2016-03-24
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — As members know from my contribution to the debate on the second-reading speech, the Greens have an amendment that is required to be moved in relation to clause 4, but the associated issues with the creation of the Kerang park is what I would like to explore with the minister. The rationale for moving the amendment that we have is that the Greens do not want to see an expansion of the area available for duck hunting in this area, and that is one of the things that the bill does. So the purpose of our amendment is to remove the capacity for duck hunting to continue in the area, and that is in line with our longstanding policy position.
Along the way, though, we discovered that the particular land tenure that the government's bill places over this area would tend to preclude certain rights or at least opportunities under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010, which is a piece of legislation that the minister and I had something to do with stewarding through this place in late 2010.
I have a few quite brief questions, I hope. Is it the case that the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) did not recommend that the Kerang regional park would have an overlay that would permit duck hunting in it, acknowledging of course that one small part of the area covered does currently have that? Is it the case that VEAC did not recommend a duck hunting land use overlay be put onto this area?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — My reading of the government's response to the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) recommendations as gazetted at the time is that it was ambiguous at best to suggest that we would expect to see duck hunting occurring in this area. Can the minister explain how, between the VEAC recommendations, a community engagement panel, the government's final response and this bill here in front of us, that change occurred?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I will come back to the traditional owner issues in a moment, and I should have said earlier that I am not purporting to put forward this amendment on behalf of any Aboriginal person. We have had some discussion with traditional owner representatives, but I am not coming in here saying I am doing this because they asked me to. I think I made the point that we would have done this anyway because of our longstanding opposition to duck hunting, but I am not purporting that I am doing this on behalf of any Aboriginal group.
Just going back to what the minister referred to as the augmentation of the original VEAC recommendations, the point I was trying to get to was: did this augmentation occur after the community engagement panel and before or during the Victorian government's response to VEAC, because the Victorian government response to VEAC was gazetted on 12 March 2009? If I go to that document, will I find in the government's response that the augmentation — that is, the addition of the extra duck hunting area — is there, or is it post the government's gazetting of its response to VEAC, and is it as a result of Labor now coming back to government and bringing in this bill? So is there anywhere in the government's response gazetted on 12 March 2009 where I will find that the government flagged then — in 2009 — the creation of this duck hunting reserve?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I am working off the gazetted version that does not have those page numbers, but I was looking at 'General recommendations for regional parks and other parks', subsection B, and then 'Kerang Regional Park B1', if the minister can track that down in his version of the document.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — As I noted, there is already a part of the area that is available for shooting. Where I think the ambiguity came in is that under 'Regional Parks and Other Parks', in section B it says:
(c) the following activities not be permitted:
…
(iii) hunting and use of firearms …
And further in section B1 under the very specific 'Kerang Regional Park' it states:
(a) the area of 1138 hectares shown on Map A … be used in accordance with general recommendations B for regional parks and other parks;
That is that hunting and use of firearms not be permitted. If I read about this thing, the Kerang Regional Park at B1 and B, it says there will be no hunting. At best it is ambiguous, so it is up to the government to say whether it relies on this document and to say it is not ambiguous and that the government always intended it to apply from 12 March 2009, or whether in fact it has only been after Labor's return to government that it has decided to make hunting available across this whole regional park?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister. I think that is an excellent answer! It was not resolved during the era of the Brumby government, but with the new government it is now resolved, hence we see the bill in front of us and the duck shooters get their reserve, notwithstanding that the VEAC recommendations themselves were a form of compromise in that where they recommended no shooting, including the extinguishment of a shooting reserve, they offered up another area, usually in the same river system or catchment, and yet at the last minute it seems like the compromise has now turned into additional, not just offset, areas available for shooting.
I would like to talk for a little bit about the traditional owner aspect of this, because it has been part of some consultations that we did about the bill. The traditional owners in the Kerang area might be described as the Wamba Wamba and Barapa Barapa people. The area of this proposed game reserve is listed by the government as an area of Aboriginal cultural sensitivity. This means it is a registered Aboriginal cultural heritage place, recognised because it is likely to or does contain Aboriginal cultural heritage. It is not surprising that in a landscape where tens of thousands of people lived for tens of thousands of years, areas that contained a lot of water and a lot of game would have had concentrations of Aboriginal people living out their lives and that they would have left behind a great deal of cultural heritage that is still very important, I think, in telling the story of those people and how they lived.
