Wednesday, 31 July 2024

Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Natalie Hutchins:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:23): I rise to make the lead contribution on behalf of the Liberal and National parties on the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Aboriginal Lands Act 1970 and the Aboriginal Lands Act 1991. It will update the management and ownership structure of Indigenous community funds and remove the use of and transfer restrictions for the Ebenezer and Ramahyuck missions cemeteries while retaining restrictions where requested by traditional owners and aims to improve landholder control over their property usage and management.

This bill proposes to change the governance and shareholding structure of Aboriginal trusts created under the Aboriginal Lands Act 1970 and the Aboriginal Lands Act 1991, specifically for the Framlingham and Lake Tyers Aboriginal trusts, and the bill proposes to update the management and ownership structures of community funds and remove certain restrictions on the use and transfer of historic cemeteries whilst maintaining necessary safeguards and change landholders’ control over their properties. Key amendments include appointing deputy and acting chairs for governance continuity, an amendment to terminology and an ongoing evaluation to represent stakeholder interest.

The aim is to ensure fair distribution and responsible management. However, there are various components that must be tightened. There are a number of details through the bill that do that, and I might touch on those and then talk more generally about the particular missions that are involved here. What this is about is making sure that there is good accountability back to the stakeholders of the trusts, making sure there is good governance and making sure there is good auditing of what goes on there.

Clause 8 deals with quorum requirements, focusing on the intention to make sure that there are quorums at meetings that are held of these particular trusts to ensure that decisions, especially critical ones, truly reflect the will of the majority. Rather, if there is no restriction or no commitment to quorums, a very small number of people could make decisions on behalf of everyone, so it is important that there are quorums called for meetings and that decisions are made, as I said, to reflect the true majority of the people involved in a particular trust. It provides for comprehensive deliberations when there are more members present and discussions are more comprehensive.

In dealing with the transfer of shares, this bill emphasises the stricter notification rules for transparency and prevention of undisclosed transactions. This is critical because undisclosed share transactions could lead to concentration of power or hidden conflicts of interest. So this is making sure that everyone knows who those shares are being transferred to. For example, if a trust member secretly transferred shares to a family member who then influenced a decision, it could compromise the trust’s integrity. My understanding of this is that it is making sure that the majority are represented in any dealings of the trust, and there is no opportunity for one particular group to actually gain control of it by stealth and take away the power of the majority.

New section 13B, which is about the inspection of the register of members, considers highlighting immediate online access to transparency. This is important because it allows members to verify information quickly and easily, so if a member suspects their details have been altered without consent, they can immediately check and report discrepancies, preventing potential fraud. Again, having online access means information is available to everyone, and everyone should be well informed about any transfer of shares within the trust.

New section 15(6A) deals with the disqualification of committee members and consideration of all criminal convictions in order to maintain high standards of leadership and integrity. Again, this is critical because leaders who have been convicted of criminal offences could damage the trust’s reputation and credibility. If a committee member with a fraud conviction – even if not related to dishonesty – is discovered, it could erode public member confidence in the trust’s management. If you are serving on a company board or if you are serving on other institutional bodies, then if you have a criminal record that quite often disqualifies you from being on those particular organisations. It should equally apply to the Aboriginal trusts that we are talking about here to make sure that the people that are serving are above reproach. Particularly, as we have seen some historical cases dealing with these issues, this is making sure that it does not erode the general public’s confidence in the operation of these trusts.

New section 15(5A) is on the declaration of personal interests and the potential to focus on tightening the rules to close loopholes. This is important because undeclared interests can lead to biased decision-making. If for example a member does not declare their interests, this could lead to an unfair advantage or misuse of trust resources. As with any other place and as with us who come to this chamber to serve the constituencies that send us here, we all have to declare any interests that we have. This makes sure that those that are serving on the trust actually have to make sure all their interests are declared.

New sections 21A and 21B note potential stricter reviews and penalties to ensure consistency and accountability. Importantly this keeps the trusts on track with their stated goals and commitments. If a trust deviates significantly from its approved plan without consequence, this could lead to mismanagement of resources or failure to meet community needs. Again, this is about making sure that all the trust shareholders have the opportunity to make sure that their views are heard and make sure that the people that are appointed to run the trust actually stick to the plan that has been prescribed about what they want to achieve on behalf of all the people that are shareholders in that particular trust.

In relation to new section 22A, ‘Exemption from or extension for requirement to hold general meeting’, one must consider that there should be no exemptions or extensions to prevent unreliability and incompetency. Regular meetings are essential for timely decision-making and accountability. What you see in lots of organisations is that those that actually are the office bearers in the organisation, if they are not well viewed by the rest of the people in that particular organisation or if they have something they want to hide, they can postpone meetings and put things off into the future.

This makes sure that there are regular meetings so that people are well informed and makes sure that the decisions are, again, being made in an appropriate way for the members of that trust.

New section 23AAB on independent auditor powers provides more power and penalties for obstruction to ensure stronger compliance. This allows for strong financial oversight, again making sure that the money is spent where it was said it was going to be spent. If the trust officials obstruct auditors from accessing certain records, this could hide financial irregularities or misuse of funds. Again, if anyone takes on a role in any organisation, it is important that that organisation is audited. If the people in that organisation are withholding information from the auditors, in some ways that is almost an admission that there is something wrong. But it is important that the auditors have access to all that information to make sure that the funds in those particular trusts are acquitted in a fit and proper manner.

Amended section 23D deals with the appointment of administrators and a mandatory advisory committee to improve necessary oversight. This allows for a quick response to leadership issues while ensuring diverse inputs. If a trust faces a sudden leadership crisis, the ability to quickly appoint new administrators, guided by the advisory committee, could prevent operational discrepancies and ensure continuity of service to the beneficiaries of that particular trust. Again, if there is a failure of leadership and if there is an issue of conflict within the trust, there is the opportunity to bring people in to make sure that it is put back on track. In some ways, this is not dissimilar to what the Minister for Local Government has to deal with with councils. When a council becomes dysfunctional and it is not working, the local government minister can appoint a monitor or appoint administrators to that particular council. This is no different. If there are failures there, there is the opportunity to put a person in to help administer the trust.

There are compliance exemptions and the potential removal of ministerial exemptions to promote fairness and equity in the application of the law. This prevents political influence or favouritism in any functioning of the trust. For example, if one trust gets an exemption from financial reporting requirements, it could lead to a lack of transparency and unequal treatment between trusts. Again, this is making sure that there is no power there for anyone to exempt any of the trusts from these particular rules and laws, so that it is fair for everyone.

That is the content of the bill that is the key issue for those particular trusts. But when we look at what we are dealing with here, if you go back into the history of the lands that are involved in these trusts and why they are there, it deals with a dark time in the history of relationships between the European settlement and the Aboriginal people. I think some very misguided decisions were made in how Aboriginal people were treated at that time and how they were forced to live on particular lands. This one deals with the Framlingham, Lake Tyers, Ebenezer, Ramahyuck and Coranderrk missions. That was a very dark time and there was a very misguided view by people at that time that affected what they did to the Aboriginal people of Victoria. This obviously is not necessarily dealt with in this bill, but I think this bill is dealing with some of the ramifications of those decisions at that time. I know that in my area Cummeragunja was one of the missions, and the big Cummeragunja walk-off is part of the history of the Aboriginal people. They fought to get rights which they did not have at that time. So we are dealing with what is a very sensitive issue, particularly to the Aboriginal people of Victoria ‍– the Indigenous people of Victoria – but also dealing with the fact that our forefathers made decisions that I do not think were in the best interests of the people at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, it is very easy for us to stand here and say that now. We are dealing with some of those issues, and over time these lands have been handed back to the original custodians of that land. If you go through the list of the ones that are there, there is the Ebenezer mission, which is on the Wimmera River north-west of Horsham. I note when I go and look at the history of Ebenezer the Honourable Jeanette Powell, who was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in our government from 2010 to 2014, and the local member, Hugh Delahunty, were both involved in making sure that the Ebenezer mission was handed back to the traditional owners in that particular area.

