TRANSCRIPT

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Inquiry into the establishment and effectiveness of registered Aboriginal parties

Melbourne — 27 February 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

Witnesses

Ms J. Sizer, chairperson, Ms T. Currie, chief executive officer, Mr R. Abrahams, cultural heritage adviser, and Mr C. Edwards, manager, community services, Aboriginal Cooperative.

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 62 The CHAIR — Ladies and gentlemen, we will take the opportunity to reconvene our hearing, and in doing so I welcome the Wathaurong Aboriginal Cooperative, being represented by Ms Tracey Currie, the chief executive officer, Ms Jodie Sizer, the chairperson, Mr Reg Abrahams, the cultural heritage adviser, and Mr Craig Edwards, the manager of community services. Welcome to you all. We thank you very much for making yourselves available to join us today. It has been a long day, but I can assure you your submission and presentation is as important as the first one. Thank you again for joining us. In saying that, I also advise that all evidence taken at this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege as provided by the Constitution Act 1975 and further subject to the provisions of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003. Any comments you make outside this hearing may not be afforded such privilege. All evidence given today is being recorded. All witnesses will be provided with a proof version of the transcript in the next couple of weeks for their information. Tracey, I welcome you as CEO to begin with the presentation.

Ms CURRIE — I will hand over to the chairperson, and she will do the lead-in.

Ms SIZER — Thank you, Tracey. Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak. I know this is part of an ongoing process in which you have already received our written submission, but we welcome the opportunity to come and have a discussion to try to put forward our views, as they are unique to our community in and Wathaurong country.

I formally commence by acknowledging the traditional owners, paying my respects to their elders, past and present, and thanking them for allowing us to meet on their lands today. I come in my capacity today as chairperson of Wathaurong Aboriginal Cooperative. I have sat in this position for 14 or 15 months. I also come with the perspective of a woman. My family ties originate in south-western , but I was raised in Wathaurong country in . With all of those different perspectives and my work in various community roles I come forth to bring information specific to Wathaurong Aboriginal Cooperative, but with that bit of context as well.

I am sure you are aware, having read the various submissions, the information that formed the original act and the information that has come to inform this review, that Victoria is quite unique in the characteristics that make up our contemporary Aboriginal communities. That is largely owing to our historical settlement and the colonisation that has taken place. Geelong itself has its own story, which you will hear about over the next 30 minutes or so, and in particular I would like to draw your attention to our community, which has a complex and sophisticated community structure. There are many community groups that hold knowledge and that work with us to advance our community’s development. We are here to put forward the suggestion that when you are considering a new model under cultural heritage you take into account the sophisticated structure we have within our communities and that there may be more than one possible source of knowledge in any one area.

By looking at our current structure you can see we have only one nominated representative Aboriginal party. We are here to bring forward the case that there may be a model that considers that there may be more than one structure. The cooperative itself has held the role of custodian of the land. In our 30 years of establishment we have spent a number of decades as custodians of that land. In that capacity we bring forward a lot of knowledge that we have as inhabitants of this area. This knowledge will assist in the progress of our people, which is our primary objective and aim. We are asking that we broaden the scope to bring together the many areas of knowledge that we have, particularly the knowledge we have within the Aboriginal cooperative in Geelong. We have knowledge not only about cultural heritage but also about economic and community development — knowledge that we think can enhance the current processes across the state.

We have a relatively low population across a huge span of geography in Victoria, and we feel it takes different types of knowledge to bring together the best outcomes for our people. When the conversation comes to our country we acknowledge and respect the place of traditional owners. There may well be more parties that can come to the table that have reason to join the discussion to negotiate the best outcome for Aboriginal people.

I also want to bring to your attention — and we will come back to this later — that another unique characteristic of Victorian communities is that we have the Victorian Charter of Human Rights. It is specifically within that charter that we pay attention to Aboriginal people and our right to practise our culture. I think that highlights a relevant point: here in Victoria only 15 per cent of our population lives on traditional land. With that in mind, and with all of the historical context that has been established by previous governments, we need to have legislation that gives us direction on how we can work together as communities despite that only 15 per cent of

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 63 our population lives on traditional land. We need to allow for negotiation and a working-together approach to get the best outcome for our people.

My fellow speakers will set out some specific examples, and hopefully that will set the context for us.

The CHAIR — It is appreciated. I just picked up a minute ago that you said you hoped to express your views over the next half hour or so. Regrettably we only have another 25 minutes. We have to run a very tight schedule to complete the day. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. If the presentation is completed within that period of time and we have a few minutes at the end for some questions, that would also assist the cause.

