important for government agencies such as Murray-Darling Basin Commission to make when defining their aims for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management. It is also important to recognise that, in practice, the demarcation between Indigenous people who are ‘Traditional Owners’ of an area and others is often unclear to outsiders as there are many different perspectives on this amongst Indigenous people themselves and different considerations operate at different scales in relation to specific issues. These factors are important in understanding concerns raised by both Indigenous Workshop participants and agency representatives about the ‘wrong’

Indigenous people being involved in natural resource management decision making.

The implications of this complexity for the development of culturally appropriate processes for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management are further discussed in Sections 6 and 7.

4.17 Summary Indigenous people have issues and concerns about natural resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin that they want addressed. The poor water quality in rivers, declines in native fish stocks, low river flows and other manifestations of the poor health of riverine, estuarine and wetland environments are prominent amongst these issues. Indigenous people’s cultural concerns extend to encompass these ecological issues since culture and nature are not partitioned in their perspectives. Indigenous people also have clear concerns about degradation of cultural heritage sites. Indigenous people are frustrated and angry about the degradation in the Murray-Darling Basin, about being looked to now by governments for help in fixing up the mess and about the wealth that others have gained at the expense of the health of their Country.

The sustainability of the Australian river systems…is highly contested and subject to competing interpretations. From a farmer’s point of view, his or her commercial sustainability is at issue. From an Aboriginal landowner [Traditional Owner] point of view, the sustainability of the resource and all that relies on it, human and non-human, is at issue. (Langton, 2002)

Recognition of native title once held promise that it would give effective voice to Indigenous peoples’ issues and concerns for natural resource management. It is increasingly clear that the Native Title Act is a dead-end detour for most Indigenous people in the Murray-Darling Basin. This legislation will not in itself deliver recognition of the rights Indigenous people consider they hold as Traditional Owners and custodians of natural resources. However the Mabo decision and the Native Title Act have certainly had important influence on governments in that they have prompted interest and commitment to providing effective opportunities for Indigenous participation in natural resource management decision making. They have also made Traditional Owner groups more visible and their concerns about natural resource management more politically prominent.

Government agency representatives see Indigenous involvement as important because of Indigenous people’s status as Traditional Owners and cultural custodians of natural resources. Legal requirements for cultural heritage protection, national and State policy directions and international pressure also motivate governments’ concern over Indigenous involvement processes. Further, because Indigenous people are a culturally distinct and marginalised

43 social group, governments broadly recognise a need for special measures for Indigenous participation as part of their efforts in community involvement. Where the latter is the motivating factor, it is appropriate for government efforts to target opportunities for Indigenous involvement by the ‘local Indigenous community’. However most often it will be the ‘community of Traditional Owners’ to whom governments have particular responsibility to engage in natural resource management, because it is these people who hold the customary rights to ‘speak for Country’.

While it can be difficult in practice for outsiders to distinguish between ‘Traditional Owners’ and the ‘local Indigenous community’, it is important for government policy to be conceptually clear about how aims for Indigenous involvement are relevant to the two different constructs of ‘Indigenous community’. Involvement by the ‘local Indigenous community’ is important for social and economic outcomes which will help to redress Indigenous poverty and lack of economic development opportunities. Involvement by ‘Traditional Owners’ is critical to cultural heritage protection and to broader aspirations for recognition of Indigenous rights and responsibilities towards lands and waters.

Consultations with agency representatives indicated considerable goodwill towards Indigenous involvement in natural resource management; attitudes of this type will help provide a basis for the development of effective involvement strategies.

5 The Situation Now – Opportunities and the Reality

Introduction Throughout the Murray Darling Basin there is a mismatch between rhetoric about opportunities being available for Indigenous people to be involved in natural resource management and the reality. This originates at a high level, as indicated by the limited awareness amongst many agency representatives of the international, national and State policies and directions that exist in relation to Indigenous involvement.

There are currently a significant number of committees and forums where Indigenous people can be members and be ‘at the decision making table’ for policy making. However, these opportunities may amount to little more than a chance to sit in a room and put forward views which are unfamiliar and often unpalatable to the other committee members about issues that give no consideration to Indigenous perspectives and rely on assumptions which are invalid to Indigenous perspectives to begin with. Such situations do not truly involve Indigenous people as there is no sharing of control and little development of agreed values, visions, goals or understandings. There are also major natural resource management and utilisation issues, such as water allocation or kangaroo management, which provide no opportunities at all for Indigenous involvement.

The inadequacies of current opportunities for Indigenous involvement are an important reason why many such “opportunities” are not being taken up across the Basin. From the incomplete information available, it seems likely that appointments have not been made to about half the positions which have been allotted for Indigenous people to sit on committees. Poor attendance of Indigenous members of committees further reduces their actual involvement.

Some agencies are taking active steps to make Indigenous involvement more effective but there appears to be little systematic evaluation of existing efforts to inform this process.

5.1. Indigenous Awareness of Natural Resource Management Issues At all of the Workshops, Indigenous people said that no formal mechanisms operated to involve the broad Indigenous community in ‘working together’ with governments on natural resource management issues. Some Workshop participants gave examples of where they had individually been involved in ‘working together’, in addition to their membership of committees, as described in Section 3. Specific examples are: • Murray Goulburn Water: paid work on heritage surveys

• Murray-Darling Basin South West Strategy: attended public meeting • MDBC Fish Strategy: unspecified, [but likely to be consultative or advisory role]

Seven other participants said they have been involved in a small number of meetings on natural resource management issues, but did not identify the purpose of the meeting.

Significantly, approximately 28% of the participants were aware of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, but had little contact with it and were unsure of its purpose. The vast majority (77%) of the Indigenous people participating in the Workshops said they had not been involved with Murray- Darling Basin Commission activities or any of its partner governments on natural resource issues, despite all of the Workshops being held in Basin communities where water resource management was a significant economic and environmental issue.

Participants at all of the Workshops stated that they do not get enough information on natural resource and cultural heritage management issues and that they had to pro-actively seek out information: “it doesn’t just come to you”. They also said they get no information directly from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office.

‘Word of mouth’ was identified as an important source of information at every Workshop.

Workshop participants identified some of their sources of information: • local television, radio and newspapers (the most important sources); • the Indigenous media (eg the Koori Mail and The Indigenous Times); • ATSIC Newsletter, Catchment Management Board newsletters, etc; and • general newsletters and faxes from government [probably part of a general Indigenous organisation mailing list].

Educational institutions and general historic and scientific literature are also information sources for some people.

Many participants reported that Local Aboriginal Land Councils are a source of information. Other information sources for some people were: Elders/Traditional Owner groups, native title claimant groups, State Aboriginal Heritage Committee (SA), local Community Development and Employment Programs, and Aboriginal Corporation offices. Not surprisingly, these organisations also were seen as promoting Indigenous involvement in decision making, relating to natural resource management as well as broader community issues.

In some cases, individuals within the community were mentioned as key sources of information – local ATSIC representatives; National Parks and Wildlife Service staff and community members who participated on various committees.

5.2 Indigenous Communication and Networks As the previous discussion shows, very few of the Indigenous people who attended the Workshops have had close involvement in natural resource management decision making processes, yet it is clear that they were keenly interested and concerned about land and water issues. Given this, it is valuable to understand more about the networks that Workshop participants see as important to their interests in natural resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Workshop participants were asked to give advice about what existing organisations or networks the Murray-Darling Basin Commission should work through in order to promote Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decisions.

Responses to this question are presented in Table 5.1 and are categorised according to the Workshop location where the network/organisation was suggested, and the broad purposes of the organisation/network. For this analysis, organisations/networks were categorised into six types based on their broad purpose and background.

Table 5.1 conveys advice from Indigenous communities about useful pathways for building networks about Indigenous involvement in natural resource management. From this information it is apparent that in some localities, Indigenous people see the appropriate pathways as being mainly via organisations representing ‘Traditional Owner communities’ – notably Elders Councils. In other cases, suggested pathways are organisations which represent the broader issues of the local Indigenous community – such as CDEPs, ATSIC, youth and health organisations.

As discussed in Section 4, the relevance of these different kinds of communication pathways and networks to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and other government natural resource management agencies will depend on the purpose for Indigenous involvement in decision making. Importantly, Table 5.1 also suggests there are differences between locations (and undoubtedly also between individuals) depending on whether Indigenous people see natural resource management decision making as being primarily the business of Traditional Owners/Elders or of the broader local Indigenous community. Understanding these differences in networks and their emphasis in relation to natural resource management issues is essential when identifying the capacity of communities to effectively participate in decision making.

Table 5.1 – Existing pathways for communicating with Indigenous communities Albury / Bourke Cunnamulla Dubbo Mildura Moree Murray Wodonga Bridge Media or Local Radio 4TOF Local radio Education radio Western Sun TAFE networks newspaper Koori Mail newspaper Mainstream Community community or centres governance bodies Indigenous Murray ATSIC ATSIC local office Indigenous Registrar of ACs; sectors of DAA directory of Commonwealth Advisory Group orgs; or State Aboriginal government interagency bodies groups; ACDP St. Cttee Indigenous Wiradjuri Traditional Willah Lake Ngarrindjeri Council of Owner Wiradjuri Victoria Heritage organisation Committee; representing Elders groups via Elders Advisory the ALC Council Cttee Ngarrindjeri Traditional Native Title Owners, Barkand Mgt heritage ji Elders Cmtee; Council custodians Ngarrindjeri land org Indigenous Local Allira AC Youth orgs eg (multi- organisation Aboriginal Mirray Birray; organisations purpose representing centre); Wandoo AC Local Thubbo CDEP Indigenous Aboriginal community Medical Service Indigenous Woomera LALC NSW ALC ALCs AC, organisation Winan LALC with mixed or Gidyal unspecified Mungabaree representative na functions Abbreviations: AC: Aboriginal Corporation; ACDP: Aboriginal Community Development Program; ALC: Aboriginal Land Council

At several of the Workshops, participants identified Indigenous sectors of government (ATSIC and interagency committees on Aboriginal issues) as important pathways for networking on Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making. It is relevant to note that such bodies rarely have their ‘core business’ in natural resource management. Typically their core business is in the social aspects of Indigenous community development – such as health, employment and education, and there is little, if any cross-sectoral awareness of programs or objectives of other agencies working on issues in the region.

There are very important interrelationships between these ‘core’ social issues and Indigenous involvement in natural resource management. Indigenous involvement can provide a significant focus for community development activities with important benefits in health, employment and education sectors. However specialisation of expertise and program structures within government agencies means that these interrelationships are poorly appreciated. Indeed the sectoral and discipline-based boundaries between sectors of government which have their main focus on Indigenous social issues, and natural resource management sectors of government which typically have little or no interest in social issues, are one reason why Indigenous involvement in natural resource management has been very slow to develop throughout Australia.

5.3 Indigenous Experiences of Involvement in Natural Resource Management Decision Making The overall consensus from participants at Workshops is that the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and other government natural resource management agencies often do not involve Indigenous people in decision making and, when they do consult Indigenous people about these decisions, the methods of involvement are inadequate.

The following common themes were put forward during the Workshops: • “governments might think they are keeping us informed, but the information is not getting through because: • they are contacting the wrong people; • their consultations are not broad enough – the organisations who are given information are not representative of the whole Indigenous community and the information is not shared throughout the community; • the information provided is hard to understand because of jargon; and • the information is incomplete because each agency only handles part of the issue and there is no coordination; • when consultations are undertaken, there is no subsequent feedback. This means there is no sense of progress, or of ‘working together’; and • consultations do not seem to lead to any changes”.

At two of the Workshops, participants said that the Natural Heritage Trust funding system was discriminatory, since submissions by Indigenous organisations were rarely successful.

Where there are Indigenous representatives on natural resource management committees and at meetings, Workshop participants said: • “the selection processes and the representatives selected are sometimes inappropriate”; • “they have sometimes felt intimidated”;

• “Indigenous representatives are not resourced to contribute meaningfully”; Resource needs include: • “time and communication infrastructure so representatives can inform community members about issues that the committee is dealing with and involve the community in the process”; • “travel and accommodation money, particularly considering the often long distances required to attend meetings”; and • “sitting fees, or compensation for the time involved that is lost to other activities”.

Lack of resources is a huge problem for the Indigenous people who are invited to participate on multiple committees or attend numerous meetings. It eventually contributes to burn-out, frustration and often resentment of the process.

More generally, when Indigenous people are consulted and subsequently do not see any outcomes from those consultations, they “lose faith in the government system”. They leave committees or stop participating in workshops and meetings, and their frustration is transmitted to and shared by others in the community.

As noted in Section 4, Indigenous people approach involvement in natural resource management issues with attitudes towards government that are often already cynical, suspicious and/or angry. In no sense did the participants at the Workshops consider that a ‘partnership’ or a ‘collaboration’ with government towards common goals might be occurring through current Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making. Rather, participants at all the Workshops said they considered that their interests are in competition with government interests. They consider that farmers, other landholders and large companies are the people who influence government decisions. Indeed, they generally see government interests as the same as farmers’ interests.

Indigenous people saw evidence for these conclusions in the way that landholders and corporations get away with destroying waterways and areas of Indigenous significance by building roads, mining, clearing land and fencing areas. Governments are held responsible not only because they allow these things to occur, but also because the processes have excluded Indigenous people from the management of natural resource and heritage issues. Because of these actions, governments are generally considered to be reneging on their responsibilities under international protocols, guidelines and conventions.

Indigenous people’s negative experiences with government consultation processes are not confined to those government agencies associated with natural resource management decision making. At the Workshops, participants

50 reported similar experiences in their relationships with other mainstream government organisations who: • work with only one or two individuals rather than with the community as a whole; • make very little or no information available, or information is only available because of individual Indigenous people’s own initiative; and • undertake consultation but then provide no feedback and few outcomes.

Participants commented that any differences from this pattern of involvement are due to the individual government officer involved, rather than related to the agency they work for.

A few positive examples of Indigenous involvement in projects related to natural resource management were described by participants at some of the Workshops, as summarised in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Positive examples of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management (as described by participants in Workshops for this Scoping Study.) Pillaga Management • All major Indigenous tribal areas are represented Committee (NSW • All members treated with respect and dignity, their opinions valued and State Forests) considered • Involved in making decisions • Has developed opportunities for Indigenous employment. Riverina TAFE • Conducts horticultural courses for Wandoo Aboriginal Corporation CDEP participants • The TAFE actively seeks Indigenous students and includes young people as part of their year 10 school studies. Albury and Wodonga • Contracts Wandoo Aboriginal Corporation for landscaping work in City Councils parks and gardens including Wonga Wetlands Dubbo Green Corps • Mainstream program which includes Indigenous youth Barkindji Elders • Formed to enable Traditional Owners to manage cultural heritage at Committee Lake Victoria • Members are paid sitting fees and are supported by an administration officer and a spokesperson, funded by the MDBC • Participate as members of the Lake Victoria Advisory Committee

5.4 Government Agency Perspectives Selected government agency representatives interviewed for this Scoping Study were asked to comment on: • the opportunities which are available for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin or relevant to the Murray-

Darling Basin Commission’s sphere of influence and what is the current level of Indigenous involvement; and • the current processes and protocols which are used to facilitate Indigenous community consultation.

There are, as might be expected, considerable differences between the jurisdictions (the various States and the Commonwealth), between natural resource management agencies and individual programs relating to the opportunities for Indigenous involvement, and in the extent of actual Indigenous involvement in decision making at various levels.

This identification of existing opportunities for Indigenous involvement in this Scoping Study is based principally on information provided by the agency representatives interviewed for the Study, as described in Section 2. As such it is not an exhaustive review of what is happening in Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making.

While some agency representatives did mention specific programs and policies, it was apparent that others had little awareness of the policy framework or current initiatives in this area. There was also very little awareness of programs and policies being developed and implemented for Indigenous involvement in other jurisdictions. Analysis of differences between the perceptions of agency representatives about policy frameworks and opportunities for Indigenous involvement and what policies and opportunities are actually in place may be useful in furthering understanding about why some initiatives are not successful. Systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of existing programs in various agencies may also prove illuminating and informative. However these matters are beyond the scope of this present Study.

At least some of the agency representatives in each State and at the Commonwealth level reported that they considered there are few opportunities currently available for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decisions in the Murray-Darling Basin or relevant to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

The current opportunity for Indigenous involvement that is relatively consistent across the Basin is through membership of natural resource management community-based committees (including committees dealing with issues relating to catchment planning, water resources, vegetation, fisheries, cultural heritage and conservation areas, etc).

Other general opportunities described by agency representatives are through: • State level advisory and policy committees; • Employment in organisations or on specific projects; • Consultations with native title groups; and • Issue specific planning processes.

5.5 Jurisdictional Perspectives While it was agreed to keep data collected in the interviews anonymous, responses to questions were collated within jurisdictions to provide the opportunity to compare and contrast current levels of Indigenous involvement and programs across the Murray-Darling Basin. A comprehensive assessment of jurisdictional or agency programs was beyond the scope of this Study, however, it is useful to record the perceptions of agency representatives about their own organisation’s involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management.

5.5.1 Murray-Darling Basin Commission Office Murray-Darling Basin Commission office staff reported that the Murray-Darling Basin Commission is at the first stage of recognising the need for Indigenous involvement in decision-making processes, and there are currently very limited opportunities as an employee or a contractor with the Commission structure. This Scoping Study in itself represents a corporate intention to change this situation.

Current opportunities which were identified are: • one Indigenous representative on the Community Advisory Committee; • one Indigenous employee in the Commission office; and • encouraging and financially supporting Indigenous consultation processes at Lake Victoria, Menindee Lakes and Barmah-Millewa Forest.

Some Commission office staff considered this low level of Indigenous involvement tokenistic and, as a mechanism for encouraging improved and inclusive natural resource management decision making, it is ineffective.

Other potential or planned opportunities within the Murray-Darling Basin Commission for Indigenous involvement referred to by several staff include: • through the Murray-Darling Basin Environmental Flows Community Reference Panel and a possible Indigenous community engagement process; • in policy development on water issues, and in Environmental Plan referrals; and • in facilitating and coordinating relationships through investment decisions (perhaps referring to some of the investigation and education projects funded by the Commission).

It was also noted that the Community Advisory Committee had a subcommittee with a role to look at Indigenous issues that are relevant to matters being addressed by the Committee.

Some of the comments from Murray-Darling Basin Commission staff raise the critical question of what in fact constitutes ‘an opportunity to participate’. They

53 said that, in theory, there are opportunities for Indigenous involvement through the natural resource management decision making processes of partner governments and through the general public consultation processes of Murray- Darling Basin Commission. However some Commission office staff recognised that these are not real opportunities for Indigenous involvement because various factors, such as Indigenous peoples’ availability and capacity to contribute, and inappropriate communication methods, make them unsuitable to most Indigenous people. In addition, the outcomes sought by Indigenous people can be far beyond what the current processes are able to deliver. These themes are explored further in Sections 6 and 8 of this Report.

5.5.2 Commonwealth Agencies Commonwealth agency representatives reported few direct opportunities for Indigenous involvement in Murray-Darling Basin natural resource management decision making. However they felt that indirect opportunities are provided through the requirements for Indigenous involvement in Commonwealth government funded projects.

The Commonwealth government, through the Natural Heritage Trust, has supported employment of Indigenous Land Management Facilitators. Indigenous people are often, though not always, recruited to these positions. Their work involves assisting Indigenous communities to apply for grants for natural resource management projects and they are hosted within Indigenous organisations or government agencies.

At a national policy level, Indigenous people are involved on the Australian Landcare Council and a national Indigenous Advisory Committee has been formed as a requirement under the Environmental Planning and Biodiversity Conservation Act. However these organisations have no specific focus on the Murray-Darling Basin.

There were suggestions from some Commonwealth agency representatives that imagination and effort have been lacking in relation to using available resources to promote involvement of Indigenous people. Current processes for creating Indigenous employment opportunities were said to be ‘run of the mill’ and too passive. Also one Commonwealth agency which has an Indigenous Policy Unit reported that this unit had not been specifically involved in Murray- Darling Basin activities and that this had been a shortcoming.

The Natural Heritage Trust funding program has promoted strategic planning for Aboriginal-managed lands through the Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands processes in Victoria (since 2001) and in South Australia (since 1999) (SAMLIV 2002; Chester and Last 2002). Involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making has also been encouraged through these processes.

5.5.3 Queensland Queensland agency representatives reported that there is Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making processes in the Murray-Darling Basin through: • between one and three representatives on community reference committees for water resource and vegetation management programs, with a varying degree of actual attendance by these representatives; • representatives on some fisheries advisory committees; • an Indigenous Advisory Group at State level (in one agency); • one representative on the State Landcare and Catchment Management Committee; • Indigenous involvement in the Natural Heritage Trust funding application assessment process; • agency-based Traditional Owner advisory groups set up regionally and at the State level; • employment of Indigenous people within agencies; • input to plans by Traditional Owners and senior Elders; and • native title matters and development of Indigenous Land Use Agreements.

One agency’s strategic plan seeks to “embrace the tacit and explicit knowledge of Traditional Owners regarding cultural resources”. Cultural resource surveys are undertaken by Traditional Owner groups, funded by the agency through its Indigenous unit.

5.5.4 New South Wales In New South Wales, catchment management boards have positions for two Indigenous representatives. Other NSW boards for vegetation, parks, rivers, etc also aim to provide this level of representation. NSW agency representatives reported that about half the Indigenous positions on catchment management boards are filled and 80% of those on vegetation committees.

NSW agency representatives also reported that native title claimants are consulted in relation to natural resource management issues. At the time of the interview process, most of the land in western NSW (one third of the State) is subject to native title claims. Since then, Western Lands Leases have been found to extinguish native title.

One natural resource management agency has a strong record of employment of Indigenous people. Often these employment opportunities are in field and regional positions but they also include several senior management positions identified for Indigenous people.

In addition to the above, there is informal involvement of Indigenous people on individual natural resource management projects being undertaken by agencies,

55 and there are arrangements through which Indigenous community members work alongside government archaeologists on cultural and natural heritage management issues.

5.5.5 Victoria Although some Victorian agency representatives reported that very few opportunities exist for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management, others reported that they were actively working to expand opportunities and promote more effective involvement.

There is an Indigenous member on the Victorian Catchment Management Council, and a policy requirement that Regional Catchment Strategies will not be accredited unless Indigenous peoples have been consulted during their preparation (SAMLIV 2001). The Catchment Management Authorities responsible for preparing these plans have, in some cases, held specific forums for Indigenous communities to provide input and have recommended the formation of Indigenous natural resource management reference groups. In other cases they have made what are described by some as ‘token efforts’ – for example having one Indigenous representative on committees.

Forest management planning processes involve Indigenous people on their Advisory Groups, but it was reported that after the planning stage, Indigenous involvement stops. However, a trial program is underway to employ young Indigenous people in forest management.

Indigenous cultural heritage management in Victoria involves five regionally based boards, comprising Indigenous people nominated through the Indigenous Cooperatives in the region, which meet regularly with agency staff. The Boards are resourced to develop strategies for protecting cultural heritage in their region, including funding for members’ costs to attend meetings.

Agency staff are examining opportunities for Indigenous involvement on other advisory and technical groups. Some agencies report high interaction with and involvement by Indigenous community members in their operations.

Indigenous employment is quite high in some agencies. In one case, approximately 4% of permanent positions are held by Indigenous people, although most are in field-based and lower level management. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment’s Indigenous Partnerships Strategy established seven Indigenous facilitator positions in 2001 who are expected to be important new points of contact between the Department and Indigenous communities (SAMLIV 2002).

Other strategies reported to be promoting effective Indigenous involvement within agencies include an Indigenous person on one agency’s Executive Board and a

56 recent survey of one agency’s Indigenous staff to assess how Indigenous employee retention can be improved.

The Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands In Victoria (SAMLIV) is another current initiative which is promoting Indigenous involvement in natural resource management, albeit quite specifically focussed on land controlled by Indigenous people. A case study is included below as an illustration of a multi-agency approach which will ultimately build capacity within Indigenous communities to participate in broader natural resource management forums.

5.5.6 South Australia Most agency representatives interviewed for this Scoping Study indicated that Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making is “in its infancy” in South Australia. In spite of the extent of Indigenous cultural heritage and of institutions and issues where agency representatives consider that Indigenous involvement would be beneficial, formal mechanisms for involvement are not yet developed except in relation to specific heritage sites. To deal with these issues, Local Heritage Committees and a State Aboriginal Heritage Committee have been established under legislation. Consultation processes operate for minerals exploration and development approvals with the aim of protecting heritage sites. One agency representative said that “government is starting to think about mechanisms for real involvement”, while another commented about on-going efforts to raise awareness about Indigenous culture and the need for involvement, but no specific examples were forthcoming.

There appear to be quite different approaches taken by different government sectors within the State. For example, one agency representative commented that “Indigenous groups have opportunities to be included in the broad community consultations on natural resource management issues that are currently taking place”, while another said “opportunities for Indigenous involvement tend to be added-on rather than incorporated into broader community processes”.

The opportunities for Indigenous involvement specifically mentioned by South Australia agency representatives include: • representation on Integrated Natural Resource Management Committees, which are in the process of being established; • management issues at specific sites such as the Murray Mouth; • water resource planning processes; • protected areas management planning processes; • through native title negotiations and Indigenous Land Use Agreements (although there are none in the Murray-Darling Basin portion of South Australia); and

• through employment in identified positions and government funded programs, for example, 50 % of the Coorong National Park staff are Indigenous, most of them in field maintenance positions.

While South Australia has developed a strong record of achievement in the implementation of projects by Indigenous people and organisations on Indigenous managed lands, and has the most equitable access by Indigenous groups to NHT funding of all States/Territories (refer SAMLISA Steering Committee, 2000), there is not a comparable level of involvement by Indigenous people in other natural resource management decision making arenas.

The involvement that does occur was characterised by some agency representatives as “ad-hoc, tokenistic, and last minute”, with issues “being resolved prior to Indigenous involvement occurring”. Some representatives commented that the enthusiasm and commitment of individual agency staff determines how much effort goes into involving Indigenous people. Compared to policy issues, more involvement was said to be occurring at the local level, where it is seen as more relevant. Involvement was also said to be more important in the north of the State than in the Murray-Darling Basin.

As well as the lack of formalised mechanisms, some agency representatives mentioned other factors that they consider help to account for the current low levels of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making in the Murray-Darling Basin. They noted that Indigenous people are poorly resourced and, therefore, have limited capacity to participate. Where opportunities for involvement do exist, they lack accountability structures that are meaningful and are not being taken up by Indigenous communities.

Case Study 5.1: Strategies for Aboriginal Managed Lands in Victoria & South Australia (SAMLIV and SAMLISA) SAMLIV (in Victoria) is a 2 year NHT funded project which has strong support from sectors of State government and from the Indigenous Land Corporation which is a part funder. It aims to work with Indigenous peoples/communities and for Indigenous peoples and communities to set its directions for sustainable land and water management. This is an Aboriginal community-driven project rather than a government- run project. It is auspiced by Mirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corporation, the native title representative body for Victoria, but its direct accountabilities are to its funding agencies and a Steering Committee of agency representatives and project staff. Indirectly its accountabilities are to Indigenous land holding groups and other Indigenous people of Victoria, through an Indigenous reference group, and through workshops and local consultations.

Although the focus of SAMLIV is on sustainable management of lands that Indigenous groups own under freehold and leasehold titles, the networks and linkages developing through the project are also promoting Indigenous involvement in broader NRM decision making, such as through input to Catchment Management Strategies. The SAMLIV

58 project was initiated by the Victorian Indigenous Land Management Facilitator and staff of the Indigenous Land Corporation and was inspired by processes and outcomes from the Strategy for Aboriginal Land Management in South Australia (SAMLISA) project. (SAMLIV 2002).

The SAMLISA project was the first project to comprehensively assess Indigenous landholders’ priorities and needs for sustainable resource management on lands in Indigenous freehold and leasehold ownership across a State/Territory. The strategy document published in February 2000 summarises values, land use and management issues on more than 100 properties in South Australia, 20 of which are in the Murray- Darling Basin, and also documents broader strategic directions and considerations relevant to Indigenous interests in land and water. The project was implemented by a Steering Committee representing Indigenous landholding groups, the Sustainable Resources Division now within Department for Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation and the Indigenous Land Corporation and involved workshops and local consultations with representatives of Indigenous landholders.

The SAMLISA process led to implementation of a devolved NHT grant program for ‘on the ground’ support for Indigenous landholders as well as giving more prominence to Indigenous perspectives on priorities for NHT expenditure and expanding networks between Indigenous landholders and government agency staff. The SAMLISA Steering Committee has continued to manage this program and to review strategic directions in response to changes in national and state policy and funding frameworks for natural resource management. (SAMLISA Steering Committee 2000, Davies 2000a&b; Chester and Last 2002)

5.6 Protocols and Processes Government agency representatives described a large number of protocols and processes currently in place which relate to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin. Some of these are referred to in Section 4 in greater detail.