I think that was a good outcome for what was a very misguided view at the time in setting that particular establishment up, and it equally applies to the other missions as we go through those. Ebenezer was set up back in the mid-1800s and closed in the early 1900s and, through various pieces of legislation, stayed in public ownership over that time, but it was handed back at that particular time, back in about 2012, to the traditional owners there to administer.

Framlingham Mission – the member for South-West Coast is sitting beside me, and as I understand it, the member for South-West Coast delivered health services in Framlingham for 15 years, if memory serves me correct, as I have heard her talk about in this place. It is another settlement that was set up on the Hopkins River just outside Warrnambool. I do not believe it was the best thing to do at that particular time, and with the benefit of hindsight we all know it definitely was not the best thing to do for the peoples at that particular time. But that is one of the trusts that this legislation is dealing with, to make sure that it is run appropriately into the future, and I commend the minister for the bill that she has brought before the house to make sure there is fairness and equity in how these trusts work into the future.

Ramahyuck Mission, which is located on Lake Wellington near the Avon River, is another establishment that was set up, in this case by the same missionary people that actually set up Ebenezer, again acting on what they thought was best at the time but as we all know, with the benefit of hindsight, was not in their best interests there. But this deals with the issues around the cemetery and how people can be interred in there in the future.

The Coranderrk Aboriginal Cemetery out at Healesville – we all know the history of Barak here in Melbourne, who is buried at that particular site, and a monument that was here in Melbourne is actually now out in that particular cemetery for someone who years ago was standing up for Aboriginal land rights. That cemetery is there with over 300 interments from the people of the Yarra region, and his monument is to recognise the work that he did as a leader in Aboriginal land rights at that particular time.

The Lake Tyers Aboriginal Trust is still going, and that and Framlingham are the two trusts that all the issues in this legislation deal with as far as the administration of trusts goes. That community down in East Gippsland is still a very functioning and active community as well.

I suppose what this legislation does is talk about making sure there is accountability, making sure there is equity between trust holders and making sure that there is good auditing of the process of how these trusts are administered. I think we would all, when we come to this house, aspire for that to happen in any organisation in Victoria, and given that this is under government legislation here in Victoria, to make sure it does happen in these particular trusts.

On our side of the Parliament we would like to see those same principles apply to some other issues that involve Indigenous affairs here in Victoria. There has been a lot of commentary in recent times, over the last 12 months, around the cultural heritage act and the implications and implementation of the cultural heritage act here in Victoria. We on our side of the house would like to make sure that those same principles actually apply when it comes to the implementation of cultural heritage in Victoria – that there is fairness and equity, there is transparency, there is accountability, so that everyone, both the Indigenous people who are doing assessments under cultural heritage and the landholders or developers that want to do developments, actually have the opportunity to have equal rights apply to them.

I think about some of the particular issues that as the shadow minister I have talked to the First Peoples Assembly about. I might talk about a couple of those. Just on the edge of my electorate, actually in the member for Shepparton’s electorate, we have the Barmah forest, which is managed by the Yorta Yorta people. Inside the Barmah forest there are cattle yards which are actually National Trust listed. They were used every year for close to a hundred years.

There used to be cattle and horses that ran in the Barmah forest that the local landholders would put in through the winter when they were not using their horses to do the farming. They would put cattle in there to feed through the winter as well. There would be an annual muster that would actually round up all those horses and round up all those cattle, and there would be a huge community event to make sure that they were acquitted back to the properties that actually put them in there. With the cessation of cattle and horses being deliberately put into the forest for that purpose there was still an annual muster that was conducted at the Barmah muster yards where people came together to do camp drafting, to do woodchopping, to do all those sorts of events, and up till about four years ago that was always a great community event in that part of Victoria. But since that time the Yorta Yorta people have said that the community can no longer hold that function in those particular cattle yards, remembering these cattle yards are trust-listed for their value as history of the cattle yards. They are supposed to be maintained, but Parks Victoria is not maintaining them, so they are starting to fall into disrepair, and one of the issues I have raised as we move forward with the treaty discussions is: let us think about how we can have some opportunities for the whole of the community to work together on access to some of these particular parts of Victoria. It would be great if the Barmah muster event could be held back in the cattle yards in the middle of the Barmah forest rather than having to be held on the old racetrack at Barmah. It would I think help protect the heritage of the whole area for both the Aboriginal people and the settlers that have come since that time. These are some of the things where I think we should have some fairness and equity and common sense come back in.

Equally, there is an issue at Rainbow, where there is an off-road rally which is being held up because Parks Victoria in this case have not actually done the cultural heritage work. Parks Victoria rebuilt a road and did not do the right thing and did not get a cultural heritage study done, and because of that the off-road event that is held two or three times a year there can no longer run, or has been told it cannot run, because Parks Victoria did not get the cultural heritage study done on that particular piece of road. Again, surely some common sense can prevail so that event can be held and to make sure that any other parts of that particular area that are culturally sensitive areas can be protected, but given that Parks Victoria have physically remade a road, it defies logic as to why that event cannot be held in the future.

Then we come to more specific issues with cultural heritage around the timelines and the costs and the registration of people that actually do the cultural heritage studies. If any organisation has monopoly powers to deliver a service under an act of Parliament here in Victoria, as I said, I believe there should be accountability. There should be responsibility for those people that have that monopoly power under legislation to make sure they are acquitting a fair and reasonable service and are not extracting exorbitant fees and are not abusing the monopoly power that they have.

There are concerns from a lot of people who are wanting to do development in Victoria, whether it be farmers or whether it be businesspeople. A tradie in Maryborough I have been dealing with just wants to build a shed, and he is having huge trouble because the shed was on land that had been reformed and remade. If you know any of the history of the goldmining areas, you would know that land was severely turned over in the gold rush days to find gold. He was told there should be no issue here and there was a low probability of any cultural heritage because the land had been so changed over time. He has now spent months and months trying to get permission to build this particular shed so he can use it as part of his trade as a painter. He cannot get it resolved. He has paid out tens of thousands of dollars to a cultural heritage expert to deal with this particular issue, and he is just so frustrated with the process. He is a tradie; he is a painter. He has worked hard all his life to make a living and make a way for his family, and now he is being held up on going to the next part of his business plan and it has cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars and in lost opportunity in the time that he has been doing that.

We see examples right around Victoria of this happening. I understand, and I have talked to the First Peoples’ Assembly co-chairs. Yes, I agree we need to make sure there is not abuse of the protection of cultural heritage, but we also need to make sure that there is not abuse of the cultural heritage powers ‍– that they are not being used to extract exorbitant amounts of money out of any particular development or put long, restrictive times on those particular projects.

There has been discussion in recent times about the costs that this is putting onto houses in Melbourne. A group of people that I met with out at Doreen a number of months ago were talking about the need for more housing, because we all know about the housing shortage we have in Victoria, and their view was that cultural heritage studies and the work that needed to be done was putting between $10,000 and $20,000 on the cost of each housing block that they were selling at that particular time. So how can we find some balance to make sure that cultural heritage is protected but without making it exorbitant for, in this case, people who want to buy a house block or people who want to buy a land and house package? We know how expensive it is at the moment and how much state government charges and taxes are involved in the cost of a house and land package. My understanding from a number of sources is that if a young couple want to buy a land and house package now, nearly 40 per cent of what they pay for that house and land package is state government taxes and charges. Again, we should look at all of those and make sure we do what we can to reduce those for young couples who want to buy a house.

