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 J. Gulpilil-Murray, Barapa Barapa Traditional Owner Group.

4 June 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 208 The CHAIR — Welcome to our public hearing process this afternoon in your role representing the Barapa Barapa Traditional Owner Group. In saying that I mention that all evidence taken at this hearing 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.

In saying 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 you, as a witness, will be provided with a proof version of the transcript in the next couple of weeks. We look forward to your presentation.

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners, the , past and present. My name is Jida Gulpilil-Murray. I am here before you to present on behalf of the Barap Barap native title group, who at the moment are in a combined claim process with another two groups, which are the Wamba Wamba and the Wadi Wadi. So it is the Wamba, Wadi and Barap native title claim.

This native title application and negotiation with the state of Victoria is under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act of 2010 — the TOSA act, as it is referred to sometimes — and I thank you for the opportunity to make this statement on behalf of Barap Barap towards the parliamentary inquiry for the establishment and effectiveness of registered Aboriginal parties.

The three distinct traditional owner groups — Wamba, Wadi and Barap — whose country lies within the central region of Victoria, also go over the Murray River into southern . It is quite a large area. My grandfather is from there as well. He was recognised for some of his great work in the community — a great humanitarian. He was given a state funeral. His friend was Bruce Ruxton. A lot of my values and understandings of my cultural heritage come from my grandfather’s side and also my great-great-grandparents’ side as well, so Barapa Barapa, we come down.

Across the native title group we have apical ancestors and people who are represented by their apical ancestors. These people who fall under the apical ancestors are nominated to a negotiating team level. That level of negotiation is formed to act on behalf of their family clan group and the group as a whole to pursue the rights and interests through native title as a means of getting any of our rights and issues addressed and getting something out of what is hoped to be something good and beneficial for the future and the betterment of our community.

A lot of us within the negotiating team are active community members throughout our communities. We are on top of what goes on. We are recognised through our wider communities and components at the state government level and local government. People worked tirelessly through this process over 15 years, and through the community we look at native title and cultural heritage. We are always having to go to two different tables to talk about it. Our elders and community members worked tirelessly to try to bring this together, and this is what I think has been part of the ineffectiveness of what has been created.

Nevertheless neither Wadi, Wamba nor Barapa are RAPs. It is anticipated that in the next six months each group will be a RAP. We are at the moment drafting the RAP applications on behalf of our groups. I am part of the Wamba Wamba group as well, and I also am a negotiating team member for the Dja Dja Wurrung clan. In both teams we are currently in negotiations with the state government. Cultural heritage plays an integral part in what we are aspiring to protect, preserve, manage, control and train our young people to know and understand at what level in community we function.

It is quite important, because I have a 19-year-old daughter. I am a father. I have a 19-year-old daughter, I have a 9-year-old son and a 1-year-old daughter — a baby. Our community is very family oriented through our culture and our customs, particularly our clan connection to land and country. It is very important to us that we continue having that connection to our clan areas. Mr Gary Murray earlier on in his presentation and statement made that a strong point, being that it is an integral part of how we manage and preserve our sites.

Under the previous act I worked as a cultural heritage protection officer with the north-west region Aboriginal cultural heritage. During that time I found that to be quite effective. We had a number of officers across the north-west of Victoria who under statutory obligations worked tirelessly to protect those cultural heritage

4 June 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 209 sites — a number of something like over 9000 sites. There was only a small bucket of money that was used to operate that, and it had to be run like a business. People have to generate money to continue looking after their cultural heritage. It seems ridiculous even during that time, under that act — which was not as bad as this act, I must say. Mr Geoff Clark just said before that it is now under this act that we are starting to understand that it has destroyed a lot more sites, and we still do not know how many, because there has not been any sort of audit or anything we can look at, particularly around in our areas that we are connected to. That is of concern.

My main purpose here, as well as other reasons and other points I am just going to try to throw in there as I go along, is that in 2007 — around the same time I was employed as a cultural heritage protection officer up there in the north-west region — the Victorian heritage council appointed the Nation Aboriginal Corporation as a RAP for country in northern Victoria, along the Murray River. A significant portion of that RAP area land is widely recognised within our contemporary Aboriginal community as well as in the ethno-historical record as being Barap Barap country. Evidence of this can be provided, and we have plenty of that; our families have certainly done all of the research and found the dollars to do that from their kitchens.