5.6.1 Recognition and Respect for Traditional Owners Protocols to show recognition and respect for Traditional Owners by acknowledging and thanking them at the start of meetings held on their Country have been adopted by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission at some of their meetings and within some Queensland agencies.

5.6.2 Agency Contact with Indigenous Communities Responses from agency representatives interviewed indicate that Traditional Owner groups are widely regarded as the appropriate people to contact regarding involvement in land and water decision making processes that affect their Country. Senior levels of government, however, are more likely to have

59 contact with native title representative bodies or with other statutory organisations such as ATSIC. Some agency representatives were not specific about which groups within the ‘Indigenous community’ they make contact with, while others referred to legislative requirements which determine who they make contact with on particular matters. There was recognition by some agency representatives that they need to spend more time establishing with whom they should be making contact and building relationships.

5.6.3 Agreements with Indigenous Groups The Murray-Darling Basin Commission and New South Wales have provided support for the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) about processes for engagement with Indigenous people on the River Murray. While New South Wales has signed the MOU, the other Commission Partners are considering their position. Murray- Darling Basin Commission office staff were pleased that the level of Indigenous involvement in this process has been high. The provisions of the MOU are considered in Section 7 with discussion about its potential contribution to future processes for Indigenous involvement.

In Queensland, one agency has a 10 year Partnership Strategy to work towards developing State-level agreements with Indigenous peoples.

5.6.4 Roles of Agency Staff In one State agency, Regional Managers were seen as key people responsible for liaising with and involving Indigenous people, while in other agencies it seems to be up to individual staff who take an interest in being inclusive and proactive. Continuity of personnel in positions with high levels of community interaction was noted as important by some people.

Several agency representatives reported that their Indigenous staff members, or units within their own department that deal with Indigenous policy and/or cultural heritage, are essential to providing links and building networks between the agency and Indigenous communities. One agency in Queensland has set up a Land and Sea Resource Management Group which is a consulting group to assist Indigenous people in capacity building. Some agencies and particular natural resource management committees are involving their non-Indigenous staff and other members in cultural awareness training as part of their strategy for building better understanding of and relationships with Indigenous people.

In some States, agency staff work towards inter-agency coordination, for example, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service which has a considerable number of Indigenous staff, attempts to coordinate with other land management agencies (Forestry, Agriculture) on cultural heritage matters, for

60 which it has legislative responsibility. In other cases, the Indigenous staff of various agencies work on coordination amongst themselves, as in NSW where one agency representative reports that Indigenous policy makers in various agencies are operating as a ‘combined voice’ which is raising awareness of the need for effective Indigenous involvement.

5.6.5 Role of Indigenous Members on Natural Resource Management Committees There are different expectations from different agency representatives about the role of Indigenous members on natural resource management committees. For example, it was noted that the Community Advisory Committee has an Indigenous representative whose role is to bring an Indigenous perspective to the Committee’s deliberations, rather than to represent other Indigenous people or communities. A different view was presented by a New South Wales agency representative who felt that the Indigenous representatives on catchment committees provide a link with Indigenous communities, in terms of communication of issues. Several other agency comments suggest that the role of Indigenous people on committees is to represent their community.

5.6.6 Processes for Engagement Most government agency staff spoke of Indigenous involvement as a matter of ‘consultation’, rather than either a collaborative or a negotiation process. In a few cases, agencies have, or are preparing, guidelines or protocols for how consultation is to be undertaken.

A few agency staff described more interactive processes for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making. In Victoria, during consultations about one agency’s regional plans, senior Indigenous staff sought to “first reach agreement with Indigenous communities about the process of consultation, and how the community can be involved before talking about the substantive issues of the plan”. In one Queensland example, there is regular contact between the agency’s Indigenous Unit and Traditional Owner groups, which means that the agency is in a good position to identify which groups might be affected by particular issues when they arise. The agency “drafts an agenda for a meeting about the issue, and the Traditional Owner group amends the agenda where necessary, advises its members about the meeting, and nominates one of their group to chair the meeting. The agency collates the meeting responses and feeds outcomes back to the Traditional Owner group for comment. Documentation is then passed on to the appropriate section of the agency to prepare the plan. The draft plan goes back to Traditional Owner groups for further comment’. While it is recognised that this is a lengthy process, agency representatives consider that it saves time in the long run.

Many government agency representatives interviewed recognised that time and other resources have to be realistically allocated if Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making is to be more than just a token effort. Such issues are further explored in Sections 6 and 7.

Case Study 5.2: Care or control? Ngarrindjeri participation in natural resource planning

Participation by Ngarrindjeri in natural resource planning at the downstream end of the Murray Darling Basin was independently evaluated in 2001 by Dana Thomsen. Evaluation was aimed at assessing Ngarrindjeri satisfaction with three planning processes and their outcomes. The research was prompted by the lack of evaluation of government efforts to involve Indigenous people in natural resource planning processes, in spite of increasing interest from government agencies in promoting Indigenous involvement. The study used grounded theory, a qualitative research method. Primary data sources were in depth interviews with Ngarrindjeri people who had participated in the planning processes and with government staff who had managed these processes. The validity and reliability of findings was checked through further consultation with Ngarrindjeri research participants.

Thomsen (2001) found that management planning for the Coorong and Lower Lakes Ramsar Wetlands was adaptive and responsive to Ngarrindjeri cultural norms and aspirations and empowered Ngarrindjeri to control their own involvement. This was achieved in this process, but not in the other two processes that were examined, even though the planning teams for all three processes faced similar constraints.

Ngarrindjeri empowerment in the Ramsar planning process was promoted by the planning team allocating resources (funds, time and expertise) for Ngarrindjeri to hold a forum of their own people about the planning process and to formulate a comprehensive submission. The Ramsar planning team took the initiative to do this because they considered that their original strategy of involving Ngarrindjeri people as members of the community consultative committee was proving ineffective.

Overall however, Ngarrindjeri satisfaction with their experiences in the Ramsar plan was low, because of the constraints the final plan puts on their future participation. The Ramsar planning team, uncertain on how to deal with the broad scope of issues detailed in the Ngarrindjeri submission, had sought legal advice. This led to the final plan making “increased opportunities for participation by Ngarrindjeri people” in the planning and management of the Ramsar wetlands “subject to South Australian government policy relating to resolution of native title claims”. For Ngarrindjeri people this is an example of how non-Indigenous constructs of their rights and interests ‘force us into little boxes …. not letting us speak up about all the land.’ They have had similar experiences when their views of environmental issues are discounted because they are seen to concern natural resource management rather than being confined to issues of cultural heritage.

A lesson from this research is that Indigenous satisfaction with opportunities for participation in natural resource decision making depends on both the process and the outcomes achieved. Further, legalistic restrictions on recognition of the validity of Indigenous perspectives and the value of Indigenous peoples’ contributions to natural

62 resource decision making, readily threaten the achievement of outcomes that are meaningful for Indigenous people, no matter how effective processes have been at securing their involvement and promoting their empowerment. (Thomsen, 2001)

5.7 Differences and Similarities Between Jurisdictions All State and Commonwealth jurisdictions are making efforts to promote involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management. In some cases, legislation requires Indigenous involvement, particularly where cultural heritage sites are threatened by development or where native title rights are recognised under the terms of the Native Title Act 1993. These circumstances are narrow, however, compared to the broad aspirations of Indigenous people.

In some States, agencies have adopted policies which recognise the importance of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management. Awareness of such policy directions is reflected in the current efforts by governments to expand opportunities for Indigenous involvement and to support actual involvement, as noted above. This effort is much more apparent in some States and some agencies than in others. To the extent that clear policy directions do exist, it appears that they are not always influencing action. In some cases, action on Indigenous involvement may be due to individual staff interest and effort, unsupported by any policy mandate.

Processes and protocols being used by agencies to facilitate and support Indigenous involvement vary from mundane efforts at consultation to more proactive engagement and financial commitment. Negotiations with Indigenous people concerning how they will be involved (such as through MOUs) promote the empowerment of Indigenous people in decision making.

Government representatives from all States reported that their efforts in employing Indigenous people in natural resource management arenas and involving the Indigenous policy sectors of other agencies, are improving their own agency’s awareness and capacity to engage Indigenous community members. Though the extent of such efforts varies between the jurisdictions, employment outcomes appear to be mostly positive in this regard. However, some agencies also note difficulties that arise because Indigenous staff do not have good relationships with all Indigenous groups in their region, and others report ongoing difficulties in retaining Indigenous staff.

5.8 Summary A wide gulf between Indigenous and government perspectives on appropriate values, processes and roles for Indigenous people in natural resource management was revealed in the views expressed by people involved in this Scoping Study. The gulf is characterised by the concern of most government agencies focussing on ‘effective consultation’ while

Indigenous people focused on ‘control’. This gulf typifies the vexed nature of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous systems of law, custom and relationship to land, economic development opportunities, and aspirations for the future.

In spite of the efforts reported by some government sectors to promote Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making, the impression gained from participants at the Indigenous Workshops is that little or nothing is happening. This could be because the opportunities available through government for involvement in land and water decisions have not reached many of the Indigenous people who were involved in the Workshops. Or it could be that these opportunities were not regarded by Workshop participants as meaningful. The underlying anger of Indigenous people about degradation of the land and waters and disrespect shown for their authority and cultural values exacerbates the distance between government and Indigenous perspectives.

The effectiveness of current government efforts to involve Indigenous people in decision making cannot be evaluated through a study of this nature. The failure of government efforts to attract much positive comment from Indigenous people at Scoping Study Workshops should not, therefore, be interpreted to mean that none of those efforts are valuable or effective. Evaluation would require a more in-depth and widespread look at particular processes and issues from both government and Indigenous perspectives.

Although there is much advice and advocacy in the literature about involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making, there is little evaluation. However the recent work by Thomsen, 2001 has some pertinent findings from the Coorong, highlighting that both the processes for Indigenous involvement and the outcomes from that involvement are important to Indigenous people and governments in assessing whether Indigenous involvement in natural resource management has been a positive and worthwhile experience. In this regard, the current Scoping Study focuses on exploring processes for Indigenous involvement rather than outcomes. However the issues, concerns and aspirations put forward by Indigenous people involved in the Workshops make it clear that better outcomes for protection and preservation of natural and cultural heritage are also critical. Indeed the judgements Indigenous people, and arguably many other people, make about outcomes are invariably related to their experiences of process. This relationship was acknowledged in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s own Stakeholder Survey related to the issue of environmental flows in the River Murray (MDBC 2001).

For involvement in natural resource management decision making to be ‘better’ than at present from the viewpoint of Indigenous people, both process and

64 outcomes must properly integrate Indigenous perspectives on the landscape and engender culturally-based Indigenous authority in decision making.

6. Barriers to Indigenous Involvement Introduction A commonly held paradigm is that recognition and acknowledgement of the problem is the first step in the healing process. If this theory can be applied to the Scoping Study, then the similar views of Indigenous and government participants and the extensive and overlapping range of barriers that were identified can reasonably be interpreted to imply that there is a brighter future for the involvement of Indigenous people than the present reality would infer. All participants in the Scoping Study were keen to talk about the things that got in the way of action, and recording these barriers is useful in that it indicates that awareness of the causes of the problems is high and well understood by those in both government and Indigenous circles. There were many similarities in the description of the barriers, albeit viewed from entirely different power structures, and this convergence was gratifying in that it truly identified the scope of the main obstacles to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making.

Identifying barriers is also a tangible process which provides a good starting point for developing the principles and actions recommended in Section 8. While some of the barriers relate to knowledge, understanding and awareness, others can be grouped around social and economic circumstances, ingrained government ‘culture’ and the lack of outcomes from previous and current processes of involvement.

6.1 Lack of Understanding Many government agency representatives said “there was a general lack of awareness and understanding within government and the broader non- Indigenous natural resource management community about Indigenous values, perspectives and perceptions which is a barrier to inclusive involvement processes” and often government employees do not understand that: • “Indigenous perspectives and needs are different to those of other community sectors”; • “for Indigenous people, culture and natural resources are woven together and not separate issues”; and • “Indigenous people have cultural responsibilities about caring for their Country”.

Some government representatives discussed their own lack of awareness and understanding, saying it is difficult for them to understand Indigenous values and perspectives, or to understand the ways in which Indigenous people want to be involved in natural resource decision making. One participant commented that “people always make decisions based on their own experiences and the considerations which they see as important”. Because so many natural

66 resource management decision makers have no experience of interacting with Indigenous people at any level, they do not think about the importance of involving Indigenous people in their decisions and they do not know how to involve them.

Lack of understanding and awareness leads to non-Indigenous people thinking that Indigenous people only need to be involved in “stick and bones management” – that is, protection of cultural artefacts and burial sites. Some government agency representatives said “stakeholders such as catchment management organisations don’t appreciate that Indigenous cultural values are part of natural resource management”. If Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people work together in decision making about land and water management issues, it can help to break down this lack of understanding.

On the other hand, as one agency representative commented “when governments consult separately with landholders and Indigenous people, neither group gets an understanding of the others’ perspective or owns the overall outcome of the consultation process”.

Some Indigenous Workshop participants said racism and stereotyping is a barrier to their involvement in decision making processes. Some government agency representatives also said that racist attitudes held by some government staff and members of the broader community are a problem. These racist attitudes are not simply due to individual prejudices. They are related to a broader lack of understanding about and respect for Indigenous peoples and their perspectives. Agency representatives noted that many landholders and some government officers are suspicious of or threatened by Indigenous involvement. They commented that this is related to a fear of the unknown and a fear of loss of influence and control. For landholders in particular, it is also a recent legacy of political scare-mongering about the risks to their livelihood from native title claimants. One agency representative commented that “natural resource management managers are fearful of native title”. They find the legalistic approach to native title and other property rights issues hard to understand and they worry that their actions may have legal implications of which they are not aware. These kinds of fears can make natural resource managers hostile and hesitant towards issues of Indigenous rights and involvement.

Many Indigenous Workshop participants said that government staff are ignorant of the breadth of issues Indigenous people should or want to be involved in and that governments do not appreciate how diverse Indigenous people and their communities actually are. There are different needs within different communities and a variety of approaches are required for effective interaction with communities. Indigenous Workshop participants also said that governments often contact the wrong people, and that governments do not sometimes deal with Indigenous people directly but allow non-Indigenous people to make decisions on their behalf.

Many government agency representatives recognise that they need to develop a better understanding of Indigenous communities in order to effectively involve Indigenous people. For example, they need to understand about authority structures within Indigenous communities – who do Indigenous people recognise as having the authority to speak for Country? Several government agency representatives commented about the difficulties they have in understanding these definitions. Some agency representatives said that conflicts between Traditional Owners and non-Traditional Owners over land and cultural issues make it difficult for them to understand who has authority and with whom they should talk. They said that it is difficult because they can not use a standard process for nominating representatives to natural resource management consultative committees, unlike the situation with other community and industry representatives which are often ‘self-selected’ by widely recognised peak bodies such as farmers’ federations or conservation organisations.

In some States, laws or policies require that agencies must work through a particular Indigenous organisation prior to consulting or nominating representatives to committees. But some agency representatives said that following these requirements can also lead to problems. Barriers for future involvement of Indigenous people in decision making have been created because governments and their agencies have not properly recognised Indigenous people’s connection with Country in their previous efforts to involve Indigenous people.

A number of agency representatives noted that conflicts between Indigenous people, families and organisations make it difficult for them to identify a clear direction on issues. Some comments seem to suggest that if Indigenous communities could only sort out their internal conflicts, there would be no barrier to them being effectively involved in government decision making processes. However this is too simplistic and amounts to an unrealistic expectation. It generally comes about because people do not understand and respect the diversity and difference amongst Indigenous people. This is not to say that it is reasonable for natural resource managers to take account of every individual Indigenous perspective on relevant issues. Devolving and equitably sharing the decision making process with Indigenous people would provide the necessary incentives for Indigenous people to rationalise their views to a point where natural resource management decisions could be made.

Compared to the situation in non-Indigenous communities, developing appropriate processes and structures for Indigenous representation requires an in-depth understanding of governance mechanisms – both formal and informal – that operate in relation to particular areas of land and water. Indigenous governance structures are very diverse as a result of the range of local cultures. In addition, historical and administrative influences have led to dispersal and regrouping of family and clan groups and to quite different

68 institutions in different States. As Indigenous Workshop participants pointed out “a one-size fits all approach by government does not work”.

Some agency representatives recognised there is a lack of skills within government to develop the necessary understanding or, where skilled staff do exist, they have no opportunity to apply their understanding to natural resource management issues. Inexperienced agency staff might want to do the right thing, but they are not sure what to do. They get worried that their actions might be inappropriate and lead to them being humiliated. In addition, some government agency representatives said that ‘gate-keeping’ and rivalries about which agency is responsible for taking a lead role in Indigenous involvement can be a barrier to other agencies developing an understanding about Indigenous issues. They considered this a barrier to an effective, whole-of-government approach to Indigenous involvement.

Lack of understanding and associated threats and fears lead many people in government agencies to think that consultation with Indigenous people will be difficult. This can lead to Indigenous involvement being left out of decision making until it is unavoidable.

6.2 Lack of Respect Respect is important to everyone’s self esteem and identity. Indigenous people often say that non-Indigenous people and governments ignore or override them and degrade their cultural values and traditional Country because they have ‘no respect’.

Lack of respect has many aspects to it. Indigenous workshop participants said that the lack of meaningful recognition by governments of Indigenous rights and responsibilities for lands, waters and cultural heritage is a barrier to their involvement in decision making. This lack of meaningful recognition is due to a fundamental and historically-based disrespect by governments and non- Indigenous landholders for Indigenous peoples and their rights and responsibilities under their customary law. In contemporary decision making, this translates to priority in natural resource management decisions going to economic interests, as was stated by Indigenous Workshop participants and by some government agency representatives. A few agency representatives noted that, amongst non-Indigenous landholders, lack of respect is often the cause of an unwillingness to have Indigenous people involved in heritage management on their property, despite legal requirements. At higher levels and amongst government leaders, lack of respect can translate to a refusal to say ‘sorry’, which some agency representatives said is impeding ‘real progress’ in Indigenous involvement.

Although lack of respect is clearly associated with a lack of understanding, there are other factors which complicate and cloud the problem. People who say they

69 understand Indigenous perspectives on involvement in resource use decisions, but who are not trying to change the current situation are showing ‘no respect’. For example Indigenous Workshop participants said that government agencies always say that there are ‘no resources’ and that this is used as an excuse to not deliver on genuine partnerships in decision making. However it was felt that the fundamental issue is not that there is ‘no money’. It is that agencies are not giving priority to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management in their planning and budget decisions. As Indigenous Workshop participants pointed out, there are many non-Indigenous people being paid or funded to work on Murray-Darling Basin natural resource management issues. The Indigenous view is that ‘lack of respect’ for Indigenous people’s involvement means Indigenous involvement is very poorly funded by comparison.

Agency representatives commented that there are people within government and the broader community who are not willing to take Indigenous people and their views seriously. This lack of respect can lead Indigenous people to feel they do not have a legitimate role in natural resource management decision making in the eyes of government.

6.3 The Culture and Capacity of Government Agencies Inflexibility is the characteristic of government agency culture that was most commonly noted by Indigenous participants and government agency staff as a barrier to Indigenous involvement. Indigenous Workshop participants often said that governments do not meet community needs because they are inflexible. For example, governments have trouble bending their incentive program requirements for landholder financial contributions for works such as artesian bore capping, to accommodate Indigenous landholders who often lack the capacity to contribute financially. Governments also rely on the written word creating documents that are full of jargon and difficult to understand, even though Indigenous people operate with the spoken word. This inflexibility leads to communication breakdowns and is one of the factors behind Indigenous Workshop participants’ criticisms that government decision making processes lack transparency.

Some agency representatives commented on the broader problems of creating effective engagement between government agencies and the wider community. Communication problems do not only arise in relation to Indigenous involvement. A communication style which uses bureaucratic and technocratic jargon makes government processes difficult for most people to understand. Government agency representatives pointed out that distance and lack of resources can also make it difficult to consult with ‘locals’, particularly in large regions.

Many government agency staff interviewed recognise that different approaches are needed to effectively involve Indigenous groups in natural resource

70 management, compared to other community sectors. Aspects of government culture which limit governments’ capacity to develop appropriate approaches include: • “fixed timeframes for consultation which make it difficult to build relationships and communicate effectively with Indigenous communities”; • “bureaucratic systems that are designed to meet the needs of the majority”; • “staff turnover and political changes affect priorities and natural resource management policy which make it difficult to maintain long term relationships between government agency staff and Indigenous groups”; and • “‘red tape’ associated with securing Commonwealth funding for employment and partnership programs”.

Inflexibility in government culture is indicated by the extent to which agencies rely on Indigenous representation on natural resource management consultative committees as the main mechanism for Indigenous people to get involved in decision making. Indigenous Workshop participants’ comments on some of the problems with this approach have been discussed earlier in this report and difficulties with current selection processes have been noted (refer to Section 5).

Some agency representatives also noted these concerns with status quo: • government staff expect Indigenous representatives on natural resource management committees to make decisions ‘at the table’. This creates difficulties for Indigenous representatives, as they require time to consult with their communities; • Indigenous committee members sometimes feel they are ‘the meat in the sandwich’ because of conflicts between their community’s needs and the expectations of government; and • the lack of appropriate processes to select Indigenous community representatives can contribute to disharmony within the community.

These kinds of problems arise from factors such as styles of decision making, diversity within Indigenous communities, and Indigenous peoples’ concern for self determination. Although natural resource management agencies try to understand these factors better, ultimately, the act of ceding or sharing decision making powers to Indigenous people will provide the incentive for them to evolve their own decision making processes and gain the associated benefits and responsibilities.

Some agency representatives recognised the need for a changed approach. Greater flexibility in government processes might help to address the Indigenous Workshop participants’ expressed concern that Indigenous people are constantly compromising their own structures and processes to fit into the way government does things and that this continually marginalises their position.

Indigenous Workshop participants commented that “water and land legislation is conflicting and contradictory between various States”, exacerbating the barriers to Indigenous involvement. They see the approach of governments to issues as quite indirect, going “around and around and around” before anything gets done, whereas they say that “Indigenous communities deal with problems directly”. They also commented, as noted earlier, that each agency only deals with part of an issue which limits a good, broad understanding of the issues. Comments from some government agency representatives echoed these views: • “government is not structured to allow for interaction and synergy between departments and jurisdictions in response to community issues”; and • “legislation only considers a small slice of ‘the whole picture’ and this approach can not appreciate the value of Indigenous people’s knowledge about the environment”.

Part of what Indigenous people see as ‘government inflexibility’, is seen by agency representatives as a lack of appreciation by Indigenous people of the responsibilities and accountabilities of agencies. Some agency representatives commented that Indigenous people often bring issues to natural resource management forums that the forum is incapable of addressing, for example focussing on the need for employment for Indigenous people at a site meeting dealing with protection of burials. In other cases, single issue statutory planning processes become complicated for agencies when additional issues are raised by Indigenous people during consultations. This is very frustrating for agency staff as they do not have a way of dealing with the extra issues raised. They can feel their time is being wasted and that Indigenous people are losing the opportunity to have a say on the issues that the agency can do something about.

A number of agency representatives also recognised that Indigenous involvement in natural resource management is complicated for Indigenous people because of the other contemporary issues they are dealing with in their communities, such as employment, housing and health. Some said that “land and water management issues are often a secondary consideration for Indigenous people”. These comments show some of the big differences between the perspective of Indigenous community members and government perspectives. For Indigenous people, issues of community health, economic development, care for Country and culture are all intertwined. However, government agency staff do not link these issues because the responsibilities are divided between many agencies.

6.4 Capacity within Indigenous Communities Indigenous Workshop participants and government agency representatives both regard lack of capacity within Indigenous communities as a major barrier to effective Indigenous involvement in natural resource management.

Workshop participants commented that Indigenous people do not have the financial resources and communications infrastructure they need to contribute effectively. Many government agency representatives also recognised barriers that arise from the economic gap between Indigenous people and other community sectors. They can see that in order to be effectively involved, Indigenous groups do need more support from government than other sectors of the community which have better established organisations and higher average personal incomes. However, some agency representatives commented that “there is a perception within government that funding for Indigenous involvement is adequate”, and that “there are also perceptions that Indigenous people have more support and opportunity for involvement than non- Indigenous people”. These attitudes, which can generally be attributed to a lack of understanding and respect, present barriers to those agency staff who are seeking resources to support capacity building within Indigenous communities for involvement in decision making.

Some Indigenous Workshop representatives see Indigenous peoples’ lack of technical understanding about the issues such as salinity, as a barrier to Indigenous involvement. Government agency representatives did not raise this issue but some did say there is concern amongst a few people in government and the non-Indigenous community that “Indigenous communities do not have the skills to manage land that has been handed back to them”.

A number of agency representatives said lack of understanding amongst Indigenous people about how to ‘do business’ with government bureaucracies is a barrier to effective involvement. They said this leads to the few Indigenous people who are effective in interacting with bureaucracies being in constant demand and put under great pressure. Indigenous Workshop participants are also worried about this, as noted earlier in this Report.

Feelings of ‘shame’ amongst Indigenous people were also noted by some government agency representatives. They commented that, in government, forums which involve non-Indigenous people, Indigenous people can feel poor, poorly educated and/or disempowered when they compare themselves to other participants. They can be uncomfortable in these forums as a result. ‘Shame’ can also be associated with the consequences for Indigenous people of dispersal and assimilation under past government policies, which were a big concern for Indigenous Workshop participants. They said that Indigenous people who have had these experiences have less knowledge of cultural practice and protection of heritage. They can find it difficult to contribute on natural resource management issues but should not be excluded because of this.

Other strong feelings which arise for Indigenous people in relation to natural resource management issues, include anger and frustration, as discussed earlier in this Report. One agency representative said that “the aggression that can

73 result is misplaced and that Indigenous people need to increase their own capacity to add value to the decision making process, rather than being destructive towards it”. It is likely that many natural resource managers and other non-Indigenous people feel the same way when they experience aggressive attitudes and comments from Indigenous people. Agency staff find it hard to get past the aggression, so they lose interest in trying to work with Indigenous people, and they blame Indigenous people for not making the most of the opportunities available.

6.5 Lack of Outcomes A number of agency representatives commented about the lack of outcomes from their efforts at Indigenous involvement in natural resource management. This is also a big issue for Indigenous Workshop participants. Some agency representatives recognised that Indigenous people consider government has not put any “runs of the board” and that there are few success stories to refer to.

Lack of outcomes is discouraging for everyone concerned, creating barriers to Indigenous involvement in future decision making processes. Poor progress and few tangible outcomes make it more difficult to obtain the resources required to support future Indigenous involvement. This situation has made Indigenous people sceptical about government intentions and heightens their feelings of frustration and anger. Because very little systematic and transparent evaluation of efforts to involve Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making has been carried out, neither government nor Indigenous people have a complete understanding of why their efforts have not resulted in satisfactory outcomes. There is a clear need to develop and undertake an evaluation of the current efforts to involve Indigenous people in natural resource management.