Ms SIZER — I will hand over to Reg.

Mr ABRAHAMS — I am also a Gunditjmara person. My elders and family come from Heywood in the Portland area. I have been living in Geelong for over 27 years. While I have lived in that area I have practised cultural heritage. I have worked with archaeologists and shown the youth in the community about stone artefacts, culture and so forth. It has been a great venue for us to get some people off alcohol and drugs into the workforce, and we use culture as a basic learning tool in that we hope some of the people going down the wrong track take a look back at their culture, and we try to invest in their progress as being an Aboriginal person and working in that field. I think at the moment that has been taken off us. We have had 27 years of experience. We have made a formal protocol with the City of Greater Geelong, and that was probably about 12 years ago. That was the first protocol within Victoria, probably the second in Australia, and it had guidelines to the management of cultural heritage within the city of Greater Geelong region.

They are the kinds of things. We always acted as custodians because of the history of Geelong. In the old newspapers it sort of said everyone had died off, and it was not until recently, probably less than 20 years ago, that people actually found a reconnection with that family that lived in the Geelong area, said to be Wathaurong.

I had some talks the other day in which I said if some of these people had come forward and been traditional owners 50 years ago, 30 years ago, we would not be in the predicament that we are in today. It is all these new social things that actually are why we are here, I suppose. It has sort of been forced upon us as well.

With that, we probably have about 350 community members in the Geelong region. We are familiar with and we have an understanding of all the local and community issues — the landscapes, the sites and all of these. I used to run probably 12 guys on a part-time basis, working with archaeologists. We have the knowledge of the landscape. We have the knowledge of where all of these sites are, and now we start seeing buildings going up and other developments and we have not got a say. It is just like we know that there was an Aboriginal site 3000 years old just beside them, and now we do not even get contacted or have no relative say in any matter at all.

I suppose with the new legislation also there is a place where archaeologists do due diligence reports. These due diligence reports are about people’s knowledge. They are not asking for local oral history on the story, so they just do a desktop, tick it off. They should be coming to the Aboriginal community where there are actually people who can talk about that area and they have the knowledge of that area and what has happened in the past and so forth.

Ms CURRIE — We are aware that there are 35 clans in the region, and I guess the group that we have has serviced the whole of the Wathaurong area, and we feel that perhaps maybe the clans that are currently involved are from a particular area, so there is even more room for expansion or the ability for us to have another RAP in the area.

Mr ABRAHAMS — And also, just being a Gunditjmara man, there are lots of good Gunditjmara men all over Victoria who are all doing wonderful jobs, but if we all went home, to have to get a job, like this legislation kind of says, it would be impossible. And probably the same kind of guidelines have been let out to the Northern Territory 20 years ago. They do not like it. They do not want it, and yet it is imposed upon us down here.

Ms WREFORD — Just on that issue of wanting another RAP, which I think you put in your submission, would the appointment of two RAPs who do not necessarily cooperate with each other lead to difficulties with

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 64 the operation of the act and confusion on land issues? I hear what you are saying, and we all hear what you are saying, but if we have another RAP or another few RAPs — —

Mr ABRAHAMS — We did have a mediation with the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council. Jimmy Chatfield was the mediator. We came to an agreement that Geelong would look after the old boundary, which it used to under the 1984 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, and the new RAP would work with Ballarat, in that area. It seemed to be a whole lot of land was given to some people who did not know the services, and it would just be working better, and anything with the conclusions of Aboriginal burials or anything of high importance would be when the groups would come together. Otherwise, they would just go about and do their daily business as usual. The meeting was unminuted. It was unreported to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, and I think Wathawarung withdrew about three weeks after that.

Mr EDWARDS — The question around having two RAPS would confuse the issue, are you saying?

Ms WREFORD — Not necessarily. What it might do is if the RAPS and the people in them are not agreeing with each other that could possibly cause confusion to people who are looking to develop or — —

Mr EDWARDS — But if you are not part of that process already, like my family and a number of other families who are in our organisation as members, we are not allowed or are not able to join that group, and that excludes us automatically.

Ms WREFORD — So the question is: is it problematic that you maybe join one RAP, so there is one RAP with bigger consultation, or do you have two separate RAPS? I guess we are just trying to tease out the issues.

Ms CURRIE — We just want to know if we do not have two RAPS that the current RAP is inclusive of all the people who are traditional owners in this specific area.