We also need to make sure that, for those people that are developing that land, the costs of doing cultural heritage are not exorbitant and the timeframes are not exorbitant. For a developer who is developing land, the holding cost if they can turn that over and be selling blocks within two years is a lot more economical than if they have to hold it for five or six years, pay the land tax, pay all the taxes on that and pay the interest on their loans to own that particular land. So we want to make sure that there is some balance brought back into that particular process to make sure that houses are affordable here in Victoria whilst also protecting cultural heritage.

That particular group we spoke to also said that every time they bring a new work crew on the site they have to go through cultural heritage training to ensure that the workers, if they find a particular artefact, can –

Chris Couzens interjected.

Peter WALSH: You might shake your head, but this is what they are telling me. I am just reporting what they are telling me.

Chris Couzens interjected.

Peter WALSH: We are not blaming anyone. We are trying to make sure there is a sensible, civil debate around this, there is accountability, there is transparency and there is fairness for everyone involved in that process.

I understand it is a sensitive issue, but I think it is a discussion that has to be had. One of the challenges we have now in society but particularly in Victoria is that, if someone speaks up against a particular thing or raises a particular concern, they are branded as being a racist or branded as being a bigot or branded as being something else, rather than being able to have a sensible conversation about these particular issues.

All of us in this house have a responsibility when we come into this place to raise issues that are genuine concerns of our constituency. If we do not raise issues that are genuine concerns of our constituency, we actually do not have a democracy. It is important for people to go out into the foyer and look at the tiles – with many voices common sense prevails, but with single voices it does not happen.

We are raising those issues, and on our side of this house we want to constructively work through those issues with the First Peoples’ Assembly and any other organisation that is involved in this.

A member interjected.

Peter WALSH: Those on the other side can ridicule it. The Liberals and Nationals will not blindly follow the government on any particular issue no matter what it is, whether it be Aboriginal affairs, whether it be treaty, whether it be legislation around integrity or whether it be legislation around corruption with the CFMEU. We are here to make sure that we have a sensible, informed and responsible debate. It is not about being inflammatory. It is not about trying to stir up any particular side of the debate to make it seem irrational. It is about these genuine issues that are being raised, and we want to make sure that they are dealt with in a sensible way.

We have found out over the last couple of days, following the criticism from the Premier and her government about the position that the Liberals and Nationals have taken on cultural heritage, that the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) are doing their own secret review into –

Chris Couzens interjected.

Peter WALSH: It was reported in the paper that DPC –

Members interjecting.

Peter WALSH: Go and read the comments that the Premier actually made that DPC is doing a review of the cultural heritage act processes. Are you saying the Premier is not telling the truth?

Natalie Suleyman: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it has been a wideranging debate, but unfortunately the Leader of the Nationals should know better, and he has now strayed from the bill that is before the house. I would ask you to direct the member to speak on the bill that is before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): I will direct the member to come back to the bill.

Peter WALSH: In conclusion, our side of the house are not opposing the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. I have talked about the history of how we have ended up in this situation, which I do not think any of us are proud of at all, but it is there. This puts some better accountability, some more integrity and some rules around the operation of those Aboriginal trusts, and I will finish my contribution with that.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (11:52): I am pleased to rise to contribute on the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. I stand here today on the traditional lands of the Wurundjeri peoples, and I acknowledge their ancestors and elders. I acknowledge the many countries across the state, including where I live and work, and those I represent in this place, the Wadawurrung people. I pay my respects to Aboriginal peoples, their culture and their elders past and present. I acknowledge their strength, resilience and continued connection to country, skies and waterways. I also acknowledge all First Peoples who may be here today and those who may be listening online. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land.

I do also want to recognise that whenever we have these debates that involve Aboriginal communities or legislation involving Aboriginal communities, unfortunately, whether it be in this place or on social media or out in our community, there are racist remarks and misinformation that actually cause real harm to Aboriginal people. I am very mindful of that given that we are debating this bill today, and I think all of us in this chamber should be mindful of that.

This government, the Allan Labor government, is committed to true reconciliation, truth-telling and treaty with First Peoples. We can only do this by empowering and supporting Aboriginal peoples through self-determination, by deep listening and by acknowledging the wrongs of the past. There are significant areas of the journey to reconciliation, truth-telling and treaty, and this bill is part of this journey.

There is a lot of political game playing going on at the expense of First Nations people in our community, and that really concerns me. It concerns me that the Leader of the Nationals, who was on his feet just before me, talked about how during colonisation people were ‘misguided’. Well, let me tell you, I do not believe that they were misguided when they stole Aboriginal children, they took Aboriginal language from communities, they massacred entire families and communities and then they stole their land. But Aboriginal people have been resilient and strong over the last more than 200 ‍years. They have been calling for over 200 years for a treaty process and reconciliation – to sit down together and for all of us to deeply listen.

That is why this government have done what we have done, but we did it in a bipartisan way. We had those opposite agreeing with us when it came to treaty. So we introduced legislation to introduce the treaty process. We established the treaty commissioner, who was the amazing Jill Gallagher, who did an extraordinary job. We established the First Peoples’ Assembly, then the Yoorrook Justice Commission and the Treaty Authority. And then those on the other side turned their backs on all of that, and the excuse they used – which we heard in the media, mind you; they did not speak to the Aboriginal community, there was no consultation about that – was that they no longer supported the treaty process in Victoria. They said that after the Voice referendum outcome. That was their opportunity to stand with Aboriginal people in Victoria after that outcome, but what they did was they turned their backs on them and they withdrew their support.

The Leader of the Nationals said that some things in the bill will address injustice. That is what treaty is all about, so why aren’t they supporting treaty? That is the question I ask. You can say, ‘Yes, there have been injustices, and we support this bill.’ Well, why aren’t you supporting treaty? They are the questions that I ask the opposition. To use cultural heritage as an excuse for not supporting treaty is outrageous. That is not on. They did not consult the Aboriginal community when they did that. They have not consulted the Aboriginal community about cultural heritage matters at all. To blame the Aboriginal community for the housing crisis – that is outrageous. They should not be blaming the Aboriginal community for anything. In fact they should be blaming all of us for not having dealt with these matters.

When the Leader of the Nationals said we are doing a review – no, we are not. We are not reviewing the cultural heritage laws, but we are looking at whether the cultural heritage management plan system can be strengthened. We work every day with traditional owners and with the Aboriginal community to ensure that they have the resources they need. But they should not be blamed for delays that they have no control over. It is outrageous.

The opposition leader’s half-baked policy that he put out on the weekend will not speed up any approvals, with only 1 per cent of developers even needing a cultural heritage plan. So I think for us in Victoria the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 provides the strongest legislative protections for Aboriginal cultural heritage in this country, and we should all be very proud of that. As I said, only 1 per cent of all developments that have a planning permit require a cultural heritage management plan. So when they talk about cultural heritage and that being the reason for withdrawing from supporting treaty, it is absolute rubbish. They need to look at what they are doing in terms of supporting the Aboriginal community, and I hope they will do that as we move forward in the coming months.

The bill will improve the way land is managed at Framlingham and Lake Tyers Aboriginal trusts, in addition to removing restrictions on decisions made about Aboriginal land by Aboriginal communities at Ebenezer and Ramahyuck mission cemeteries. It does this by amending two acts which were enacted in 1970 and 1991. The 1970 act has never substantially been updated, despite being enacted over 50 years ago, with many of the governance and operational requirements being rooted in outdated corporate governance models. When we talk about self-determination, this is a great example of the importance of self-determination – to allow those communities to manage and make decisions about their own lands. That is what is important. These frameworks imposed significant compliance requirements, creating barriers for communities, and that is what we need to remove.

