Request for Moratorium of Traditional Owner Settlement Bill 2010 - Victoria

13 September 2010

Dear Greg,

Traditional Owners and supporters from around Regional Victoria gathered inside Parliament House in an historical protest to express their strong concern at the enactment of the Victorian Government's Traditional Owner Settlement Bill due to be debated in the Upper House this Tuesday. The historical Traditional Owner Victoria Gathering after much debate was unanimous in demanding a Moratorium on the Bill and request your support for a reasonable moratorium.

The 120 page Bill has not been given proper debate and free, prior and informed consent by Traditional Owner Victoria. There has been no debate and the processes conducted in Victoria have been disrespectful and not transparent. The failed consultation processes attack our human rights and undermine the fundamental principle of free, prior and informed consent so unanimously supported by consensus by the full Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group. It is evident that the four Co-Chairs and the private company NTSV have undermined this sacrosanct Traditional Owner Victoria principle by their conduct.

The Native Title Services Victoria (NTSV) and Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group Co-Chairs (VTOLJG) consultation process was non-existent and ineffective for the majority of 31,000 plus Traditional Owners since the Bill's introduction in late July 2010. Only the four Co-Chairs, NTSV Board and the unelected Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council seem to be supporting a disgraceful consultation process and the Bill's hasty enactment.

The full membership of the VTOLJG has not formally endorsed the Bill either and Parliament may have been misled on the VTOLJG collective position.

Despite demands by many Traditional Owner Groups for a statewide meeting to consider proper written legal advice before the Bill's enactment, no meeting has occurred. NTSV and the VTOLJG have refused to have the meeting before the Bill's enactment this Tuesday.

Traditional Owner Victoria demand to be properly consulted about the NTSV internal and external legal advice obtained to date and the issues arising that impact on our land justice and native title rights and interests. Legal advice has been hidden from all Native Title Claimants by NTSV.

It is our general understanding that the Bill neither reflects all of the Dodson Report core principles, is deficient in Future Acts and natural resource management areas, fails to recognise the need for an elected Traditional Owner Body for advocacy purposes and, more importantly, the right to decide whether Traditional Owner Victoria has the option to process their native title outcomes through the Federal system may be removed.

Subsequently, Traditional Owner Victorians would argue that the Bill offers nothing that the current native title consent determination process could also achieve within a good faith negotiation process between all of the interested parties.

The Gathering of Traditional Owners at Parliament on Friday 10 September 2010 expressed strong and unanimous No Confidence in the NTSV Board Members and VTOLJG Co-Chairs secret information session held last Thursday afternoon that not one Traditional Owner attended. No one was formally notified in writing. Only two NTSV funded lawyers attended. The Gathering strongly condemned the NTSV organisers and the VTOLJG Co-Chairs.

Traditional Owners from Regional Victoria including Honorable Members from the Dja Dja Wurrung, Yorta Yorta, Bangarang, Yupagalk, Werkgaia, Tati Tati, Wadi Wadi, Wamba Wamba, Baraparapa, Dhudhuroa, Gunaikurnai, Wurundjeri, Kirrae Wurrung, Wathurung, Bidwell, Gournditchmara, Tjap Wurrung formally request an immediate Moratorium on the Bill's enactment. The Gathering suggests that urgent local and a statewide meetings of Traditional Owner Victorians must be properly funded so that proper written legal advice is considered and Traditional Owner Victorians are able to confirm their free, prior and informed consent for the Traditional Owner Settlement Bill 2010.

Traditional Owner Victoria and our supporters will continue to campaign against the process and the Bill and have endorsed a second Gathering on Tuesday at Parliament House at 11.00am next Tuesday 14 September 2010 before the debate in the Parliament.

Traditional Owner Victorians request that all Government and Opposition parties by this Monday show respect for all Traditional Owners in Victoria and agree to a Moratorium so that all stakeholders are consulted properly at local and statewide Gatherings and proper debate can be given to the Government's Bill.