One agency representative commented that “best practice models for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making cannot be found”, and this is a barrier to involvement. Indeed, the comments from agency representatives and Indigenous people frequently indicate a lack of good guidance for Indigenous involvement, that is, guidance which draws on a sound understanding of the motivations, cultures and diversity of agencies and Indigenous peoples and on robust evaluation of their experiences of process and outcomes.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission office staff have a particular perspective on the barriers to Indigenous involvement that arise from a lack of outcomes. This is because the Murray-Darling Basin Commission has little direct responsibility for natural resource management ‘on the ground’ in the Murray-Darling Basin. It has a coordinating and facilitating role as part of a partnership with the States, but the State governments and their agencies have most of the direct control and responsibility. Some Commission staff said they are “concerned that Indigenous

74 involvement in natural resource management decision making at the Basin level might create expectations that cannot be met by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office; Indigenous people will expect the Commission to take action on the concerns and issues they raise, but the office will often not have the power to take action by itself”. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission office will have to negotiate with agencies in State governments for action. If the Commission cannot convince its partners to deliver outcomes on Indigenous issues, it is likely that Indigenous people will see little change. The risk is that Indigenous people will lose any trust that they might have developed in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

6.6 Summary A wide and surprisingly similar range of barriers to effective involvement in decision making were identified by both Indigenous and government participants. In summary, the identified barriers could be categorised into the following broad themes:

• The poor understanding within government of: Indigenous perspectives, Indigenous peoples responsibilities to Country and their relationship with the land; and the extra dimension that cultural association brings to natural resource management. It was felt that poor understanding of the issues was a contributing factor to the racist attitudes that existed within the natural resource management community;

• The economic and social context of many Indigenous people was seen as a major inhibiting factor in their ability to become involved;

• The absence of respect for Indigenous people, their authority, views and knowledge relating to natural resource management and Indigenous cultural associations. This was strongly expressed by Indigenous people who often felt humiliated, marginalised and angry due to these attitudes. Both groups of participants felt this lack of respect was a large part of the reason why there was resistance within government and non-Indigenous communities to significantly changing the current level of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management;

• Government culture, operations and systems were commonly regarded as inflexible by Indigenous people. Many government representatives felt that there was a need for them to be more flexible and innovative for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management to be effective. The capacity of government to accommodate Indigenous involvement in natural resource management is impeded by factors such as inappropriate timeframes, styles of communication, bureaucratic systems, staff turnover and changing political agendas;

• Inadequate government resources was not often raised as a significant barrier by agency representatives nor was it strongly raised in the Indigenous Workshops, although many people recognised that effective Indigenous involvement would require a greater financial commitment than was currently allocated or budgeted. It was identified that the real issue is one of priority setting;

• Failure of the current efforts to produce positive outcomes was frequently cited as a significant barrier by Indigenous and government participants alike. Inadequate outcomes fuel the frustration and scepticism amongst Indigenous people towards government motives and commitment, and also discourages government staff from increasing their efforts as all too often, they go unrewarded.

7 Improving Indigenous involvement

Introduction This section of the Report discusses some of the fundamental issues which need to be resolved to help overcome the barriers identified in Section 6. Many of these issues arise from social and economic circumstances which are broader than the realm of natural resource management, as explored in Sections 4, 5.2 and 6.3 of this Report.

Both groups of participants were asked questions regarding appropriate mechanisms or processes which would improve Indigenous involvement in natural resource management. Key phrases indicative of the responses of Indigenous people at Workshops towards changing the future of Indigenous involvement are: “You’ve got to do what’s right, not what’s comfortable” and “extinguish tokenism!”. Key phrases indicative of the responses of agency representatives are: • “there is no panacea”; • “need to be persistent as well as being a little thick skinned”; • “need for compromise on both sides”; • “need to think more carefully in the future”; • “keep trying…take an adaptive management approach”; • “no single cure solution ...be prepared to invest the time and resources required”; and • “put the past behind and look to the future”.

Effort is required to build capacity within both government and Indigenous sectors to achieve effective interaction and to promote mutual understanding and respect. Importantly, agencies also need to respond to the aspirations of Indigenous people for increased control in natural resource management. There is a huge gulf between Indigenous people’s aspirations and the current agency paradigm of consultation.

One reason for the current ineffectiveness of Indigenous involvement is the ambiguity about which Indigenous people to involve in decision making processes. In understanding and clarifying this ambiguity, it is useful to draw an analytical distinction between Traditional Owners and other Indigenous people who live within the Murray Darling Basin and who form part of ‘local Indigenous communities’. Section 4 provides a detailed discussion on the differences between Traditional Owners and local Indigenous communities.

Including Indigenous members on natural resource management committees can be valuable for promoting understanding about Indigenous perspectives. This mechanism would be more effective if it was made clear in each case whether Indigenous members have an ‘expert role’ or a ‘representative function’. There

77 are implications for the way members are appointed and for their accountabilities and resource requirements.

As well as the special responsibilities that governments have to support mechanisms for effective involvement of Traditional Owners in natural resource management decision making, they need to ensure that local Indigenous communities have equitable access to opportunities provided for community participation. Attention to communication styles, time requirements and relationship building are important. Indigenous-only forums are a valuable way of developing Indigenous peoples’ understanding of natural resource management issues and canvassing the diversity of Indigenous viewpoints that are relevant in decision making.

Both Indigenous people and agency representatives made recommendations for changes that they say will improve Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making. These are outlined later, and cover communication, representation, government and organisational culture, resources, Indigenous capacity building, involvement processes, and broader community understanding.

This Scoping Study has identified that there is currently strong reliance on including select Indigenous representatives on natural resource management boards and committees as a mechanism for Indigenous involvement. While this Scoping Study has not aimed to evaluate this or other existing involvement mechanisms, it is clear that current efforts and arrangements are not very effective from either the perspective of Indigenous people or agencies.

Two new or emerging models for Indigenous involvement in Murray Darling Basin decision making have been advocated as the ‘way forward’. These are the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN), and the ‘On Ground On Country’ model developed by the Queensland Murray Darling Basin Committee.

7.1 Communication Indigenous Workshop participants stressed the need for agency representatives to “come to the community”. This is particularly important for exchange of information and for building agency representatives’ understanding of community issues and protocols. At the community level, government agency representatives should post notices (eg. of forthcoming meetings), get to know the people and their issues through listening and observing, and bring community members together for informal or formal gatherings and discussions.

Indigenous Workshop participants drew attention to the importance of communicating with simple language, without jargon, and using pictures to

78 convey key concepts and information. They suggested a newsletter for routine ongoing communication. Publicity and advertising, using local and Indigenous media (refer to Section 5.2), are seen as important, for example when there are meetings where wide attendance by Indigenous people is necessary.

Indigenous people also said they need to know where and how to get information about natural resource management issues. Up to date information supplied directly to Traditional Owners is needed for local issues – for example who is visiting sites, especially where damage to the sites is occurring.

Many agency representatives highlighted the need to “sit down, talk and develop understanding,” allowing time to build trust. Some commented on the need for government to be more creative in communication methods. Agency representatives also acknowledged a responsibility to facilitate better communication between Indigenous people and other stakeholders, to help find areas of mutual agreement and opportunities for partnerships, and to promote awareness of current success stories in Indigenous involvement in contemporary Indigenous natural resource management and decision making processes.

7.2 Representation Agency representatives identified their need to be confident that the Indigenous people who are directly involved in making natural resource management decisions (for example, as members on catchment boards, or on Indigenous land and water management committees) carry the authority of their community. Some suggested more emphasis was needed on involvement by Traditional Owners, instead of seeking overall Indigenous community involvement. Others said there was a need for Elders Reference Groups. Several agency representatives emphasised their need to understand how Indigenous communities make decisions about the way in which individual’s and family’s interests are represented in decision making.

Indigenous Workshop participants stressed the need for involvement processes to respect the diversity within and between Indigenous groups. A common view expressed was that Indigenous involvement should be guided by Elders from the Traditional Owner group. However Indigenous Workshop participants also spoke about the risk of losing the support or involvement of most other community members if only the Elders were involved and also commented that claims from organisations that say they represent the whole community should not be taken at face value.

Indigenous Workshop participants raised a range of issues concerning Indigenous representatives on natural resource management committees. Participation of Indigenous people in committees is valuable but could often be more fruitful. “If an agency or committee is seeking representation of relevant

Indigenous people, then there should always be more than one representative – each tribal group in the committee’s area of operation needs to be represented, with a minimum of two people. This is to reduce the risk of burnout, and to help provide a collective perspective. Representatives need to also be well respected by their communities, elected by their communities and knowledgeable about local issues”.

7.3 Government and Organisational Culture Indigenous Workshops emphasised the need to change legislation and policies as part of developing capacity to enable Indigenous involvement in the long term. They also stressed the need for a coordinated approach by government agencies.

Relationship building, mutual respect and understanding of values and trust were important themes in the recommendations of agency representatives. A number of people commented that “natural resource management is part of Indigenous culture” and “Indigenous cultural heritage protection is inseparable from natural resource management decision making”. Others noted the importance of “recognising Indigenous spiritual connections to the land, even though this is challenging to the culture of governments”.

There is widespread recognition of the need for more lateral and creative approaches to Indigenous involvement, moving away from the standard mechanisms used for non-Indigenous community involvement, to processes that are more appropriate to Indigenous values and culture.

Agency representatives recommended symbolic as well as practical actions. Several emphasised the value of publicly acknowledging and recognising Traditional Owners when activities are taking place on their Country. However, Indigenous participants who supported this gesture, stressed that it is important such symbolic actions are not tokenistic. Where government agencies, political and non-Indigenous community leaders have built good relationships with Indigenous people and are implementing processes to effectively involve them in decision making, then they can be confident that they are welcome onto Country by Traditional Owners. However, without attention to the quality of relationships with Traditional Owners and to accountability to Traditional Owners’ customary responsibility to care for Country, then words of acknowledgement and welcome are empty gestures.

Agency representatives focused on the need to build corporate support and direction for effective Indigenous involvement. They emphasised changes that need to take place in organisational policy and thinking and the need for better understanding about Indigenous issues. Because of the need for corporate recognition of the issues and agency responses to them, many government representatives said that Ministers and senior managers need to have a

80 thorough understanding of the complexity of achieving meaningful Indigenous involvement. Some commented on the importance of these influential people developing understanding through personal relationships with Indigenous people, as this can be a strong motivator for implementing change.

Most agency representatives recommended that agency staff and non- Indigenous committee members must attend cultural awareness training. Furthermore, the importance of this training being good quality and appropriate to the interest and issues within the agency’s area of responsibility was frequently mentioned. The outcomes being sought from cultural awareness training are positive shifts in corporate attitude and a heightened awareness and understanding by staff and non-Indigenous committee members of the issues faced by Indigenous people. Such outcomes will require a multifaceted and ongoing program to manage this cultural change, not just ‘one-off’ training workshops.

Agency representatives also made many recommendations on Indigenous employment within agencies. Common recommendations were: • more Indigenous employment; • more senior Indigenous staff; • better support for Indigenous employees, particularly in relation to expectations and responsibilities associated with Indigenous community liaison; and • adequate resources for professional development, training and mentoring.

Indigenous people at Workshops also strongly recommended more Indigenous employment on natural resource management issues in the Basin for purposes such as monitoring resource condition and advising the Murray-Darling Basin Commission on decision making processes.

7.4 Resources Indigenous people commented throughout the series of Workshops on the need for Indigenous representatives in decision making processes to be adequately resourced, including having access to an office and communications infrastructure.

Many agency representatives also recommended that Indigenous peoples’ involvement be properly resourced. Other than funding for meeting expenses, communications equipment, operating costs, and increased Indigenous employment, Indigenous people’s main requirement is that involvement processes provide sufficient time to allow for their effective input. Many agency representatives recommended that overt recognition be given to the need for sufficient time to accommodate effective communication and Indigenous community involvement.

7.5 Indigenous Capacity Building Indigenous people at the Workshops raised the need for the cultural skills and experience of Indigenous people to be acknowledged. They felt this is often overlooked which can result in their confidence and capacity to contribute being diminished.

One specific suggestion is that a local Indigenous person be employed in each region in a natural resource management contact and coordinator role. This might be a full time or a part time position depending on the region, and the position would need to be adequately supported for communications and administration.

Agency representatives considered that Indigenous communities will benefit from training and other support to build capacity in the following areas: • government processes and government culture; • priority setting; • government natural resource management decision making processes – so Indigenous people can understand more about how they can be involved; • technical and scientific knowledge - to enhance Indigenous groups understanding of agency perspectives on natural resource management issues; • leadership; • management of Indigenous owned land; • natural resource management planning - allowing Indigenous groups to develop their own plans and feed these into broader natural resource management planning processes; and • documenting and managing cultural heritage.

7.6 Involvement Processes The Indigenous Workshops strongly advocated for more Indigenous control in natural resource management decision making and greater ability to develop partnerships. Participants at several Workshops recommended a change from the meaningless consultation that they consider many government agencies currently undertake to genuine involvement of Indigenous people which includes support to make decisions and negotiate with governments. Workshop participants said that all processes of natural resource management decision making should be transparent and open to Indigenous involvement - “doors must be glass and no lock!”

At several of the Workshops, it was recommended that strategies be developed which will forge real financial partnership between landholders, businesses, government and the Indigenous community through the shared use of land and water resources.

Workshop participants saw accountability to Indigenous people for the protection of cultural heritage sites to be critical to effective Indigenous involvement. They said that Indigenous people should control all Indigenous heritage issues. The Workshops recommended that Aboriginal cultural heritage studies be conducted before land development plans are written and that these studies be used to inform ongoing management of land and water.

At all of the Indigenous Workshops it was recommended that the process of consulting with Indigenous people regarding their involvement in natural resource management decision making should continue beyond the completion of this Scoping Study, through similarly organised Workshops.

A broad array of recommendations were put forward by agency representatives about processes for Indigenous involvement. They vary in their focus, which often reflects the experience of each agency in involving Indigenous people in natural resource management issues and their assessment of the agency’s current effectiveness in this area.

Those recommendations that look beyond the immediate opportunities and problems presented by existing processes for Indigenous involvement relate to: • moving from consultation to a partnership approach; • reviewing and robust evaluation of existing efforts; • promoting recognition of successful outcomes; • ensuring processes are resilient and not reliant on individuals; and • ensuring Indigenous involvement occurs from the start of a project or decision making process and continues into the implementation stages.

Other recommendations by agency representatives concerned more culturally appropriate processes for involvement of Indigenous people. Those not mentioned elsewhere in this Report concern: • the timing of meetings - attendance at weekday meetings can mean Indigenous people who are employed lose income; • the preference of many Indigenous people to hold meetings ‘on Country’ is important to take into account when deciding the format and location of meetings; • ensure that representatives have a thorough understanding of the issues, This can be achieved through conducting pre-meeting workshops for Indigenous people only, where they can discuss the issues and be briefed on technical matters; and • learning from community forestry programs in other countries. These involve devolution of management responsibility for forest products with the rights to forest products accruing to local Indigenous communities to be used to enhance community natural resource management capacity.

7.7 Negotiating Partnerships with Traditional Owners In natural resource management decision making, it is appropriate that agencies pay most attention to effective involvement of Traditional Owners because only they can ‘speak for Country’. Agency efforts, if they are to be effective, must focus on negotiating and building strong partnerships with Traditional Owners. This is because current consultation processes, in which agencies retain ultimate power to formulate proposals and to accept or reject Traditional Owner’s responses, cannot give due respect to Traditional Owners perspectives and their rights and responsibilities which they have through customary law and tradition.

Consultations highlighted two models for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management which are new and based on negotiating partnerships between Traditional Owners and governments: the Memorandum of Understanding being negotiated with the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN); and the On Ground On Country model developed in Queensland.

These models have been developed by Traditional Owners with involvement or advice from agency representatives in response to the problems experienced with established mechanisms for Indigenous consultation. The discussion which follows (Boxes 7.1 and 7.2) explores how these models address the requirements for effective interactions between Traditional Owners and agencies.

Box 7.1: Memorandum of Understanding: Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations and the Murray Darling Basin Commission Source: Draft MOU, March 2002 The Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) has been negotiating with the Murray Darling Basin Commission to conclude a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a framework for the participation of the Indigenous Nations (which belong to MLDRIN) in the management of the Basin. While New South Wales has signed the MOU, the Victorian and South Australian governments are currently involved in negotiations.

MLDRIN is a collective or confederation whose members are Traditional Owner groups whose Country is in Victorian, South Australian and New South Wales’ parts of the Murray Darling Basin on the River Murray, the Lower Darling River and Menindee Lakes. It was formed to provide direction for the involvement of these peoples in management of natural resources in their traditional Country and to express their views in a coordinated and united way, particularly on issues which extend beyond the local area of any one group.

The proposed MOU between MLDRIN and the Commission is to be current for three years, with provisions for extension and regular review. It is a mechanism to identify and promote actions for achieving effective Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making.

Under the terms of the proposed MOU, frameworks and processes would be developed to enable each Indigenous Nation to reach agreements with MLDRIN and the Commission on issues such as representation, participation in environmental resource management, cultural heritage, native title and social and economic justice.

The proposed MOU recognises that MLDRIN and the Commission have shared interests and shared goals, and wish to collaborate and develop transparent processes for incorporating the aspirations and traditions of Indigenous Nations into natural resource management. MLDRIN and the Commission would work together to help ensure that the natural resources of the Murray and Lower Darling are managed so that the efficient and sustainable use of natural resources benefits Indigenous peoples. The proposed MOU acknowledges that Traditional Owner views are best coordinated through MLDRIN, but without excluding other interested Indigenous groups. It also acknowledges the effectiveness of traditional processes of communication.

The Commission will support MLDRIN in representing Indigenous Nations’ views by providing a forum, resources and access to information and expertise. MLDRIN will reciprocate by promoting participation by the Indigenous Nations in its area, promoting issues of common concern to those Indigenous Nations, and establishing processes for interaction between government and Indigenous Nations which respect traditional methods/processes of communication.

The proposed MOU is not intended to prevent either party from entering into other agreements, nor is it intended to create legally binding obligations.

The On Ground On Country model, below, promotes a partnership between Traditional Owners and other stakeholders in catchment management through parallel Indigenous and non-Indigenous committees which work closely with each other. It was recommended by Indigenous people at the Cunnamulla Indigenous Workshop and by some Queensland agency representatives as a way to ensure coordinated and authoritative involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management.

Box 7.2: On Ground On Country Source: On Ground On Country (proposal) 2002 ‘On Ground On Country’ was developed in November 2001 by representatives of the two peak Indigenous organisations for the Queensland section of the Murray-Darling Basin - Queensland South Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation and the South Queensland Traditional Owners’ Federation Inc. The Queensland Murray Darling Committee Inc, Catchment Management Association coordinators and the Queensland Indigenous Land Management Facilitator were also involved. The model addresses weaknesses these people identified in approaches to Indigenous involvement which rely on Indigenous representatives on natural resource management decision making and advisory bodies.

In ‘On Ground On Country’, local, catchment and regional Indigenous advisory groups operate in parallel with committees for non-Indigenous community input to natural resource management decision making. Group coordinators are employed to facilitate input by Indigenous advisory groups to natural resource management decisions, promote training and capacity building, undertake monitoring and evaluation, develop

85 information and support networks, and provide a contact point for agencies and non- Indigenous community members.

This bottom-up approach provides for: • decision making about traditional Country by the right people from the ground up - through the establishment of Indigenous catchment advisory groups from within Traditional Owner (clan based) groups; • Indigenous involvement from local level through to peak decision making, through nested organisations which are accountable ‘down the line’ for their decisions, with ultimate accountability to Traditional Owner groups; • clear lines of communication, facilitated by the employment of coordinators with administrative and communications support; and • support structures for ‘on the ground’ action by Indigenous people in natural resource management. On Ground On Country model for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making

MDB Advisory QMDC Agencies ETC... Ctee

RIAG COORDINATOR ROLES: RESOURCES: Establish networks: agencies & local Coordination government; Travel Input to Policy; Admin Support Regional Support CIAG Meetings Indigenous Coordinators; Advisory Group Admin support for RIAG members; Facilitate Partnerships

CIAG RESOURCES: Catchment Catchment Catchment COORDINATOR ROLES: Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Coordination Advisory Advisory Advisory Facilitate and Travel Group Group Group support local NRM Meetings & planning; Workshops On ground project development & On Ground Local Traditional Owner (Clan Based) Groups & management; Projects Indigenous People with Historical Association with Facilitate Training Local Area & Capacity Building Capacity Building Activities; Networking; M&E

7.7.1 Representation at Regional and Basin Levels Traditional Owners’ authority to speak for particular areas of Country operates at a local scale, though it may well encompass a large territory. For effective involvement of Traditional Owners in issues that concern the broader regional landscape, it is important that the authority of Traditional Owners can be scaled up. There needs to be an effective mechanism for Traditional Owner groups to reach agreement about how they will approach their involvement in decisions affecting regional and Basin issues with implications which extend beyond each of their respective local areas.

However scaling up can be problematic. Participants at Indigenous Workshops stressed the need to recognise diversity amongst Indigenous people. This diversity, together with a host of other factors including inadequate resources and the competitiveness of politics and human nature, can present barriers to developing effective mechanisms for Traditional Owner involvement beyond the local scale, and certainly at the scale of the Murray-Darling Basin.

The capacity to scale up decision making by Traditional Owners is important because natural resource management operates at multiple scales. The issues of concern to Indigenous people in natural and cultural resource management also need action at multiple levels. Protecting some important natural and cultural resources, such as discrete populations of threatened plants and animals, or discrete heritage sites such as canoe trees, require decision making at a local level. However, for many natural and cultural resource issues, effective management requires decisions at regional and landscape levels. Issues like salinity and restoration of environmental flows in rivers require coordinated thinking, decisions and actions across the entire Murray Darling Basin.

Both the MLDRIN and the On Ground On Country models offer mechanisms that operate at multiple levels. They nest organisations of Traditional Owners (Indigenous Nations in the case of MLDRIN and Catchment Indigenous Advisory Groups in the case of On Ground On Country) within a tiered structure. Higher levels of the structure (MLDRIN itself, and Catchment Regional Indigenous Advisory Committees in the case of On Ground On Country) are constituted to represent the views of local Traditional Owners on issues of broader scales. This is something which is not offered by any of the established mechanisms for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management in the Murray Darling Basin. However because of their different areas of operation and their different institutional structures, as discussed below, neither model can be readily scaled up to provide a forum for Traditional Owner decision making across the whole Murray-Darling Basin where the Commission’s influence is affected.

7.7.2 Indigenous Structures and Regional Decision Making Existing mechanisms for Indigenous decision making at regional and state-wide scales do not provide the same Traditional Owner authority as MLDRIN and the On Ground On Country model. For example, neither ATSIC nor the NSW Aboriginal Land Council are constituted to represent Traditional Owners. Native Title Representative Bodies may have the capacity to establish the views of Traditional Owner groups within their area of responsibility and synthesise these to form a view that is representative of Traditional Owners on broader scale issues.

However, the capacity of the Native Title Representative Bodies to represent the views of Traditional Owners groups depends on the extent of their resources, which are typically limited; the extent to which they engage all the Traditional Owner groups in their area of operation, which is typically patchy; and the extent to which Traditional Owner groups trust them to transmit their views, and such trust may be negligible at worst and precarious at best. On Ground On Country, through its creation as a bottom-up process, is more buffered from this criticism. However, MLDRIN, which is derived through an essentially top-down approach, is more vulnerable to the same suite of shortcomings as the Native Title Representative Bodies arrangements which were also derived through a top- down process.

A nested structure for decision making and advocacy by Traditional Owner groups at regional and state-wide levels analogous to the MLDRIN approach is being developed in South Australia as part of State-wide native title negotiations (Morrison 2000; Agius and Davies 2002). This process brings together Native Title Management Committees from across South Australia and has close involvement by Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (the Native Title Representative Body for South Australia). The matters that are the subject of negotiations are not restricted to legal definitions of where native title continues to exist. This South Australian Congress of Native Title Management Committees is still in early stages of building capacity for involvement in natural resource management decisions and since only one of its constituent Traditional Owner groups has Country in the Basin, its relevance to Murray-Darling Basin decision making is marginal other than for matters which specifically concern South Australian legislation and policy.

7.7.3 Requirements of Effective Traditional Owner Involvement This Report reiterates the commonly expressed needs which both the MLDRIN and the On Ground On Country approaches have responded to in their development and pursuit of culturally appropriate processes, adequate resources and capacity building within Traditional Owners groups to enable effective participation in natural resource management decision making.

Both approaches provide a framework for culturally appropriate processes by establishing forums where Traditional Owners can meet together to consider issues, rather than being part of broader (non-Indigenous) community consultation processes. Both approaches provide for Indigenous people to control how issues are presented, debated and decided, which is important if processes are to be culturally appropriate. One of MLDRIN’s responsibilities under the proposed MOU is to establish processes for interaction between government and the Indigenous Nations which respect traditional methods and processes of communication. It could be expected from this that MLDRIN will give significant consideration to articulating the key elements of these processes and promoting awareness of them amongst agencies and Indigenous people engaged in natural resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Both the MLDRIN and the On Ground On Country models will need adequate financial resources to ensure effective Indigenous involvement. It is well known, through examples such as the establishment of the South Australian Congress of Native Title Management Committees and the hand-back lease for Mutawintji National Park, the costs of maintaining accountabilities and information flows with Traditional Owners and of building capacity within communities are very considerable.

The On Ground On Country model is more specific than the MLDRIN MOU about the specific tasks that require resourcing. It nominates coordinator salaries and travel costs, meeting and Workshop costs, administrative support requirements training and capacity building costs and proposes a partnership with agencies to secure these resources.

One of the specific issues that the On Ground On Country model aims to address is Indigenous people’s difficulties in accessing information on natural resource management issues. In this model, paid coordinators are an important conduit for information flow to Traditional Owners.

Under the proposed MOU between MLDRIN and the Murray Darling Basin Commission, the Commission has a responsibility to provide information, expertise and data to Traditional Owners. The draft MOU is not specific about how this information will flow to members of MLDRIN, however, this is predicted to be one of the areas to be resolved through negotiations between MLDRIN and Indigenous Nations that are foreshadowed in the draft MOU.

7.7.4 Institutional Structures A significant difference exists between MLDRIN and On Ground On Country in their institutional structures. At the local level, On Ground On Country operates through Catchment Indigenous Advisory Groups established to parallel ‘mainstream’ Catchment Management groups. It is unlikely that catchment boundaries coincide with the boundaries of tribal or clan group territories. Some

89 local Catchment Groups might operate over only part of a tribal or clan group territory and in other cases parts of more than one tribal or clan territory will be within a local Catchment group area. At the regional level, On Ground On Country’s Regional Indigenous Advisory Group also parallels the ‘mainstream’ regional structure and it is, again, unlikely that the boundaries of this regional area of operation coincide with tribal or clan group boundaries.

In contrast, at the local level MLDRIN operates through what MLDRIN itself has termed “Indigenous Nations”. It is these groups, whose territories are determined through interpretation of Indigenous custom and tradition, that are the building blocks for the regional scale organisation, MLDRIN itself. The boundaries of traditional territories may not however have much relationship to the catchment and administrative boundaries used by agencies for natural resource management.

There are advantages and disadvantages in both these approaches. On Ground On Country has the advantage of providing an Indigenous structure that is ‘streamlined’ to operate within a catchment management framework. This is likely to promote efficiencies in the transmission of information between Traditional Owner groups, ‘mainstream’ catchment groups and agencies, and also enhance natural resource management agency consideration of Traditional Owner decisions and views. However, there may be disadvantages from having more than one Traditional Owner group potentially involved in each local committee by reducing the efficiency of Traditional Owners’ decision making processes. The members of local Traditional Owners groups may have no established process for working together and may take longer to come to a decision. Also, since the basis for boundaries between natural resource management administrative regions are different between agencies and States, though perhaps becoming less so as integrated approaches to natural resource management are established, the On Ground On Country model may not translate well to settings outside the Queensland catchment management situation in which it was developed.

With the MLDRIN structure, decision making at the local scale may be more straightforward than for On Ground On Country because each Indigenous Nation (or Traditional Owners group) would make its own decisions drawing on customary practices, without the need to have to relate to a particular catchment structure. However, this decision making processes is likely to be problematic, given that the impact of colonisation means that traditional governance systems and structures are being re-established. MLDRIN has the advantage that members of each Indigenous Nation do not have to negotiate with Traditional Owners from outside their own group in making local area decisions. Further, the MLDRIN model could act as an incentive for re-empowerment of, and support for, governance mechanisms of Traditional Owner groups, and this is likely to bring other benefits to these groups’ capacity for input to natural resource management.

MLDRIN has the clear disadvantage for government agencies in that it has yet to be determined how Traditional Owner decisions and views will be accommodated with those from mainstream forums because of the lack of ‘fit’ between the territories of Indigenous Nations and the catchment and administrative boundaries currently used by agencies.

7.7.5 Authority of Representatives How are representatives of Traditional Owner groups selected in the On Ground On Country model and in the MLDRIN approach? Can outsiders have confidence that the ‘right people’ will be involved. Do the processes provide an acceptable level of transparency?

Authoritative representation in decision making structures is an issue for agencies as well as Indigenous people as there is a strong desire to ensure that the people sitting around the table can legitimately speak for Country, as discussed in more detail in Section 4.15 of this Report.

MLDRIN and On Ground On Country deal with representation differently and specific information on the methods for ensuring transparency and accountability is not available. Therefore the following discussion relies on principles learned by the Project Team gained through research and experience with Indigenous governance arrangements.

One difference between the two approaches is that the On Ground On Country model specifies that Catchment Indigenous Advisory Groups comprise representatives of both Traditional Owner groups in the catchment area and of those people/families with a historical connection to the local area, such as from long standing residence. On the other hand, the building blocks for MLDRIN are Indigenous Nations, which is generally interpreted to mean Traditional Owners only, at the exclusion of ‘historical people’. However this difference is not significant in that the question of whether or not Traditional Owners recognise the contingent rights of historical people to be involved in decisions on natural resource management is a matter for those Traditional Owners in terms of the principles of Indigenous customary law. The Indigenous Nations which comprise MLDRIN may actually vary considerably in their approaches to this issue.