It is hard to accept across country I am connected to, including Barap Barap and also Dhudhuroa, that under the interests of party policy we have to include another group when we are protecting our cultural heritage. It may be acceptable in some cases, but it is certainly not admired by our elders. Without the consent of the Yorta Yorta nations there is no capacity under this act for this appointment to be amended by either the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council or the state, so the only two options, I believe, are if Yorta Yorta becomes insolvent and liquidated or if the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council gets permission from Yorta Yorta to withdraw their, I guess, invasion over our land.

In the old days it was not coming to a committee like this to resolve that; it was spears and woomeras and lots of bloodshed and stuff. This is ancient storytelling that goes right across Australia. I can tell you stories like that from throughout Victoria here, along the coast, all the way up through Pitjinjara and to the desert into Arnhem Land. I know this because I am connected to these places. But here in Victoria, particularly with Barap Barap, we anticipate reaching an agreement with the state under the TOSA act — the Traditional Owner Settlement Act. Current state policy will not allow this agreement to include the Barap Barap land. Currently with the Yorta Yorta nations we have made, through our lawyers and NTSV, several attempts to have them come to the table to discuss boundary issues and this overlap, if you put it that way. On those occasions they have not accepted the invitation or they have pulled out. It has made it very difficult for us to work with our lawyers and to move towards finalising our boundaries. That will assist us to pursue a settlement or agreement.

We have made numerous attempts. We have gone to the point of talking about shared country, but a lot of our members do not like that terminology. Despite these efforts Yorta Yorta nations have not been prepared to meet with Barap Barap. I can also just throw in there too, because I am on the negotiating team, that I know they have also refused to meet with the Dja Dja Wurrung as well. Attempts have been made by other neighbouring areas, including Taungurung. Each neighbouring group has had no luck in trying to get any dialogue or negotiation towards the areas of country.

We submit that the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council’s decision to appoint the Yorta Yorta Nations Aboriginal Corporation as a RAP for Barap Barap country is a great injustice to our people and community. Culturally it is disrespectful. It is not regarded as being the right way to do cultural business, and we would like to see a new body formed and a better way of dealing with an issue like this. We thoroughly support the Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group in abolishing what has been set up as the body we have to deal with and in seeing a new body formed that is democratically elected and which includes members of our community, because we all know who the right people are to speak for our country particularly on issues concerning cultural heritage.

When we talk about cultural heritage, we have to talk about economic development, we have to talk about health, we have to talk about education and housing. We have to talk about all of the greater benefits and improvements that we, as Australians, all work towards doing together. Native title is a good vehicle to use now while it is still around. Hopefully it is not going to be around for another 15 years. With native title we can certainly use the expertise that people have been given and the experience they have after 15 years of doing this. This started not so long ago. My great-grandfather is recognised as a great humanitarian and also for his work in the community. His wife is a Barap Barap woman. Nanna and Poppa’s statue is here in the gardens — that is the late Pastor Sir Douglas Nicholls. I am a great-great grandson. I am very proud of my heritage.

4 June 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 210 We went to all sorts of lengths to come here today and also to work out there in the community to make sure we are meeting our obligations as traditional owners. We look forward to seeing an improved system that meets the needs and requirements of our communities, particularly working at the local level in communities and at the highest level through the state. To remedy this we submitted amendments to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. We consider they allow for RAP appointments to be amended in circumstances where evidence warrants amendment regardless of the consent or otherwise of the appointed RAP.

If I could just add to that also, through our work we have been lucky enough to meet with the Aboriginal affairs minister, Jeanette Powell, particularly around concerns around the interested party policy and the roles that certain individuals play within government and also their peculiar and conflicting position when it comes to our ancestral remains. This is a big issue amongst us as Aboriginal people. We like to see that the process of handling, respecting and repatriating our ancestral remains is done culturally, respectfully and properly and meets the aspirations of our customary laws and rights. We made the point to Minister Jeanette Powell about this and identified certain individuals within our areas who were unauthorised to handle our ancestral remains and to dig up remains around areas of country.

I understand how you would feel if someone came to your graveyard and started digging up your great-great-grandparents — or anyone for that matter. Any human would feel the same way about that as we do, because where we bury our dead is sacred; it is a sacred place, and it should never ever be touched or disturbed, particularly for our own people. Repatriations have been made, and Aboriginal people in government — in DSE — are stepping in front of our roles as traditional owner groups without authority and taking remains and burying them without the support or collaboration of our community.

The CHAIR — Could we could just get back to our reference, as we have moved a little bit around. We acknowledge the importance of traditional owners looking after their own, with much respect, across the board, but if we could close with a couple of comments in relation to the effectiveness of the election and effectiveness of the RAPs, I think that would see us out, Jida, and then we would like to ask you a few questions. We are into time on, so we would appreciate it if you could wind up.