Mr ABRAHAMS — And working for the Aboriginal community.

Ms CURRIE — Or that they actually allow for contributions. The other part of this is that, first and foremost, we need to be mindful and respectful of the cultural heritage and preservation of cultural sites and artefacts, and so our concern is more around that rather than this competitiveness that is actually set up, because we are competing for something here, I suppose, and we do not want it to be that way because we want to just protect the sites. We want to make sure that they are preserved for ongoing years.

Ms WREFORD — You want the same outcome.

Mr ABRAHAMS — I also have some other ties into other registered Aboriginal parties, because my bloodlines come from Heywood, , Bunurong and possibly Tasmania, but there are probably a couple of cases where I can join some other groups and not be accepted as a member. I think what is going on across the board around the whole of Victoria is people not being inclusive on their native title membership, and that is what all the blues are about, basically.

Ms WREFORD — Is that why you are thinking that the cultural heritage around Geelong has not been protected the way it should be?

Mr ABRAHAMS — I think under the current legislation there were five ways you could become a registered Aboriginal party, and the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council only took one dot point out of that, which was traditional owners. So under the other four categories we tick them off like anything. It is just that traditional owner links. So if the other four parts of legislation were enacted, let alone just the traditional owner ones, we probably would have been in there as a community with a contemporary interest.

Ms SIZER — It is emphasising the historical nature of how our communities are today, which is why in our introduction we are looking for a more sophisticated model, but without the enforceability you cannot come to the table and have these negotiations. When you talk about it being any easier, it is going to be difficult anyway because by getting united collectives we have to go through and right a lot of wrongs that have come from history, so it is going to be a difficult process. There have been no resources to bring that forward, no resources to bring that to the table, but there was an acknowledgement. At the moment the model has haves and have nots and allows for even more divide and more dysfunction, and it is not actually bringing communities together. They are not on a level playing field, so it is very difficult to come to some sort of mediation when it feels that 27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 65 there is not an agreed outcome and there is another hand and we are not in a position to negotiate because we are not acknowledged in that right.

Mr ABRAHAMS — I suppose we have been trying to look for partnerships with government agencies, and because we are not a RAP, they just do not want anything to do with us.

Ms CURRIE — We currently have the relationships with government agencies; it is just that they have the confusion.

Mr EDWARDS — Again, it just comes back to that process. As I said, I am born and bred and have been in the community all my life, and my family has come from Gunditjmara down to the Framlingham Mission, and I grew up there in the early days. We landed in Geelong as a young family. But now we have just been excluded from that whole process, and when you get to a point where the organisation has been operating a very strong and well-established cultural heritage program, to have people employed — and these are people trained and employed by the organisation to monitor that as custodians — that just drags the heart out of most of our mob down there. And we are in community; we live and breathe locally. And in relation to whatever decisions have been made since that RAP has been established, the finger is still pointed at us as the organisation that has prevented certain developments doing ahead. There are other issues that the wider community sees and they believe that it is us who are preventing all those developments going on.

Ms WREFORD — How do you understand the relationship between the traditional owners and other Aboriginal people?

Mr EDWARDS — I am trying to understand that question.

Ms WREFORD — Your submission argues that the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council overemphasises the role of traditional owners in heritage management. Given that, how do you understand the relationship between traditional owners and other Aboriginal people?

Mr ABRAHAMS — I will be honest here. At the moment we do not recognise the other traditional owner group as being traditional owners. The fact is they were not born Aboriginal and they did not live an Aboriginal life until later on in life when they discovered that they were Aboriginal. We think that is so unfair, and for us to now have to look at them and ask them permission to try to improve our Aboriginal community is just an insult. That is the way our whole community feels, because the people who are the registered Aboriginal party do not live on country. They have not been there. That is why I said before, if they were there 30, 50 or 70 years ago, we would not be having this argument.

The CHAIR — In saying that, Reg, do you see the formation of RAPs over the last five years as further adding to conflict within our indigenous community statewide? In saying that, I also note that in your submission you comment on your frustration — not yours personally, but the frustration of non-traditional owners — with the council’s use of academic evidence provided on non-Aboriginal people to assist in the permanent determination of RAP applications. Could you or one of your colleagues indicate or outline the kind of evidence that you think should be required to establish relationships to country?

