REGIONAL concerns about the Recognition and Settlement Agreement (RSA) between the Victorian Government and the Horsham-based Barengi Gadjin Land Council (BGLC) appear to be escalating with a public meeting scheduled in Dunkeld tomorrow evening to discuss “what the deal is about and what it means for the community”.
The Bread and Butter Club (BABC), which has a membership around the Ballarat region, said it wants to “sponsor and promote public meetings to discuss a wide range of current topics” and has already run two meetings near its base that were well attended.
BABC committee member, Roger Pescott, said it was intended to be an opportunity for “everybody to hear all sides” and said they had invited people from both major political parties to participate and hoped the community would join in numbers too.
“The problem that we saw with this particular issue, is that it was clearly underway for a few years,” he said.
“It’s got to the point where local councils have to be involved.
“The local councils, I think, have quite a problem, because they’ve got ratepayers - some will be for it and some will be against it … (but) the role of local government has up to now never been involved in this sort of thing.”
The Land Council is managing the deal on behalf of five local Indigenous tribes in Western Victoria covered by the Agreement, with the Indigenous groups being the Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagulk Peoples (WJJWJ).
10 local councils are included in the 36,000 square kilometre area covered by the Agreement.
The councils include Southern Grampians Shire Council - although only a small portion to the north near Balmoral and Rocklands Reservoir - with the other nine being the Pyrenees Shire Council, Ararat Rural City Council, Horsham Rural City Council, Northern Grampians Shire Council, West Wimmera Shire Council, Mildura Rural City Council, Buloke Shire Council, Hindmarsh Shire Council and Yarriambiak Shire Council.
The Victorian Government signed the Agreement in October last year, but the councils were only told about it in June, with the Agreement made public in late July.
The timing was relevant because the councils will need to start negotiating the Agreement, however a petition has been launched to stop any further negotiations on the RSA until the community understands it.
The BABC said it was concerned “many people have never heard of (the Agreement)” and whether it would “alter the way councils operate”.
“It will change who manages council land and waterways,” a media release said.
“The WJJWJ want to be sole managers of water and waterways - and of council land which could include such things as pools, parks and libraries. It will change councils’ procurement and employment procedures, giving preferential status to the WJJWJ. It would give them equal footing with councils on Council Plans.”
“The councils will need to consult with the BGLC on firewood and fire management plans, health and wellbeing, rating strategies and any changes to current or new roads and road management. They would have naming rights for current and new roads and bridges.
“Local Laws would need to be reviewed to ensure they align with the rights and aspirations of the WJJWJ. Traditional Owner plaques would be required on all council buildings and Aboriginal Flags flown from each building.
“The WJJWJ want participation in the planning scheme and a say over planning permit applications and planning scheme amendments. They will be exempt from local rates and seek exemption from land tax and stamp duty.”
Funding was another subject covered, with the claim councils would be required to ‘devote a portion of local government revenue’ to the Agreement strategy, and a Welcome to Country - paid for by the councils - may be ‘appropriate at all events on WJJWJ country’.
However, the Department of Premier and Cabinet via a spokesperson maintained the RSA “has no impact on current council laws and regulations and local councils are not a party to this Agreement, which is between the Victorian Government and Traditional Owners”.
“The only obligations in relation to this list are on the Victorian Government, including to build relationships and facilitate discussions between WJJWJ People and local councils to realise these aspirations,” the spokesperson said.
“There is no obligation for local councils to rename roads, bridges or public spaces under the Agreement. The strategy does contain an aspiration that local councils engage BGLC to recommend WJJWJ names for new local roads, bridges and public spaces in the agreement area, and existing local roads, bridges and public spaces on WJJWJ land.”
The Department sought to dismiss concerns about the RSA as a “deliberate campaign of misinformation” and claimed it “provides opportunity for economic empowerment, and knowledge-building” and “something that delivers benefits for us all”.
“The truth is those misrepresenting this agreement are standing in the way of jobs, skills and economic development for the Aboriginal community,” they said.
“Finally, it’s worth noting that this is the fourth Recognition and Settlement agreement signed by the Victorian Government and Traditional Owners since 2010. If you weren’t aware of that, it’s probably a sign that the sky hasn’t fallen in.”
But Mr Pescott said he believed the ramifications of the RSA were far reaching for both the Indigenous and farming communities and said it was important to discuss the issue as “we don’t actually know where all this is going to end up”.
He said despite being outside the area of the RSA, having the meeting in Dunkeld wasn’t critical as he believed the subject would end up affecting everyone and it had more to do with venue availability and “they’ve got a very good hall there”.
The meeting will be held at Sterling Place, Dunkeld Community Centre on Thursday, October 5 at 7pm and the contact email for information is breadandbutterclub23@gmail.com
The BABC has formulated their top five questions they wanted to address:
• Question 1 - WATER
Despite the Government indicating this Agreement is only for WJJWJ and public lands, SOLE management of Water will impact private homes and landholders. What guarantee is given that sole management will not impact the ability and right to farm?
• Question 2 - MANAGING PUBLIC LAND
The WJJWJ ultimately want “management of council-controlled lands and waters”. What does this mean for public libraries, buildings such as council offices, public parks, camping grounds, swimming pools, roadsides and other public assets? Will the WJJW be able to shut them down or lease them back to ratepayers?
• Question 3 - EQUAL FOOTING
When WJJWJ “rights, aspirations and perspectives” are “incorporated into all Community Visions and Council Plans”, and WJJWJ consulted as a “key player” on an “equal footing” what does that mean?
What are the implications when non-elected people have an equal say to democratically elected councillors? Can the WJJWJ also sit concurrently as councillors? If legal action is taken against the council on a planning matter who is the entity being taken to court: the Council, or WJJWJ, or both, and will it be a court of law or lore?
• Question 4 - COUNCIL RATES IN AGREEMENT AREAS VS NON-AGREEMENT AREAS
Given the WJJWJ Agreement Area does not take in the whole Council area - but has input across whole of council plans, impacts on water management, road names, biodiversity, wildfire and firewood management - what impact will this have on the rates for those IN the Agreement Area and those properties - in the same council - but OUTSIDE the Agreement Area?
Will land rates be lower or higher in the Agreement Area? What impact will this have on land values? And what happens in a Local Council area ultimately has more than one RSA to contend with which may impose different Agreements?
• Question 5 - COST TO RATEPAYERS - INCLUDING CONTRACTS AND EMPLOYMENT
How much will this cost ratepayers given they must consult and pay for all consultations, meetings, Welcomes to Country, employment of WJJWJ to make the Agreement happen, pay for flags, plaques, road name changes, revenue sharing, the inability to take rates for WJJWJ land holdings, potential loss of income when WJJWJ take management of public lands, loss of jobs and contracts for non-indigenous via preferential deals and the devotion of local government revenue to making the Agreement happen?
