Tuesday, 10 September 2019

 Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:26): My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It has become abundantly clear that the processes the government undertook to receive cultural and heritage approval for the Western Highway project were fundamentally flawed. Serious concerns have been reported about the behaviour of VicRoads and their dealing with the Martang Aboriginal corporation, including VicRoads’s potential involvement in the Martang Aboriginal corporation’s purchase of land subsequent to the 2013 cultural heritage management plan being approved. Djab Wurrung women and elders have also raised questions about the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation’s purported agreement to the proposal. Given these concerns, will the government now concede too many mistakes have been made and it can no longer rely on the consultations with the Martang Aboriginal corporation or the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation, and will it now meet directly with the Djab Wurrung women and elders, who have never given their consent to the project, to understand that the significant cultural and spiritual heritage of the area should be protected and must not be destroyed?

 Mr JENNINGS (South Eastern Metropolitan—Leader of the Government, Special Minister of State, Minister for Priority Precincts, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) (12:27): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question. One thing I will not do is criticise any member of the Aboriginal community in relation to their connection to country, their legitimate concern about protecting cultural heritage and their track record of doing that. I can say to you that I would implore you in the future to join me in that spirit of not building up some members of the Aboriginal community at the expense of others.

Let us take an opportunity to reflect on appropriate responsibility and a continuity of connection to country, and who speaks for country is an important issue in relation to cultural heritage protection. And the people who have determined who speaks for country are not the Victorian government. The Aboriginal Heritage Council is responsible for doing the due diligence about people who, through the course of their lifetime, identify with the traditional lands of their heritage and through their lifetime acknowledge, in this case, their Djab Wurrung connections. I would encourage you and anybody else who participates in this debate to look at the continual connection of cultural heritage and their continual connection to speak for this country. And if you do that, then you may not make assertions about the legitimacy of those who have participated in this process.

You will then reflect on the appropriate, enduring nature of traditional owners’ status and who speaks for country in a respectful way. I will not criticise any individual in the Aboriginal community in relation to their desire to protect cultural heritage or their desire to participate in the inclusionary decisions of traditional ownership of this land in question, but I do question the knowledge and the motivation of some people who support the accusations that you have made and the conclusions that you reach through insufficient due diligence on those matters that I draw to your attention.

And when you do that, then the nature of our discussion may be very, very different in relation to what you put on the public record in relation to that question and what you allege about the legitimate activities of people who have a right to speak for country and an enduring connection and who act in a way that is totally consistent with the law and their obligations as traditional owners in this matter. I do not want to take a step backward in protecting their interests, which are legitimate, in this matter.

 Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:30): Thank you, Minister. I share in your sentiment that all who participate in these processes should be afforded respect, but my actual question was about engaging in genuine consultation, which you did not answer. This kind of situation has clearly demonstrated that the existing processes of consent for cultural and heritage matters are inadequate and flawed, which in the context of future treaty negotiations is deeply concerning. So my question is: will the government commit to an independent inquiry into traditional owner approvals, including but not limited to this road project, the operation of registered Aboriginal parties and how the Victorian community can be confident that in the future genuine consultation is undertaken and traditional owners and elders connected with the land are providing free, prior and informed consent?

 Mr JENNINGS (South Eastern Metropolitan—Leader of the Government, Special Minister of State, Minister for Priority Precincts, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) (12:31): I think that Dr Ratnam has not listened to one word that I uttered in relation to my substantive answer—not one word—because the construction of her question and what she has read as a preprepared question does not in any shape or form demonstrate that she has heard one thing that I said. I have no doubts in terms of the law of Victoria and in terms of providing protection for traditional owners about the continual participation of traditional owners in the processes that have led to the consideration of the cultural heritage management plan in relation to this. What I implore her and others to do is look at the continual connection of people who make allegations such as the ones she has made or the conclusions that she has reached in relation to the way in which cultural heritage is managed and to reflect on their own knowledge base and the legitimate ways in which they can pursue that into the future.