As this issue indicates, and as was discussed in Section 4, the processes that operate under Indigenous customary law for determining who can authoritatively speak for Country are rarely transparent to outsiders. Indigenous people in Workshops for this Scoping Study called for transparency in government decision making processes. Conversely, the extent to which agencies can require reciprocal transparency in Indigenous decision making particularly on questions of inclusiveness and representation which are frequently contested is an issue yet to be resolved. This dilemma was raised by a

91 number of agency representatives. The issue of ensuring that involvement processes are inclusive was also raised in Indigenous Workshops.

A weakness in both the MLDRIN and On Ground On Country models is that, as yet, neither appears to include mechanisms which might assure government and industry bodies that they authoritatively represent Traditional Owners. It is not clear on the information available that the self-defined Indigenous Nations that are part of the MLDRIN confederation do include all the Indigenous people who might claim authority as Traditional Owners. Nor is it clear how the voice of these Indigenous Nations will be authoritatively represented in MLDRIN’s decisions and advocacy. In On Ground On Country, it is not clear how the community of “Local Traditional Owner (Clan Based) Groups and Indigenous People with Historical Association” (refer to Box 7.2) is to be identified, nor how it will select its representatives for Catchment Indigenous Advisory Committees.

Self determination principles establish that Indigenous people have the right to define and determine their own destinies as individuals and as cultural groups. It follows that agencies should accept that the organisations that Indigenous people have developed to represent their collective interests are authoritative and representative in terms of their own criteria. Nevertheless, Indigenous organisations are also accountable to people outside their group if they are in receipt of significant public funds.

Where the basis for public funding being granted to Indigenous organisations is that the organisation authoritatively represents Traditional Owners, those organisations are accountable to the broader community for delivering that authoritative representation. Society also expects equity in process in that where control or other rewards accrue to particular groups, then the gains should go to all who are eligible rather than a select or better informed sub-set. However, it is important not to be distracted by these issues, since the key issue is that economic, symbolic and practical are established and successfully managed between agencies and the appropriate Traditional Owners.

Further, if governments or stakeholders are to negotiate with Traditional Owner representatives and make agreements about natural resource management that affect their own interests, as Indigenous people said is required, then there needs to be certainty that the authority of the Traditional Owner representatives to make agreements will not subsequently be challenged by other Indigenous people. These are reasons why the Native Title Act includes a certification process and a registration test for native title claims, as discussed in Section 4.5. These requirements provide a basis for third parties to be confident that Traditional Owner representatives are authoritatively representing the Traditional Owner group, yet they also respect the governance mechanisms of Traditional Owner groups by not exposing them to public scrutiny or judgement.

In making decisions about how to promote recognition of the rights and responsibilities that Traditional Owner groups have from their customary law, and how to support scaling-up representation of these rights and responsibilities so they can influence regional and Basin wide decision making processes, it will be important that the Murray Darling Basin Commission and other agencies carefully consider potential mechanisms which will provide assurance that Traditional Owner representation is authoritative. However, the expectation of authoritative representation has to be realistic and cognisant of the reality of contemporary Indigenous politics. This is a key issue with implications for the robustness and resilience of all efforts by agencies to promote Traditional Owner involvement in natural resource management decision making.

7.8 Culturally Appropriate Processes for Involving Local Indigenous Communities It is important that Indigenous people who are not Traditional Owners are included in opportunities for involvement in natural resource management decision making. Governments also have a responsibility to ensure that natural resource management decisions, along with other government decisions, contribute to improving the socio-economic status of all Indigenous people.

Most Indigenous people who live in the Murray-Darling Basin have an interest in natural resource management whether they are Traditional Owners or not, through their fishing, camping and hunting activities. They are concerned about environmental degradation and are seeking a stronger economic future for their families.

In order to facilitate their involvement in natural resource management decision making in the Murray-Darling Basin, governments need to develop and implement culturally appropriate processes. The absence of these processes was raised as a barrier in Section 6, and the following discussion outline some of the key elements for improving involvement.

As is the case with most other sectors of the community, use of plain English and visual material in communicating about natural resource management issues will assist in promoting local Indigenous community understanding about these issues, and encourage community members to take advantage of opportunities for involvement in natural resource management decision making. However as discussed elsewhere in this Report, Indigenous people are often not comfortable with getting involved in ‘mainstream’ consultation processes. Special provisions for involvement of Indigenous people are needed in order for the extent and quality of Indigenous involvement to match that of non-Indigenous community sectors.

Probably the most effective mechanism for involvement as often raised during the consultations was for Indigenous only meetings and Workshops facilitated by

Indigenous people. These forums require flexible agendas and allocation of time appropriate to Indigenous context for decision making. When natural resource management information, particularly of a technical nature is provided to Indigenous participants, it must be in a timeframe which allows for the development of an understanding and integration into their perspectives and views.

Interaction between agency representatives and Indigenous community members needs to be of an on-going nature so that relationships can be built and an understanding of context and priorities can be developed, providing on-going feedback about planning and decision making issues and processes.

Regular meetings on routine and on-going management issues not only provide the basis for good relationships, but help dissipate the frustration associated with the circumstances where Indigenous communities are confronted by demands for urgent input to decisions with tight timeframes and no opportunity for culturally appropriate ways of addressing the issues.

It is preferable that meetings are held on Country or in locations particularly relevant to the issues being considered. Holding meetings on Country assist in providing a support structure for Indigenous participants, enabling them to communicate more effectively in their community. Being on site with respect to issues helps Indigenous people (as it does with non-Indigenous people) better understand the issues in their environmental context.

It is important that all meetings are reported in writing as well as orally, so that participants have information they can easily pass on to other community members. As well as meeting reports and written newsletters, video newsletters, local radio programs and articles in local and Indigenous press are valuable tools and are already in widespread use by Indigenous affairs sectors of government and Indigenous organisations for communicating with Indigenous community members across Australia.

7.9 Indigenous People and ‘Mainstream’ Natural Resource Management Committees As this Scoping Study has established, inclusion of one or two Indigenous people on advisory committees or boards is currently the most common mechanism for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making, and is likely to be prevalent in future. Although this level of involvement is better than nothing, there were a number of criticisms levelled at it by people involved in the consultations. Some of the criticisms raised were about the need for greater clarity about the purpose and intended outcomes from Indigenous membership of committees. Defining the role of Indigenous members of committees assists in clarifying the expectations of the committee itself, the government agencies involved and, most importantly, the Indigenous member/s.

Indigenous committee members may have either an ‘expert’ or a ‘representative’ function. This has implications for how they are selected and for their resource requirements and accountabilities.

7.9.1 Indigenous Representatives on Committees Where the purpose of including an Indigenous person on an natural resource management committee is to represent the views of Indigenous communities in deliberations or decisions, then the following questions should be considered:

Who does the Indigenous person represent – Traditional Owner group(s) or the local Indigenous community? The answer will depend on the purpose of the committee and the aims for Indigenous involvement. Traditional Owners involvement is required when the issues relate specifically to Indigenous customary rights and responsibilities for Country. Local Indigenous community involvement is required when broader social goals such as regional economic development are being considered.

How is the Indigenous representative selected? The representative should be nominated by the group they are representing (either the Traditional Owners or the local Indigenous community), otherwise they can not be accountable to that group (refer to Section 4.15).

How will the Indigenous representative maintain accountability to the group they represent? Accountability requires the ability to communicate and report to the group whom they are representing. This has resourcing implications which need to be addressed by the committee and its sponsoring agency. Time to undertake communication in a culturally appropriate manner is also critical as discussed elsewhere.

7.9.2 Indigenous People Providing a Broad Indigenous Perspective Indigenous people can bring valuable knowledge and perspectives to natural resource management committees in an ‘expert’ role, without any expectation that they are representing the views or interests of the Indigenous community. They bring an Indigenous perspective to the table, provide a conscience to help ensure that other committee members do not overlook the need to consider the rights and interests of Traditional Owners and local Indigenous communities in their deliberations. Their input can promote better understanding by other committee members of Indigenous perspectives and the cultural significance of natural resources. Indigenous people can also provide advice based on their own knowledge and experiences about how committees and agencies can effectively involve Traditional Owners and local Indigenous communities.

Where Indigenous people are to be appointed to committees for their expertise, open selection processes based on essential and desirable criteria for the position should be applied in order to attract suitable expertise and ensure equity and transparency. Remuneration for this expertise should be appropriate to the role and expected responsibilities and accountabilities. Local Indigenous communities and Traditional Owner groups should not be excluded from nominating people to these ‘expert’ positions, and normally it is important that Indigenous communities are involved in selection processes. An extensive and comprehensive advertising should be undertaken and a normal equitable, merit based selection processes should apply.

7.9.3 Indigenous-Only Workshops and Forums Forums where Indigenous people can consider and debate issues amongst themselves are an important adjunct to the inclusion of Indigenous people on ‘mainstream’ committees. This issue was raised in the consultations and is referred to in Section 7.6. Regardless of other involvement mechanisms that operate, such forums should be considered wherever there is a need for a broad range of Indigenous views to be considered on specific issues, prior to a decision being made. Such forums should be culturally appropriate and might involve either members of Traditional Owner groups or of local Indigenous communities or both, depending on their purpose. For these forums to be meaningful and effective, it is essential that they are driven by members of the Indigenous community and adequately supported by government agencies.

7.9.4 Indigenous Advisory Panel Some Indigenous Workshop participants recommended the establishment of an Indigenous body with equal status to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission which would work in parallel and with the Commission in natural resource management decision making. This Indigenous Advisory Panel would similarly advise Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council on issues of concern to Indigenous people across the Murray-Darling Basin. Such a Panel would go a long way to serve the aspirations of Indigenous people for greater control over natural resource management and utilisation, and put them on equal footing with mainstream resource management interests. The role of this Panel could be similar to the Indigenous Advisory Committee established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to advise the Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage.

7.10 Indigenous Involvement in Research The question of Indigenous involvement in research was barely raised or considered by the people consulted for this Scoping Study, possibly due to their current interests being focussed mainly on gaining ‘a seat at the table’. However,

96 some very positive outcomes for Indigenous empowerment and for innovation in approaches to sustainable management of lands and species have stemmed from collaborations between Indigenous groups and scientists. These outcomes are predominantly from northern Australia and central Australia. There would be value in applying lessons from these regions in exploring the potential contribution of collaborative research to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making in the Murray Darling Basin. Some pertinent issues to consider are:

• Indigenous peoples’ involvement in setting research priorities on natural resource management issues; • Traditional Owners’ consent for research that takes place on their Country; • Consent and benefit sharing for Traditional Owners from use of natural resources for which they hold cultural and intellectual property; • Opportunities for building Indigenous people’s understanding of scientific and agency approaches to natural resource management through involvement in the research activities; and • The value of incorporating Indigenous people’s local and traditional knowledge in natural resource management research.

7.11 Indigenous Employment It is important to reiterate the contribution that Indigenous employees make to the capacity of agencies to involve Indigenous people. Employment of Indigenous people also increases the ability of Indigenous communities to communicate, understand and relate to government agencies and their processes. However, Indigenous employment must be part of the agency’s broader approach to involving Indigenous people.

In addition to beneficial outcomes from Indigenous employment within agencies that are noted from consultations for this Scoping Study, experience from northern and central Australia and from the Indigenous Land Management Facilitators network suggests that Indigenous communities’ capacity to contribute to natural resource management decision making is markedly improved where specialist paid Indigenous staff are engaged to work within Indigenous communities to facilitate and promote involvement. This concurs with the experience of the Project Team. Employment needs to be targeted at roles which focus on community involvement in decision making rather than the more common current situation where field work - “stick and bone” protection - is interpreted as involvement of Indigenous people in decision making.

Establishment of Indigenous land management services and community ranger work forces are initiatives that are returning multi-faceted outcomes for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management elsewhere in Australia but still don’t address the fundamental issue of involvement of Indigenous people

97 in natural resource management decision making as an equal and legitimate participant.

At several Indigenous Workshops, it was strongly suggested that Indigenous members of natural resource management committees be remunerated by the relevant agency as if they were an employee, in recognition of the efforts required to adequately consult and effectively involve the Indigenous communities they represent. The suggestions for employment ranged from full time to a few days per month, depending on the workload and responsibilities of the committee. A key aspect of this suggestion was that the employee be community-based.

As other studies have shown, it is important for agencies to continue working on Indigenous employment initiatives and ensure that they are adequately resourced so they are not ‘set up to fail’.

7.12 Raising Awareness in the Non-Indigenous Community Several agency representatives highlighted the need to build understanding of Indigenous values and perspectives within the non-Indigenous community in order for there to be greater acceptance of the role of Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making. Mechanisms suggested for building the understanding in the future centred on providing cultural awareness training for all natural resource management stakeholders.

One further suggestion was that regional natural resource management committees could use regional meetings as an opportunity to meet members of the local Indigenous community. By rotating meetings around their region, they could progressively build an understanding of Indigenous perspectives in their region and enhance transparency and inclusiveness in their decision making processes through the involvement of a broader range of community members (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people).

8 The Way Forward: Principles and Actions It is clear from the interviews and research undertaken that Indigenous people and governments need to be able to effectively interact so that the involvement of Indigenous people in all levels and layers of natural resource management can be increased and better encompass the wider social agenda of Indigenous people. This can only be achieved through mainstream managers and bureaucracies developing a greater respect for Indigenous people, an understanding of their perspectives and a willingness to share control and responsibilities.

This Section recommends principles and specific actions that, if adopted, will enhance the tangible and meaningful involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making. The following recommendations are based on the views and suggestions received during the consultative phase of this Scoping Study and the experience of the Project Team. They also reflect the objectives and intended outcomes of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council Draft Action Plan to Advance Reconciliation (refer to Section 4.12.2). The recommended principles and actions directly respond to many of the barriers to effective involvement identified in Section 6.

In theory, moving forward using the knowledge that this Scoping Study has elucidated should be a relatively simple matter, but in practice, it will take concerted courage, commitment, resources and a willingness to change.

These recommendations have been discussed and endorsed by the Indigenous Support Group and are a starting point for what needs to be a continuous journey towards meaningful involvement and constructive partnerships that accord with Indigenous ways and aspirations.

8.1 Principles for Indigenous Involvement The principles proposed are intended to guide behaviours and influence processes within the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative, and ensure consistent and grounded approaches to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making. They reflect and build on the principles agreed by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and its Community Advisory Committee articulated in the Integrated Catchment Management Policy Statement.

The following principles focus on achieving inclusive, meaningful and effective outcomes. In carrying out its charter, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission will:

1. involve Indigenous people effectively, enabling them to contribute their special perspectives and knowledge to natural resource management decision making; 2. recognise that the meaningful involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management is a critical part of Australia’s international obligations and national responsibilities; 3. create partnerships between Indigenous peoples and government based on respect, honesty, and capacity to participate equally, with shared responsibility and clearly defined accountability and authority; 4. recognise that Indigenous authority means: • only Traditional Owners can speak for Country and; • Traditional Owners have a responsibility to care for and control their Country (for explanation of Country, refer to Deborah Rose’s quotation in Section 4.2); 5. recognise that natural resource management decisions need to deliver social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes that are equitable and appropriate to all Indigenous people; 6. ensure that the process for selecting Indigenous people involved in natural resource management decision making is trusted and accepted by Indigenous communities which, at the local level, will mean Traditional Owners; 7. ensure and recognise that the perspectives of Indigenous people are important components of any evaluation process that assesses the effectiveness of natural resource management; and 8. recognise that developing the capacity (refer to Section 6.4) of Traditional Owners and local Indigenous communities is an essential and integral component of effective and ongoing Indigenous involvement in natural resource management and that this is a responsibility of all natural resource managers. Implementing effective Indigenous involvement in decision making will also need to be guided by values and behaviours which work towards overcoming some of the barriers identified in Section 6. Participants in the Indigenous Workshops and agency representatives generally believed that there were a number of important considerations which need to pervade natural resource management decision making. 1. It is important to ensure that Traditional Owners in representative roles are delivering ‘authoritative representation’ and are accountable to their community; 2. Effective Indigenous involvement will require an iterative and adaptive approach;

100

3. The impacts of natural resource management decisions on Indigenous peoples’ relationship with Country needs to be taken into account; 4. Communication with Indigenous people needs to take into account the appropriateness of the method, style, delivery, venue and language, recognising the diversity of Indigenous communities across the Murray- Darling Basin; 5. The outcomes of all natural resource management decisions need to be communicated to appropriate Indigenous communities in a manner that makes clear the rationale behind the decisions; and 6. For real Indigenous involvement, it is imperative that governments and natural resource managers provide significant additional resources. It is reasonable to expect that the commitment of government to genuinely inclusive decision making processes for Indigenous people will be judged on the amount of time and other resources allocated. Actions will speak louder than words.

8.2 Actions Throughout the consultations a consistent and often repeated message was that governments need to do something constructive for Indigenous people sooner rather than later and achieve some tangible outcomes and meaningful progress towards their effective involvement in decision making.

This Scoping Study reveals that there is currently much goodwill and intent within government agencies to effectively involve Indigenous people in natural resource management decision making processes.

There can be no argument that there is a growing momentum in the broader Australian community to recognise and acknowledge Indigenous rights and cultural associations with the land. Failing to respond to this strong public support for the resolution of Indigenous issues will result in a lost opportunity for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to take a leadership role in recognising and valuing this core social dimension of natural resource management.

To this end, a number of specific and measurable actions based on analysis of the input received during consultations and which are felt to accord with contemporary public expectations about Indigenous involvement are recommended. These actions are intended to be achievable for the Murray- Darling Basin Commission within a two year timeframe, responding to the views universally expressed that it is essential for government to establish a few “runs on the board” in natural resource management. In its facilitative and coordination role, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office can work with its partner governments and the Community Advisory Committee to encourage a consistent, effective and progressive approach to Indigenous

101 involvement in natural resource management throughout the Murray- Darling Basin.

It is recognised that some people may consider these actions do not go far enough, however, they are intended to establish a foundation of cultural change within the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative.

Action 1: Employment of Indigenous people in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission Office 1.1 A minimum of 5% of positions in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office to be Indigenous identified by the end of 2005. Notionally, this employment could include permanent employees, trainees, contractors and work exchange arrangements. 1.2 The Murray-Darling Basin Commission office to create opportunities for training of Indigenous people at all levels of the organisation, recognising that this is an important component of developing capacity within the Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous community. 1.3 The Murray-Darling Basin Commission office to develop an Indigenous Employment Strategy which will address the full range of employment opportunities, including the two elements recommended above. The multiple benefits of Indigenous employment for both the community and government agencies was consistently raised as an key factor in furthering effective Indigenous involvement (refer to Sections 7.3, 7.4 and 7.11).

Action 2: An Indigenous Unit within the Murray-Darling Basin Commission Office 2.1 Create an Indigenous Engagement and Policy Unit in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office to assist in ensuring Indigenous knowledge and perspectives are included throughout the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative. The primary focus of this Unit could be on issues such as Indigenous water rights, coordination of Basin-wide protocols for Indigenous involvement through mechanisms such as an Indigenous Involvement Strategy, oversee the development of an Indigenous Employment Strategy for the Commission office, and assisting staff in their day-to-day interaction with Indigenous communities. It was noted in the consultations that there are currently very few employment opportunities for Indigenous people within the Commission structure (refer to Section 5.5.1). Further, the Indigenous Support Group strongly supported the recommendation to create an Indigenous Engagement and Policy Unit within the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office which would fulfil an obvious gap in the Commission’s ability to effectively address Indigenous issues and improve Indigenous involvement in natural resource management. They also stated that

102 an Indigenous Engagement and Policy Unit would be an excellent mechanism for implementing the recommendations of the Scoping Study. The creation on an Indigenous Engagement and Policy Unit was further supported by the assessment of those government agency representatives which currently have identified Indigenous roles or positions within their organisations and felt that having these employees created a more integrated and inclusive approach to Indigenous involvement in decision making (refer to Section 5.6.4).

Action 3 Performance Assessment in Management Positions 3.1 The criteria for assessing performance of all management positions within the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office should include measurements which demonstrate: 3.1.1 an ability to engender Indigenous employees with a feeling that they are an integral and valued part of the organisation, empowered to inject an Indigenous perspective into the work of the organisation; and 3.1.2 an ability and willingness to effectively engage and involve the Indigenous community in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s role in natural resource management. A common theme throughout the consultations was that government and agency culture needed to be more responsive to Indigenous needs and perspectives and that this was difficult without corporate recognition of the relevance and complexity of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management issues. Demonstrating awareness and respect for Indigenous knowledge and involvement is critical to leading the necessary change in organisational culture. Senior managers were seen to be a fundamental influence in this process (refer to Section 7.3).

Action 4 Cultural Awareness Training 4.1 All Murray-Darling Basin Commission office staff and long-term contract (greater than 6 months) positions must undertake cultural awareness training. This training needs to be part of a longer term educational process in cultural awareness. 4.2 All members of committees under the auspices of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission must participate in cultural awareness training. Cultural awareness training was seen by most participants as the primary method of initiating the process of building an awareness of Indigenous culture and perspectives amongst the non-Indigenous natural resource management community. Understanding the importance of Indigenous involvement in natural resource management from an Indigenous perspective as outlined in Section 4 was seen as an essential component of creating empathy and receptiveness to Indigenous views on managing the Basin’s natural resources (refer to Sections 5.6.4, 7.3, and 7.12).

103

Action 5 Protocols for Meetings, Site Visits and Communication 5.1 All Murray-Darling Basin Commission meetings should, at the commencement of their meetings, acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which the meeting is taking place. It is important such symbolic actions are not tokenistic. Where there are good relationships between government agencies and Indigenous people, showing respect for Traditional Owners along with some insight into the history and stories of the Country is an active demonstration of goodwill. 5.2 When Murray-Darling Basin Commission staff undertake field trips in the Basin, efforts should be made to spend time talking with Indigenous people to help build relationships and gain their perspective on local issues. 5.3 The Murray-Darling Basin Commission office should adopt communication guidelines and protocols for appropriate interaction with Indigenous people in the Murray-Darling Basin. These could be based on similar guidelines currently in use by partner government agencies. The consultations revealed a significant amount of uncertainty amongst agency representatives regarding appropriate ways of interacting with Indigenous people. Learning from experience in other parts of the Basin, sharing effective communication approaches and developing meaningful symbolic gestures were recognised as important steps in building effective involvement of Indigenous people (refer to Sections 5.6.1, 5.6.6 and 7.3). The Indigenous Support Group suggested that where good relationships exist between government and the Traditional Owners, representatives of the Traditional Owners on whose Country meetings are being held, should be invited to attend the meeting and actively participate in the discussions where appropriate.

Action 6 Indigenous Advisory Panel 6.1 A Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous Advisory Panel should be created to act as a senior reference and advisory body, appointed by Ministerial Council and responsible to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Their role would be to provide advice on: • the appropriateness of Indigenous involvement processes in policy development at a Basin level; • technical matters dealing with Indigenous cultural heritage identification, protection and management; and • Indigenous concerns at national and international levels which are relevant to the Murray-Darling Basin. This Panel should only have Indigenous members and selection should be based on merit and include people with a range of backgrounds and experiences, where

104 merit can be interpreted as a demonstrated knowledge of Indigenous culture and perspectives and having an established Indigenous network. This recommendation is an attempt to help redress the perceived paucity of insight into Indigenous perspectives and roles in the natural resource management agendas of governments across the Murray-Darling Basin which was identified by Indigenous and government participants in this Scoping Study. The idea for an Indigenous Advisory Panel was raised at several Indigenous Workshops (refer to Section 7.9.4) and was strongly endorsed by the Indigenous Support Group.

It is envisaged that this Panel would meet a maximum of twice a year and, where practicable, feed into the Ministerial Council meeting program. The terms of reference could be guided by the proposed principles and be developed in partnership with the proposed Indigenous Engagement and Policy Unit of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office, and the Community Advisory Committee.

The establishment of an Indigenous Advisory Panel parallels the Indigenous Advisory Committee established to advise the Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage on the operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which addresses the significance of Indigenous people's knowledge in the management of land and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (refer to Section 4.13).

Action 7 Indigenous Involvement on the Community Advisory Committee 7.1 The Community Advisory Committee, in its role to inform Ministerial Council of the concerns of the Murray-Darling Basin community, should have Indigenous membership that can effectively contribute Indigenous perspectives. The following issues will need to be considered: • Selection for this Committee should be advertised through appropriately recognised Indigenous communication networks where final decisions are made by the Indigenous Advisory Panel, as recommended above, or a similar entity. Gender balance and geographical distribution across the Basin should be considered; • It is considered that Indigenous membership on the Community Advisory Committee would need to be at least two people, irrespective of the total number of Community Advisory Committee members in order to increase the likelihood of a supportive environment and sharing of the workload; • Resources need to be provided for the Indigenous members of the Community Advisory Committee to network throughout their area of the Basin on a regular basis, particularly prior to, and post,

105

Community Advisory Committee meetings. This is estimated to require a time commitment in the order of one day per week; and • Further support in terms of communication logistics (phone, fax, e- mail) and travel allowances for networking will need to be provided. Additional support mechanisms, such as briefings prior to formal meetings, should be routinely available. While it is impossible to specify the ideal number of Indigenous members for the Community Advisory Committee, people interviewed for this Scoping Study made reference to having only one representative on the Community Advisory Committee as being clearly inadequate, given the current expectations and responsibilities. Many participants who expressed this view had high expectations that this Report would make a recommendation regarding the actual number of Indigenous members on the Community Advisory Committee. In developing a recommendation for an appropriate number of members, considerations such as a balance of perspectives, interests, responsibilities, sensitivity to cultural and social expectations and the need to create a supportive environment for Indigenous members were considered. If the size of the Community Advisory Committee remains at 28 members, then it is proposed that an appropriate number of Indigenous members would be in the order of one Indigenous person for every seven non-Indigenous members. A discussion of the issues to take into consideration when including Indigenous people on committees is presented in Sections 7.9, 7.91 and 7.9.2.

Action 8 Capacity to Participate 8.1 Indigenous participants on Murray-Darling Basin Commission committees require a range of mechanisms to assist them in being more effective. These mechanisms include: • a minimum of two Indigenous representatives on any one committee. including equal gender representation as far as practicable; • promoting the participation of Indigenous committee members in leadership development programs; • providing support to enhance understanding of technical and other issues; • funding to allow consultation throughout the relevant Indigenous communities, covering both time and travel expenses; • providing logistical support such as telephone, fax machine, access to e-mail, etc; • providing adequate timeframes for Indigenous community consultation and feedback within the decision making process; • increasing support for Indigenous committee members by holding some Committee meetings on a member’s traditional land, thereby

106

better enabling members of the local Indigenous community to attend, participate and gain insight to the business of the committee; • adopting a pro-active and innovative approach to Indigenous involvement, such as having specific meetings which focus on Indigenous issues, facilitating access to meetings for additional community members; and • communicating with Indigenous people appropriately, and continually assessing the effectiveness of the committee’s communication and engagement efforts. The lack of capacity of Indigenous people to effectively participate in current natural resource management processes was identified as a major barrier to involvement in decision making processes. This recommendation takes into account the numerous suggestions put forward to overcome these barriers (refer to Sections 6.4, 7.5 and 7.6).

Action 9 Communication and Intellectual Property 9.1 The Murray-Darling Basin Commission office should investigate the issues surrounding the use of Indigenous intellectual property and develop protocols for use across the Murray-Darling Basin. This recommendation arises from the need to clarify the use of intellectual property, for example in relation to Indigenous knowledge about the protection of sites and the use of natural resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is further supported by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which gives consideration to how Indigenous intellectual and cultural property should be taken into account in decision making (refer to Sections 4.13 and 7.10).

Action 10 Integration with Other Government Agencies at a Basin-wide Level 10.1 The Murray-Darling Basin Commission to host an annual forum where government agencies and Indigenous organisations can come together and review current best practise in Indigenous involvement. The forum should include land councils, ATSIC, the Indigenous Land Corporation, Native Title Representative bodies, funding bodies such as the Natural Heritage Trust, as well as natural resource management agencies and Commission partners. It was commonly identified that there is no ‘best practice’ model in Australia for Indigenous involvement which, when compounded by the isolated mode of operation of many government agencies dealing with Indigenous issues, makes the communication and sharing of successful involvement processes more difficult. This recommendation is aimed at enhancing and accelerating proven Indigenous involvement mechanisms (refer to Sections 6.3 and 7.6).

