IN the wake of some ongoing community concerns about details of the Recognition and Settlement Agreement (RSA) entered into by the Victorian Government with Barengi Gadjin Land Council (BGLC) last year, the Southern Grampians Shire Council (SGSC) has sought to allay fears and “misinformation” with a public statement.

Following a packed community meeting run by Ballarat-based Bread and Butter Club (BABC) at Dunkeld on October 5 where the Agreement was discussed at length, the Shire released a two-page statement last week raising their own concerns, specifically claiming the RSA would mean “very little impact or change for Shire residents” adding an online FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document “vetted by our lawyers, who have expertise in Native Title legislation, for accuracy”.

The SGSC statement said, “Council is committed to free speech but would like to address incorrect information” and hoped people would fully read through the information provided”.

“One of the subjects addressed by the statement was the amount and status of land within the boundaries of the Shire that would be affected,” SGSC mayor, Cr David Robertson said.

“We’d like to make it very clear to our residents and community that the impact to our Shire is minimal under this agreement.

“A small part of the Southern Grampians Shire, to the north of Rocklands Reservoir northern shore and to the south of Rocklands Cherrypool Road, which is largely managed by Parks Victoria, is affected by the RSA agreement area.

“This is approximately only 37 square kilometres out of a total Shire area of 6652 square kilometres and is made up primarily of state-owned Crown Land.

“No other land within Southern Grampians Shire Council is affected by the RSA.”

Cr Robertson also made the point the agreement only applies to crown land in the specified area.

“So I assure everyone, you don’t need to be concerned about your farm land or property - there will be no changes for you under this agreement,” he said.

“Council is not a party to the agreement, it’s between the State Government and the BGLC.

“The only expectation on Council is that we work cooperatively with BGLC to strengthen the relationship and engage with them where appropriate.”

But for some locals, the response didn’t give them confidence.

Dunkeld-based farmer, John Sutherland, was at the meeting with his wife, Jenny, and said they were appalled at the apparent reluctance for government bodies to undertake processes and make decisions without public input and creating “a lot of grey areas”.

“Call me old-fashioned or conservative, but I like to know what I’m signing up for,” he said.

He also took issue with SGSC’s claim of incorrect information.

“All that was done was raise questions,” Mr Sutherland said.

“I’m a bit concerned about this term of ‘misinformation’ that all forms of government seem to be using.

“It’s like – ‘if you don’t agree with us, then it’s misinformation’.”

BABC also responded to the SGSC statement with their own media release and said the meeting at Dunkeld was careful to discuss the details of the Agreement as written and questioned what was supposedly inaccurate.

“The release refers to incorrect information without saying neither what was that information nor who said it,” the statement said.

BABC said the meeting was held “in the very interests of transparency” and to inform those who may be affected.

“Very little is known about the RSA within the communities impacted by the Agreement,” they said.

They also responded to the issue of how small a part of the Shire was affected, saying this was already understood.

“At no stage during the Dunkeld meeting, or in any material, has the BABC claimed the entirety of the Southern Grampians Shire falls within the Agreement area,” they said.

“It is why the BABC has made that very point - and raised questions about the impact of land values and rating variabilities for private property that falls within, or outside, the RSA area.

“However, the duty of a council and the community is to understand the fuller ramifications of such a deal if implemented in full.

“Those ramifications do exist and it is difficult to argue otherwise.

“For example, the WJJWJ (Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergai and Japagulk peoples) make it very clear in the RSA, and acknowledged by the State, that they want and aspire to achieve:

“• An exemption from local government rates.

“• The sole capacity to ‘manage use of, access to, and extraction’ of water from the waterways and be involved in the ‘planning and policy decisions relation to waterways.’

“• A ‘greater involvement in and influence over all levels of biodiversity strategy and decision making’ and that the state ‘may include proposals to change the Law, if required’.”

BABC referred to Section 12.4 ‘the Commitments to future actions’ which also listed future expectations and added “All of these matters would have implications for the wider community, not just within the Agreement area”.

Author, Marita Punshon, who has read the document multiple times and spoke at length at the meeting said, “whether you’re one per cent in, 10 per cent in or all in, you’re still in, and the components of this agreement can’t just be shaved off certain aspects of the agreement.”

“Some can … but other things can’t,” she said.

“For example, if they have the management over water – well, a river won’t stop at the edge of the agreement.”

She said she met many people afterwards who thanked BABC and said, “I’m just so grateful that you had this meeting”.

SGSC in its FAQ stated it was “an important action” with their 2021-25 Council Plan “to develop a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) with First Nations people”.

“The First Nations people in our community are represented by Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation, Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation and Barengi Gadjin Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BGLC),” the statement said.

“Council is currently developing a RAP in consultation with these organisations.

“Once the plan is at a draft stage, this will be shared with the community for comment and feedback.

“This is important work, which we believe will ultimately benefit our whole community through understanding, cultural awareness, and providing opportunities for the community as a whole.”

Mr Sutherland echoed a sentiment at the meeting that it seemed inconsistent to claim the RSA would have minimal impact given the effort that has gone into it.

“If there’s nothing to see here, and there’s no impact of the agreement, why was it worked on for so many years and no doubt … used taxpayer money to come up with?” he asked.

“If there’s no purpose to it, why was all that money wasted?”

Ms Sutherland also said it was a legitimate question to focus on the ‘aspirational’ aspects of the RSA from a local government perspective, wondering what would happen if they “didn’t tow the State Government line”.

Another farmer, Bruce Burger, said some of the obligations had the potential to be problematic in the future.

“I’m very unhappy with any thoughts of changing names, mountains, place names, anything of that nature, and you sort of expect that will come with any sort of agreement like this – and that’s as a firefighter,” he said.

He also said he wasn’t inspired by the way the RSA has come to public knowledge.

“It’s like, whatever they’re doing is behind closed doors and it’s brought out under sufferance, almost,” Mr Burger said.

“That’s not democracy as I understand it.”

But SGSC claimed “the agreement will not affect government roads or managed roads on freehold land in the Southern Grampians Shire”.

“I really encourage everyone to read the facts about the RSA and to please get in touch with Council if you have more questions,” Cr Roberton said.

The FAQ can be found at bit.ly/46IQo32 and the SGSC email is council@sthgrampians.vic.gov.au