Traditional Owner Victoria's Representatives would like to meet with you to discuss our request tomorrow Tuesday 14 September 2010 at Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

GARY MURRAY
Per Traditional Owner Victoria Gathering
10 September 2010 at Parliament House
MOBILE 0415 683 202

Notes started 11.10am

1. Bill Nicholson Wurundjeri gave a Welcome to Country

2. Gathering elected two Co-Chairs to facilitate Gathering -Geoff Clark (Kirrae Wurrung Tjapwurrung) and Gary Murray (Werkgaia Yupagalk Dja Dja wurrung Wamba Wamba Baraparapa Yorta Yorta Dhudhuroa).

3. Attendance Record circulated for sign off and contact details.

4. Purpose of the Gathering was to consider the process and enactment of the Victorian Traditional Owner Settlement Bill 2010.

Concerns about how to have enough time to get consent for the Bill from the Aboriginal stakeholders
Bill Nicholson (Wurundjuri Council): Wants enough time for consultation with communities.
Gary Murray: Who has been consulted about this bill? [Nobody affirmed] Did anyone get proper legal advice or consent to the bill? [No response] Anyone here from the Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group (VTOLJG). [No]
Geoff Clarke: Bill came out July 28, went through the lower house, began in the upper house last week and we managed to get it deferred until the next sitting week so this meeting could happen.
Next speaker: Concerns were raised about conflict of interest with Land Justice board members
Land Justice group did not support the bill. Four chairs were making decisions without consultation and consent with the larger group. Want to have the decision making process resolved.
Next speaker: Wathurung weren't invited to have input nor were other RAP groups.
Acknowledgement that VTOLJG aren't representative of all Aboriginal groups.
Next speaker: Most of the problems are coming from Indigenous people - not reporting back to communities. Want to concentrate on getting rid of non consultative Indigenous peoples/groups - eating themselves from the inside out.
Next speaker: Flagged motion of no confidence in Aboriginal groups - Land Justice, Heritage Council etc.
Marg: No consultation with rural groups - it's all coming from Melbourne/urban based groups. Actual documents towards reconciliation are ignored by this government - self determination, customary law are being ignored. This bill needs to be viewed in these terms. Because the process has not been consultative it's reinforcing the same problems that the government brings on to the indigenous peoples. RAP identified as disastrous corrupt process, set up by white people. Don't have resources to get own legal advice, Federal government imposes process on indigenous, state government is doing the same thing. Under the guise of protection, only collecting money off indigenous process and land.
Gary Murray: The heritage act is about destruction of sites
Richard: discussing framework - he sat on negotiation panel to discuss native title process, signed a statement of intent calling for due process. Missing from that statement was reference to the framework itself. The required support of native titles services was to introduce the framework. They hijacked the statement of intent. No basis to negotiate outcomes. The outcome was the influencing elders and our members to give consent to processes not supported by broader group. Influencing through fear what would be "better" outcomes for the people. There was no mention of a human rights charter, government consultants and board members under influence of government just put up blocks. Used emotional blackmail 'old fellas may die before the process is realised". Group still rejected the offer on the table but government-influenced board members still pushed it through. What is the continuing role of these board members? The current practice is not culturally appropriate, not representative.
Next speaker: Believes the Bill doesn't support everyone, but it does support the current RAP structure. They've managed cultural heritage for years in this area, and are knocked back as a RAP in favour of a group that just recognised their aboriginality yesterday. Has had to endure being on the board of native title services throughout all this. Lobbied hard on the board to open membership up. Opposed the election of Mick Dodson to the president position.
50-60 people at a consultation meeting held by government pushing fear tactics to have the bill supported. What's the role of the heritage council?
Next speaker: If you reject this bill you'll lose your powers - scare tactics used by government. "The minister will appoint the trustees - this is the minister having control over the entire process. Key point of opposition. Always appointment by government - going backwards in terms of consultation.
Question of the government independence on this bill does the Gunnai agreement depend on the passing of this bill?
Next speaker: Why can't we have what's already in effect through the traditional caretaker agreements? All we want what's available to us and then we negotiate through existing framework. Government refused to negotiate. Hijacked by government. Richard's letter of request for this was rejected because it challenged the process. Told if they reject the framework model they won't get a red cent. Putting fear into the elders.
Sandy: At the last full group meeting they rejected the native title services framework, there was bullying by the state, trying to lock into a framework model. Rejected by the meeting, never been agreement to the bill.