They have made it harder for communities to make decisions about and manage their own lands. At the time of enactment no consideration was given to the role of Aboriginal models of governance and cultural ways of doing business, which causes significant barriers today. As I said, this is about self-determination, and it is about allowing Aboriginal communities to make decisions for their own mobs and for their own communities – that is so important to them.

This bill will amend the Aboriginal Lands Act 1970 to update the shareholding system and governance requirements of the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust and the Lake Tyers Aboriginal Trust. I will point out that Framlingham is where the Couzens family were on the mission. They moved to Geelong to hide from government, basically, but Framlingham was their home. They moved to Geelong in the late 1960s because children were still being removed from their community. So this has real significance for the Couzens family and for all the mob from Framlingham, and I am sure they are very excited and will welcome this piece of legislation.

In concluding my remarks, I think we all have some serious lessons to learn when it comes to self-determination and what really matters to First Peoples of this state. The contribution they make to this state is something that we, the Allan government, do recognise. We want to sit at the table with them, and we have sat at the table with them for many years now. It has been an eight-year journey to get to the point we are now where we have the Treaty Authority ready to roll on treaty, which we are very excited about. I commend the bill to the house.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (12:02): I rise to speak on the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 and its proposed changes to the governance and shareholding structures of Aboriginal trusts created under the Aboriginal Lands Act 1970 and Aboriginal Lands Act 1991. This administrative bill has risen largely out of the challenges that have plagued the Aboriginal communities and will assist in ensuring that the issues surrounding transparency and accountability are addressed in the decision-making process of trusts like Framlingham Aboriginal Trust. I will particularly focus my contribution on the Framlingham trust aspect of this bill. I do this as someone who worked at Framlingham for 15 years, so I do have a considered firsthand understanding of the issues surrounding the trust and how they did cause angst among the community for many years, much of which stemmed from the lack of fairness of the shareholding distribution of the trust.

In my role as a registered nurse I had the great privilege of running Kirrae Health Service, which was an Aboriginal community controlled health organisation within the trust precinct. So I actually worked within the model of Aboriginal community control, or ACCHO as it is known, and I know firsthand just how important self-determination is, or more specifically getting outcomes that really make a difference.

During that time I got to know very well the different clans and the relationships that are interwoven between the different family groups: the Clarkes with an ‘e’ and the Clarks without an ‘e’, the Austins, the Harradines, the Chatfields, the Couzens, the Harrisons, the Litsters, the Proctors, the Edwards and all the different family clans – I could go on through a lot more names. But I got to know the connections and the interconnections that existed between the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust community and the wider Gunditjmara community and right across the region.

I was also asked by the Aboriginal people to represent the Framlingham community at a VACCHO, Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, level, so I got to know many of the clans right across Victoria from Rumbalara to Winda-Mara, Dja Dja Wurrung and Wathaurong and many more. Being there for so long, I had the pleasure of really getting to know the families and watching the next generation being born, and now I see many of them grown and in leadership roles right across the state: people like Marcus Clarke, the Eastern Maar CEO; Troy Litster, a volunteer at the SES; Louise, who recently received an award with NAIDOC Week; Danny, the CEO at Gunditjmara; Mackie Chatfield, who is the CEO at the Aboriginal trust. Many of them were young kids that I have watched grow up, and there are leaders like Corey Mifsud, who invited me to the Russells Creek NAIDOC celebration last week and the pre-game smoking ceremony. Many of the local community came together and had a wonderful afternoon, even though it was absolutely pouring rain, catching up with many people like Kerry Proctor and Fid Chatfield and their many children who have grown, who I could hardly recognise. They are all looking like young men and women. Craig Edwards and his son Jordy from Geelong – we reminisced about the connections there with family. His children have grown, and we were reminiscing about dear Uncle Bill and Aunty Kath, who I was very close to.

I truly appreciate the values of the Aboriginal community. One of these values is the importance of the next generation and investing in the children for the future. Never have I worked anywhere where children were more respected and cherished. My children were always welcomed, and I was able to mother and work in a family-friendly environment – very ahead of their time as a family-friendly workplace. I have lifelong friendships as a result of my most enjoyable 15 years working in the Aboriginal community. Consequently, I am a little bit concerned about the way this current Labor government talks the big game about caring for and listening to Aboriginal communities, when we are yet to see any real follow-up or outcomes.

What I see commonly is a lack of detail, and I am worried that this bill, like the government usually does, has a focus on spinning a good headline rather than better outcomes as a result of legislative change. This government commonly puts through legislation without working on the detail. Detail is lacking, and that is a hallmark of this government. Look at the public drunkenness laws – have they worked? Changes to bail laws – have they worked? Accessing prescriptions – has anyone actually been able to get a prescription for a UTI despite all the work that has been done in Queensland and overseas? You certainly cannot in my electorate as yet. I do have my doubts that this legislation has been drawn up in a way that will address the issues and provide better transparency and accountability for those working and living at Framlingham. The trust families should have more say in the trust decisions, and my suspicions are the government will be back making amendments to this legislation.

A bit of history: the legislation that originally formed the trust allowed for only people currently living on the land to receive the shareholding, and even then no-one was really sure who the shareholders were due to the lack of transparency. The design of the trust did not recognise those who had deep connections but who were not actually residing there at the time. An example is Hope Harradine – a Clarke with an ‘e ‘before she married Lionel – who was born on the Framlingham mission, as we affectionally call it. Hope was a 17-year-old girl who had moved to Melbourne at the time of the distribution of shares. She married her then lifelong partner Lionel, and after a few short years in Melbourne together they moved back. But she was not issued shares despite having deep connections to the Framingham land. When I visited the trust a couple of weeks ago, Hope’s son Wayne and I were discussing how illogical that is despite his great-great-grandmother being born at Framlingham. His children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren continue to have a strong involvement with Framlingham, and yet they have no shareholding. So you can understand why when people with deep connections were not given shares they did not feel like it was a representative model for the people who belong there.

This is what the legislation should be addressing, but I do not feel it is likely to happen quite under this government, because what we have here is a Labor government that says things are all right and talks about the importance of listening to Indigenous communities, with little else to show in real terms – meaningful outcomes in the lives of Indigenous Victorians. Have we seen improvements in life expectancy compared to non-Indigenous community members of Victoria? Have Labor done anything to improve cardiac outcomes and reduce asthma, hypertension incidents and otitis media and all the other indicators of health that really have not improved?

Let us examine the treatment of Aboriginal children. Despite failings in child protection as highlighted by the Yoorrook Justice Commission, this government continues to fail Aboriginal children. For example, from 2013 to 2022 the number of children in out-of-home care has increased from 922 to 2595. Victoria’s rate of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care is the worst in the country. Aboriginal children are over-represented in the child protection system 11 to one. I feel that this government is doing a disservice to the Aboriginal community by claiming to improve health outcomes for the children or the people in general. All the tokenism that this government takes in I find is often patronising and disrespectful; in fact I think it does more damage to the good work the Aboriginal community are doing. Aboriginal people and culture are being embraced by the wider community, which we should all be celebrating. Another example of how this government is taking the cultural divide to a new level is the city-centric way they are managing the cultural heritage process, which is causing much anxiety.

A member interjected.

Roma BRITNELL: The bill is about transparency and accountability, and that is exactly what I am referring to. When we are so short of houses over people’s heads, we need a process in place that ensures fairness and equitable support for the Aboriginal communities who deliver this.

The government should be working to ensure timely and transparent outcomes that respect the Indigenous community’s heritage and do not unnecessarily hinder the planning process. I have had many conversations with Aboriginal communities – as recently as last week with the Edwards family from Geelong – and developers who have close links with the Aboriginal communities in my part of the world. They both tell me it is not the Aboriginal communities that are creating the bottleneck in the cultural heritage overlay assessments that are required for land to be developed. They say it is the white bureaucrats from Melbourne, which is how they describe to me who is causing the problem. What ends up happening in the wider community is that they lump all the Aboriginal communities in one basket, creating the impression that they are the ones holding up the process and charging ridiculous amounts of money when it is the government who should be putting in place a process that all cultural heritage organisations –

Natalie Hutchins: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I do not believe the member is being relevant to the bill. This bill is not about cultural heritage management.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I will remind the current member on their feet, the member for South-West Coast, to stay on track and talk about the bill that is before the chamber at the moment.