107

Action 11 Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and CoAG Obligations 11.1 The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council should develop a Reconciliation Action Plan as per the Council of Australian Government’s guidelines, or an alternative formal agreement such as an ‘organisational treaty’. This recommendation directly responds to the directive from the Council of Australian Governments in 2000 that Ministerial Councils develop action plans for improving social and economic outcomes for Indigenous people (refer to Section 4.12.2).

Action 12 Reporting Back to the Indigenous Community 12.1 The Murray-Darling Basin Commission office should re-convene the Indigenous Workshops to provide feedback to participants and the local Indigenous community on the content and recommendations of the scoping study on Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making and the integration of Indigenous cultural heritage considerations into relevant Murray-Darling Basin Commission programs (Report name when determined). For the sake of continuity and accountability, it is important that, where possible, the subsequent Workshop is organised by the Local Indigenous Advisor, and this feedback process be conducted by one of the two members of the Consulting Team who undertook the initial Indigenous Workshops. To build on this credibility over a longer period of time, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office’s Indigenous Liaison Officer should also participate. The Project Team, when undertaking the Indigenous Workshops were requested at every Workshop to come back to the community and provide direct feedback on how the community’s input had been incorporated into the Report (refer to Sections 3.9 and 7.6)

8.3 Summary This Report and its recommended actions contain many messages that will challenge people at all levels of government. However, the Project Team believes that there is sufficient goodwill, energy and determination amongst natural resource managers and policy makers that the findings of this Report can provide some insights and positive directions to help empower them to move the Indigenous involvement agenda forward and create tangible outcomes for Indigenous people and the environment of the Murray-Darling Basin.

108

9 References Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. 2001a. Social Justice Report 2001. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney: 67, 94-95 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. 2001b. Native Title Report 2001. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney: 11-54 Agius, P. and Davies, J. 2002. Initiatives in native title and land management in South Australia: the statewide native title negotiations process. 'Shifting Camp' Australian Rangeland Society 15th Biennial conference, Kalgoorlie, WA, 2-5 September 2002, Nicolson, S. and Wilcox, D., Eds.: 201-206. Agius, P. and Davies, J. 2001. Post Mabo institutions for negotiating coexistence: building a statewide negotiation process for native title in South Australia. '2001, Geography - A spatial odyssey' Third Joint Conference of the New Zealand Geographical Society and the Institute of Australian Geographers, University of Otago, Dunedin, 29th January to 2nd February 2001: 5-13. (ANZECC) Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. 2001. Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Environment Australia, Canberra. Accessed online 300902. http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/review. Baker, R., Davies, J. and Young, E., Eds. 2001. Working on Country: contemporary Indigenous management of Australia's lands and coastal regions. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Buchy, M., Ross, H., and Proctor, W. 2000. Enhancing the information base on participatory approaches in Australian natural resource management. Commissioned research report. Land and Water Research and Development Corporation Social and Institutional Research Program. Canberra Chester, J. and Last, P. 2002. Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands in South Australia: Case Study. Getting it Right: Guiding Principles for Natural Resource Management in the 21st Century, Adelaide, Adelaide, 11th-12th March 2002: 105-112. Also reproduced in Environment SA 9(1): pp13 &17. Collings, N. 2002. Water Rights and International Law. in Background Briefing Papers, Water Rights Discussion Booklet. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission & the Lingiari Foundation. Broome. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2002a. Article 8: In-Situ Conservation. Accessed online 270902. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles

109

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2002b. Status and trends of the biological diversity of inland water ecosystems and options for conservation and sustainable use. Decision 4/4 of the Conference of the Parties. Accessed online 270902. http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. 2000. Sustaining the Reconciliation Process: Ways to Implement the National Strategy to Sustain the Reconciliation Process. Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Accessed online 200902. http://www.reconciliation.org.au. Davies, J. 2000. Development of a Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands in South Australia (SAMLISA project). Enhancing the information base on participatory approaches in natural resource management. Buchy, M. and Ross, H., Eds. Commissioned research report. Land and Water Research and Development Corporation Social and Institutional Research Program. Canberra. Davies, J. 2000. Development of a Sustainable resource management strategy for Aboriginal managed lands in South Australia. Australian Rangelands Society Centenary Symposium, 21-24 August 2000, Broken Hill, NSW, August 2000: 122-126. Davies, J. and Moore, G. 2001. Local communities and clan groups: who should government talk to about land management? Working on Country: contemporary Indigenous management of Australia's lands and coastal regions. Baker, R., Davies, J. and Young, E., Eds. Oxford University Press. Melbourne: 110-111. Davies, J. forthcoming 2003. Contemporary geographies of Indigenous rights and interests in rural Australia. Australian Geographer Special edition on future of rural Australia Part 2. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. 2001 Indigenous Partnership Strategy. Victoria State Government. Melbourne (Draft MOU). 2002. Draft Memorandum of Understanding between Murray Lower Darling Indigenous Nations and Murray Darling Basin Commission, March 2002. Environment Australia. 2001a. Indigenous Advisory Committee. 'Accessed online' 290902. http://www.ea.gov.au/Indigenous/iac.html. Environment Australia. 2001b. Reconciliation Action Plan. 'Accessed online' 180902. http://www.ea.gov.au/Indigenous/rap.html. Goodall, A. and Cant, G. 2001. Negotiating the Ngai Tahu tribal claim settlement. '2001, Geography - A spatial odyssey' Third Joint Conference of the New Zealand Geographical Society and the Institute of Australian Geographers, University of Otago, Dunedin, 29th January to 2nd February 2001. Innes, B. 2001. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Natural Resources Unit - Objectives and Activities in NRM decision making(Unpublished notes prepared for Jocelyn Davies). Office of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, Christchurch.

110

Langton, M. 2002. Freshwater. in Background Briefing Papers, Water Rights Discussion Booklet. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission & the Lingiari Foundation. Broome. Lingiari Foundation. 2002. Onshore Water Rights Discussion Booklet. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission & the Lingiari Foundation. Broome. Macdonald, G. M. 1997. 'Recognition and justice': the traditional/historical contradiction in New South Wales. Fighting over Country: anthropological perspectives. Smith, D. E. and Finlayson, J., Eds. CAEPR Research Monograph No 12, Australian National University. Canberra: 65-82. (MDBC) Murray-Darling Basin Commission. 2001. River Murray Environmental Flows Project – Stakeholder Survey. Unpublished, Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Canberra (MDBMC) Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. 1999. Minutes from Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council Meeting – May 1999. Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Canberra Morrison, J. 2001. Uniting the voices: decision making to negotiate for native title in South Australia. Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc, Adelaide. 'Accessed online' 290902. http://www.iluasa.com/alrm.asp#Publications. Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council. 2001. Draft Action Plan to Advance Reconciliation 2001-2002. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry Australia. Canberra. Neidjie, B. , Davis, S and Fox, A. 1985. Kakadu Man. Mybrood P/L inc. NSW 94pp New South Wales Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment. 1999. Statement of Commitment to Reconciliation by NSW Public Sector Chief Executives. Equal Employment Office. Accessed online: 210902. http://www.eeo.nsw.gov.au/reconciliation On Ground On Country. 2002. On Ground On Country Indigenous participation in the Sustainable Management of the Queensland Murray Darling Basin. Unpublished report from the Federation of Traditional Owners Body South Queensland, Qld South Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation, Queensland Murray-Darling Committee Inc. Peart, A. S. 1998. Recreational water use in remote Indigenous communities. Co-operative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Canberra. Accessed online 220902. http://www-nceph.anu.edu.au/Publications/Indig_docs/rwuiric.pdf. Peters-Little, F. 1999. The community game: Aboriginal self-definition at the local level. AIATSIS Research Discussion Paper #10, AIATSIS, Canberra. Puentener, R. 2001. Ngai Tahu and the Department of Conservation. (Unpublished notes prepared for Jocelyn Davies). Office of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, Christchurch.

111

(Queensland – ATSI Policy) Queensland Government. 2001. Strategic Plan 2001 – 2004. Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. Brisbane. (RCIADIC) Australia. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. 1991. National Report by Commissioner Elliott Johnston, QC. AGPS, Canberra. Rose, D. B. 1996. Nourishing Terrains: Australian Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilderness. Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra. SA Native Title Negotiations. 2002. A Proposal To Change South Australia's Aboriginal Heritage Protection Scheme: Discussion Paper by SA Government, SA Farmers Federation, SA Chamber of Mines and Energy and Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc. Accessed online 020702. http://www.iluasa.com/heritage_prot_scheme.asp. SAMLISA Steering Committee. 2000. Sustainable resource management: Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands in South Australia. Aboriginal Lands Trust, Adelaide. (SAMLIV) Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands in Victoria Project Team. 2001. 'Caring for Country': Charting the Future for Indigenous Land and Water Management in Victoria. SAMLIV Workshop, Melbourne, 10-12th December 2001, Davies, J., Rosetto, M. and Prouse, C., Eds. Smith, B. 1989. The concept of community in Aboriginal policy and service delivery. [Unpublished], NADU, Darwin. Sutton, P. 1998. Native title and the descent of rights. National Native Title Tribunal, Perth. Sutton, P. 2001a. Aboriginal country groups and the 'community of native title holders'. National Native Title Tribunal, Perth. Sutton, P. 2001b. Kinds of rights in Country: recognising customary rights as incidents of native title. National Native Title Tribunal, Perth. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. 1998. Crown settlement offer in relation to Ngai Tahu claims under the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Karaka, Special Edition, November 1998. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, Christchurch. Thomsen, D. 2001. Care or control? Ngarrindjeri participation in natural resource planning. Department of Agronomy and Farming Systems, Roseworthy Campus, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide. Thesis. Honours in Natural Resource Management. Vounard, J. 2001. Commonwealth Public Inquiry into Access to Biological Resources in Commonwealth Areas. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Accessed online 290902. http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/science/access/inquiry. Wootten, J. H. 1992. Significant Aboriginal sites in area of proposed Junction Waterhole Dam, Alice Springs. Report to Minister for Aboriginal Affairs under section 10(4) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage Protection Act, 1984.

112

Appendix A — Data collected from Indigenous Workshop and Government Agency Interviews

PART 1: INDIGENOUS CONSULTATION FEEDBACK FROM WORKSHOPS

The notes below are based on the outcomes recorded on the butchers paper from all of the Workshops. This summary has been amalgamated to ensure anonymity of the Workshop participants.

Where numbers appear following statements, they represent the number of Workshops (or the number of people where noted) where the particular sentiment was expressed.

1. Where do you live? Where is your country? Moree, Goodooga, Narrabri, The Coorong, Raukkan, Murray Bridge, Manunka, Buronga, Mildura, Wentworth, Menindee, Albury, Wodonga, Lavington, Thurgoona, Grenfell, Dubbo, Sydney, Brewarrina, Bourke, Wanaaring, Gilgandra, Bourke, Cunnamulla, St George. Some tribal area names included in the above are: Wirradjuri, Barkindji, Weilmoringle, Enngonia, Ngemba, Kamilaroi, Kooma, Kunja, Mardygan, Badjiri, Budjiti (please note that the spelling may vary depending on the source – the above spelling was taken from the groups themselves. Please also note that not all tribal groups are included and it should be regarded as a sample of diversity only). 2. Where do you get your information on cultural heritage and land resource management? Nothing comes directly from MDBC (x 8) We don’t get enough information as it is fed into the wrong channels. There are no official channels. “You have to reach out to find information about this, it doesn’t just come to you” (x 8) We are told to contact the local council about MDBC issues, but they did not respond, and still have not. Native Title claimants get info (x 3).

113

Native Title Rep Body (one person only, Cunnamulla) Elders/traditional owners. e.g. There is a formal Elders Council and the Lake Victoria Advisory Committee in Mildura/Wentworth/Dareton, the Elders Council of Wagga Wagga, Albury and Dubbo. Koori Mail (x 2) The Indigenous Times Educational institutions Newsletters – general government agencies. Local newspaper (x 3) Faxes directly to us from government agencies (suspect there is a general Indigenous mailing list) Local Aboriginal Lands Council (x 6) Local Cooperatives Word of mouth (x 8) ATSIC News (newsletter) Local ATSIC representative (x 2) CDEP Office General literature, e.g. historic records, scientific information. Aboriginal State Heritage Committee (SA) who feed into their regional representative, who then feed into us at the local level. National Parks and Wildlife Service representative (x 3) Community members who are a part of several committees (not MDBC associated committees however). Local radio (x 2) Catchment Management Board newsletter 3. What are the key issues and concerns for you and your community? (Not including cities, towns and other urban areas. Include rural locations only). The pollution of waterways (x 8): • Pesticides and chemicals that leave residue and promote poor health for humans, livestock and vegetation. Does not dilute nor disappear. • No native fish, insects and birds (x 5). For e.g. Carp is epidemic have not seen some native birds and Bogong moths for thirty years. • Less fish and poorer quality, e.g. smaller in size, some with sores on them (x 8)

114

• Tourism (e.g. houseboats – the volume, and the pollution they produce, Carp – tourists are encouraged to feed them, seen as a local curiosity to visitors). • Netting • Willows • Blue Green Algae (x 7) • Bad taste, “putrid” (x 4). • Pumping raw sewage into the river system • Not being informed of what treatments are being used. Other water specific issues: • Irrigation requires too much water; use and affect of large water pumps is of great concern – cotton, rice, vine and fruit orchards (x 8) • The mouth of the Basin is closing up and prevents natural flow. • Access is restricted and polluted water prevents healthy cultural practice (x 8) (see further) • Great Artesian Basin is being pumped 41 million megalitres per week to wash uranium. Birds are being poisoned as a result, tailing ponds on limestone, which results in leaching into Great Artesian Basin and poisons an area for 30 – 40 years. • Shire Councils/local councils poor management of water generally (x 2) • (Lake Victoria) lowering of water levels and revealing burial remains. • We have to pay for a fishing license – should not have to – this is our cultural right (x 8). • Water usage is not monitored or policed (x 4). • Siltation due to the weir/flow management (Cunnamulla). • No fish passages due to the type of construction of the weir (Cunnamulla). • Low water levels (x 6) Collapse of river banks due to low water levels – causes trees to fall into river. No Environmental Impact Statement for water/land areas before or after extended use (x 4) Topsoil is running into creeks, exposing skeletons. Native Title (x 2) Government agencies blame Indigenous people for the lack of involvement, but they are just “passing the buck” for their own inability to do it right. Mainstream bodies “stuff it up and then come to us to fix it up”.

115

Removal of burls timber for the making of furniture. That a proposed M.O.U. between the Murray Indigenous Nations Group and the MDBC was not signed. It is perceived that the chance was there but negotiation has now ceased. (Albury/Wodonga). Over-stocking and over-grazing of the land by pastoralists. This prohibits the grass from growing and overtaking natural vegetation, amongst other things (x 6) No say over what happens in other tribal areas/states (upstream), yet it impacts on our quality of water supply. Indigenous participation is limited/non existent (x 8). Participation to some areas is limited to the area that gets the most (media/public/council) attention. For instance, Lake Victoria is considered a ‘hot spot’ so Indigenous participation is sought out. Other water and land issues are just as important in this area, but get overlooked and our participation is not sought/welcome. No input into DAs/permission given to farmers to do whatever they wish to do with the land and water (x 8) No feedback from governments/community reps who sit on government committees/MDBC (x 5). Poor coordination between states with respect to natural resource management (x 5). “One hand doesn’t know what the other is doing”. (refer to question 8) Salinity (x 8). Infrastructure set up to control salinity is also of concern. Vegetation decline (x 4). Land clearing is in desperate proportions in this area. To continue to mismanage this will result in the world’s largest ‘dust bowl’. Currently, this area is the 2nd largest ‘dust bowl’ in the world. We are the traditional owners of the land and water, however we do no benefit from the prosperity of farmers land and water use. The land was given to the farmers/businessmen (some of them from overseas) for free or a nominal sum many years ago, and they now reap enormous wealth from the use of it through cotton, pecan nuts, houseboats, grapes etc. While business continue to profit from the use of our land and water, without the partnership or negotiation with the land’s traditional owners, Indigenous people will continue to get poorer while the rich get richer through disrespect of the land’s custodians (x 6) Development and major construction in the area (e.g. a marina, bridges) pollutes this area and our lifeline. This is a highly fragile area. (x 2) Destruction of cultural significant sites (largely due to them not being identified formally in the first instance) (x 8). (e.g. Sand hills in Cunnamulla, scar trees,

116

burial grounds, artefacts in Bourke, suspected removal of topsoil revealing burials in Moree, removal of artefacts in Albury/Wodonga, farmer’s inability/unwillingness to recognise sites and destroying them in Dubbo and Mildura etc) That legislation to negotiate and consult with Indigenous communities is non- existent. NPWS are required to consult only when a stakeholder (e.g. farmer, business) wants to destroy a culturally significant site. Access is limited/prohibited to land and the Murray River due to farmer’s fences (x 8). Many groups illegally trespass onto grounds that will enable them to fish as a result of negative responses from farmers declining permission in the past. Many see trespassing as an unfortunate thing to have to do, and are aware of the consequences, however their cultural ties to the land and water are stronger than the fear of the legal repercussions. Local government do not consult. 4. In terms of natural and cultural heritage, what does ‘protection’ and ‘preservation’ mean to you/your community? Control. We must control cultural heritage and take ownership of the land. Recognition of control and our ability to exercise that control within mainstream processes and amongst ourselves. We will then hold the ‘power card’ and we will have a say in how these issues are managed in our area (x 8) Recognition of past, present and future values of the land and it’s people (x 8) Cultural practice, managed by elders (x 4) Recognition of totems in each area. For example, if the emu is the totem of an area, regional plans should reflect this in terms of management of the animal. Preserve and ‘care take’ the land and waters (x 3). The development of environmental studies before land and water is used, commercially or otherwise (x 3). Developing financial sustainability from the shared use of the land and water, in negotiation with farmers/government (x 3). Building an economic base through this shared use which could, in turn, be used for the management of the land and water. Significant sites (x 8). One example was to establish ‘Keeping Places’ so that areas of significance can be preserved and protected. Appropriate funding and resources (x 8). Half hearted financial commitment offers halved outcomes. Education and awareness.

117

5. Do mainstream ways to protect and preserve natural resources conflict with you/your community needs? If so, how? Mainstream operate with the written word. Indigenous people operate with the spoken word. This causes enormous communication breakdowns (x 6). Mainstream do not consult, on the whole (x 8). Mainstream are not aware of Indigenous governance structures and therefore, do not operate in a manner which ‘fits into’ nor takes advantage of our structures (x 8). We are compromising our structures and processes to fit into a mainstream one. It should be reversed as this marginalises our position. Government guidelines and bureaucracy are not flexible to accommodate an effective Indigenous position. (x 2) Government agencies do not work together, let alone work with us (x 7). For example, “one agency will only give you half the information because another agency handles the rest. We only get half the story”. Large companies influence decisions more than Aboriginal Torres Straight Islander culture. Consultations are conducted all the time, but feedback is never offered. There is no sense of progress or ‘working together’ (x 5) Aboriginal communities deal with problems directly, yet governments take an indirect approach and tend to “go around and around and around” before anything gets done. The views that government agencies hold are often filtered/misunderstood because they do not deal with us directly/talk to the wrong people/their reach is not broad enough. Government agencies think they are keeping us informed, but because communication processes are inefficient, the info does not get through (refer to question 8) (x 8) Government documents are full of jargon/difficult to understand – prohibit input - “they don’t want you to understand it” (x 8) State government gives farmers permission to use the land and water at the detriment of cultural heritage and preservation (x 6). For example, diversification of pastoral leases. Mainstream want to please everyone but they can’t – they give out licenses and create legislation so that everyone can do whatever they want with the land and water. Commonwealth and state governments are reneging on their international obligations under international laws, e.g. United Nations guidelines for the rights of Indigenous people. Fishing and hunting legislation restricts our cultural practice and access. (regular source of food, income, tradition) (x 8).

118

Mainstream are more concerned about the dollars and economics of the present. Mainstream do not understand that we have a responsibility for the management of the land and water. “We have to follow through with our ancestral and traditional customs, which uses our knowledge/lore/law” (x 4). Mainstream do not use Aboriginal people’s appropriate experience which will help them to handle issues of an Aboriginal nature (x 6). 6. Are you aware of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) and/or their land and water projects? We have never heard of the MDBC (x 84 people). We are aware of the MDBC but have never had contact with them (x 36 people). We are aware of the MDBC but do not know what they do (x 36 people) (For example, the current western Catchment Management Board blueprint has not been heard of). We are aware of the MDBC and are aware of what they do (x 7 people) 7. Do you believe there are barriers which prevent/affect meaningful Indigenous involvement? (For example, have there been things that got in the way of working together?) If so, please detail. Funding system (e.g. NHT etc) is discriminatory against Indigenous people (x 2). Indigenous bodies rarely win funding submissions. Lack of transparency (x 4) Stereotyping and racism. We felt “intimidated” when we were involved with the MDBC in the past. Consultations from many government agencies do not seem to affect change: many workshops, no outcomes (x 8). “Will this one be the same?” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are not listened to when they are consulted (“our views don’t end up anywhere constructive”) so they eventually leave the committees and/or stop participating in workshops and meetings all together. They therefore “loose faith in the government system”. Decision makers are not aware of local and regional issues/concerns. Some Indigenous people are being invited to be a part of a lot of committees or meetings, but they do not provide adequate support to enable them to contribute/continue to contribute meaningfully, logistically or physically (x 8). As a result, many Aboriginal people (particularly Elders) feel as sense of ‘burnt out’. E.g: • no sitting fees/payment • no travel money (petrol, accommodation if long distances are required to participate, which is usually the case for regional areas)

119

• no food • no assistance to inform the community upon your return (e.g. no fax machine, no telephone, telephone bill very high, postage and envelopes, no computer system). • time: do not provide adequate time for reps/communities to understanding/interpret all the information, discuss approaches, feedback responses, link in with Land Council community meetings etc. Non-Aboriginal Torres Straight Islander people working in government agencies and sitting on committees make decisions on our behalf (x 5). Aboriginal people do not have a good understanding of the land and water issues, e.g. salinity. Need to be better informed. Access restricted/non existent (x 5). Government Agencies think they are keeping us informed, but they are actually (x 8): • contacting the wrong people • not making their consultation broad enough (does not represent the community views or needs). For example, information generally is limited to Land Councils or Native Title Rep bodies, but they are not representative of the whole Indigenous population/community and the information is rarely shared throughout the community. Many Aboriginal Torres Straight Islanders do not have contact with them. • limiting Indigenous involvement and therefore making their participation tokenistic. • using inappropriate people and selection processes for committees and meetings (refer to question 9 for details) Water and land legislation competes and contradicts from State to State. Legislation which allows for the erosion of native title/land rights stops Aboriginal Torres Straight Islanders from participating in natural resource and cultural heritage issues. For example, visiting sites and traditional areas, access to fishing and hunting areas. This therefore means that landholders can destroy waterways and areas of cultural significance/heritage without consideration of Aboriginal Torres Straight Islander concerns, e.g. install roads, mining, clear land, fence areas etc. Government departments always say there are “no resources” and this is used as an excuse to not delivering on genuine partnership in decision making and appropriate cultural/natural resource management. Indigenous units should be well staffed to cater to the issues, consultation should happen regularly and appropriately etc. (x 5)

120

Aboriginal Torres Straight Islander interests always compete with government interests. Government (and therefore then farmer) holds the power, so our issues are lost. (x 8) Our group may be represented in areas that affect the Murray-Darling Basin or the Commission, but we are one voice amongst many so our voice is therefore small and insignificant. Poor/no consultation and no direct contact from MDBC or representative government agencies (x 8). Aboriginal Torres Straight Islander people do not have control of heritage. Government do not recognise the diversity of Aboriginal people, therefore do not recognise the varied needs and varied solutions required. “One size does not fit all” (x 6) Low Aboriginal employment in the MDBC. Number of people who work on these issues but have little Indigenous knowledge (x 5) Ignorance of government agencies regarding the breadth of issues that Indigenous people should be involved in (x 6) Aboriginal politics. Elders/community reps who do not/cannot pass on their knowledge (x 6) Communities who have been dispersed and assimilated by past government policies have less knowledge of cultural practice and protection. This makes it more difficult for them to contribute to such issues, but they should be included none-the-less. Government structures that are inflexible and therefore do not meet community needs (x 5). Government organisations that have no appropriate mechanisms to accommodate Indigenous needs for example, associated works with piping and capping bores (% contribution systems don’t work). The system is pro farmer. Government agencies should not be taking sides (x 5) 8. Have you, or anyone you know of, worked with the MDBC or any of its partner governments on land/water issues? If so, how was this ‘working together’ conducted? (For example, how did they contact you, were there regular meetings, were you paid etc?) No formal mechanisms for the broad (and inclusive) community workshops (x 8) Not involved in any formal manner (98 people). Coorong Consultative Committee (SA State funded body) (1 person) Murray Goulburn Water and associated surveys (Albury/Wodonga) (2 people - paid)

121

Member of the Catchment Management Board (4 people). Suspected involvement in Gunderbooka (Bourke) (1 person). NPWS Upper Darling Advisory Committee (Bourke) (1 person). ATSIC committee related to natural resource management (Bourke) (1 person). Local Council portfolios related to natural resource management (Bourke) (1 person). MDBC Indigenous Reference Group member (Cunnamulla) (1 person). QMBC (Cunnamulla) (1 person). Coordinator of the South West Natural Resource Management Group which covers two catchments in the Basin (Cunnamulla) (1 person). Member of the Native Title Rep Body (Cunnamulla) however this group felt that the involvement of this body on all issues surrounding land and water to be inappropriate, given this body was set up to be limited to native title issues only. MDBC, South West Strategy (Cunnamulla) but could not make her position heard because she was dominated by non Aboriginal people in the meeting. Aboriginal Corporations who have something to do with this (Albury/Wodonga) (x 5 people) Charles Sturt University (Albury/Wodonga) (1 person) Some members of the community participate, but they are not part of this workshop so unable to identify (x 2 people) Vegetation Committee (Dubbo) (1 person) A small number of people have been involved in a small number of meetings (e.g. vegetation management, Cunnamulla) but no feedback (x 5 people) MDBC Fish Strategy (Dubbo) (1 person) Queensland government, land and water issues (exact involvement not identified) (x 2 people). 9. How could ‘working together’ be made easier? What strategies could be adopted? Indigenous participation is important, and their participation via committees or meetings is valuable, but mainstream bodies do not allow for the participation to be fruitful for the mainstream body, the Indigenous community or the issues themselves (x 8). Indigenous involvement should (ideas for working together better): • offer broad community representation and response • observe protocols

122

• involve Elders • be well resourced so that there the representative/s are able to perform the duties required of them. • allow adequate time for reps/communities to understand/interpret all the information, discuss approaches, feedback responses, link in with Land Council community meetings etc. • acknowledge the cultural experience and skills within the region. • acknowledge the diversity amongst Indigenous groups. • by following the above points, avoid tokenism by means of genuine partnership. Human resource ideas: • The representative/s should be: • more than one person, ie a minimum of two people from each tribal grouping. This ensures broad and accurate representation, prevents burn out, promotes involvement, provides an ongoing support mechanism for the individual rep and provides collective perspective for the tribal area. • well respected by the community/communities. • elected by their community. • knowledgeable about local issues • Employ a local Indigenous person in each region. Some groups have suggested that a fulltime position would be needed, others have said that a part time position would be adequate if a fulltime ‘set up’ period was established, supported by appropriate ongoing support for the worker. • Employ Indigenous people to conduct workshops (just as this consultation has done). Employ local Indigenous people to assist (just as this consultation has done). Logistical resource ideas: • Provide equipment such as computer, printer, telephone, fax and other general administration costs. • Provide office space. Groups who were specific about this issue were divided as to whether it should be space separate to any organisation, or housed within an existing government agency (NPWS) or community organisation (ALC). • Provisions be made available for travel, accommodation, meals. Set up appropriate communication processes (x 5): • Hold a community meeting to involve elders and the community.