Ms SIZER — Can I just make one initial comment to follow on from that. I guess Reg is saying that the definition of an Aboriginal person is a three-pronged approach. You need to identify, you need to be accepted by your community and to have Aboriginal descendants. If you put that test to some of the traditional owner members 10 years ago, they would not have been able to get a confirmation; but we do accept that because of historic reasons we have got a situation that we need to manage. We acknowledge and respect the rightful place of traditional owners; we are just frustrated by the circumstances — that this new legislation has come in and taken away the authority of community organisations and the mandate which we have been set to carry out. Again it has overcomplicated things. It is not to say that in relation to traditional owners generally; we just wanted to note that — because I know that is going into the Hansard transcript.

Mr ABRAHAMS — We risk not being able to be funded by some government agencies, because we need the permission of traditional owners. We think that is wrong. We are trying to improve Aboriginal society, health and wellbeing, and employment.

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 66 The CHAIR — Taking that a step further, Reg, from the cooperative’s point of view, do you express concern about how the council has come about, the make-up of the council and how the appointments have come to be in place? Is that part of the grief and the conflict that is shared amongst your own community? If that is the case, what do you see as a more effective way of putting the council together which, in your words, might be more — —

Mr EDWARDS — Democratic.

The CHAIR — Representative of the indigenous community?

Mr EDWARDS — Democratic. Put it to the vote. Put it to the people.

Mr ABRAHAMS — Have a proper voting system, rather than the minister appointing people.

Ms CURRIE — We have had this discussion, and you will note that it is in our application. We looked at the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council having a democratic process so that Aboriginal people from specific areas can be voted on rather than a ministerial nomination. Then at least those people who are voted on may have links and ties to the specific area about which you are talking. The people who would be nominated would obviously come from the area about which we are talking, and in this area we are talking about Wathaurong country.

Mr ABRAHAMS — It is grassroots people.

Ms CURRIE — We would like to see that they are involved and perhaps given an opportunity to sit on that council.

Ms DUNCAN — So you do not think the existing structure of the council is representative? Let us assume that the council was more representative — and that was done by making it bigger, for example — is there a way of reconciling where you have numbers of different community groups that might live in a geographical area? They might all have traditional owner claims — that is, they live on country and feel tied to that country. How do you get RAPs in place that represent what might be different groups within one geographical area? How do you form a RAP that may be representative of different groups?

The CHAIR — Without conflict?

Ms DUNCAN — Without conflict.

Ms CURRIE — If it is a democratic process, then obviously it is going to be the people who the community know and trust. They are going to put forward the people who are going to speak on their behalf, and that is why we want the democratic process, because that will afford that to this community.

Mr ABRAHAMS — I suppose there could be some consultancy or something like that which liaises with all of the Aboriginal people on behalf of the developer. The fact is that with the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council there is so much conflict of interest within everybody because Aboriginal people are all from different places. If you are going to claim in full, some people claim 15 areas; and it is from there that all the conflict arises — and they cannot make a decision. That needs to be nutted out straight away; for example, whether we get Aboriginal people from New South Wales to do it, who have not got a conflict of interest.

Ms DUNCAN — Is there a model around Australia that you would say works well?

Ms SIZER — Another model that recognises that there are many different interested parties is used by the Aboriginal land councils in New South Wales. Traditional owners do hold their rightful place, but Aboriginal land councils acknowledge that there are many different interests, whether they are registered parties or identified parties that have an interest, and because cultural heritage and land management are so important, we need to get it right. We have already seen so many opportunities lost in this time, which is our greatest concern about having the capacity and knowledge to do the job at hand. I do not feel that was taken into account when the previous RAP was given. I do not see that having more than one RAP is an issue. In fact if we look at our historical boundaries, it would make a lot more sense to have more than one RAP. If we put the traditional boundaries back in place — I do not know how many we would have, Reg, but there would be a lot more than just one for the Wathaurong area.

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 67 Mr ABRAHAMS — Twenty-eight.

Ms SIZER — Then we look at how we bring them together, and I think that is what the Aboriginal model in New South Wales does. They have got a number of parties sitting around the table. They have got a voting process and they have got some great successes from economic development by having a collective approach and by having a seat for people at the table, and not determining, as I was saying, the haves and the have-nots. The resources underpinning the legislation do not allow for negotiation, the sitting around the table and the building of the agreements and responsibilities. That just is not there.

Mr ABRAHAMS — Just with that, I suppose there is the history of Geelong, in which the people were supposed to be all gone by 1885. There was the , which was from Lorne to — to the end of the river. That is one tribe that is gone; there are no known descendants. There is also the Colac area, which is . There are people just now finding out that they are descendants. As time went on for the past 30 years we were also acting as custodians for those areas. It is just the fact that someone might pop up one day and say, ‘Hey, I am related to that group’.