Roma BRITNELL: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the wideranging debate has actually –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I have ruled on the point of order, so if you could please not stray.

Roma BRITNELL: I believe it is an absolute injustice that the backlog created by the Allan Labor government is undermining Aboriginal communities, allowing them to be saddled with the blame for the government’s inaction. There is no process in place that ensures things happen in a fair and equitable manner or to support the Aboriginal community to deliver this. Instead the process is fraught with inequities, and that is not helpful to those who I know live in these communities and want to see a fair and equitable process that protects cultural heritage but also gets things done. So whilst I do not oppose this legislation, I doubt there will be an outcome that the Aboriginal families and communities are looking for as a result of this bill to see that the trust is made a fairer and more equitable place for all decision-makers and that Aboriginal people get the respect they deserve from this Allan Labor government.

Peter Walsh: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would ask that the minister at the table withdraw the comments she made near the end of the member’s contribution, please.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Will the minister withdraw the comment?

Natalie Hutchins: I withdraw.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:12): I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung, and pay my respects to elders past and present and also acknowledge any other First Peoples who may be present with us today. I do want to acknowledge their strength, resilience and continued connection to their country, skies and waterways, and, I should say, we are unequivocally committed to true reconciliation, truth-telling and treaty with First Peoples. I do get a little confused – at best, I should say; there are far deeper emotions that are inspired within me – when the opposition on the one hand claim they are backing in our Aboriginal people but have completely turned their back on the treaty process. Then, within the context of this bill, on the one hand they are acknowledging injustices of the past but then talking about housing affordability for couples and how they are going to afford a house and then associating that with cultural heritage elements as if it is some kind of laborious inconvenience, and in that vein run the risk of diminishing the significance of our wonderful cultural heritage that is of the Aboriginal people and something that we should be extremely proud of.

I think that due care has to be taken in this space for good reason if we look at the context within which this bill comes about and the impetus for the various changes, which were completely repudiated by the previous member of the opposition, that I would say will go a considerable way to rectifying a number of the injustices that have proceeded as a result of the establishment of the missions in the first place. But no-one is suggesting that this bill alone can rectify all of the injustices, and this is why we do have a treaty process well underway. This is why we have truth-telling. This is why it is so important to be very factual in this context and to be very careful baiting with very dangerous narratives which are counterproductive to the purpose upon which we are meeting here today, I would suggest.

On the one hand you say, ‘No, no, no, we’re not baiting anyone. No, we’re just talking about what’s right and proper. This is fair. This is reasonable.’ Hang on a minute – what are we debating here, and what is the context within which we are operating? I think no-one can be naive about that context, and to suggest as such is actually quite insulting, not least to the Aboriginal people themselves. You are gilding the lily here a bit. I think it is actually disrespectful, and one needs to be very, very careful with the context, the history and the premise of the legislation we are debating here today. What underpins this of course, when we are talking about the process and progressing treaty, is that integral nexus between reconciliation and progressing self-determination. These are very important principles that underpin progression that we are making here and that we are seeking to make here as we speak.

I do want to reference the very damaging impact of these missions, and I am going to actually quote the minister and her statement at the Yoorrook Justice Commission:

… the State’s establishment of missions and reserves at Coranderrk, Lake Tyers, Framlingham, Lake Condah, Ramahyuck and Ebenezer was driven by the paternalistic and racist attitudes of the time, including the idea that Christianity was the only means of assisting Aboriginal people. The reserve system aimed to change Aboriginal people and to make them more like white, European people by removing children, discouraging the speaking of Aboriginal languages and the practice of Aboriginal culture.

…

the reserves became less concerned with Aboriginal peoples’ welfare –

far from it –

and became places here First Peoples were segregated, monitored, their labour exploited and made to conform to mission life.

You can see when we speak within this context we should be very careful about then going off on tangents about people being able to afford housing because of the protection and the processes surrounding cultural heritage. There is a grave risk with going on those tangents with this context and the sensitivity of this bill. I do not resile from raising that point because I think that we need to be very respectful in this space, bearing in mind the complete disrespect of Aboriginal culture by the colonisers of this nation. I just think that has to be very much acknowledged within the space within which we are discussing this legislation here today.

I also want to acknowledge that the Aboriginal Lands Act was at the time a landmark piece of legislation. It was the first time the Victorian Parliament recognised Aboriginal land rights and the government’s first attempt to recognise self-determination, and it was created – and this was perhaps the little light in the tunnel, if you like – in direct response to the Framlingham and Lake Tyers Aboriginal communities’ advocacy for land rights. That speaks to that incredible resilience in spite of all that they have been through and continue to suffer and endure. As former mission sites, Framlingham and Lake Tyers represent the state’s past racist, segregationist and assimilationist laws which actively sought to deny First Peoples any form of self-determination. However, despite being landmark legislation at that time, this scheme is outdated and remains inadequate at achieving the act’s goals in full of promoting self-determination and economic independence for the trusts’ shareholders and non-shareholder residents, hence the imperative for the amendments that are being brought about today.

It was, frankly, galling to hear the opposition say, ‘Oh, it’s not going to do anything; it’s not going to help anyone.’ Let us just look at specific aspects of this bill. Currently there are unfair administrative requirements of the trusts impacting their ability to comply with the legislation. This includes duplicative financial reporting requirements, issues with the shareholding system and legislative process for share transfers, ineffective accountability and transparency provisions and governance and composition arrangements that are not effective. We need to provide the trusts the powers to carry out business on trust land in a way that works for them and in a way that enables true self-determination.

I will put a caveat on that, because we are not saying that this is the end of the pathway on the journey to reform. It is already fully acknowledged that there will be further reform with regard to the matters of these trusts, as is due and proper and as is appropriate. Nobody is resiling from or glossing over those issues, contrary to some of the inferences that were suggested opposite, which I think also, again, can be insulting to those who have been consulted directly – those directly impacted by the changes here today – because it suggests that somehow they would not be aware of the matters being discussed here when of course they are; they absolutely are. They are integral, and we know that that is actually what underpins the pathway to self-determination – Aboriginal people controlling their destiny, is it not? This is what underpins that very important progression and evolution of our country. We cannot move forward unless Aboriginal people are able to absolutely have control of their destiny. We know that. We get it on this side of the house. I am not convinced by those opposite. They have completely turned their back on treaty. It is galling, it is shameful and I do not understand it.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, seeking a point of clarification on relevance, the Acting Speaker ruled a number of times that members on this side of the chamber were not being relevant to the bill. The member now is not being anywhere near relevant to the bill, and I would ask the Acting Speaker to bring the member back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I ask the member for Albert Park to come back to the bill.

Nina TAYLOR: I should say that, in addition to progressing the treaty process, the government is also meeting its existing obligations to Aboriginal communities, but that actually is a very strong nexus on the pathway to self-determination.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:22): I am pleased to rise on the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 and say a few words, particularly as it relates to my area of Gippsland and Gippsland South. Unlike others, I do not think this is a bill that we need to take partisan positions on. Those opposite seemed determined to speak about everything except what this bill is.

Steve Dimopoulos interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: The minister at the table says, ‘That’s convenient.’ If the government wants to have a debate on treaty, bring on a debate on treaty. This is a bill about a completely different thing.

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: Again, I am not here to talk about that. I am here to talk about the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill. I am not here to score political points, which is what those opposite seem more focused on.