123

• Advertise (refer to question 11 for local contacts brainstorm). • Use simple language, no jargon, use pictures • Employ a local Aboriginal person to assist. • Employ Indigenous facilitators to assist. “You’ve got to do what’s right, not what’s comfortable”. Federal and state governments should recognise the value of Indigenous people’s skills and cultural obligations to achieve long lasting change, e.g. alter legislation and policies to enforce Indigenous involvement (x 5) Hold a 2 day workshop with Native Title Representative bodies to discuss these issues (suggested by one person only, Cunnamulla) although it should be noted that most people found this to be relevant only if the issue was about native title issues. Develop strategies which offer genuine financial partnership between farmers/business/government and the Indigenous community from the shared use of the land and water. This will require an ongoing commitment to negotiation with farmers/government (x 5). Examples: • Save a percentage of water usage fees paid and put back into the community • Save a percentage of profits made from business who rely heavily on the land and water and put back into the community. • Increase employment on the local farms/businesses Develop and distribute a newsletter. Offer adequate resources and time to affect long lasting change (x 5) Include non indigenous sectors with Indigenous groups when making local land management decisions (x 2). Be guided by elders (but not limited to – also include Aboriginal people who live in the community) when making decisions (x 5). “You will loose 90 – 95% of the community if you limit yourself to using traditional elders”. “Elders should be the ones who negotiate and sign off on strategies, not bodies who claim to represent the whole of community when they do not”. Conduct Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Studies before land development plans are written/ signed off on/undertaken. Use these Studies to inform ongoing management of land and water (x 5). More workshops – keep this process of consultation going – provide feedback - have regular Indigenous workshops, run as these consultations have been done (x 8). Coordinated government approach.

124

Establish a coordinated approach (partnerships) between Traditional Owner Groups and government agencies. We do not want meaningless consultation that many government departments offer, but genuine involvement, decision making and negotiation. Extinguish tokenism (x 3) Have Indigenous representation on the Pastoral Protection Board. Respect the diversity between Indigenous groups – gain knowledge from them about how they wish to work with you/what mechanisms work best. Have a Moratorium for a period of twelve months which serves to discuss these issues in more depth and with all stakeholders. Make it clear where to get information from about these issues – where, who, how. Pay community people for their time and effort (x 8) Increase employment of Aboriginal people in the MDBC (x 4) Increase number of Aboriginal Cultural Officers in the NPWS (x 4). All methods should be transparent and open to involvement – “doors must be glass and no lock!” (x 2) Control (x 8): Issues • Natural resource management works best with the involvement of Indigenous people and when managed by Indigenous people. Ideas for control include • Give land back to Aboriginal people to care take, e.g. National Park lands. • Increase Indigenous employment in all partner government agencies whose responsibilities concern cultural heritage and natural resource management, particularly MDBC and NPWS. • Indigenous people should control heritage issues and therefore, set the agenda. Once we set the agenda, we should then advise the Commission and/or its partner governments. • Community needs to know who is visiting sites and tampering with them/thieving. • Have some say over museum processes so that we know what is being taken and prevent their removal. • Successful native title • Establish a body, of equal power to the Board of the MDBC, which is entirely Indigenous. Aboriginal Torres Straight Islanders should not feed

125

into a mainstream body or process, but the two processes should work with each other. • State Land Councils should run education programs regarding this issue so that all are informed and involved. • Develop an Indigenous representative body for every non Indigenous representative body. These two bodies should work in close harness with each other. For example, one Indigenous Catchment Management Board to one standard Catchment Management Board (see Cunnamulla model). A coordinated agency approach is required. Projects should be administered with all stakeholders and agencies to ensure a coordinated, ‘whole of community’ approach. (x 4) MDBC should employ local Aboriginal people to advise the MDBC on its views and therefore advise its decision making processes (x 7). Example, as Water Monitors or Cultural Monitors who look after a certain area. Have Aboriginal Cultural Officers in the MDBC to assist in the report back process to communities, respond to needs, build effective partnerships etc. (x 4) Increase education and awareness of the importance of these issues, and how to manage them (x 4). Develop an Indigenous educational vehicle with Indigenous people running them. Mobile Heritage Information Centre in all relevant states. Access to scientific data regarding water and land management (water levels, quality of water, chemical drifts etc). 10. How do other mainstream bodies work with you /your community? All operate the same way essentially, ie poorly. It is the individual you are dealing with, not the bodies, that makes the difference (x 8), or it is with your own initiative that you find out anything (x 8). Generally, very little/no information available, consultations offer little outcomes as far as anyone can tell, never any feedback (x 8). There are few exceptions – examples: • Pilliga Management Committee (Forest Department) offers employment, decision making involvement, equal numbers of Indigenous and non Indigenous members of the committee, all major Indigenous tribal areas are represented, all members are respected and treated with dignity, opinions are valued and considered. • One location where a NPWS staff member involves all the right people in the region (x 3) • Riverina TAFE (Albury/Wodonga) conduct horticultural courses for Wandoo Aboriginal Corporation participants. TAFE also have young participants completing their year 10 certificate, which includes a landscape course – actively seek Indigenous students.

126

• Albury and Wodonga City Councils have contracts with Wandoo Aboriginal Corporation to do work with parks and gardens, ground work for Wonga wetlands. • Green Corp includes the Aboriginal community (Dubbo) They do not work with the community (or if they do, it is not effective because they use the wrong people/don’t support them to do it effectively) (x 8). Some native title claimants tend to get some information. They deal with one or two people which invariably does not give a broad community outcome. 11. The MDBC would like to involve appropriate Indigenous people to help them make decisions about how protection and preservation projects in the future. Who or what existing Indigenous networks should they involve? (For example, are there any individuals who should be involved? Are there any groups that should also be involved?) Involve the Lands Councils and address their community meetings (x 5) (one suggestion was to engage the state level first, then regional, then local. This promotes a ‘whole of organisation’ commitment). Local government, local council and shires (x 2) Non Indigenous sectors (x 2) NPWS, Aboriginal section (x 3) Community Development Employment Program (x 3) Local Elders/local Elder Committees (x 5), e.g. (but not exclusive) Wirradjuri Council of Elders (Albury/Wodonga), Lake Victoria Advisory Committee and the (Mildura/Dareton/Wentworth), Murray Indigenous Advisory Group (Albury/Wodonga), the Willah Wiradjuri Elders Council (Dubbo, contact Allira Corporation), Traditional Owner groups (Cunnamulla). Local contacts brainstorm (other than above): Dubbo: Allira Corporation (multipurpose centre), Thubbo Aboriginal Medical Service, ALC, local radio, other community centres, the Koori Mail, TAFE, ALC. Bourke: local radio, LALC, ATSIC, flyers with simple language and bold type. Albury/Wodonga: Active community groups, e.g. Woomera Aboriginal Corporation, Winan Gidyal, Mungabareena. Cunnamulla: Traditional owner groups through the ALC, majority vote not to use native title rep body, radio station 4TOF, local newspaper Western Sun, letterbox drops to local Aboriginal organisations, face to face contact. Moree: Youth organisations, e.g. Mirray Birray, ATSIC local office, Aboriginal Registrars of corporations, Aboriginal Interagency groups within government departments in the region, ACDP Steering Committees (Aboriginal Committee Development Program), Wandoo Aboriginal

127

Corporation CDEP, See existing Dept of Aboriginal Affairs (NSW) Directory for those to contact. Murray Bridge: Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee, the Native title Committee, Ngarrindjeri, ALCs. Mildura: ALCs that govern NSW and Victoria and surrounding areas, Barkindji Elders Council. Select two people from each workshop and from an Indigenous Committee that can directly be involved at the decision making level. These representatives will know and understand the area. (x 2) Come to the community (x 7). When you’re here, post notices, get to know the people and issues, bring people together with an informal and formal gathering. This will help understanding of issues and protocols, provide exchange of information. 12. Would you like a summary of this report mailed to you? Yes (x 8 – all participants at all Workshops) Five of seven groups would also prefer to see the draft report before it is complete, offer changes if any, and therefore advise the content of the final report.

128

PART 2: RECORD OF GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE INTERVIEWS

The following notes are based on direct quotations or, where appropriate, a synthesis of the conversations recorded during the interviews with agency representatives. All the interview results were kept anonymous, although the jurisdiction was recorded to allow for sorting by general area and allowing for a comparison between the States, Commonwealth and the MDBC and CAC. The Project Team has also attempted to group the responses into similar issues, to make it easier to get a sense of the key messages arising out of each question.

Question 1 Why do you think it is important/useful to include Indigenous people in decision-making processes?

Indigenous people have a long association with the land (3) Cmwlth Indigenous people have specific rights and interests in cultural and heritage matters (A) Cmwlth Indigenous people have a cultural/spiritual association/linkages with the land (3) MDBC They are an integral part of the community, but have a separate, different culture NSW They have strong affinity to the land and rivers NSW Natural resource management issues require Traditional Owner input because of their connection to Qld Country (2) Indigenous people have a cultural/spiritual association with the land (5) SA Indigenous people are landowners in their own right (2) CAC Indigenous people are the original custodians of the country CAC Indigenous people are real players as landholders (3) Cmwlth In a contemporary sense, Indigenous people now ‘own’ land (2) Cmwlth Indigenous people are the ‘true and original’ natural resource managers (2) MDBC Indigenous people are landowners in their own right (2) MDBC Not sure Indigenous involvement is as important in southern parts of the State compared to the SA northern / outback areas because Indigenous people’s relationship to the land is not as strong in the southern part of the State Indigenous people are the original custodians of the country SA Need to be involved because involvement in natural resource management can be part of breaking the CAC cycle of dispossession/dislocation (2) We have a social responsibility MDBC There is a pressure to include Indigenous people because it is considered politically correct Qld We have a social responsibility SA Broader community involvement is important – Indigenous communities are a subset with particular CAC needs and views (2) Indigenous people are stakeholders in natural resource management (2) Cmwlth Indigenous people should be involved for reasons of equity (“they are not going to go away”) and the Cmwlth issues need to be sorted out (4) Broader community involvement is important – Indigenous communities are a subset with particular MDBC needs and views (7) Part of the agency’s role is to take into consideration the views of all stakeholders, including those of NSW Indigenous people (9)

129

Broader community involvement is important – Indigenous communities are a subset with particular SA needs and views (2) Indigenous people are seen as key stakeholders who need to be engaged Vic In reality, Indigenous people are disenfranchised given the wealth they have not received; they have a Cmwlth historical relationship with the land and have not benefited financially (2) Government decision-making processes are moving towards involving communities and involving more Cmwlth views. Government has a leadership role in broadening input (2) Indigenous people need to be involved because they often don’t own land in the Basin and have been MDBC marginalised from mainstream decision making processes There are economic outcomes from natural resources by which Indigenous people can benefit MDBC They have been left behind with respect to resource allocations and they need to catch up, eg. water SA allocations Broader Australian population has expectations that Indigenous people will be involved in natural Cmwlth resource management issues (2) They are a disengaged group and are generally disadvantaged (2) MDBC There is an ethical and moral obligation to involve Indigenous people out of respect for their knowledge Qld (2) They are a disengaged group and are generally disadvantaged (2) SA Indigenous people have a valid point of view CAC Indigenous people have knowledge to offer; the time is right (4) Cmwlth Indigenous people are champions for natural resources Cmwlth Indigenous people have a good insight into what the country was like prior to development and this Cmwlth knowledge can be useful in rehabilitation of the land (2) They have an understanding of the land and have lots of information to impart (ie. specialised MDBC knowledge) (2) Indigenous people can teach us in terms of approaches to land management and respect for land MDBC Indigenous involvement is needed because we don’t understand the real issues in the context of MDBC conservation Indigenous approaches to land management demonstrate ecological and human linkages that non- MDBC Indigenous land managers only talk about We don’t always have the knowledge to manage natural resources in a respectful manner MDBC Indigenous perspectives enriches thinking with respect to natural resource management – without their Qld view we don’t have the whole picture (2) Indigenous people should be involved because their understanding of the landscape is useful to us Qld Indigenous people have a knowledge we lack Qld They have an understanding of the land and have lots of information to impart (ie. specialised SA knowledge) Staff who are out on the ground know it is important and support engagement Vic A real interface with local Indigenous knowledge and taking on Indigenous appreciation and values Cmwlth toward land will enhance management of natural resource within the Basin Natural resource managers need to take into account the values, priorities, perspectives of Indigenous MDBC people (2) Indigenous involvement can enrich decision-making processes and outcomes through being good MDBC listeners, patient, tolerant and focussing on substance Their contribution is a part of contemporary land management MDBC Their input is valuable in a range of natural resource management issues Qld We can learn a lot, particularly about natural resources (eg. floodplains) SA Their contribution is a part of contemporary land management SA

130

Indigenous involvement can enrich decision-making processes and outcomes (2) SA Creation of alternative ways to involve Indigenous people and negotiate issues will contribute to SA positive relationships Indigenous people have a right to be involved (3) CAC The Indigenous Advisory Committee under the EPBC Act requires a broader base of Indigenous input, Cmwlth improved support and appropriate remuneration for members (2) Agricultural activities have impacts on cultural sites and the scale of the issue is considerable (3) Cmwlth Indigenous people have been left out of decision making processes in the past; there are legal Cmwlth precedents which establish that government needs to involve Indigenous people in some land use decisions (A) There are legal requirements to involve Indigenous people and obtain consent for activities where there Cmwlth are Native Title obligations (2) Indigenous populations were historically located/concentrated along rivers and wetlands (lots of cultural Cmwlth sites) which are now developed, resulting in a high need for Indigenous input into land use decisions (6) The MDBC has to remain neutral with respect to land management and needs to involve Indigenous MDBC people in a positive way Native Title issues are on the land and water management agenda MDBC MDBC business impacts on Indigenous rights and responsibilities (2) MDBC Legislative requirements for involvement in terms of Indigenous cultural heritage and Native Title NSW claimants/holders “Government haven’t told us why we should be consulting with them, but we acknowledge that in the NSW landscape, the Indigenous values are recognised” There is a statutory requirement to consult (although often this process does not acknowledge Qld Traditional Owners – there is a lack of a prescriptive process for consultation within government) (2) There is a specific Indigenous Traditional Owners Policy to assure appropriate Traditional Owner Qld involvement in resource management matters within the coastal zone (1) Involvement of Indigenous people is part of the Premier’s Charter (3) Qld Indigenous involvement, acknowledging Traditional Owner’s knowledge systems (tacit and explicit) and Qld valuing their intellectual capital, is prescribed in government’s strategic and corporate plans (3) Indigenous involvement is part of Queensland’s 10 year Partnership Agreement Qld There are areas that are very culturally significant and need to be protected (2) SA There is a legal obligation (including Native Title requirements) (4) SA The Board and Executive have a good appreciation of the need for Indigenous involvement Vic It is very important to involve Indigenous people; need to prevent destruction of cultural sites and Vic provide management of site (2) Legislative responsibilities Vic Regarded as important within the organisation (2) Vic There is organisational commitment through Corporate Plan and Indigenous Partnership Strategy (1); Vic the need to deliver this is vital and timely (2) Engaging with Indigenous people allows us “to do what we have to do” Vic There is a departmental responsibility to implement cultural heritage and land management Vic Meaningful Indigenous involvement can help overcome cynicism amongst Indigenous communities CAC towards the MDBC/government Indigenous involvement in natural resource management can be part of Australia’s reconciliation CAC process (2) Indigenous involvement is one of the agreed values in the Integrated Catchment Management Policy CAC Statement Involvement in natural resource management decision making is seen by Indigenous community CAC

131

advocates as an important part of participating in the discussion of water management and entitlement issues, and leading to better outcomes with respect to water property rights There is a need for Indigenous people to be involved due to the arising issue of property rights with Cmwlth respect to water – not being involved could polarise the debate (3) The natural resource management agenda is evolving from being commodity-driven to having a natural MDBC resource management focus which will lead to greater recognition of Indigenous peoples’ involvement The MDBC needs to move from the role of a regulator to more thorough community engagement MDBC (which includes Indigenous communities) because regulation fails at the landscape scale Involvement of Indigenous people in natural resource management is essential if we are going to NSW progress towards reconciliation Gain an awareness and understanding of cultural issues and take them into consideration through the NSW involvement of Indigenous people Indigenous people are often affected by natural resource management decisions and should be Qld involved in their development and (often) their implementation Engagement of Indigenous people is vital to the department in working towards the goal of sustainable Qld use of natural resources They have a practical point of view SA Indigenous people have a role in a broad range of natural resource management issues Vic

Question 2: What opportunities are available for the involvement of Indigenous communities in natural resource management decision making within the Murray Darling Basin and/or relevant to the MDBC?

Aware of Indigenous people in MDBC and Basin activities, such as Lake Victoria and catchment Cmwlth management organisations (5) The MDBC’s environmental flows program will provide opportunities for Indigenous involvement (2) Cmwlth Good opportunities exist through the MDBC environmental flows project (ie. have an Indigenous person MDBC on the MDBC Environmental Flows Community Reference Panel) (3) Indigenous people are involved in consultation processes at Lake Victoria, Menindee Lakes and MDBC Barmah-Millewa forest (3) There is potentially a role for Indigenous involvement in policy development (eg. water issues, Riverine MDBC Environment Plan II referrals, water quality objectives) (2) There could be a role for Indigenous people in facilitating and coordinating relationships through MDBC investment decisions Native Title claimants are consulted in relation to natural resource management issues (7) NSW There is Indigenous involvement in land use agreements and through Native Title matters Qld Traditional Owners and senior Elders are asked to comment on plans Qld Involvement is required as part of statutory planning processes SA Opportunities exist for involvement through Indigenous Land Use Agreements SA Some catchment management organisations have held specific forums for Indigenous communities to Vic provide input to catchment planning process Land Councils are provided with opportunities for input into Indigenous Protected Area management Cmwlth programs (2) Some partner governments have formal involvement of Indigenous people through their catchment MDBC management structures, however the involvement of individuals is not adequately supported (eg. Aboriginal Regional Assessment Panels were established to assess NHT applications and Victoria have an Indigenous representative on the ICM Council) Natural resource management committees (eg. catchment, river, vegetation, parks, etc) have two NSW Indigenous positions on them (11) Water resource and vegetation management programs have community reference committees with Qld

132

Indigenous representation (5) There is Indigenous representation on some fishery management advisory committees Qld There are some opportunities (ie. some formal representation on natural resource management SA committees) and issues (ie. Chowilla and Murray Mouth) where involvement would be beneficial, but formal mechanisms not yet developed (2) Opportunities in water planning processes need to go more than half way to achieve meaningful SA involvement There are opportunities through management planning processes for conservation areas SA NSW catchment management boards have two Indigenous members Vic Some catchment management organisation’s planning processes, have made recommendations to Vic form Indigenous natural resource management reference groups with the aim of improving meaningful input There are very limited opportunities beyond the Community Advisory Committee process, however MDBC Indigenous involvement doesn’t work very well because of the system Opportunities exist in natural resource management community groups such as Landcare and peak MDBC bodies/special interest groups The Community Advisory Committee has one Indigenous member (2) MDBC Indigenous involvement through MOUs and forums such as the Murray Lower Darling Indigenous NSW Nations, the Three Traditional Tribal Groups who are involved in the management of the Willandra WHA (3) There are formalised, legislative joint management arrangements for a National Park (3) NSW There is an Indigenous Advisory Group at the State planning level Qld There is Indigenous involvement in NHT project funding assessments Qld The Agency’s Strategic Plan seeks to embrace Traditional Owner tacit and explicit knowledge Qld regarding cultural resources A small number of Indigenous people are employed to assist Indigenous communities apply for grants Cmwlth (3) Current employment initiatives are generally identified positions and processes for creating Indigenous Cmwlth employment opportunities is very “run of the mill” and too passive (3) The MDBC has one Indigenous employee (2) MDBC Employment within departments, particularly in regional and field positions NSW There are opportunities through employment in identified positions SA Opportunities are provided through government funded employment programs / schemes SA Opportunities exist through public consultation processes MDBC Currently broad community consultation is being undertaken (area-based) and Indigenous people have SA opportunities to be included (2) Opportunities tend to be added on rather than incorporated into the mainstream community (ie. land- SA holder) engagement processes Have an impression that it is often hard to get Indigenous people on natural resource management Cmwlth committees ie. “at times, feel that they are not making the most of the situation” (2) Many opportunities for involvement exist if Indigenous people can moderate their demands to what the MDBC process can accommodate (eg. move from a legalistic approach to one of negotiation) Opportunities for involvement of Indigenous people are limited by their availability to participate, their MDBC capacity to contribute and inappropriate communication methods Enormous opportunities exist but are not being taken up by Indigenous communities SA The opportunities are enormous because of the extent of Indigenous heritage but sufficient SA mechanisms to include Indigenous communities in decision making are not in place (2) The opportunities that do exist need accountability structures that are meaningful for Indigenous SA communities

133

Some catchment management organisations make token efforts (eg. one member) Vic There are few opportunities for involvement of Indigenous communities in Commonwealth government Cmwlth processes (3) There are no direct opportunities, however, the involvement of Indigenous people is incorporated into Cmwlth Commonwealth policies (3) Limited opportunities within the MDBC; most opportunities are with partner governments MDBC There are currently no opportunities for Indigenous involvement in research projects at the MDBC MDBC The reality is that the MDBC is at the first phase of respecting the need for Indigenous involvement in MDBC natural resource management The MDBC needs a good consultation process and to achieve this, they must develop a strong MDBC empathy with Indigenous people Don’t know of any in the Murray-Darling Basin (3) Qld There are no opportunities through formal mechanisms and legislation. Formal opportunities of this Qld nature are not being sought In reality, there are very few meaningful opportunities for Indigenous involvement in decision-making SA processes until Indigenous communities are better resourced and have the capacity to participate Opportunities (ie. formal processes) are not really available yet SA There are limited opportunities but these are evolving and increasing in number (2) SA There are limited informal opportunities which are primarily dependent upon the enthusiasm and SA commitment of individuals to engage Indigenous people Very few opportunities exist (2) Vic (no comments were made by Victoria as the individuals interviewed were not familiar with MDBC Vic activities as they relate to Indigenous involvement, or did not fully comprehend the question)

134

Question 3: What is the current level of involvement of Indigenous communities? For example, what is the level of involvement in State arrangements in integrated catchment management committees/boards etc?

Almost nil; there is nil genuine involvement – some token involvement CAC Some catchment management organisations make token efforts (eg. one member) CAC Some catchment management organisations hold specific forums for Indigenous communities to CAC provide input to natural resource management issues Indigenous people are involved on the Australian Landcare Council (3) Cmwlth The Commonwealth also has guidelines stating that Indigenous representatives need to be involved in Cmwlth government-funded programs (2) Nationally there are a number of ad hoc programs with opportunities for Indigenous input (3) Cmwlth The organisation’s Indigenous Policy Unit has not been involved in MDBC activities Cmwlth The organisation is struggling and is at an immature level of Indigenous involvement in processes MDBC Many of the MDBC’s community/stakeholder consultative groups have one Indigenous person who MDBC does not represent other Indigenous communities or people, but brings an Indigenous perspective to the table The Community Advisory Committee has one Indigenous member; sometimes it is felt that this level of MDBC involvement is tokenistic (1), and doesn’t work very well because of the system (1) The Community Advisory Committee has one Indigenous member (4) MDBC The organisation has one Indigenous employee MDBC In reality there is no Indigenous involvement in the majority of research and investigation programs (2) MDBC There is minimal involvement of Indigenous communities (2) MDBC Indigenous involvement is at best patchy NSW Virtually zero / very low / in its infancy (7) SA Not aware of level of involvement SA No involvement at State level, but it is happening at a local level where more relevant SA Involvement is ad hoc and often only incurs if there has been previous consultation SA Current efforts are tokenistic and when involvement occurs, it is only at the last minute; issues tend to SA be resolved prior to Indigenous involvement (2) Involvement is limited because State processes (ie. Department of State Aboriginal Affairs) for SA involvement are dominated by Indigenous groups whose interests are not within the MDB Pastoral area Boards are attempting to obtain Indigenous representation but there is less emphasis in SA the Murray-Darling Basin in South Australia Level of Indigenous involvement in various natural resource management and advisory/technical Vic groups and committees is low; Indigenous management team is currently seeing where Indigenous people could be involved on NSW catchment management boards have two Indigenous members CAC There is Indigenous participation in the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations forum CAC The MDBC is supporting the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations to develop a MDBC memorandum of understanding with partner governments regarding engagement processes About half of the opportunities for involvement in some natural resource management committees are NSW taken up; about eighty per cent of the opportunities for Indigenous involvement on vegetation committees are taken up There is informal involvement of Indigenous people on individual projects NSW There are mixed levels of attendance and appropriate representation in natural resource management Qld

135 committees (5) Indigenous people have had input to Regional Vegetation Management Plan Qld There are links with Indigenous people through regional and district managers Qld There is involvement of Indigenous people through employment, on committees and issues-based Qld meetings Government is starting to think about mechanisms for real involvement SA Still trying to raise awareness about Indigenous culture and the need for involvement ie. Service is SA making progress (2) A departmental survey of Indigenous staff has just been undertaken to assess how Indigenous Vic employee retention and involvement can be improved When opportunities for representation are identified, invitations are extended to Indigenous Vic communities to fill the positions In developing some Regional Plans, Indigenous communities are consulted via the Indigenous Vic Manager for that Region; agreement is sought concerning processes and ways they can be involved (West) Currently assessing if this is the best structure for communications with Indigenous communities at a Vic regional level There is a trial program to employ young Indigenous people to manage forestry projects, funded by the Vic Commonwealth and training is provided through TAFE Approximately 4% of the permanent departmental positions are held by Indigenous people; most are Vic field-based and lower management or below Indigenous people are involved in consultation processes at Lake Victoria, Menindee Lakes and MDBC Barmah-Millewa forest (2) Level of involvement with the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations is good NSW Indigenous involvement through MOUs and forums such as the Murray Lower Darling Indigenous NSW Nations, the Three Traditional Tribal Groups who are involved in the management of the Willandra WHA There are formalised, legislative joint management arrangements for a National Park NSW There are identified Indigenous staff positions within the organisation (10); including some senior NSW management positions (3) The State Landcare and Catchment Management Committee has one Indigenous representative (2) Qld There are between one and three Indigenous representatives among other stakeholders on various Qld natural resource management committees There is a Land and Sea Resource Management Group set up as a consulting arm to provide capacity Qld building assistance to Indigenous people (1) There is involvement through cultural resource surveys which are undertaken by Traditional Owner Qld groups There are a number of Traditional Owner Advisory Groups throughout the State and a State-level Qld Traditional Owner Group Traditional Owner-conducted cultural resource surveys are undertaken; logistics are funded by the Qld Agency’s Indigenous Unit The Agency has Traditional Owner Advisory Groups Qld Forest management planning processes involve Indigenous people who sit on Advisory Groups Vic Aboriginal Liaison Officers are vital to managing and providing links between government and the Vic community; this is broader than just cultural heritage and land management (3) There are Indigenous team meetings held within the organisation Vic An Indigenous person sits on the department’s Board of Directors Vic Involvement of the Indigenous community is high and there is regular contact through the Aboriginal Vic Project Manager and other Indigenous staff

136

Question 4: Can you recommend appropriate processes or mechanisms, which will increase the effectiveness of Indigenous participation at a regional/catchment, State and/or Basin scale?

Question 7. How would you recommend [the barriers to Indigenous involvement] be overcome?

[The responses to these two questions were combined as many people responded to question 7 by saying they had answered it as part of question 4.]