Suggest they highlight some of the points on the bill and figure out how to approach it. The bill is destroying the community. Nobody is thinking about the people who need to go in the bush for wood, who are living in small groups with specific cultural needs. That's why he had a go at the Greens. The Greens helped the government to do all that.
Speaker: When do we stop worrying about Labor and Liberal and make a stand? No Aboriginal person in Vic should sign any agreements with the government, if they do they're committing genocide. Must recognise us as traditional owners of the land, then we sit down and claim a percentage of all taxes on their land, percentage of profits. Stand up as a whole state to be recognised as traditional owners and then have consultation.
Gary Murray: So what are the solutions? Have now identified the problems
Suggests - 3 speakers for the bill, 3 against and 3 fence sitters to discuss pros and cons. Agreed?
Question - what is the consent process? Who provides consent? Which groups? Especially when they haven't been asked.
Geoff Clarke: Says there has been ample opportunity, emails have been circulated, so what has stopped people from being involved?
Speaker: No consent through inadequate consultation
Gary Murray: But there have been meetings, consultations have happened. Did any meetings table and then consider the bill for discussion? [No answer]
Speaker: Have been pressured by lawyers to agree because of the upcoming elections. Feel conned by the lawyers and physically threatened and intimidated to agree with the bill. Are they instruments with the federal govt and state govt? Not interested in Aboriginal views, this is being forced on to us.
The alternative framework for Victoria - did work on the last framework and it looked good. The previous framework was only was good for the lawyers. This bill is watered down from he recommendations that were put to the government by the Aboriginals who were consulted. It's not reconciliation, it's not treaty, this bill needs to be put into moratorium because it doesn't have the consent of Aboriginal majority, even 80% - we won't get consensus, but at least the majority until every community gets to meet and talk about this bill. Dialogue and fair process needs to be followed. Can we force a moratorium on this?
Jason: people talking about RAPs - people who have supported this bill should be thrown out of the process. Believes that they need to have an independent lawyer to discuss the pros and cons of the bill itself so they can understand it. Traditional owners have been misled. What legal avenue can be gone down to bring people to account for bad process?
Speaker: Sitting in this room is being part of the problem. Sick of being soft and want to stand up and march, time to get out and make some noise.
Speaker: By getting people in this room today they can put together a motion to unite the blackfellas.
Speaker: Yorta Yorta nation don't support the bill due to bad consultation - need to put a moratorium on the bill until consultations and negotiations have had a chance - how do we stall the motion? The prior informed consent isn't being met. There has been no independent input yet. Oppose the present bill due to the formatted process that denies the autonomy and self determination of indigenous nations. Stall the process. Need to be smart with the process. If it is stalled then it gives more time with the coalition. Aboriginal nations are the first negotiation point. Needs to be stalled until the next session.
Geoff Clarke: How many people have seen the independent and party legal review of the bill?
Speaker: One person requested a briefing from their lawyers. There was internal legal advice from Aboriginal Legal Service which hasn't been seen.
Frank: We need to put some principles down - most damaging thing is Aboriginal claims can be made without showing genealogy. Protest that any Aboriginal group can claim without proving genealogy
Speaker: More people at this meeting than at Land Justice meetings. And change in cultural protocols at this stage would be unhelpful. Who is the government to write the rules for us? Ashamed that Land Justice members aren't here today. We need this moratorium and informed consent from every possible Aboriginal person.
Gary Murray: Invited the Land Justice group, the Premier , Attorney General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Richard Wynne, DSE Minister Gavin Jennings, no response from any of them.
Speaker: Have to think about the formulas that are put in place by the government, in the bill and to get consent. This bill helps assist government but not Aboriginal people and groups. Build upon existing structures, traditional structures. Would support their culture and gain strength based on who we are.
Call for the sacking of native title services because they've manipulated services, used lots of resources. If it's through them conditions are imposed and there are issues of negligence that need to be investigated, then they need to be sacked. They need to understand exactly what this bill means.
Gary Murray: Poll - support for bill being enacted on Tuesday [No consent in the room].
Geoff Clarke: If the bill is stalled now, will give conservatives more time to mount an attack on the bill. This is a developers' bill - mineral council support it. No entitlements to the gas fields on the table but this bill could possibly build towards giving that.
Speaker: Better to reject the bill now rather than risk locking in failure now. Get on to Greg Barber and tell him they oppose the bill