I am going to speak particularly about the second part of the legislation. The first part is amendments to the Aboriginal Lands Act 1970, which particularly relates to the Framlingham and Lake Tyers Aboriginal trusts. The member for South-West Coast is very well placed to speak on that, and I think the member for Gippsland East will be coming up shortly and he will know more and speak more about the Lake Tyers trust. The only comment I will make about that is a little bit of history.

Previous speakers have talked about the racist policies of past governments and the deliberate attempts to diminish and to suppress Aboriginal culture. I was reminded in hearing that of part of my own family’s story that I only discovered a few years ago. I am descended from the O’Rourkes of far East Gippsland, who came into the Suggan Buggan–Wulgulmerang area up in the Snowy River valley, virtually at the same time as Melbourne was being settled, if not before – around 1838, so a little bit after technically. The story I only discovered a few years ago was that some of the members of that family came across the aftermath of what appears to have been a massacre and found a baby still alive. That baby was Neddy O’Rourke, and he was taken in by that family and became one of their own. They had I think nine children or something at the time, and Neddy became another one of their own.

I was reminded of this when reading some of the history of the Ramahyuck Aboriginal mission, which eventually closed down virtually because of the Aboriginal Protection Act that was passed on 1886. It was that and many others – there were quite a number of acts that went though the Parliament at that time trying to deal with the ‘Aboriginal question’, if you would like to put it that way, because there was much debate in the Victorian colonial Parliament at the time about how to manage the Aboriginal population.

I was reminded of it because in the history that I found of Neddy O’Rourke it mentions that, having grown up with the O’Rourke family at Wulgulmerang and Suggan Buggan, he then ‘moved to’ Lake Tyers. That was the way it was euphemistically put. I am only guessing this myself, but I suspect he did not choose to move. I suspect that he was in fact forced to move. It is an issue that I would personally like to follow up more because, apart from anything else, he married a Thorpe, and I do wonder whether there is a connection with another and famous Thorpe in the political world. That may well be a connection to my family too.

Ramahyuck, as I said, is just outside my electorate. The name Ramahyuck has far more positive connotations for the Indigenous community in my electorate as it is the social services provider in the region, operating out of both Sale and Morwell and providing medical and other health and welfare services to the Aboriginal population. But it is the original Ramahyuck Mission that we are talking about with this piece of legislation.

Subsequently the cemetery, which is still there at Ramahyuck, was established by Reverend Friedrich August Hagenauer – I am not sure if I got the pronunciation of that right – who was a missionary. It was established in 1863 on the banks of the Avon River, quite close to Lake Wellington. As I said, it is still there – you can go there – but it is a little bit difficult to access these days. He applied for and eventually received 2356 acres of land, and it had a level of success, at least in the ways that were mentioned at the time. This history, I might add, has come directly from the Ramahyuck corporation now. It states:

A Melbourne newspaper, the Argus, had described the station as ‘a pretty settlement of white painted weatherboard buildings … which are supplied with such evidence of civilisation … (purchasing) stoves, water tanks, meal safes and sewing machines … out of the earnings of the husbands and fathers from shearing and other work.’

So it was quite productive in a white European sense. The history goes on to say that:

Rev. Hagenauer was a strong leader whose word was law at the Ramahyuck Mission Station.

Now, I do not wish to defame the dead, but I have done some reading on him in the past, and ‘a strong leader’ might be a euphemism and perhaps a little bit misleading. He actually:

… forbade corroborees … and would not tolerate any tribal habits or laws. His motive was to encourage civilisation and therefore requested that all –

the Gunnai/Kurnai that were there and probably many other people from different tribes –

… gather their spears, boomerangs and other traditional implements in a pile to set alight and destroy them.

This is something that of course happened across not just many of the missions but various other locations across Australia. It is a sad fact that that was seen to be protection and in fact possibly was protection at the time. There were multiple massacres in the Gippsland region as well of Aboriginal people, and I am currently reading a book about that, which is interesting because it is a very challenged and contested topic. I am reading a book called A Convenient Scapegoat, a book about Angus McMillan’s role or otherwise in massacres in Gippsland. So Ramahyuck no doubt was a protected area to some degree given that the incursions of settlers into the region had decimated the Gunnai/Kurnai population. I have not actually got to the point yet of whether Angus McMillan was absolved or not, but certainly there is a serious question over his involvement.

As I said, Ramahyuck was established with, in theory at least, good intention – to civilise and Christianise the Aboriginal people – but it is quite startling that it was in 1863, literally only about 23 or 24 years after the central plains of Gippsland were actually settled, that there was a need. I think I have got the figures here. There were around 200 natives, as it says here, from five different tribal groups, which was no doubt the five different tribal groups of the Gunnai/Kurnai.

I understand that now there is very little, if anything, left at what was the Ramahyuck Mission. It is now just a cemetery. I was just speaking to the CEO of the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation to get a bit of background on it this morning. I understand that there are no headstones and no marking of the graves of the Aboriginal people there but that GLAWAC has done some research and some sonar sensing and the like to get a better understanding of where the graves are and who they might belong to. It has put in a bridge and some better access because it is literally driving across a farm track to access the site these days.

As I understand it, the original act, the Aboriginal Lands Act 1991, provided the Gippsland and East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative – or GEGAC, as we know them – with the management of this site, and I believe GLAWAC is now looking to come in and assist them. Perhaps this legislation might in fact facilitate the transfer. As we said, there are transfer restrictions in that original legislation, and I believe that GLAWAC would like to come in and be able to spend some money on the cemetery and actually make it more accessible both to Aboriginal people and their elders in particular but also to the wider community, because Ramahyuck Cemetery is in fact part of the Bataluk Cultural Trail, which runs right through the Gunnai/Kurnai lands of Gippsland and highlights some of the cultural sites of importance. I understand GLAWAC has also undertaken recently a cultural tourism strategy that will hopefully provide better understanding of and an economic basis as well for some of the activities of the Gunnai/Kurnai people in our region.

I look forward to seeing this. I hope that the transfer of the cemetery will assist in better understanding the history as well. As the Leader of the Nationals has indicated, we are not opposing this legislation, and I look forward to seeing it passed.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (12:32): Can I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I did note that we had the co-chairs of the First Peoples’ Assembly in the chamber up until a moment ago, so I just want to put on record my appreciation to them for their work and their patience. I had the great honour of working just a little bit with former co-chairs Marcus Stewart and Aunty Geraldine Atkinson prior to and during the yes campaign. Indeed they allowed me to sit at their table and make phone calls during that campaign. It is something that will probably stick with me for the rest of my life, hearing the good and the bad of some of those phone calls and what some of our Aboriginal brothers and sisters have to put up with.

Today I think is a really important day. This house has a history of passing terrible, racist legislation, and seeing our Aboriginal brothers and sisters in the house today I guess gives us a bit of a sense of their patience over the years of having to deal with us and our systems as we took their systems away from them. Just a bit of googling can take us to legislation passed in this Parliament, and I do just point out that the language in this legislation is pretty subpar and not optimal. The Aboriginal Protection Act ‍1869: the long title is ‘An act to provide for the protection and management of the Aboriginal natives of Victoria’. This act was passed in this house and made Victoria the first colony to create an act that allowed the government to totally regulate the lives of Aboriginal people. It established the Central Board for the Protection of Aborigines – quite an ironic name – and gave them an extreme amount of control which allowed them to dictate many aspects of the lives of Aboriginal people, such as where they could live and where they could work.