Mr EDWARDS — What do I tell my children? My children were born and bred on Wathaurong land. My ancestry goes back through to Wathaurong. It has been linked back. It has been linked to Gunditjmara as well. They have Arrernte ancestry. Their mother was removed and stolen. Her mother was removed and stolen. They cannot get back to land. This is their land — house and home, this land. My children do not have a say.

Mr ABRAHAMS — They should have their rights to practise culture.

Mr EDWARDS — There are no rights given there whatsoever. That is pure and simple.

Ms CURRIE — The other part of that is that when you live on land and you live on the country you actually walk those lands. We make provision for people to go back to country all the time, and that in itself links you to that land and the traditions that lie with that land. We have cultural sites that we go to on a regular basis. If you do not do that, then you do not have that link to land. When somebody who does not live on the land comes in, how do they know those things? They do not.

The CHAIR — Tracey, I guess in some ways you would be disputing the entitlement of traditional owners possibly in relation to relocation historically from one area of Victoria to another.

Ms CURRIE — No, I am not disputing traditional ownership. What I am disputing is the process about you actually having ties to the land, to the country and to the people.

The CHAIR — Isn’t that part of traditional ownership?

Ms CURRIE — When you are in an Aboriginal community and society you form together and you live as a society. You do not live separately over in Ballarat. Sorry, I am not from here, but you do not live in . You do not live down in Portland or anywhere like that. You actually live on the land and you associate with the people who live in that particular area.

The CHAIR — Okay. You might have different traditional owners within western Victoria who identify that way or otherwise. When you put a RAP together you are a traditional owner within which particular group? Or is it more broad than that, and it is right across western Victoria?

Ms SIZER — First and foremost, it is the area in which you have knowledge to practise.

The CHAIR — I accept that.

Ms SIZER — If they are a traditional owner, we are not going to dispute their family allegiance, but if they are going to hold true, the responsibilities of being a traditional owner depend on what definition you look at. If you looked at native title, they would not be granted that.

Mr ABRAHAMS — Wathaurong co-op put an application in, but it was told it had to form its own Aboriginal traditional owner group to —

The CHAIR — To qualify.

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 68 Mr ABRAHAMS — to qualify. That is where another 4 points disappeared.

Ms SIZER — Which has happened.

Mr ABRAHAMS — And that is what has happened. Basically it failed because we were a new organisation, and there has been a bit of scepticism about traditional links. We have a document here from 1990 — well before this process started — which states that these certain people, and probably some elders who have passed now, thought they were connected to Wathaurong or Wadawurrung. That is the way they lived, but now they are being told that they are not.

Ms SIZER — I will give you an example. I am from Gunditjmara; I have not lived on Gunditjmara land. Many of my family have. My family is part of the traditional owner group, but I would not go down there and start telling people what should happen and hold some responsibilities for people who I know have that knowledge and are still traditional owners. I am a traditional owner for that area, but I do not have the knowledge to practise the responsibilities of managing the land and managing the culture. I would not put my hand up to do that, even though I do have the legal right as a traditional owner individually.

The CHAIR — But, Jodie, that in itself creates its own conflict, too.

Ms SIZER — We have been there, and we are looking for a solution. The current model is not the solution.

The CHAIR — Thank you. That is where I think I was trying to get to.

Ms DUNCAN — Could you briefly give us one or two recommendations that you think we as a committee should be making that might help resolve some of these issues? What would that recommendation look like?

Mr ABRAHAMS — I just want to say that contemporary interests of all Aboriginal people should be benefiting every Aboriginal person out there, and that is what needs to happen. It is like he said: we are in a new age now. It is not 200 years ago. All of those boundaries are still there, but what is happening with contemporary interests? This is where we want to try to bring back living culture for our children and our children’s children before it gets swallowed up in this crazy world we live in.

Ms CURRIE — It is people living on the land, doing their practices and their rites and all those sort of things. That is what he is alluding to. I think we do not allow that because we are tying ourselves to traditional ownership, and traditional ownership seems to be moving to a contemporary sort of society.

Mr ABRAHAMS — When it all came into being — this traditional owners — I and a lot of other people said they should not be calling themselves traditional owners; that is what you do today. If you buy a house, you own it. Aboriginal people never used to own land. They were custodians of it. They looked after that land, and that land fed them. If they stuffed it up, they would not get fed. That is the way that Aboriginal people think.