Need to communicate in an effective and appropriate style, allowing time to build trust and face-to- CAC face relationships Need to recognise that Indigenous people approach to issues and decision making processes are Cmwlth different to current bureaucratic processes, ie. tend to be more verbal, less paperwork and more ‘up- front’ A more personal approach (ie. Liaison Officer networks) will improve communication at all levels MDBC within the organisation Need to explore and develop alternative and creative methods of communication (eg. an MDBC MDBC project that used an artist’s impressions of how Indigenous people saw land and water planning outcomes) A more open communication style which builds bridges QLD Need to improve communication between government and Indigenous communities, ie. making the SA time to “sit down, talk and develop understanding” (5) Develop protocols for communication which ensure understanding and accommodate varying VIC community interests and factions Agencies should facilitate communication between Indigenous communities and other stakeholders to VIC help them find areas of mutual agreement and opportunities for joint projects Government needs to recognise and respect appropriate Indigenous structures and decision making CAC protocols Without a process of selection that involves the broader Indigenous community, it cannot be assumed Cmwlth that Indigenous committee members are representative The MDBC needs to develop a structured process to identify and nominate Indigenous people to MDBC advisory roles Elder’s Reference Groups, operating on agreed sets of traditionally-based principles, need to be QLD created (2) Move toward more Traditional Owner involvement in natural resource management QLD Traditional Owners should be involved across the broad scope of natural resource management QLD issues Being able to identify appropriate Indigenous representatives and understand community hierarchy SA and decision making protocols (4) Governments need to focus on relationships and not be distracted by issues associated with Native CAC Title There is a need to change internal thinking – firstly, there is a need to educate and improve Cmwlth awareness within the organisation which will lead to improved access to decision-making processes (2) Organisations should look for incremental progress and be prepared to be persistent (2) Cmwlth Need change in the organisational culture and systems at all levels to one which supports Indigenous Cmwlth involvement. This change needs to come from the top and be led by example (2) Subsequent to raised awareness, need to develop a willingness throughout the organisation to move MDBC

137 beyond tokenism Changes are needed in the organisational culture at all levels to one which supports Indigenous MDBC involvement (eg. accounts branch staff need to understand that some individuals do not have access to banks and that more flexible/adaptable payment methods are required) Need critical mass in-house (at least one person plus assistance) MDBC Develop expertise within the organisation to know how to really perform “on the outside” MDBC Need to recognise the importance of Indigenous involvement and develop organisational commitment MDBC (including at Ministerial Council level) to including Indigenous people in natural resource management (4) Need change in the organisational culture and systems at all levels to one which supports Indigenous MDBC involvement (eg. accounts branch staff need to understand that some individuals do not have access to banks and that more flexible/adaptable payment methods are required) Develop a humble approach, acknowledging that we all have much to learn MDBC The organisation needs to act in a manner that somehow engenders trust MDBC In addressing Indigenous involvement, there is a need for a lateral, creative and visionary approach MDBC (ie. “think outside the box”) Chief Executive and staff performance agreements should include criteria for measuring improvement MDBC in Indigenous involvement in projects and tasks, etc Need to look at organisation’s own processes to see how to incorporate Indigenous involvement MDBC The organisation needs to become more focussed on relationship building and developing a mutual MDBC respect and understanding of values (2) Governments need to be clear as to why Indigenous involvement is important NSW Be prepared for the process of improved Indigenous involvement to move slowly ie. “don’t get ahead NSW of ourselves” (3) MDBC needs to adopt a holistic approach with key natural resource management agencies and other NSW planning agencies, which includes Indigenous involvement Governmental organisations need to move away from standard mainstream methods of involving QLD people; for Indigenous people, processes that respect and reflect their knowledge and perspectives is required (3) Recognise the cross-benefits of some natural resource management decisions (eg, protection of QLD vegetation also benefits cultural interests) (3) Do not look at Indigenous consultation as “it can’t be done” or “it is too hard”; a change to a more QLD positive approach is required Need to change the organisational thinking and attitudes toward Indigenous culture (3) SA Need to recognise the issues and develop organisational commitment to change/overcome them (5) SA Increase interaction with Indigenous communities by government staff SA Encourage all staff to understand their organisation al responsibility through: relationship building, VIC cross cultural training (changing attitudes), workshops with Chief Executive and other executives so they remain up-to-date and how thy can continue to be involved; knowing where and how staff can contribute; understand support mechanisms such as human resource systems, co-chairing arrangements for internal committees, special leave requirements Senior management should spend more time with Indigenous communities on the ground, rather than VIC just “flying in and out” on the same day Tap into existing networks and structures developed by departments VIC Stronger recognition of cultural significance in all disciplines of natural resource management Cmwlth Cultural awareness training for all government employees (4) Cmwlth Cultural awareness training for agency staff (2) Cmwlth It needs to be recognised that Indigenous involvement includes spiritual connection to the land which Cmwlth is a difficult concept for governments to address Provide cultural awareness training for government staff which will help raise awareness of Indigenous MDBC

138 issues, perspectives, perceptions and the need for involvement Cultural awareness training for staff (3) MDBC Cross cultural training that is good quality and on-Country, appropriate to the area and people (5) QLD Provide cultural awareness training for government staff which will help raise awareness of Indigenous SA issues, perspectives, perceptions and the need for involvement (10) Cultural awareness training (7) SA Staff need to be trained in how to deal with Indigenous people VIC Cross cultural training VIC Need to have a targeted program to employ more than one Indigenous person within the Commission MDBC Indigenous staff of the MDBC to liaise and network closely with State and regional Indigenous Liaison MDBC Officers and to have close involvement with project managers There should be more employment of Indigenous people to work on Commission business but need to MDBC aware that this could create expectations that are not met more widely in partner governments Improved support for Indigenous staff so that they can be more effective at the community level NSW Increasing Indigenous employment in agencies would affect change and increase awareness within NSW the department (6) Cultural awareness training for non-Indigenous committee members (6) NSW Provide ‘attitudinal change’ workshops for senior middle and lower management positions within the NSW organisation – cultural heritage protection is seen as an area that requires change and improvement Include an Indigenous Director on the Executive of the organisation NSW Improve the creation of an organisational culture that respects Indigenous involvement through more QLD employment of Indigenous people (4) Employ more Indigenous people SA Appoint appropriate staff with role/responsibilities to work with the Indigenous community SA Create Indigenous senior management positions which have responsibility for Indigenous issues VIC Change the way in which recruitment is undertaken to ensure Indigenous people apply for jobs and VIC that successful applicants are supported eg. training, flexibility on formal qualifications, offering scholarships Increase Indigenous employment to five precent in areas where they can add value to the VIC organisation and keep an eye on gender issues Initiate mentoring programs for Indigenous staff VIC Need to build confidence in staff so that they understand issues and know how to involve Indigenous VIC people Need more Indigenous people involved at the management level VIC Need a systematic approach with a long term view involving multiple agencies, beyond natural CAC resource management, partners in funding could include ATSIC, ILC, training organisations, etc There is a need for an Indigenous liaison unit to provide a focus for Indigenous issues and to provide Cmwlth an appropriate contact point (2) Under the CoAG there is a requirement for each Ministerial Council to have an ‘Action Plan to Cmwlth Advance Reconciliation’. The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council needs to implement this responsibility (5) Create a Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee for the department NSW There is a need for a whole-of-government approach (6) NSW There is a need for whole-of-government support, and support by the Federation of Traditional QLD Owners and Representative Bodies for the document “On Ground On Country” (2) Forums such as the ‘Development of the Sea’ which provided seed funding to bring all the mobs QLD together to figure out how they can approach issues was a good model for involvement (2) Whole-of-government approach to funding and making things happen on the ground is necessary (2) QLD

139

Implementing the Indigenous Partnership Strategy and developing a long term vision will assist in VIC facilitating Indigenous community consultation Promote examples of sound land management by Indigenous organisations/communities, eg. Hay Cmwlth LALC; positive information campaign such as signs on properties, media releases, etc MDBC meetings of all types should open with a recognition of the Traditional Owners on whose MDBC country the meeting is being held Seek advice on protocols for dealings with Indigenous people MDBC Create written guidelines for implementing protocols and an Indigenous involvement communication VIC strategy Introduce symbolic procedures that will lift the profile of Indigenous culture within the organisation, eg. VIC acknowledgement of Traditional Owners and Country at all meetings (Board and executive levels) and acknowledge the traditional land upon which government buildings stand with an appropriately worded plaque Provide resources to Indigenous people to facilitate effective participation and communication (2) CAC Government assist and fund Indigenous communities to build capacity CAC Government support and resource the collection of Indigenous knowledge of natural resources CAC There is a need to provide resources to Indigenous people to facilitate effective participation and Cmwlth communication (2) Government needs to be aware of the significant financial and other resources that will be required to Cmwlth assist in effective Indigenous networking (2) Governments need to recognise that current funding limits the involvement of Indigenous people (2) Cmwlth Provide technical support to enhance understanding of issues and ability to contribute MDBC Need real resources that go beyond funding the individual to resourcing a consultative MDBC network/process which can support the individual Allocate adequate resources for Indigenous involvement (2) MDBC Need to be aware that due to socio-economic circumstances, some community involvement MDBC processes become ‘an end in themselves’ (ie. sitting fees become a source of income) and drive the process Properly resource Indigenous people’s involvement, including attendance at meetings (5) QLD Provide resources to Indigenous people to facilitate effective participation and communication (2) SA Provide technical support to enhance understanding of issues and ability to contribute (2) SA Improved resources / funding (4) SA Indigenous people should be paid for their involvement; good results can’t be expected if Indigenous VIC people are engaged voluntarily as volunteers are strapped for time and energy already Indigenous people need to be paid on the same basis as any other person who is contributing VIC specialist skills Indigenous communities could be funded to be more involved at the ground level VIC Within the organisation, recognise the value of Indigenous input and proactively ensure this VIC involvement by: genuine consultation (throughout the whole process, not just at the tail end); providing adequate resources for transport; dissemination of information, etc; the use of clear and simple language in government documents; adopting flexibility in processes; adoption of a partnership approach based on recognition and respect of Indigenous perspectives Government need to understand what is involved in getting Indigenous involvement right, ie. it is VIC labour and time intensive and requires additional resourcing (3) Any processes and mechanisms for dealing with Indigenous involvement will need more time than is Cmwlth currently allowed for community involvement Any processes and mechanisms for dealing with Indigenous involvement will need more time than is MDBC currently allowed for community involvement (2) Provide sufficient time to accommodate effective communication MDBC

140

Provide adequate timeframes without expectations for instant comments or decisions from Indigenous NSW representatives A long term approach with appropriate resourcing is required; definitely not ‘quick fixes’ (2) QLD Provide sufficient time to accommodate effective communication (6) SA Work together as ‘communities’ (ie. inclusive processes) CAC The MDBC should consult with Indigenous communities on how they best can be involved (2) MDBC Incorporate Indigenous involvement into MDBC policies MDBC Recognise Indigenous people as being legitimate stakeholders in natural resource management MDBC decision making Develop guidelines and policies within the Indigenous arena covering vision, protocols, alignment with NSW other key stakeholders and a holistic approach that includes government and Indigenous organisations Start involvement from the perspective of a ‘partnership’ NSW Indigenous people need equal opportunities to become involved in the decision making process at all NSW levels of the MDBC A structured process for Indigenous consultation and involvement is required (2) QLD Indigenous people should be involved in Ministerial Advisory Committees on a broad range of issues QLD (2) Processes to involve Traditional Owners need to be more appropriate QLD Need to ensure Indigenous people feel valued and have a legitimate role in the process. This can be SA facilitated by measures such as involving Indigenous people at the start of a project, adequate resourcing and appropriate styles of communication Develop a partnership approach with Indigenous communities to work on natural resource SA management Early involvement of Indigenous people in projects/issue resolution SA Need to be aware of the level of consultation required of community – a coordinated approach would VIC work better Indigenous people should participate on all major MDBC committees VIC Need to undertake much of the involvement process on weekends so that Indigenous people who are CAC working are not disadvantaged through losing wages The Community Advisory Committee should have more than one Indigenous member and each MDBC member should have support through mechanisms such as Indigenous Reference Panels or adequately resourced communication network Need to develop culturally appropriate processes, eg. meeting on country, provision of time to MDBC consider and network issues (2) Need to establish a credible and neutral source of advice on processes and mechanisms for effective MDBC involvement of Indigenous communities Regional forums be organised where Indigenous people from the region can discuss strategies for the NSW future with the government; this is a chance to government agencies to interact and solve issues The Indigenous involvement processes need to be monitored and scrutinised and their effectiveness NSW assessed; this should be undertaken by people external to the organisation Establish a separate consultation process which enables Indigenous people to be involved without NSW expectations to operate in an ‘executive’ manner; the process would allow Indigenous people to participate in natural resource management decision-making forums, then go back to their community and consult in an appropriate manner (in the Aboriginal way) and return to the decision making table Regional Advisory Committees could rotate locations throughout their region and invite local NSW Indigenous people to meet with them and discuss issues of concern Hold workshops prior to meetings to ensure Indigenous participants have a thorough understanding of NSW the agenda and time to consult and develop responses (eg. lake Victoria Barkindji Elders Committee) MDBC needs to develop MOUs / agreements with such organisations at ATSIC, and State Land NSW

141

Councils and develop strategies as to how to meet the needs of Indigenous communities Consultative processes should involve men and women from each Traditional Owner group (2) QLD Policies need to direct the involvement of Indigenous people in catchment management boards (3) QLD Specifically target Indigenous participation through the use of simple language, small group QLD discussions instead of documents, use of existing Indigenous structures, eg. ATSIC, and appreciate and understand diversity within the Indigenous community (3) Create Indigenous positions on decision making forums and committees SA Involve Indigenous people in the creation of the engagement process (eg. Murray Lower Darling SA Rivers Indigenous Nations’ Memorandum of Understanding) (3) Indigenous involvement processes need to have purpose and focus, with performance criteria SA Provide a formalised ‘forum’ to enable Indigenous views to come forward SA Develop formal processes such as Memorandum of Understanding with Indigenous communities SA Involve Indigenous people in ongoing implementation of plans VIC Should consider ‘community forestry’ program like those that have been successful in other countries VIC where a forest is given to the community to manage, resources and training are provided Develop memoranda of understanding with all Indigenous communities which demonstrate VIC commitment to involvement and working together Need to expand Indigenous membership on MDBC committees to more than one person MDBC Provision of formal links between the MDBC and regional cultural heritage boards will assist in the VIC creation of linkages with Indigenous communities Provide review clauses in Indigenous and natural resource management programs VIC Ensure that Indigenous partnership strategies are robust enough to work long term and not rely on VIC particular individuals (2) Current consultation processes tend to be linear (ie. you ask someone who asks someone else who C asks someone else, etc) – this should be avoided (2) Passive approaches to Indigenous involvement do not work (2) Cmwlth Tokenism needs to be avoided – quality and effective involvement is essential (2) MDBC In progressing Indigenous involvement processes, it is important to ensure that there are successful MDBC and recognised outcomes Indigenous communities need to develop a consolidated view on natural resource management MDBC issues. When disparate community/nations’ views are presented, the role of determining a way forward is left with bureaucracies and results in inadequate and unsatisfactory outcomes Community-endorsed infrastructure and processes which are based in the community are better than QLD one-off efforts (2) A comprehensive package of approaches to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management CAC is required including adequate resourcing particularly for travel to enable Indigenous people to talk to their community, training in leadership, development of political skills and knowledge and building capacity in natural resource management issues (2) There is a need to build capacity within the Indigenous community to allow for involvement CAC Need to build capacity within the Indigenous community to enable more effective involvement CAC There is a need to build capacity within the Indigenous community to allow for involvement (2) Cmwlth Training in understanding government processes and culture (such as influencing political Cmwlth processes)(2) Need to be aware that due to socio-economic circumstances, some community involvement MDBC processes become ‘an end in themselves’ (ie. sitting fees become a source of income) and drive the process Increase capacity within the Indigenous community for self-determination NSW Capacity-building within the community is required to help Elders/Traditional Owners prioritise and QLD cope with the issues (2)

142

Need to build capacity within the Indigenous community to allow for involvement SA Increase Indigenous community awareness of natural resource management issues so they can SA understand how and why they should be involved Ensure that local needs of Indigenous communities are identified and understood – “one size doesn’t VIC fit all” Leadership needs to be engendered from within Indigenous communities MDBC Training for Indigenous committee members to help them be more effective in their role (6) NSW Need specific programs for improved management of Indigenous-owned land Cmwlth Unemployment programs should be designed to provide Indigenous people with opportunities to work Cmwlth on Indigenous-owned land or cultural protection activities (2) Indigenous communities could do their own natural resource management plans and feed them into NSW existing government plans, although it is recognised that time would be an issue (6) Provide training to give Indigenous people skills to record and manage cultural heritage resources VIC Provide training and tools for Indigenous people to be able to manage cultural heritage and natural VIC resources Cultural awareness training needs to be extended to all stakeholders involved in natural resource MDBC management, not just government (4) Leaders within catchment management organisations and other stakeholder groups need to develop a MDBC better appreciation of Indigenous values, perceptions and perspectives and the need for Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making The MDBC should work with other jurisdictions to develop a whole-of-government approach to MDBC Indigenous involvement with respect to natural resource management and the inherent linkages with other social and economic issues Educate and make people aware of Indigenous values and perspectives, including non-Indigenous NSW committee members who represent major stakeholders Increase awareness of the broader community to the importance of Indigenous involvement in natural SA resource management Putting the past behind and look to the future CAC Need to establish good processes for recognising and dealing with Indigenous issues (2) Cmwlth Think more carefully about how to obtain a fuller and more complete view of Indigenous communities MDBC Can’t recommend processes; experience to date has shown that when significant opportunities have MDBC been provided they have often been defeated by conflicting tensions within the Indigenous community Unable to recommend any processes (2) MDBC Develop an approach that encourages compromise on both sides MDBC No recommendations – there are not many opportunities to get Indigenous people involved in MDBC MDBC business More Indigenous input is required at the regional level where implementation occurs (6) NSW For all communities (not just Indigenous), less consultation would lead to more efficiency NSW Recognise that there is no panacea NSW Keep trying and take an adaptive management approach to the processes of consultation and NSW engagement (4) Follow through with new initiatives and strategies (3) NSW There is a need to examine better models for Indigenous participation QLD Processes need to be applied equitably because positive discrimination can lead to negative SA responses from other stakeholders Develop mutual understanding and respect (2) SA Ask Indigenous people what the problems are and develop solutions together SA Need for perseverance (as well as being a little ‘thick-skinned’) (6) SA

143

Be mindful that Indigenous involvement is a process – there won’t be a single cure solution; need to VIC be prepared to invest the time and resources necessary

Question 5. What, if any, are the current processes and protocols used to facilitate Indigenous community consultation? (For example, who do you deal with, how do you maintain their involvement, do you deal with native title holders/traditional owners, do you gain consent from the traditional owners?)

Need to develop networks and links with key community representatives and build relationships CAC If relationship does not exist, then no action is preferable to “getting it wrong” CAC Unable to identify current processes/protocols (2) MDBC Not aware of protocols or processes to facilitate Indigenous involvement and not aware of how well Qld consultation is being done (2) None / limited / don’t know (4) SA After the Forest management planning phase is complete, Indigenous involvement stops Vic Some catchment management organisations have a cultural awareness program CAC Most Commonwealth programs operate remotely. Conditions with respect to Indigenous involvement Cmwlth are often included as program guidelines (2) Current staffing includes an Indigenous Land Management Facilitator and Indigenous Heritage Cmwlth Officers In the context of Murray-Darling Basin activities, do not consider there are processes and protocols in Cmwlth place to facilitate Indigenous community consultation except the positive influence through Indigenous involvement on catchment management organisations The MDBC Indigenous employee is developing new networks MDBC The SI&E Indigenous Involvement Scoping Study will lead to the development of protocols MDBC The MDBC is supporting the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations to develop a MDBC memorandum of understanding with partner governments regarding engagement processes Indigenous representatives on natural resource management committees provide a link with NSW Indigenous communities The practice of acknowledgement and thanking of the Traditional Owners when on their Country is Qld increasing; at senior levels, respect for Indigenous culture is becoming more overt (3) A personal approach is taken by quite a few individuals when dealing with Indigenous people, Qld however, this is not a departmental policy (2) Governments are recognising the need to spend more time finding out whom the appropriate Qld spokesperson/decision maker’s are in Indigenous communities (2) In some cases (patchy), there is recognition that timeframes for consultation need to be longer and Qld that continuity of the personnel involved is important Employment of a high percentage of Indigenous staff (eg. 50% of staff at Coorong National Park) SA Some individual government representatives make a conscious decision to “go out and talk to SA Indigenous people” At a local level, there is Indigenous involvement in land management SA Currently attempting to involve South Australia government in the memorandum of understanding SA with the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations There are draft Guidelines for working with Indigenous communities and protection of cultural sites; Vic this is being reviewed for its usefulness for staff who work with the community and should be finalised by July 2002 Cross cultural training have been given to a quarter of all staff Vic There is an Indigenous Heritage Management Strategy being developed which will address effective Vic

144 consultation, cross cultural training run by local Indigenous communities and employment; it will also provide protocols on how to undertake activities Now, at the opening of Commission and Ministerial Council meetings the Traditional Owners, on MDBC whose country the meeting is being held, are acknowledged (2) Indigenous people are involved in consultation processes at Lake Victoria, Menindee Lakes and MDBC Barmah-Millewa forest (2) The Community Advisory Committee has a sub-committee to look at Indigenous issues being MDBC considered by the CAC Indigenous policy makers in various agencies are forming a combined voice which is increasing the NSW awareness of the need to involve Indigenous people in decision-making There are legal requirements to deal with Native Title claimants/holders NSW Legislation prescribes that organisations must deal with the Local Aboriginal Land Councils NSW Aboriginal Natural Resource Officers provide a major link with Indigenous communities and also NSW assist in ensuring that written communications from the department is appropriate (6) The government agency’s Regional Manager is the primary community link for the department with NSW Indigenous organisations (3) At the Head Office of the agency, dealings are with peak Indigenous organisations such as State NSW Aboriginal Land Council, ATSIC; there is no direct consultation Deal with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to provide advice on Indigenous issues NSW Involve Indigenous people in cultural heritage management issues to work alongside departmental NSW staff such as archaeologists (3) Attempt to coordinate other agencies to be involved in cultural heritage management issues; each NSW agency brings their own legislative perspective even though National Parks and Wildlife Service is the peak body (3) Policy development within the agency requires that cultural heritage issues be taken into NSW consideration for all policies (not just those explicitly related to natural resource management), thus policy initiatives are routinely referred to cultural heritage division for input There is acknowledgement and thanking of the Traditional Owners when on their Country (2) Qld The department has an Aboriginal Torres Straight Islander consultation strategy; this has led to a 10- Qld year Partnership Framework to work towards developing State-level agreements (2) Agencies tend to deal with Representative Bodies and Traditional Owner Groups supplemented at Qld times with seeking advice through Indigenous consultants (3) Consultation tends to follow a ‘layered approach’, for example, the senior levels of government based Qld in Brisbane tend to deal with Representative Bodies while in the field, Traditional Owners and locals are consulted (3) When setting up internal working groups, the Agency’s Indigenous Unit is involved Qld When Indigenous people have a concern, a plan is put together that suits their needs Qld The Agency’s Indigenous Unit has regular contact with Traditional Owner groups. When there is a Qld particular issue, effort is put into identifying which Traditional Owner groups are affected so that they can be involved a consultative process as follows: The Agency drafts an agenda Traditional Owner group amends where necessary Traditional Owner group alerts their community to the meeting details Traditional Owner group chairs the meeting Agency collates the responses Outcomes are feedback to Traditional Owner groups where further comment is sought The documents are fed into appropriate parts of the Agency where a formal plan is developed Plan goes back to Traditional Owner groups for comment In National Park management, there is formal recognition of Traditional Owners, and routinely seek SA their advice and views Involved through statutory processes (ie. land use planning and Native Title negotiations) and SA government policy (2)

145

Consultation process within DWLBC to obtain advice on Indigenous heritage protection for drilling SA sites (remunerated participation) Local Heritage Committees established under the State Aboriginal Heritage Act provide advice on SA heritage issues (2) Cultural heritage staff provide a link between government agencies and community; this mechanism Vic provides strong community representation via the regions Protocols regarding Native Title and cultural heritage issues are established Vic Some Indigenous communities are resourced to identify, map, record, preserve and develop Vic strategies to protect local cultural heritage. There are five regionally-based Boards in the State with 100% Indigenous membership. These representatives are elected by their Indigenous Cooperatives in each region. The Boards are fully resourced (sitting fees, travel and office accommodation separate to their respective co-ops is provided). The Department meets with the Boards regularly (2)

Question 6: Do you believe there are barriers in relation to Indigenous community involvement? If so, please detail.

There is a lack of understanding within government of Indigenous values, perspectives, perceptions Cmwlth and need for involvement (2) Natural resource management community not aware of the wishes of Indigenous community’s to be CAC involved It is very difficult to understand Indigenous values, perspectives, perceptions and need for MDBC involvement The incorporation of Indigenous views is not part of the MDBC’s ‘organisational culture’, there is a MDBC lack of appreciation of the importance of Indigenous involvement at the executive level There is a lack of understanding within government of Indigenous values, perspectives, perceptions MDBC and need for involvement A low appreciation of Indigenous perspectives and values leads to MDBC forums often working to MDBC goals and objectives that are different to and/or not shared by those of Indigenous communities Most non-Indigenous people do not understand the breadth of issues of concern to Indigenous Qld people; most just think in terms of “stick and bones” management (2) General lack of awareness amongst non-Indigenous people of Indigenous culture and the importance Qld of Country (6) There is a total lack of understanding within government of Indigenous values, perspectives, SA perceptions and need for involvement (3) Non-Indigenous individuals and bureaucracies deal with issues based on their own SA perspectives/prejudices and experiences (3) Non-indigenous people don’t understand how Indigenous people want to be involved in natural SA resource management There is poor understanding of Indigenous culture within the organisation; senior management has Vic not taught the value of Indigenous involvement to all employees There is an unwillingness within bureaucracies and the broader community to take Indigenous people Cmwlth and their views seriously (2) Indigenous people sometimes feel that they are not regarded as having a legitimate role at the MDBC decision making table by other stakeholders Many catchment management organisations and other stakeholders don’t yet appreciate Indigenous MDBC cultural values as part of natural resource management Amongst staff of some government agencies, there some doubt as to whether Indigenous people NSW should be involved at all (3) Some individuals question the value of Indigenous involvement Vic Members of the environmental movement are concerned that Indigenous communities are unable to Vic manage land appropriately

146

The MDBC is not very effective at communication, therefore never has the opportunity to develop MDBC close relationships with communities, including Indigenous groups The MDBC office does not have well integrated communication internally – often only real progress MDBC regarding integration of natural resource management issues occurs informally after hours – this affects the consistency and effectiveness of the office’s attempts to address Indigenous issues Inappropriate communication style which uses bureaucratic and technocratic jargon, often spoken NSW quickly, in essence a totally inappropriate style of explanation of the issues Indigenous people have a different concept of time (2) Cmwlth The issue of Indigenous representation requires a different approach (2) Cmwlth MDBC consultative processes and timeframes make it difficult for adequate Indigenous consultation MDBC The challenge of moving at a speed that brings the wider community along while feeling the pressure NSW to achieve improved Indigenous involvement (3) Some decision makers are concerned about ultimate costs of engagement and timeframes, Qld particularly if issues need to be resolved within political timeframes (3) Government timeframes currently don’t allow sufficient time to communicate appropriately, leading to SA tension, misunderstanding and failure to recognise complexity Many Indigenous consultative processes are doomed to fail because of inadequate government SA resourcing and support to enable effective participation Building relationships takes time Vic Time constraints – community communication takes time which is often not made available Vic The MDBC is unfamiliar with the general mechanics of Indigenous involvement and are yet to explore MDBC better modes of communication Current MDBC systems for Indigenous involvement are completely inappropriate, are under- MDBC resourced and have unsympathetic processes - in reality, they are converse to the approach that needs to be taken and can be counter-productive (2) Indigenous involvement at the MDBC level can create expectations which cannot be met resulting in MDBC a decrease in trust in integrated processes Indigenous involvement at the MDBC level can lead to mixed messages for Indigenous communities MDBC given that most resource management responsibilities are at the State level It is difficult to deal with Indigenous people because governments are set up to deal with MDBC organisations – the resources required to deal with Indigenous people are expensive Indigenous processes don’t mesh with government processes (eg. Indigenous timeframes are longer MDBC than political or budget time scales) The bureaucracy is not designed to deal with minorities – government is designed to address the MDBC needs of the majority Government in general is not structured to allow for interaction and synergy between MDBC departments/jurisdictions in response to community issues For governments, long term relationships with Indigenous communities and issues support are MDBC difficult to maintain (eg. staff turnover, political changes in policy and priorities, etc) There are minimal opportunities to become involved and some of these are not taken up MDBC The existing arrangements for Indigenous involvement (Indigenous staff and Indigenous community NSW representatives) are not affecting change at the decision making level (6) Separate consultation processes for landholders and Indigenous people mean that neither group Qld understands the other’s perspective or own the outcomes Best practice models for Indigenous involvement cannot be found (2) Qld Indigenous people have a very different decision-making processes (in comparison to normal Cmwlth bureaucratic approaches) (2) A low appreciation within government of the need to do things differently (2) Cmwlth Current involvement processes are inconsistent with Indigenous cultural protocols and requirements NSW