I want to give some global context here too, because in some ways today we think of ourselves as leaders; we think of ourselves as innovators, But let us look at history. The US Civil War, I think, started in 1865. This Aboriginal Protection Act was 1869. The US Civil War, amongst other things, was based on rights for African Americans and abolishing slavery. During that period, the early to mid-1800s, we had the age of Enlightenment in Europe, and apart from those political decisions and the philosophies of the European philosophers, such as the separation of state and church, they were also starting to see colonisation and its relationship with the church as very, very unpopular. In fact you do not have to read many authors to find out that in the salons of Paris this kind of discussion was no longer being entertained, and we even saw in some of the dispatches and communications between John Batman and England that colonisation was losing favour. The age of Enlightenment was coming through, but in this house in Victoria in 1869, which was pretty much around that time, we were still essentially passing legislation that took people’s rights away.

We move forward to the Aborigines Protection Act 1886, again in this house. The act changed the definition of ‘Aboriginal’ to exclude those who were half-caste – excuse that terrible term. This began the policy of forcing those who were, again, half-caste off the missions and stations, which is what led to many of them being shut down. We have heard members on both sides of the house talk about Coranderrk. I am always the first to admit in this house that I really knew nothing about our Aboriginal history. Probably in the last 15 years after some self-education and a lot of reading I have come to appreciate our Aboriginal history and just how far it goes back and how rich it is, but during those days it was not appreciated. I guess the real turning point is that now we can be in this chamber speaking about this, having a discussion, having different opinions – democracy, as the Leader of the Nationals was talking about before – but it is a fairly respectful kind of debate, and I think everyone appreciates that.

In that history you come across other Commonwealth countries as well, and you realise that we are the only Commonwealth country without a treaty. You have got New Zealand, who really set the bar pretty high with the Treaty of Waitangi and the fact that at the moment in New Zealand they sometimes sing the national anthem in native language. It is amazing. It is something we should be aspiring to.

You do not have to go far in our history books now – but 20 years ago it would not have been heard of – to find the World War II fighter pilot Len Waters, who flew a Kittyhawk that he called Black Magic in World War II up near New Guinea. I think he shot down a couple of enemy planes. But when he came back to Australia no-one would give him a pilot’s licence. I guess it is interesting for us to be standing here talking about this today, but I only say this for historical context, because I imagine for people sitting in the gallery – who were sitting here only moments ago but walked out – it must be really tough to be sitting in the same institution that basically took their families away, the same institution that said, ‘Because we don’t deem you this amount of Aboriginal, you can’t live on that mission.’

We have heard about Coranderrk in 1874. There were three walks, I think, with Uncle William Barak to Melbourne to our Parliament to make sure that Aboriginal rights were even considered, and it makes me really proud to know that that does not have to happen now. We have the First Peoples’ Assembly, and we will go to meet Aboriginal people where they are to hear about what they want to do for that self-determination piece.

This amendment, as we have heard, will go a long way to dealing with some historical legacy issues, and we have heard plenty of people talk about that. But one of the issues that came up that really made the hair on the back of my neck stand up was people talking about cultural heritage, which has been in the news a little bit lately. I just wanted to say that I do not think the opposition consulted any Aboriginal people or organisations on the development of their new policy – I am happy to be corrected – but that policy directly impacts First Nations people. This has come up in this discussion, and it has been a wideranging debate, but I appreciate that we could actually –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I just refer to your previous rulings about matters that are not relevant to the bill where you brought other members back to the debate. I am more than happy for these matters to form part of the debate, including the government’s secret review into cultural heritage.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I do not think we need a commentary, just the point of order. The point of order has been made. I remind the member for Frankston to not stray and to discuss the bill before the house.

Paul EDBROOKE: I will just say that Aboriginal people are not the cause of our housing crisis; how about I just leave it like that.

But back to this bill: obviously we had recent reviews into the Aboriginal Lands Act 1970, and those demonstrated the need for legislative change. That is why we are here today. This bill amends that 1970 act to improve processes for share transfers, and the bill will amend the Aboriginal Lands Act ‍1991 to remove limitations on the rights of titleholders to exercise their land rights and transfer the Ebenezer and Ramahyuck mission cemeteries to traditional owners.

I have got to say in the minute I have left that I have been really shocked at times in this house by things that have happened, and I find that most people are very reasonable. One of the things that did shock me was the opposition walking away from treaty, and I think that was a big signal about things that will happen.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, you have previously ruled that the member should return to the bill, and I believe he is now defying your ruling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Can the member for Frankston not stray and continue for the next 25 seconds on the bill.

Paul EDBROOKE: On this side of the house I think we are very proud of our Aboriginal heritage amongst our community. Certainly in Frankston and on the peninsula we have a very proud Aboriginal community, and we embrace them, we work with them and we want to walk hand in hand along with them on this journey for treaty. It is only this side of the house that will do that.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (12:42): I rise to make a contribution on the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. As others have put into Hansard, the main purpose of the bill is to amend the Aboriginal Lands Act 1970 and the Aboriginal Lands Act 1991 to update management and ownership structures for Indigenous communities. I will talk a little bit more later about the Lake Tyers Mission in my electorate, which is a significant part of this bill. It will also remove the use and restrictions on the transfer of the Ebenezer and Ramahyuck mission cemeteries, while retaining those restrictions of course that have been requested after discussions with the traditional owners in those areas, and improve landholders’ control over their property usage and management. As our shadow minister indicated in his initial contribution, we will not be opposing it.

The changing of the governance of shareholding structures on Aboriginal trusts created under the Aboriginal lands acts of 1970 and 1991 are specifically related to Framlingham in the western part of the state and Lake Tyers in the eastern part of the state. Lake Tyers in my electorate has a really, really interesting history. It was established by a chap by the name of John Bulmer, which is a name synonymous with Lakes Entrance, way back in the 1860s. He came in as a missionary and set about establishing Lake Tyers because of the conflict that was going on between our Aboriginal communities and our white settlers. Bulmer originally looked at establishing the settlement at a little place just south of Buchan, which is further to the north of Lake Tyers, but for various reasons that did not eventuate, and the mission, or the trust, was established at Lake Tyers on the peninsula where it still currently exists. The local Gunnai/Kurnai at the time referred to that area as Bung Yarnda, and a number of the trust residents, many of whom I know quite well, still refer to the area as Bung Yarnda rather than the Lake Tyers Mission. But that peninsula, for anyone who has been there – and I have been there on quite a few occasions – has a beautiful outlook over the Lake Tyers inlet, and it is really God’s own country.

Early last century there was also a push to relocate a lot of our Indigenous community from other areas of the state to Lake Tyers, and they came from locations such as Ramahyuck, Lake Condah and Coranderrk and relocated to Lake Tyers. It was not a great move. In the case of some there was force related to that, against their better wishes. It was not until 1916, when we were actually in the years of the Great War, that that step took place. From what I can gather and from what historians can gather, it did not have anything to do with the declaration of war. It was just something that coincided, but for a whole range of reasons it was a very interesting time in our history because we had a lot of our Indigenous community enlisting to fight for our country, but we also had members of our Indigenous community from other areas of the state being told, ‘You have to go and live at Lake Tyers in East Gippsland.’

It was not until the 1960s that there was an effort made to rectify that, but the effort to rectify it was done very poorly, because it then forced Aboriginal families to go to areas of our state that in many cases were not their traditional homelands. You can imagine what sort of conflict that would have caused. There were protests throughout the 1950s and 1960s calling for Lake Tyers to become basically a farming enterprise for the local Indigenous people who were still living there, and an important step was that in the mid-1960s, before the mission was declared, a permanent reserve was declared for the Lake Tyers area, for Bung Yarnda. In 1971 the remaining residents at Lake Tyers – and by that stage, after people had been moved around the state, there was only a few hundred people living there – were granted freehold of the title to Lake Tyers. How they were granted freehold was the government of the day gave shares to the residents and their children. They gave them shares as a gesture of having ownership of that land, and that is an important part of the history of Lake Tyers.