Speaker: Hulls stood up at the MCG with a new piece of policy framework saying that there's this new model on which there will advance the possibility to negotiate good outcomes. Feels duped. What was promoted on the day was a framework model which doesn't seem to be translated into the bill. This was misleading. Even when they asked what were the principles they wouldn't tell aboriginal lawyers saying "Just have trust in the government because this is better than what the Libs will give you."
Speaker: This bill will be supported by the conservatives.
Monica: Not in favour of rejecting it outright - the basis comes from a negotiated better outcome. If we reject it we have to start again from scratch. If we call a moratorium we've got a better chance to change the bill to acheive better outcomes.
Sandy: Opposition to the moratorium - rejects the bill completely. He's been informed about the bill by local conservative MPs and rejects it completely.
Speaker: Do we want to cut ourselves out of the process? We need to understand what the bill is about.
General discussion: More support for the moratorium and form a working group to discuss.
Speaker: Land justice group made a big mistake in putting together the native title framework.
Speaker: Whether the bill is passed or not is not the point. The lack of consultation is the point. The bill has no relevance due to lack of acknowledgement of traditional ownership. It's time to stand up and fight for recognition. Enough conformity.
Reg: Totally rejects the bill. Because we've been left out in the cold. It compliments the current status mob who have legitimacy in the eyes of the government but not necessarily represent the traditional owners. He was the one who first took this to the Greens and stands by his rejection of the bill.
Geoff Clarke and general discussion: A four page summary on the bill is available and was circulated around native title services database - few people said they'd read it. Received the summary on Wednesday. There was an info session held yesterday arvo at a motor inn. 2 people turned up - white lawyers. A disgrace. Government wouldn't call a statewide meeting. Said they would call a statewide meeting in October to celebrate the bill
Robbie Thorpe: Rejects the bill outright. Is disgusted, it's an outrage. The bill doesn't recognise the law of this land. Genocidal maniacs don't respect the law of this land of the people of this land. Should be telling these fellas that this has to be drastically changed to bring up to best practice globally, in line with UN conventions. This country changes the race discrimination act when it suits them. Want a treaty first.
Sharon: Obvious we reject the bill outright. It's very difficult to sign a blank cheque - the bill seems to support developers and a body of trustees. There is the point of treaty, we are the traditional owners. We call the shots, we're the owners, we have to assert our rights, our sovereignty. Got to work in political processes in the future, assert ourselves. Got to work with the Greens, to get treaty on the table. Need to tell the Greens today what we want. Treaty is the way to go. Greens have agreed on treaty at a federal level. Need a mass campaign to put this back on the agenda. It's the beginning of a movement. Move all out to get recognition of treaty and sovereignty. 1% taxes charged to pay the rent.
Sandra: Not rejecting outright, wants a moratorium - reckons nobody in the room has read the bill but thinks people should. Take time to consider it and then decide if to reject it. Believes that all the people here today are here to have a say but not everyone in the state and in the community are. We need to take this back to our community. If we reject it outright are we leaving ourselves with nothing on the table at all? There has been no informed consent in my community.
Richard: With the full group meeting they rejected the framework at every meeting. They can provide written confirmation. As a way forward, mobs have to take it back and discuss with their mob. If we don't go through a process how will government recognise their process and its validity. Another mob have a proclamation drawn up read out in the state parliament. We should do that, get the wording right and have it read out in the parliament. Robbie Thorpe was involved in a proclamation being drafted and read out in SA Parliament. How do we strategically work through a process forced on us? If we don't come up with our own form of legislation as traditional owners we're going to miss a good opportunity to challenge the legislation. Thinks this is the way forward. If the initial short term outcome is a moratorium then what is the best form of action for us? We can't reject it without input from our mob.
Geoff Clarke: Parliament sits next week and then again in a fortnight. If we call for a moratorium, how's it going to happen? Then the election.
Speaker: Been to a few protests the past few months - needs to be said that we're setting up a protest against intervention and stealing of land generally in front of native title services Victoria. Saying that they reject the bill. That will draw lots of attention. And then draft their own bill.
Monica: Opportunity with the Greens holding the balance of power to put this on hold now and then decide whether to reject the bill following consultation. On behalf the Yorta Yorta, she's going to take it back and discuss it. Not a dictator and will consult with mob before deciding. Has no mandate to reject the bill from her mob.
Initial framing of MOTION:

Reject the consultation process done by native title services Victoria, heritage council etc.
Demand a moratorium to allow consultation process until the October sitting week.
Motion of no confidence in land justice group, native title Victoria, [applauded]

Vote - reject outright

Are we going to be meeting with The Greens this afternoon?
Discussion on pros and cons of outright rejection and moratorium
Kadi Kadi, Wadi Wadi can't accept the bill or reject it, need to take it home and discuss with mob.
Geoff Clarke: Why can't we ask the Greens for a commitment that enforced Labor to enter into a more comprehensive settlement with Aboriginal nations. Don't get excited. This is just a framework. We've got a choice to endorse it or not.
Jason: We're compromising our principles now. Why not reject it? What do we have to lose? What can we gain from accepting it?
Sandy: If we support this in any way at all it's a trigger for them to try something else on. Best statement is to reject it outright.
Richard: If you're rejecting it, you reject it outright. You can't say I reject it…but.
Gary Murray: Clearly the process is rejected, condemned. Let's put a moratorium on the bill - demand a moratorium and a series of state wide meetings for good consultation.
Called for show of hands - some hands shown, some verbal affirmations, too hard to record.

Motion 1

Totally condemn the consultation and negotiation process. Totally condemn the lack of collective prior consent. Demand a moratorium and a series of state wide meetings by the state government Vic , Native Title Vic, Heritage Council, Aboriginal Affairs Vic to engage in thorough consultations. Call on the state government to resource local, regional and state wide traditional owner meetings to ensure proper consultation.
(gave rise to discussion about the structure that these meetings would take)

Motion 2

Add to that condemn the native titles, justice group and heritage council. Call on an ongoing forum to discuss ongoing issues in the parliament with the parties.

Motion 3

Draft a traditional owner title bill and put before Parliament.

Motion 4

Want a treaty Aboriginal land rights and reparation.

Want a meeting with The Greens ASAP

Also want regular meetings with The Greens to ensure ongoing discussions with all parties about upcoming matters. Develop a forum for all issues

Geoff raised a motion to collect a take around for Gary who has been running this on no resources.

Want a copy of The Greens position on the bill

All parts of Victoria are represented in the meeting today - South East, Western Vic, Eastern Vic, Northern Vic.