147

Inappropriate engagement processes have created barriers through not recognising Qld proper/appropriate connection with Country and cultural differences (6) Indigenous engagement at the local level is seen as ‘something extra’ and not part of core Vic responsibilities Opportunities for Indigenous involvement tend to be added on rather than incorporated into the CAC mainstream community (ie. land-holder) engagement processes Governments tend to focus on the meeting itself as a method of community involvement and expects CAC Indigenous people to have communication networks while not appreciating that many Indigenous people do not have the same resources as other stakeholders (eg. e-mail, telephone, fax machines) There is no systematic or strategic approach to Indigenous involvement (2) CAC Indigenous communities are not easily engaged because structures are not Indigenous-friendly MDBC Indigenous community input can be devalued if the processes of involvement are not appropriately MDBC structured, supported and resourced On committees where there is only one Indigenous position, a feeling of isolation can reduce MDBC effectiveness Dominance of mainstream methods of consultation (6) NSW Government expects Indigenous members of natural resource management committees to operate in NSW an ‘executive’ manner (ie. make decisions at the table); this creates difficulties for Indigenous members who require additional time to consult further with their communities The involvement of non-Indigenous people in some consultation processes can make Indigenous Qld people uncomfortable (2) Barriers are created by our limited knowledge of whom to involve MDBC In terms of identifying a representative viewpoint, there are so many different Indigenous MDBC groups/families with a range of perspectives on an issue that it is difficult to obtain a clear direction Indigenous people on committees are unable to speak on behalf of other Indigenous communities or MDBC for country other than their own (2) There is no Indigenous selection process for nominating representatives to natural resource MDBC management stakeholder committees unlike most other stakeholder groups which are ‘self- selecting’(eg. representatives come from established organisations such as the NFF) Indigenous representatives on committees often do not have the ability to respond to their own NSW community’s needs and to marry those with the needs of the government; they feel they are “the meat in the sandwich” and have feelings of alienation from their community and conflicts of obligation (6) Lack of an appropriate process for selecting Indigenous representatives for committees contributes to NSW disharmony in the community Although Indigenous community members sit at the natural resource management committee NSW decision-making table, their selection process and support is inappropriate Government bureaucracies have an ingrained behaviour to consult inappropriately; they tend to go to Qld the Representative Bodies and use them as a “one stop shop” (2) It is difficult to define the different roles of Traditional Owners and other Indigenous people with Qld respect to involvement in natural resource management Racist attitudes CAC Racist attitudes still exist in government and the broader community SA Difficulties with Indigenous employees in the workplace can reinforce racist attitudes SA There is racism within the organisation Vic The variable access to land by Indigenous people inhibits site management and cultural activities (2) Cmwlth Real progress is impeded by bigger issues such as the government saying “sorry” (4) Cmwlth Often landholder and government interests in the natural resource management supercede NSW Indigenous interests Economic interests often override Indigenous interests in natural resource management Qld

148

Participants in consultative processes often come to the table with set views and inflexible attitudes CAC MDBC construction/engineering activities have overlooked Indigenous cultural considerations MDBC Indigenous issues are often ‘drowned out’ by more political issues Qld The Water Allocation and Management Process is not currently advised by Indigenous people Qld Departments don’t always fully capitalise on opportunities to build capacity of Indigenous people to Qld perform in natural resource management forums (2) Indigenous people want other stakeholders to live up to their responsibilities Vic Raising the subject of Indigenous ownership of land makes many natural resource managers CAC (government and landholder) apprehensive and leads to further division within society Moving from an era of identifying Indigenous wants to a legalistic and political approach to property MDBC rights which creates fear of legal implications for natural resource managers A belief that it is not necessary to involve non-Traditional Owners in natural resource management NSW and land issues (6) It is difficult to convince some landholders that Indigenous people need to be involved in cultural NSW heritage site management on privately managed property (3) Landholders feel its their land and should not be interfered with by Indigenous people or government Qld (2) Lack of education and understanding of the aspirations of Indigenous people generates fear of the Qld unknown (2) Suspicion/scepticism about Indigenous perspectives (3) Qld Landholder’s fear of Native Title (3) Qld There are perceptions that consultation will be difficult which leads to involvement being omitted until SA it is unavoidable Non-indigenous community members feel threatened by Indigenous involvement because of lack of SA understanding and loss of influence and/or control There are some perceptions within the organisation that Indigenous people have more support and Vic opportunity than non-Indigenous people Due to the complicated nature of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, and the fact that it doesn’t Cmwlth mention Indigenous involvement, there is no clear direction on involvement which contributes to outcomes for Indigenous people that are ‘lowest common denominator’ (2) The only policy-level reference to involving Indigenous communities in decision making is in the MDBC Integrated Catchment Management Policy Statement High level policy inadequately addresses Indigenous involvement NSW Lack of government clarity as to why Indigenous involvement is important NSW The way legislation directs departments to consult with Local Aboriginal Land Councils and peak NSW bodies creates problems at a local issue-based level Policies for Indigenous involvement, particularly for crucial, high-level decisions are inadequate Qld Some statutory planning processes are single issue but become complicated when other issues are Qld raised by Indigenous people (3) Legislation often represents a thin slice of the whole picture and reduces Traditional Owner’s Qld intellectual capital (tacit and explicit knowledge) to an ‘information’ collecting exercise There is confusion between land rights and Native Title. Qld Laws don’t always define the best or correct process (ie. Heritage clearances versus Native Title SA processes) Native Title issues distract Indigenous communities from continuing to negotiate with government Vic Many Indigenous people cannot become involved because of economic and social circumstances (3) Cmwlth Many Indigenous people cannot become involved because of economic circumstances MDBC Indigenous involvement will continue to be difficult while there is a huge economic gap between the MDBC Indigenous community and mainstream Australian society

149

Indigenous people are socially disadvantaged which prohibits their participation (eg. travel costs) (6) NSW Sitting fees for Indigenous people affects eligibility for their pension payments NSW Often Indigenous people don’t have the resources (financial, transport, telephone/faxes or technical SA knowledge) to effectively participate in decision making (2) There are issues of poor land management skills on Country that has been handed back to Cmwlth Indigenous communities Currently relatively few Indigenous people have the capacity to effectively participate in the CAC government processes, which creates pressures and overloading (time and representation/responsibility) on these few individuals Indigenous people’s feeling of ‘shame’ CAC Many Indigenous people do not become involved because participation in government forums can MDBC expose feelings associated with their social circumstances such as poor education, feelings of being disempowered, low self esteem (2) There is a view that for Indigenous involvement to work, Indigenous people need to increase their MDBC ability to add value to the process rather than be destructive through the misuse of aggression Levels of capacity and education within the Indigenous community to deal with natural resource NSW management issues Currently relatively few Indigenous people are capable of effective participation in the bureaucracy, SA which creates pressures (time and representation/responsibility) on these few individuals Indigenous people don’t understand how to do business with the hierarchy of government Qld bureaucracies (2) There are social/economic differences, understanding (language) and communication and general SA culture differences (2) Indigenous people don’t understand government processes and bureaucratic realities (2) SA Some Indigenous people don’t know how to become involved and don’t want to do the wrong thing, SA make mistakes or be humiliated Indigenous politics and Indigenous people are still learning how to use new systems and how to work Vic with others The system of class structure within Australian society and socio-economic circumstances creates CAC barriers to Indigenous involvement Indigenous involvement in natural resource management issues is often complicated by the broader MDBC suite of issues facing the Indigenous community (eg. health, education, employment, substance abuse, Native Title) (2) Indigenous people as community representatives in natural resource management focussed forums, MDBC often bring many more issues to the table than the forum is capable or mandated to address (eg. at Lake Victoria the issue was burials but the discussion focussed on the need for employment) Land and water issues are secondary to other Indigenous issues such as employment, housing, NSW health (6) Poor and inconsistent Indigenous representation on natural resource management committees (3) NSW Involvement has been of a required, statutory type rather than addressing the broader socio- NSW economic considerations relevant to Indigenous communities Indigenous people have not realised the extent of their potential involvement in natural resource SA issues (ie. have been focussing in Native Title) Indigenous politics (lack of cohesion) can obstruct involvement (2) Cmwlth Indigenous politics (lack of cohesion) can obstruct involvement CAC Internal Indigenous community conflicts make it difficult to identify community representatives and/or NSW gain an Indigenous perspective on a particular issue At times, the struggle within Indigenous communities between Traditional Owners and Local NSW Aboriginal Land Councils over the right to speak on cultural issues Non-Traditional Owners versus Traditional Owners conflict over land and cultural issues NSW

150

Poor relationships between Indigenous groups is a barrier (2) Qld Indigenous politics (lack of cohesion) can obstruct involvement (3) SA There are insufficient numbers of people working in government with the skills to engage Indigenous MDBC people Within the MDBC, staff who have an awareness of Indigenous issues have no opportunity to apply MDBC their insights to natural resource management issues Individual departments seeing themselves as the major player in Indigenous involvement issues, NSW rather than a whole-of-government approach (3) Individual Indigenous employees whose role it is to liaise with communities not having a good NSW relationship with all community groups in their region (3) Do not know of any opportunities for Indigenous people in the various levels of the MDBC NSW Agency view differs depending on their individual interest and awareness of how useful input from Qld Indigenous people could be There are insufficient numbers of people working in government with the skills to engage Indigenous SA people Indigenous people see government agencies as not having put any “runs on the board”. Vic Government’s past involvement has not amounted to anything substantive in the minds of Indigenous people who are now sceptical of further government involvement Inter-departmental rivalry concerning responsibilities for Indigenous involvement Vic Large regions make it hard to have all local issues addressed due to the geographical spread of staff NSW (3) Because meaningful involvement of Indigenous people is difficult, it ends up in the “too hard” basket Qld (2) Reaching all stakeholders in relation to landscape-scale issues makes consultation difficult (2) Qld The need to deal with several Traditional Owner groups within each region Qld The geographical spread and travel required by some Indigenous people who should be involved in SA decision making (ie. Traditional Owners) makes effective participation difficult Non-Indigenous people want to do the right thing - worried about whether actions are appropriate Vic Commonwealth ‘red tape’ with respect to obtaining funding for employment and partnership programs Vic is a barrier Difficulty in obtaining internal funding for Indigenous involvement Vic There is a perception that funding for Indigenous involvement is adequate - this perception can lead Vic to a reluctance to provide more funds Don’t believe there are deliberate barriers; there is broad recognition within the department that Cmwlth Indigenous concerns are important (2) There are no barriers with respect the MDBC processes – the MDBC seems to bend over backwards MDBC to cooperate Government barriers to Indigenous involvement are slowly coming down through cohesive effort SA

151

Appendix B — Workshop and Interview Questions

QUESTIONS FOR INDIGENOUS WORKSHOPS

1. Where do you live? Where is your country?

2. Where do you get your information on cultural heritage and land resource management?

3. What are the key issues and concerns for you and your community? (Not including cities, towns and other urban areas. Include rural locations only).

4. In terms of natural and cultural heritage, what does ‘protection’ and ‘preservation’ mean to you/your community?

5. Do mainstream ways to protect and preserve natural resources conflict with you/your community needs? If so, how?

6. Are you aware of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) and/or their land and water projects?

7. Do you believe there are barriers which prevent/affect meaningful Indigenous involvement? (For example, have there been things that got in the way of working together?) If so, please detail.

8. Have you, or anyone you know of, worked with the MDBC or any of its partner governments on land/water issues? If so, how was this ‘working together’ conducted? (For example, how did they contact you, were there regular meetings, were you paid etc?)

9. How could ‘working together’ be made easier? What strategies could be adopted?

10. How do other mainstream bodies work with you /your community?

11. The MDBC would like to involve appropriate Indigenous people to help them make decisions about how protection and preservation projects in the future. Who or what existing Indigenous networks should they involve? (For example, are there any individuals who should be involved? Are there any groups that should also be involved?)

12. Would you like a summary of this report mailed to you? If so, please include name and address details.

152

QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES

1. Why do you think it is important/useful to include Indigenous people in decision-making processes?

2. What opportunities are available for the involvement of Indigenous communities in natural resource management decision making within the Murray Darling Basin and/or relevant to the MDBC?

3. What is the current level of involvement of Indigenous communities? For example, what is the level of involvement in State arrangements in integrated catchment management committees/boards etc?

4. Can you recommend appropriate processes or mechanisms, which will increase the effectiveness of Indigenous participation at a regional/catchment, State and/or Basin scale?

5. What, if any, are the current processes and protocols used to facilitate Indigenous community consultation? (For example, who do you deal with, how do you maintain their involvement, do you deal with native title holders/traditional owners, do you gain consent from the traditional owners?)

6. Do you believe there are barriers in relation to Indigenous community involvement? If so, please detail.

7. How would you recommend they be overcome?

153

Appendix C — Project Information Sheet

INDIGENOUS INVOLVEMENT: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

The Murray Darling Basin is an important and significant area to many people. Indigenous people have had a history of cultural practice and identity connected to the Basin for thousands of years, which continues today. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) has a role in ensuring the protection and conservation of the cultural heritage values associated with significant sites, places, and landscapes. It is acknowledged that Indigenous people and the MDBC have a unique role to play in the ongoing life of the Basin. It is clear that if we are to move into the future with strength and consideration for our cultural values, we must do so by working together. But how can we best work together? What kind of mechanisms could we put into place that will ensure that Indigenous people may contribute, in a meaningful way, to natural resource management decision-making and the conservation of our cultural heritage in the Basin?

THE PROJECT The MDBC has appointed two independent and experienced consultants, Shelley Reys and Neil Ward to undertake a Scoping study on Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision-making and the integration of Indigenous cultural heritage considerations into relevant Commission programs.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES Through consultation with selected Indigenous networks and organisations across, or relevant to, the Murray Darling Basin, identify key issues, existing barriers and obstacles, consultation processes adopted by other bodies and existing opportunities/networks. Through consultation with the MDBC, its partner governments and other State and Federal Agencies, identify current opportunities available to Indigenous people for involvement, the current level of involvement of Indigenous communities and the existing processes and protocols used. Through analysis of the above, identify key issues and concerns of Indigenous stakeholders, existing barriers, culturally and otherwise appropriate processes that could be adopted.

154

PROJECT CONSULTATIONS The project team will be conducting a series of one half to two hour interviews, with: - Indigenous individuals and representatives of organisations who are involved in natural resource management and cultural heritage. This will take in the following areas: Murray Bridge, Cunnamulla, Moree, Bourke, Dubbo, Dareton-Wentworth-Buronga, Mildura, Menindee and Albury-Wodonga. Where possible, a local Indigenous person from each of these areas will be employed to assist in the consultation process. - Government agency representatives from: South Australia, Queensland, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and the Commonwealth. - MDBC representatives.

ABOUT THE CONSULTANTS

Shelley Reys is an Aboriginal woman of the Djirbul people and Managing Director of Arrilla - Aboriginal Training and Development, a successful consultancy in its 13th year, which exists to promote equal opportunity between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the wider community. Shelley is also Co-Chair of Reconciliation Australia, Director of the YWCA of Sydney, former Chair Women’s Reconciliation Network and former Director of Gadigal Information Service (Koori Radio).

Neil Ward has twenty years experience in land management, with a focus on conservation. Neil has worked closely with Aboriginal communities throughout this time in three States.

PROJECT INFORMATION

For more information, contact Shelley Reys (0412 662 666) or Neil Ward (0419 010 744).

ALL INTERVIEWS WILL BE AMALGAMATED TO ENSURE STRICT PERSONAL CONFIDENTIALITY

155

Appendix D — Project Brief

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION Natural Resources Management Strategy STRATEGIC INVESTIGATIONS AND EDUCATION (SI&E) PROGRAM Project Brief

1. Project Title

Scoping study on Indigenous involvement in natural resource management decision making and the integration of Indigenous cultural heritage considerations into relevant Commission programs.

2. Background

This project is intended to provide direction to support the involvement of Indigenous stakeholders in decision making for natural resource management (NRM) and contribute to the development and implementation of mechanisms to ensure the protection and conservation of cultural heritage values of significant sites/places/landscapes.

The project will take place within the general context of: • the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s natural resource charter “to promote and coordinate effective planning and management for the equitable, efficient and sustainable use of the water, land and other environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin”; • the Murray Darling Basin Initiative as it involves the partnership between governments and community; • current Commission natural resource management approaches, particularly integrated catchment management and projects such as Environmental Flows and the Basin Salinity Management Strategy; and • the priority areas of the Commission’s natural resource branch programs – Drylands, Irrigated Regions, Riverine and Human Dimension.

3. Definitions

The following definitions apply for the purpose of this project.

156

Natural resource management decision-making is defined as processes related to the development of nrm policies and strategies, nrm planning and priority setting, and providing advice on nrm management, at Basin, state, and catchment/regional scales. It does not include decision-making for carrying out on-ground nrm works or management of individual cultural sites/places.

Cultural heritage is defined as sites, places and landscapes in the Basin of cultural significance to Indigenous communities excluding sites, places and landscapes in cities, towns and other urban areas.

4. Project objectives:

1. Through consultation with selected Indigenous networks and organisations across, or relevant to, the Murray Darling Basin, identify: (a) Key issues that relate to: • the protection and/or preservation of Indigenous Natural and Cultural heritage resources as part of ‘mainstream’ natural resource management; • current processes for the management of these resources, that may not reflect and/or address Indigenous community obligations and/or needs; and • current consultation processes adopted by the Commission and its partner governments to facilitate Indigenous involvement in natural resource management and integrated catchment management decision-making; (b) existing barriers and obstacles which may affect meaningful Indigenous involvement in the processes identified above; (c) consultation processes adopted by other bodies for involving Indigenous communities; and (d) existing Indigenous networks and/or opportunities in the Basin that may be used to help facilitate the meaningful engagement of Indigenous communities in natural resource management decision making carried out by Commission and its partner governments in Commission programs and projects.

2. Through consultation with the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC), its partner governments and other State and Federal Agencies involved in Natural resource and Cultural Heritage management identify: (a) current opportunities available to Indigenous communities for involvement in natural resource management decision-making relevant to MDBC; (b) the current level of involvement of Indigenous communities in natural resource management decision-making (eg. level of involvement in State arrangements for indigenous participation in integrated catchment management committees/boards); and

157

3. Through analysis of the above: (a) identify key issues and concerns of Indigenous stakeholders, including where (geographically) these issues are located but excluding locations in cities, towns and other urban areas; (b) identify if there are any existing barriers in relation to Indigenous community involvement in natural resource management decision- making at a regional/ catchment, State and Basin scale, and identify options to help overcome these barriers that reflect and address Indigenous community needs; (c) identify culturally appropriate processes that could be adopted to facilitate and/or improve meaningful community consultation at a regional/catchment, State and Basin scale; (d) identify other appropriate mechanisms that could be used to improve and increase meaningful Indigenous involvement in Natural resource management decision-making at a regional/ catchment, State and Basin scale.

5. Methodology

The scoping study will include: 1. Workshops and/or discussions with selected Indigenous networks organisations across, or relevant to, the Basin. Attachment 1 provides an indicative list of organisations that may be included in the workshops/discussions. 2. Review of relevant literature and documentation 3. Workshops and/or discussions with relevant government and non- government agencies involved in natural resource and cultural heritage management and other organisations involved in undertaking or developing mechanisms for consultation with Indigenous stakeholders 4. Preparation of a project report, including recommendations

6. Anticipated products

The output of the project will be a plain English report, addressing each of the project objectives and containing:

• A detailed methodology. • A comprehensive list of people and organisations that were consulted in relation to the project. • A list of identified contacts / networks, with the view of improving the MDBC Indigenous networks across the Basin.

158

• Identification of the key Indigenous issues relating to ‘mainstream’ natural resource management, including the protection and/or preservation of cultural sites/places/ resources/values. • Recommendations that reflect the intent of the objectives outlined in section 4.

7. Anticipated Outcomes of the Project:

• Clarification and prioritisation of key natural resource and cultural heritage management issues that Indigenous stakeholders in the Basin may have that are relevant to the Commission’s charter and work.

• Through acknowledging and respecting Indigenous views and values, to enable the Commission to better address Indigenous issues in its programs and projects.

• Establishment and use of processes that take account of Indigenous community consultation/ engagement needs and that consider and determine the effects that MDBC activities and practices may have on the protection and/or preservation of Indigenous natural and cultural heritage sites/places/resources/values.

• Identification of existing Indigenous networks and/or opportunities in the Basin that could be used to help facilitate the engagement of Indigenous communities in Murray Darling Basin Commission programs and projects.

• Commission policies, programs and strategies take account of Indigenous community needs.

• Creation of an environment and appropriate mechanisms that encourage and foster improved relations and partnerships between the Commission and Indigenous communities, whilst maintaining and strengthening existing ones within the Basin.

• Provision of genuine opportunities that allow Indigenous participation in MDBC natural resource management projects.

8. How will the project be established

The project will be established through a select tender Process. Potential consultants will have to submit a tender detailing the following: • cost, • outline of experience and knowledge of their organisation and team members • proposed methodology relating to the objectives and outcomes listed above

159

• A brief communication strategy • Understanding and appreciation of the Brief and the related issues

The project team will need the following: • good knowledge and understanding of Indigenous cultural heritage values, issues and management; • sound understanding of government natural resource management programs and processes; • experience in consulting with Indigenous groups and running workshops. • Adequate resources and administrative support • The team must consist of both males and females

Anticipated Project duration: Commencement Date: November/December 2001 Completion Date : March 2002

160

Attachment 1

The Scoping Study will include workshops and/or discussions with Selected Indigenous networks and organisations across, or relevant to, the Basin as identified by the Project Support Committee. These may include the following.

• Regional and State Aboriginal Land Councils • Regional ATSIC Councils • Aboriginal Cultural Heritage /Sites Officers • Aboriginal Natural Resource Officers (NSW DLWC) • Indigenous Land Management Facilitators • Land Enterprises Australia • NSW Aboriginal Heritage and Land Management Network ( NSW NPWS) • NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs • Wiradjuri Council of Elders • Aboriginal Medical Services • Murong Gialinga, Mudgee NSW • Gamillaroi Elders Council – Moree NSW • Aboriginal Lands Trust SA • SA Native Title Unit • SA Rural Solutions • Indigenous Land Corporation (QLD, NSW, SA, VIC) • Ngarrindjeri Tendi SA • SA Native Title Management Committees • Ulumni Community Relations and Development Office, Adelaide University • Queensland Native Title Rep Body, Toowoomba • Queensland Federation of Traditional Owners • Indigenous Advisory Committee, Environment Australia • Aboriginal Affairs Victoria • Mildura Aboriginal Corporation • Murray Valley Aboriginal Co-operative, Robinvale • Njernda Aboriginal Corporation, Echuca • Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative, Mooroopna • Shepparton Aboriginal Arts Council Co-operative • Swan hill and Distric Aboriginal Co-operative • Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation and Cultural Heritage Council, Moorabbin • Yorta Yorta Murray Goulburn Rivers Clan Incorporated, Barmah • Yorta Yorta National Aboriginal Corporation, Nathalia • Mirimbiac Nations Victoria • Aboriginal community representatives on existing Catchment Management Boards and Vegetation committees. Where it is not possible to hold individual consultations with these members, the consultant will be

161

required to extend personal invitations for these members to attend meetings and/or be given the opportunity to comment in writing. It is suggested that these invitations be channelled through their appropriate committee.

It is recommended that where possible the consultant will take advantage of existing meeting structures, such as, Indigenous Support/Network Meetings and Regional and State meetings. Where individuals and or the above opportunities are not available for face to face discussions/meetings, these staff will be given the opportunity to contribute in writing.

162

Appendix E — Indigenous Support Group

The Indigenous Support Group was selected by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and played an important part in the development of the Project brief, including the objectives and overall scope of the Project.

The members of the Support Group are:

Ian Woods Hay, New South Wales Stephen Hagan Toowoomba, Queensland Wayne Whorten Cunnamulla, Queensland Warrika Turner Gawler, South Australia Walda Blow South Morang, Victoria Bev Peters Mildura, Victoria Jason Wilson Cobar, New South Wales Derek Walker Point Pierce, South Australia

163

Appendix F — Indigenous Contact Lists and Networks

Complimentary to the findings of the Indigenous consultation phase, part of the Project’s task was to develop a list of what many Indigenous people consider to be the peak Indigenous organisations as well as those government bodies with an interest in Indigenous affairs. The list should not be considered as exhaustive, but as a general guide to the peak bodies and/or local offices or representatives. It does not include Indigenous consultants.

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION (ATSIC) Website: http://www.atsic.gov.au/ The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is Australia’s national policymaking and advocacy organisation for Indigenous people. They are an independent statutory authority established by the Commonwealth government in 1990. ATSIC is a decentralised organisation which advocates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues nationally and internationally, advises the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, and delivers a number of programs to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The website will offer you general information, useful links as well as contact details for state, regional and local offices. Offices produce varied community outreach resources including newsletters.

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LEGAL SERVICE (ALS) Website: http://www.powerup.com.au/atsils The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service aims to ensure that Indigenous Australians receive fair and equitable treatment within the criminal justice system and acts as an advocate on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Aboriginal Legal Service has offices around Australia and share information via existing networks.

ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCILS All states listing: http://www.ausanthrop.net/research/rep_bodies.php

Aboriginal Land Councils are responsible for policy issues and community concerns within their region. There are a number of Aboriginal Land Councils around Australia and they all operate differently. Generally speaking, they work in local and regional areas around Australia, and have a close relationship with the communities to which they represent. Many produce regular newsletters

164 notifying Indigenous people of key issues, employment opportunities and other information.

NACCHO/ABORIGINAL MEDICAL SERVICES (AMS) Website: http://www.naccho.org.au/

The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) is the national peak Aboriginal health body. It has a membership of around 100 Aboriginal community controlled health services (or Aboriginal Medical Services) throughout Australia, which operate in urban, rural and remote areas.

NATIVE TITLE REPRESENTATIVE BODIES Website: http://www.ntrb.net/ntrb.asp?p=5

Representative bodies are primarily service delivery agencies who are responsible for providing professional native title services to their clients in an effective and equitable manner, right across Australia. Those clients are the persons who hold or may hold native title in their area or part of their area, and registered native title bodies corporate who represent those native title holders.

These sites provide contact details of all rep bodies by location in a user-friendly manner.

NATIVE TITLE SERVICES, QLD Website: http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/ nativetitle/newweb/pages/aboutus.hm

Native Title Services (NTS) was created as a specialist area within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in 1998 as part of the Queensland Government's strategy to address native title issues.

NTS provides, in a single unit, a wide range of specialist skills and expertise necessary to deal with native title in Queensland. It claims to be the State's lead agency for all native title issues.

165

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL Website: http://www.nntt.gov.au

The National Native Title Tribunal maintains a principal registry in Perth, other registries in Sydney, Adelaide, Darwin, Melbourne, Brisbane and a regional office in Cairns. In Hobart and Canberra, where the Tribunal does not have a separate registry, administrative assistance, public information, NNTT materials and client services are provided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal's main role is to assist people reach agreements about native title. The Tribunal also arbitrates in certain future act matters.

DEADLY VIBE Website: http://www.vibe.com.au Address: Vibe Australia, 28 Burton Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, (2010) Phone: 61 2 9361 014002/ 1800 623 430 (free call) Fax: 61 2 9361 5850 Deadly Vibe magazine is a national lifestyle Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander music, sport, entertainment and lifestyle publication. At present, 47,000 copies are printed and distributed nationally each month and read by Indigenous people of all ages. While it has a youth focus, they are a whole of community publication.

Vibe Worker is a regular Deadly Vibe feature, promoting employment opportunities around Australia specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. You can chose to place a one-off advertisement, or use a combination of advertising and editorial to inform Indigenous people from every State and Territory about your issue.

DEADLY SOUNDS Website: http://www.vibe.com.au Address: Vibe Australia, 28 Burton Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, (2010) Phone: 61 2 9361 014002/ 1800 623 430 (free call) Fax: 61 2 9361 5850 Deadly Sounds is an Indigenous radio program which is distributed to, and aired on, a variety of radio stations around Australia. Sponsored by the National Drub Offensive, its primary target is young Indigenous people.

166

KOORI MAIL NEWSPAPER Website: http://www.koorimail.com Address: PO Box 117, Lismore, NSW, (2480) Phone: 61 2 6622 2666 Fax: 61 2 6622 2600 Koori Mail newspaper is the peak print media for Indigenous Australians and focuses upon key issues for Indigenous Australians and those interested in Indigenous affairs.

The Koori Mail provides advertising opportunities for employers seeking to communicate issues or opportunities for Indigenous people.

TUNGGARE NEWS Email: [email protected] Address: PO Box 1717 Strawberry Hills NSW 2012 Phone: 02 96998122 Fax: 02 9699 8177

Tunggare News was established in August 2002 and operates out of Redfern, one of Sydney’s high population areas. They publish weekly, and distribute nationally to Indigenous organisations and individuals. Rates are competitive and represent value for money.

NATIONAL INDIGENOUS TIMES Website: [email protected]

The National Indigenous Times is a fortnightly, tabloid newspaper distributed to more than 1,000 news agencies around Australia. Readership is currently 10,000 per edition and the paper. Editorial focuses solely on Indigenous issues, but also on how those issues have relevance to non-Indigenous Australians. The paper's mission statement is to help build a bridge between black and white Australians.

MESSAGE STICK/ABC Website: http//www.abc.net.au/message

Message Stick is both an ABC television magazine styled program, and an internet information source. The website will provide a link to the ABC’s Indigenous production across radio, television and the web. The website is also an information source for organisations wishing to know about protocol, intellectual copyright and culture.

167