Then in the 2000s we went through a period of unrest where the trust was put into administration. We had an administrator come in. At the time of my election back in 2010 it was a very topical issue because the local community wanted it out of administration and they wanted ownership back. We had a protest where the road into Lake Tyers was closed down for quite a period of time to make that particular point, and in the subsequent years that was done. I cannot remember whether it was our government or yours, but the ownership was handed back to Lake Tyers residents at that time and the administrator was removed. I think, Acting Speaker Addison, it might have been under your government, but I stand to be corrected on that.

This bill proposes updates to the management and ownership structures, and it puts in place certain safeguards and changes landholders’ control over their properties. The amendments include appointing deputy and acting chairpersons for governance continuity, which is a good idea. The aim is to ensure fair distribution and responsible management, and that is why we are not opposing this bill. It also makes some changes, as the member for Gippsland South touched on, in relation to removing restrictions around the Ebenezer and the Ramahyuck mission cemeteries to allow for the transfer of these cemeteries back to traditional owners. That is a commonsense move that will give the traditional owners more say over those areas, so we also see that as a positive step. It is important to note that these changes that are being made do have the support of the traditional owners in each area.

Just before I finish – and I have got a couple of minutes – I have a little bit of interesting family history. Back in 1882 my great-grandfather was skippering a boat along the coast between Mallacoota and Melbourne, and a massive storm hit. He had to put the boat ashore to save the crew, and where he put it ashore, when the sun came up the next morning, was directly opposite the entrance to Lake Tyers. If the entrance had been open at that time, the ship would have gone straight up into the Lake Tyers inlet. What happened there was that storm actually claimed and wrecked four or five ships across Victorian coastal waters, which resulted in a significant loss of life. My great-grandfather’s ship – captain James’s ship – was on the beach. At that location he then sought refuge. It took quite a period to refloat the ship, but he stayed at the Lake Tyers mission and enjoyed the hospitality of our Aboriginal community, the Gunnai/Kurnai.

We have a prominent Aboriginal family in East Gippsland called the Bulls, and a lot of our Aboriginal families adopted the names of settlers. Years later I played football with Murray Bull, who was a good mate of mine – Indigenous Murray Bull. We often had the chat about whether his ancestors had taken their name from my great-grandfather during that period of him staying at the mission there for a number of weeks. We discussed the probability of that but could not confirm that that was actually the case.

Not every story from the early years was a horrible one. There were a lot of good stories about interaction, cooperation and different people getting along. Certainly there were some horrible stories, but there were some good ones. From that point in time, from my great-grandfather’s experience, there has always been that respect for our Aboriginal community, and it has flowed through. I coached football in East Gippsland for 28 years, and you cannot do that without being heavily involved in our Indigenous community. I have got some great friendships there. It is a little interesting part of history. We are not opposing this bill, and we wish it a speedy passage through both chambers.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:51): I too rise to speak on the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. In doing so, I would like to echo the words of the member for Geelong, who recognised that for us in this place it is easy to talk about such things but the words that we say here have an impact on people outside of this place, for good and for bad, so I really hope that my contribution will be for good. I ask for forgiveness if I stumble in what I say.

I appreciate the historical outlook that we have heard from those opposite. We have just had a bit of a Who Do You Think You Are? recap from the member for Gippsland East regarding his ancestors. I also would like to know who those opposite are. We sort of thought we knew who they were, but they seem to have changed with their view on some important policies in this state. We also heard from the member for Gippsland South. His Who Do You Think You Are? was about Mr McMillan and the question of whether he was a mass murderer or not. I am going to spoil the end of the book for the member and ask: what is the difference between a murderer and a mass murderer? What is the difference someone who leads a massacre and someone who participates in a massacre? I do not think there is much difference. I think that is black and white.

Just as the member for Gippsland East has done, I would like to focus my contribution on Lake Tyers and the history of Lake Tyers. The reason I want to do that is because I believe it is a really good demonstration of the strength and resilience of Aboriginal communities in Victoria, and it also highlights the importance of self-determination and what self-determination can achieve. And I would also like to pay tribute to some amazing champions in the history of the struggle for rights in Victoria. Soon I would like to speak about Laurie Moffatt, Pastor Sir Doug Nicholls, Eric Onus, Jim McGinness, Charlie Carter and Lady Gladys of course, who were instrumental in the return of Lake Tyers to the community.

As other members have touched on, there was a reason that missions were established largely by churches, and that is because Aboriginal community members were being murdered and dispossessed of their lands not just in Victoria but of course all over the country. My own ancestor in his diaries was given land by the government when they came from Germany. Germans were considered good farmers, so they were given land, and my ancestor recorded in his diary about the Aboriginal people that they dispossessed of their land and the corroborees that would continue to happen on the edge of the property. That is my Who Do You Think You Are? I recognise my family benefited from the dispossession of people’s land.

Lake Tyers was established in 1861 by the Church of England, but under the control of the church of course there was a change to local cultural practices. In 1908 the government actually took over control of the mission at Lake Tyers. Because the government set about reducing the number of mission sites across the state – they wanted to have the land back, some to give away to white Victorians and some for other purposes – they began to move people from missions all over the state to Lake Tyers, and the member for Gippsland East referenced that as well.

On the site right up until the end there were lots of restrictions in place for people who lived at Lake Tyers. In the later years they were not allowed to own a vehicle. They were not allowed to have visitors to the mission without permission. They were not allowed to have a job. There were many rules that governed the people there, and it was not an easy place to live. In 1962 Oodgeroo Noonuccal from Queensland, then known as Kath Walker – a famous poet of Australia, a voice for Australia – took part in a national tour, and as part of that she visited Lake Tyers and reported on the conditions there, which at the time were deplorable. There was no running water. There were I think 30 huts onsite – what I would call a hut; people probably had pride in their home – for 150 people. There was mass crowding; there were no bathrooms nearby et cetera. That period of the 1960s was really important in Australia’s Aboriginal history. In 1965 in New South Wales of course we had the freedom rides led by fantastic students up there who toured country towns in Australia, where they learned that people were not allowed in the swimming pool and were not allowed to use the footpath or anything like that, to demonstrate that segregation existed not just in other countries but in Australia as well. So there was a growing movement and a growing understanding about the rights of Aboriginal people.

The government adopted a policy of assimilation where it was decided that people should move off Lake Tyers and move into surrounding Aboriginal communities. If we think about the nature of the community that they were moving into, Aunty Eileen from Lake Tyers in an oral history described what it was like for her family: It was an unhappy life of racism and isolation, with her mother describing getting really disgusted looks from people everywhere she went. An article in the Age from around that time carried the title ‘Township bitter about plan to move Aborigines near homes of whites’, and it reported that angry white residents in the town of Nowa Nowa were threatening to sell their homes and move out if the board followed through with its plans to rehouse three Aboriginal families from Lake Tyers there. So the choices that people had between that total lack of acceptance in communities and the terrible conditions that were onsite there at Lake Tyers really show you how difficult things were for people and how much change was needed.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the gallery the former member for Hawthorn John Kennedy.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I seek your guidance in relation to Rulings from the Chair at page 154, Speaker Maddigan’s ruling of 26 August 2003. Speaker Maddigan ruled that:

When responding to a question a minister must address the question rather than responding generally.

The coalition has concerns that questions are being responded to generally as a standard matter of course rather than being responded to, and I would seek your guidance as to whether or not that ruling still stands.

The SPEAKER: As I have mentioned many times to the Manager of Opposition Business, I welcome his meeting with me in my office after question time to discuss these matters.

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Speaker, on standing order 110 – repetitions and irrelevant issues coming up in the form of points of order – I think the member for Brighton might need some counselling from you.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Frankston! I counsel members that question time is not a time to raise these issues. My door is open for discussion around these matters at any time.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.