Gathering Adjourned 1.15pm.
14 September 2010

Hon John Brumby
Premier of Victoria
Parliament House
Spring Street
Melbourne 3002

13 September 2010

Dear Premier Brumby,

REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM OF
TRADITIONAL OWNER SETTLEMENT BILL 2010

Traditional Owners and supporters from around Regional Victoria gathered inside Parliament House in an historical protest to express their strong concern at the enactment of the Victorian Government's Traditional Owner Settlement Bill due to be debated in the Upper House this Tuesday. The historical Traditional Owner Victoria Gathering after much debate was unanimous in demanding a Moratorium on the Bill.

The 120 page Bill has not been given proper debate and free, prior and informed consent by Traditional Owner Victoria. There has been no debate and the processes conducted in Victoria have been disrespectful and not transparent. The failed consultation processes attack our human rights and undermine the fundamental principle of free, prior and informed consent so unanimously supported by consensus by the full Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group. It is evident that the four Co-Chairs and the private company NTSV have undermined this sacrosanct Traditional Owner Victoria principle by their conduct.

The Native Title Services Victoria (NTSV) and Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group Co-Chairs (VTOLJG) consultation process was non-existent and ineffective for the majority of 31,000 plus Traditional Owners since the Bill's introduction in late July 2010. Only the four Co-Chairs, NTSV Board and the unelected Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council seem to be supporting a disgraceful consultation process and the Bill's hasty enactment.

The full membership of the VTOLJG has not formally endorsed the Bill either and Parliament may have been misled on the VTOLJG collective position.

Despite demands by many Traditional Owner Groups for a statewide meeting to consider proper written legal advice before the Bill's enactment, no meeting has occurred. NTSV and the VTOLJG have refused to have the meeting before the Bill's enactment this Tuesday.

Traditional Owner Victoria demand to be properly consulted about the NTSV internal and external legal advice obtained to date and the issues arising that impact on our land justice and native title rights and interests. Legal advice has been hidden from all Native Title Claimants by NTSV.

It is our general understanding that the Bill neither reflects all of the Dodson Report core principles, is deficient in Future Acts and natural resource management areas, fails to recognise the need for an elected Traditional Owner Body for advocacy purposes and, more importantly, the right to decide whether Traditional Owner Victoria has the option to process their native title outcomes through the Federal system may be removed.

Summarily, Traditional Owner Victorians would argue that the Bill offers nothing that the current native title consent determination process could also achieve within a good faith negotiation process between all of the interested parties.

The Gathering of Traditional Owners at Parliament on Friday 10 September 2010 expressed strong and unanimous No Confidence in the NTSV Board Members and VTOLJG Co-Chairs secret information session held last Thursday afternoon that not one Traditional Owner attended. No one was formally notified in writing. Only two NTSV funded lawyers attended. The Gathering strongly condemned the NTSV organisers and the VTOLJG Co-Chairs.

Traditional Owners from Regional Victoria including Honorable Members from the Dja Dja Wurrung, Yorta Yorta, Bangarang, Yupagalk, Werkgaia, Tati Tati, Wadi Wadi, Wamba Wamba, Baraparapa, Dhudhuroa, Gunaikurnai, Wurundjeri, Kirrae Wurrung, Wathurung, Bidwell, Gournditchmara, Tjap Wurrung formally request an immediate Moratorium on the Bill's enactment. The Gathering suggests that urgent local and a statewide meetings of Traditional Owner Victorians must be properly funded so that proper written legal advice is considered and Traditional Owner Victorians are able to confirm their free, prior and informed consent for the Traditional Owner Settlement Bill 2010.

Traditional Owner Victoria and our supporters will continue to campaign against the process and the Bill and have endorsed a second Gathering on Tuesday at Parliament House at 11.00am next Tuesday 14 September 2010 before the debate in the Parliament.

Traditional Owner Victorians request that all Government and Opposition parties by this Monday show respect for all Traditional Owners in Victoria and agree to a Moratorium so that all stakeholders are consulted properly at local and statewide Gatherings and proper debate can be given to the Government's Bill.

Yours sincerely,

GARY MURRAY
Per Traditional Owner Victoria Gathering
10 September 2010 at Parliament House