Tuesday, 6 February 2024

Cultural heritage management plans

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:43): (661) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, and I seek an urgent review of the cultural heritage management plan system administered by registered Aboriginal parties under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Victorian cultural heritage laws have lost the confidence of many in the farming, development and local government sectors, who believe some registered Aboriginal parties lack oversight and professionalism and can be guilty of obstruction, hostility and even extortion. The consequences are soaring local infrastructure costs, rising house prices and crippled construction. This Labor government has abdicated all responsibility for the process, thus enabling the registered Aboriginal parties to mark their own homework – not even VCAT is allowed to bring sanity to the decisions. This has resulted in a system where the development process is more delayed and less certain and where the cost is more expensive and the projects less viable. In areas where the registered Aboriginal parties are in receivership, the problem is even worse. Several constituents seeking heritage assessment have written to me about the exorbitant costs and delays by registered Aboriginal parties.

Forget about helping young Victorians into their first homes – that just will not happen with this system in place. If Labor wants to address the housing crisis, it must intervene to reduce the uncertainty, delay and cost of the cultural heritage management plan process. This is particularly important on sites where development has already occurred, sometimes multiple times over decades. Even the minister herself conceded that the laws impacted government projects. I also question what purpose the significant fees payable are put towards. Registered Aboriginal parties in Victoria have enormous and growing cash reserves, but there is no direction from government on what their purpose is or how the money should be spent. In my view the system must be regulated, the glut of cash wound down by substantially reduced project fees and more staff employed to expedite applications.

Finally, for a system intended to protect and promote Indigenous heritage, it is failing dismally. There appears to be no plan or direction for what should be done with heritage and archaeological artefacts uncovered. Where does the material uncovered go? Back in the ground sometimes. There appears to be no government requirement for its display or for educational programs to be provided. Instead, the cultural heritage management plan process sees cash end up in bank vaults and Indigenous artefacts end up in storerooms. Development is stunted and no-one benefits. It is a disgrace. The action I seek is for the operation of the act to be immediately and urgently reviewed.

The PRESIDENT: Before calling the next adjournment matter, Mr Davis in his adjournment asked for the introduction of legislation. There have been many rulings that members are not permitted to request the introduction of legislation during the adjournment debate, and that is from the rulings of presidents Chamberlain, Gould, Atkinson and another one called Leane. But in saying that, one of the other questions Mr Davis did ask was for funding, so the part of the adjournment requesting funding can be sent on as far as the adjournment goes, but the legislation request cannot be acknowledged as part of the adjournment.