There are over 400 registered Aboriginal sites in the greater Kerang area, which I think exemplifies what I have just described. The government has until recently been in active negotiation in relation to the Wamba Wamba, Barapa Barapa, Wadi Wadi joint native title claim. The joint native title claim was struck out by the Federal Court in June 2015, but it is not over. In fact the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office, in one of its newsletters, noted:
The court noted that the strikeout was procedural, and did not reflect on whether or not native title rights exist in the area. The groups are still able to file a new native title claim, or pursue rights and recognition under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 or Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010.
The traditional owners are reformulating their claims and preparing separate applications. That is my information, provided by Native Title Services Victoria.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER — Okay. We are on the same page.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER — The bill extinguishes their rights under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act in the area covered by the Kerang game management reserve, being the current or future state government ever granting Aboriginal title — not native title through the federal law but Aboriginal title from the state government — and the current or future government appointing a traditional owner land management board. The correspondence that we have had with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seems to have confirmed this. The minister's office says there are no current negotiations under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act, but as I have noted, the Victorian government was in negotiation up until recently. The government is aware that traditional owner groups intend to re-enter negotiations.
The letter from Native Title Services Victoria to the minister says:
That these (potentially) unintended consequences exist at all is concerning to NTSV, as it demonstrates the failure of the consultative process in the development of provisions of the bill to consider the rights, interests and aspirations of traditional owners.
I have to say I was surprised, knowing that the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water, the Minister for Agriculture, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and of course the minister at the table, the Special Minister of State, who understands these issues very well, were all presumably part of the cabinet consideration of this bill, that no-one picked up the issue. In fact it seems that it is only the Greens doing our own research about this bill that first brought it to anyone's attention. The letter goes on to say:
It is apparent that traditional owners were not consulted about the classification of the Kerang State Wildlife Reserve as a state game reserve, and the ramifications of this classification upon their rights, interests and aspirations.
This is a disappointing and unfortunate oversight, and must be remedied as a matter of urgency through consultations with the traditional owners of the Kerang area. Naturally, and in accordance with its statutory functions, NTSV would be prepared to assist and facilitate …
As the minister knows, the Traditional Owner Settlement Act provides for the responsible minister to enter into land agreements and management agreements on different types of public land. However, there is a separate definition of public land for the purposes of part 3 which specifically excludes game reserves. Can the minister, with his history in this matter, explain to me why game reserves were excluded under these sections from the Traditional Owner Settlement Act?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — My question was: why? What is it about the potential for a future government to ever grant Aboriginal title or the potential for a future government to appoint a traditional owner land management board that would be incompatible with the creation of a game animal shooting reserve? Why can only one of these things happen on the one piece of land?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I appreciate that background from the minister, because it is now the last yard that is getting the focus, and the last yard happens to be occupied by a group of duck shooters, so that has naturally got my attention. The minister referred to public safety issues. There is a flip side though, is there not? There are a large number of people running around on the shore and on the water bank. There are the physical aspects of cultural heritage that can be found all over the place when you are talking about a wetland that has existed for tens of thousands of years.
I think in one other part of that region there is a wetland that is now permanently or regularly filled with water. The result of that is wave action. The result of wave action is the exposure of Aboriginal artefacts on the edge of the lake shore. It seems that as long as this area is designated a game reserve, the pressure will be on to keep water there to keep ducks there to keep large amounts of, I would say, fairly unregulated human activity there, and I believe there is a conflict between allowing those activities and allowing what might be the pre-eminent interests of traditional owners.
I do appreciate that the minister referred to the goodwill and engagement that is possible from here on in, notwithstanding the way this bill landed on the table without, I think, the necessary amount of engagement. But nevertheless it has raised a red flag that could provide from here on in more engagement with traditional owners. If that were to happen, I would be very pleased.
I just did not need to get, though, from the minister that answer, because when members vote on my amendment, if they do not vote for my amendment, then it means that the potential for a future government to ever grant Aboriginal title is not going to be there without further legislative change and a future government would be unable to appoint a traditional owner land management board. That is an additional reason members might like to consider voting for my amendment. But I have got the answers from the minister that I was seeking and I do not need to argue anymore. I am happy, when we move to clause 4, to vote on that matter.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:
Clause 4, page 11, lines 1 to 5, omit all words and expressions on those lines and insert—
“(3) The Governor in Council must not make an Order under section 15(2) of the Wildlife Act 1975 to further classify the Kerang State Wildlife Reserve as a State Game Reserve.”.
To access full speeches and debates please visit http://hansard.parliament.vic.gov.au/isysadvsearch.html where you can search Victorian Hansard publications from 1991 onwards.