2016-10-27
MR BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — The Greens have considered carefully the issues associated with the revocation of the reservations over four parcels: Burkes flat, which in 1890 was permanently reserved for a mechanics institute and free library but was never used for that purpose; the site at Campbelltown, reserved in 1875, which was used for livestock operations and is no longer used for that purpose; Lake Charm, which was permanently reserved in 1910 for the purposes of a mechanics institute and was demolished in 1946; and the former agricultural research station at Walpeup, which I remember quite well. I visited there as a university student. We were working on a project in the Mallee, and we based ourselves out of that Walpeup site. As well as having all of the buildings there it actually has some significant native vegetation, so we are agreeing to this removal of the reservation on the basis that the government will then be able to reconsolidate the site and protect the native vegetation that needs protecting while working out what to do with the buildings and the agricultural land.
Our overall comment on this bill relates to one that we have made on several land revocation bills that have been before the house, and that is what we would see as inadequate consultation with potential traditional owner claims for land use activity agreements. It seems that on a number of occasions when these reservations have come before the house it is the Greens who have had to approach Native Title Services Victoria to make them aware that a piece of land which either right now or in the future could be subject to a claim under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 was being impacted.
I know the government is trying to do some good work in the area of traditional owner settlement and also in relation to a treaty, but it would help if, rather than ignoring not just those claims that are on foot but potential claims that the government, the Attorney-General's office, ought to know about or ought to be aware of, the government consulted — although it is not legally required to — those traditional owner groups or people who in the future may be interested in such land before the bills hit the Parliament, because the area of traditional owner settlement is quite a difficult area. It is a large project for the government. We have a huge amount of work to do in the future on reconciliation and, for that matter, reparations, and when parcels of land are being treated in this way by the Parliament we would be a lot more confident if we were told that the government had engaged properly on all aspects of that Crown land with all interested Aboriginal parties. But in this case the Greens will not oppose the bill.
To access full speeches and debates please visit http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/hansard where you can search Victorian Hansard publications from 1991 onwards.