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — The points will be made again, because when we talk about land and people that have got RAPs, particularly the Yorta Yorta, we are now talking about Yorta Yorta people handling remains of a Barap Barap background. That is the point, and that is the picture we need to see. That is the type of picture and the place I need you to come to; right? It is because what has happened with that RAP, not only just Barap Barap but the other neighbouring areas, is that this RAP has had an on-flow effect to those neighbouring areas as well. That would mean that through the interests of party policy any remains that are discovered during development, or if someone riding or walking through the bush discovers remains and picks them up, all parties will be obligated to meet and pursue culturally the reburial of those remains. Now it is of concern to us that we know that is Barap Barap land. That is part of our customary law area, and we need to have the legislation changed accordingly to meet our needs to have that amended and to have our land back into our RAP area.

The CHAIR — I can suggest to you that your grievance is shared statewide by various communities that have presented to the committee as we have travelled around regional Victoria. In saying that, I thank you very much for your presentation. If you would like, could we offer a couple of questions at this stage?

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — Absolutely.

Mr BULL — Jida, you mentioned in your presentation that there were some members of your group that did not like the term ‘shared country’? Is that just in this instance where you have this conflict, I guess, with the Yorta Yorta? We have heard a lot of cases where there are traditional owner groups that believe at different stages in history that their people occupied lands. Is that opposition to shared country right across the board, or is it just perhaps in this instance?

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — It is really a case by case. I cannot talk for other clans and language groups and stuff like that except my own. From my knowledge, what I have been taught and what we have learnt, there is always an attempt to share country with other neighbouring groups. That is how we marry our wives. That is how we have children. There are all shared things. There are ceremonies; there are languages; there are river systems, waterways and landscapes. We all share them, certainly, but when there is an overlap of the legislation

4 June 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 211 it is different. It is not cultural; it is a law of the non-indigenous world. It is not of our way. We would obviously like to work with anyone towards an agreement over boundary. Last case scenario — —

Mr BULL — But you believe there needs to be defined boundary?

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — Yes, but it is not just a line on the ground. It is an area, it is a landscape, it is a river, it is a northern boundary or corner of a lake.

The CHAIR — A recognised area?

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — Yes.

Ms DUNCAN — Thank you for that presentation. Just in regard to this Yorta Yorta RAP, I think there are a couple of questions. Are you saying that the council just got it hopelessly wrong in this instance? I am combining maybe three questions here. Did the council get it wrong in that area? Are you saying that heritage is being lost because there are not RAPs appointed in all areas or that even where there are RAPs we are still losing heritage? And would changing the composition of the council, making them democratically elected, in your view, change any of that?

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — I think you have just answered the whole question yourself in your last paragraph, because the statements that both Mr Murray and Mr Clark made are the same as what we are saying here. The council does not reflect on the ground, the country, the customs and the people. The council does not reflect those people.

Ms DUNCAN — So because of that, they got this decision wrong? And if they were more reflective, those boundaries would have looked differently?

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — It is a case of seeing something that has been set up not by Aboriginal people that has failed us tremendously, and a lot of issues now have to be addressed. It needs to come from us as Aboriginal people on the ground and in communities, and it needs to be set up and structured around who those people are. We are all different. We have all got clans. We have all got customary laws, rights and aspirations that are different to our neighbouring country. We are made up of different people and levels — I am missing a word. It needs to be those people. They need to be elected by their community. The community will delegate and vote for people as they have with the negotiating team who represent their family clans and aspirations towards a native title settlement. When we do that we know that we are covering over the layers of our community through our clans, our people and our areas. It is almost the same — a layer of that, but only with cultural heritage.

If it is not done like that, it will be doomed to failure, like this has been, because in the previous act we had a regional board and that regional board was made up of our elders, so under the directives and the statutory obligation we met our requirements and we were able to operate openly, transparently and democratically within our own customary law and rights towards the betterment of our community. We certainly developed a rapport through schools, right across local government, companies and the corporate sector as well. I have set up a company to run in parallel with what we do out in our communities. It will run parallel to provide training and employment around our cultural heritage and education to the wider community. That will see us covering our areas of — —

The CHAIR — Could I just butt in there and say that as other communities are very successful, we wish you well in that. As our time has time has now concluded, Jida, we thank you very much for joining us here in Melbourne this morning and presenting and speaking to your submission.

Mr GULPILIL-MURRAY — Thanks very much.

The CHAIR — I advise that the committee will now break for lunch and will reconvene at 1.15 p.m.

Witness withdrew.

4 June 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 212