Ms SIZER — We are all traditional owners really, even in the cities. We are all Aboriginal people, no matter where we come from, if you look at the definition.

The CHAIR — But it appears to be by degree in relation to the make-up of, for instance, the RAPs. From my own point of view, looking from the outside in, there appears to be different types of traditional owners. There are those who to the best of their knowledge have resided on the land all of their lives as did their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, and that is a greater entitlement to be a traditional owner than those — for instance, yourselves — who have moved away from their traditional lands to another land. You do not see yourself as competing with the knowledge at home, which used to be your traditional land.

It is about trying to get some understanding of the degrees of traditional ownership and the make-up and nomination process to allow RAPs to go forward versus your own cooperative. As a Geelong person, I appreciate very much what has taken place down there over the last three decades from your point of view, but that does not qualify in the same light as traditional owners, who still remain within the boundaries of that traditional area. That is what I was trying to bring through. I accept that, yes, you are traditional owners in a sense, but not necessarily in the sense required.

Mr ABRAHAMS — We would say that every Aboriginal person is a traditional owner somewhere.

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 69 Ms CURRIE — The thing is that we do have in our membership quite a number of traditional owners. We represent them and have done so for the 30 years that this organisation has been in existence.

The CHAIR — I appreciate that.

Ms CURRIE — But that is not your point. I guess the point here is what the things are that you want us to put forward. One of the things we want to do in terms of the membership of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council is to make that a democratic process, so that people who are Aboriginal in a specific area can vote for the people that they want for their area. How you break that up is another thing that needs to be discussed with your group, depending upon the resources that are available, and then discussed among our groups as well, because they have a part in this as well.

The CHAIR — Tracey, from our point of view, we have a reference from the Parliament, we collect submissions, we invite submissions, we give those who have made submissions the opportunity to speak to their submissions and we then make a report back to the Parliament with the recommendations that collectively come out of the information that we receive. It is important from the committee’s point of view to get a very good understanding of where our indigenous communities are across the board. Across the board they all have traditional ownership to varying degrees, but where that acceptability is in relation to putting RAPs together is probably a bit of a different discussion. I imagine that should be handled at the end of the day by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, other Aboriginal groups and government. That is what we have to try to put some recommendations forward for — to assist in that passage.

Ms SIZER — I think if there is one thing to add, whatever recommendations go forward, it is to acknowledge the unique characteristics of Victoria and to not try to get a one-size-fits-all approach. The 38 communities across Victoria are very different and distinctive. You only have to travel from Bairnsdale to . Trying to get a model, you need to have some flexibility to allow us to make it work on the ground.

The CHAIR — That has been reflected in the submissions we have received. I take your point on board, as we all do on that matter. Tracey, would you like to sum up?

Ms CURRIE — One of the other issues was around an appeal for the RAPs. As it is now, there was not one in the process before. I am bringing this up at the end, sorry, but it should have been brought up earlier. That is one of the areas that we would like to have looked at again in terms of the legislation around appeals. We would like to know that there are some consultation processes put in place in the existing system and that people and other stakeholders are actually involved in decisions that are made in the area in which they reside and live and have connections with. The consultation processes for the current RAPs need to be increased. I am not 100 per cent sure how it has been operating, but, from what I know, it has not been a good process. We need to improve on that.

Mr ABRAHAMS — They need to be inclusive of all members, because a lot of people have got RAP status but they are not inclusive.

Ms CURRIE — So when the RAPs are being formed even the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council would like to know that the three-pronged Aboriginality status is actually put into place and is verified, so that we have people who can speak legitimately and have those connections with Aboriginal people from the particular areas. I do not know whether I missed anything in there that you want added.

Ms SIZER — I think I was listening. I think you got everything across — a slight distraction!

The CHAIR — You have done a very good job. The young lady down the end has contributed to the presentation.

Ms SIZER — They may not have all been in order, as I had planned, but I think we have got our points across and have hopefully given some further detail to the submission that is there. Craig, do you want to give any final thoughts?

Mr EDWARDS — No.

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 70 The CHAIR — In saying that, Jodie, thank you very much as chairperson of the cooperative and your colleagues for your submission. We appreciate the time you have given to that and the presentation here today. It has been most fruitful from our point of view. Thanks so much.

Witnesses withdrew.

27 February 2012 Environment and Natural Resources Committee 71