TRANSCRIPT ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Inquiry into the establishment and effectiveness of registered Aboriginal parties Melbourne — 4 June 2012 Members Mr T. Bull Mr J. Pandazopoulos Ms J. Duncan Ms L. Wreford Mr D. Koch Chair: Mr D. Koch Deputy Chair: Mr J. Pandazopoulos Staff Executive Officer: Dr G. Gardiner Research Officer: Dr K. Butler Witness Mr R. Arnold, Guladjin Traditional Owner Group. 4 June 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 203 The CHAIR — Mr Ron Arnold is representing the Guladjin Traditional Owner Group. Mr ARNOLD — First of all, I would like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri people whose land we are on today both past and present. The CHAIR — Just before you take off, I would like to welcome you first. Mr ARNOLD — Thank you. The CHAIR — Ron, in welcoming you representing the Guladjin Traditional Owner Group, all evidence taken at the hearing this morning is protected by parliamentary privilege as provided by the Constitution Act 1975 and is further subject to the provisions of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003. Any comments you make outside the hearing may not be afforded such privilege. Again, I mention that while public hearings are open to the public, only those witnesses who have been invited to speak are able to address the committee here today. All evidence given today is being recorded, and as a witness you will be provided with a proof version of the transcript over the next couple of weeks. With those couple of words, Mr Ron Arnold, would you care to begin your presentation. Mr ARNOLD — Thank you, and good morning, everybody. My name is Ron Arnold. I am a Guladjin-Gadubanud man. I am also the director of Kuuyang Maar Aboriginal Corporation. Elders have died in four years. They could have told their stories and so on but were never getting anywhere. Elders are passing all the time. Their dying wish is to get their RAPs through, and development is still taking place because we do not have a RAP. Despite our best efforts, Guladjan-Gadubanud do not have RAP status. This means we do not have funding available to protect our sites, and there is a lot of ground being desecrated. The heritage council has not been at all open about why our RAP application is taking so long. I have sought advice from our board members and asked what our next steps should be, but we are not clear as to why we are not a RAP. The information and feedback provided to us has been inadequate as to why we are not a RAP. We are left in the dark and asked to provide more evidence without any guidance. For example, there was a small area that was not connected to any group through a family link, so we included that area in our boundary just to ensure that we could look after that country. The heritage council asked us why we included that area. We told them why and they said they would review our application once we had reviewed it. We put in an application and we have been waiting four years for an answer. They said we should know within the first three months. We have met all the requirements to try to appease the heritage council, but there has still been no decision. We feel there may be a conflict of interest within the heritage council, especially in relation to delaying decisions on RAP applications that have crossed boundaries. Indeed, there are serious problems with AAV, Native Title Services Victoria and the heritage council. There are members of the heritage council sitting on our RAP application who may have a conflict of interest. NTSV said they would help to mediate on the cross-boundary issues; however, these issues have not been overcome. The RAP process is slow and inadequate. It means that in areas where there are no RAPs our cultural heritage is being damaged and destroyed. There is no funding available to protect our cultural heritage sites until we have a RAP. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 states that it is intended to preserve and protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, but we cannot see how AAV, as the administrator of this act, is interested in it at all. For example, there are numerous scar trees in part of our country; it looks like there has been a great battle there. AAV has visited that site but has shown no interest whatsoever in offering protection until now. If a traditional owner group is not recognised as a RAP, then the cultural heritage in that area is not protected. For example, we were in a part of country where we found a cranium and lower jaw hanging out of the surface. AAV attended but showed very little interest until the next day, but the cultural heritage is still there no matter what. Being a RAP would provide at least some power of authority so that we could have a say in the process and the decisions that are been made that affect, and in many cases destroy, our heritage. If there is no RAP, the CHMP process does not exist. There is no process in place at all without a RAP. Developers only make an effort where there is a RAP recognised or registered for that area. For example, developers proposed to put in a quarry which was right across from another site that had been surveyed and had massive amounts of archaeological sites but 4 June 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 204 the quarry owners did not do any cultural heritage surveys because there was no RAP in place for the area. Whether or not we are a RAP, the heritage is there and it needs to be protected. Sorry, my speech is a bit fast. The CHAIR — Ron, there is no rush. You have 20 minutes to make your presentation, so please take your time. Mr ARNOLD — Thank you. I was working at the Apollo Bay lighthouse station. A large excavator was cutting a track through the coastal scrub and clearing it. I informed them that there was a midden in direct danger. When I returned later that day the midden had been destroyed. The operator should have spoken to Parks Victoria and requested there be a cultural adviser on site. However, they were told not to bother because there was no RAP. Further, we are not allowed access to important information because we are not a RAP. For example, I was doing a search for La Trobe University at the AAV office, and I asked for a copy of the manual for the mapping system. I was told that I could not have a copy because I was not yet a member of a RAP. If you are a member of a RAP, you can learn all about what you are doing. If you have not got a RAP, you do not have access to the mapping system. We are talking about protecting country, who cares about the RAP? If the Kuuyang Maar Aboriginal Corporation was recognised as a RAP, than at least AAV would be compelled to talk to us. At present AAV are appointed under the Aboriginal Heritage Act to be in control of cultural heritage management in areas where there are no RAPs. But this is carried out in the way that they see fit — as a non-traditional owner carrying out traditional owner duties. AAV are not protecting or preserving our cultural heritage appropriately and not anywhere near as comprehensively as the Kuuyang Maar Aboriginal Corporation can as traditional owners and carers of country. The process that AAV follows to protect cultural heritage sites in non-RAP areas is not open or transparent. Cultural heritage from AAV should not be coming in to inspect sites without traditional owner involvement, whether or not a RAP exists for that area. It is impossible to assess the RAP effectiveness in protecting cultural heritage without first looking at AAV’s effectiveness in enforcing the breaches. Protection provided through the RAP system needs to be stronger. Development still goes on in RAP areas because AAV does not enforce the breaches under the act. For example, at a site at Torquay RAP heritage workers discovered broken bones, put them aside, stopped the job and got the coroner in, and the coroner said to me, ‘Have you taken the bones to the vet?’ He could not tell me. No emergency funding was made available. The bones were reburied because the process with the coroner takes too long. There could have been remains there, but the process is not even working for the RAP recipients. They had no say even though they had RAP status. Without being recognised as a RAP, the Gulidjan/Gadubanud descendants have no opportunity to enhance our position in the community. We try to comply with everything to protect our country, and work for nothing. The heritage council lacks decision. It is four years and we’re still waiting. That is why the RAP process is failing us. Thank you. The CHAIR — Thank you, Ron. We might pose some questions. Mr BULL — Ron, your submission says that the councils do not give adequate feedback in relation to unsuccessful RAP applicants. You said you have been waiting four years. What is the dialogue? Has there been any dialogue at all? Mr ARNOLD — Yes, very limited, as to why we actually have not got our RAP application through. We had to include the extra information as to why we included Camperdown in the small section in between, which was apical ancestors recognised under native title services for these areas; we tried to cover those.