2006 aboriginal co-management meeting · 2006 aboriginal co-management meeting ... walls of china...

Proceedings of the

2006 Aboriginal Co-management MeetingMungo National Park and Wentworth, NSW

Aboriginal Co-management Meeting 2006 — Proceedings

Proceedings of the

Mungo National Park and Wentworth, NSW

2006 Aboriginal Co-management Meeting

�

Abbreviations used in these notes

3TTG Three Traditional Tribal Groups

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

DEC Department of Environment and Conservation NSW

ILC Indigenous Land Corporation

ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement

LALC Local Aboriginal Land Council

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service (now part of DEC)

Published by:

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW 59–61 Goulburn Street PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232

Ph: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Ph: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723

Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

DECC has compiled the information in this publication in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made as to its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Readers should seek appropriate advice as to the suitability of the information for their particular needs.

DECC is pleased to allow the reproduction of material from this publication on the condition that the source, publisher and authorship are appropriately acknowledged.

DECC 2007/248 ISBN 978 1 74122 4481 June 2007

Sustainably printed.

Cover painting: Meehi Dreaming, 1996, acrylic on canvas. Margaret Adams (Kamilaroi) born Moree 1942. Used with permission of the Moree Plains Gallery collection.

Photo: Walls of China in Mungo National Park. DECC/G. Bridle

In April 2007, the name of the Department of Environment and Conservation NSW changed to the Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW.

�

ForewordI am pleased to present the proceedings and DVD of the April 2006 Aboriginal co-management meeting held in Wentworth, NSW.

These proceedings and DVD are a thorough transcript of the presentations and workshops held over the three days of the meeting and represent the opinions of a diverse range of people involved in the co-management of national park estate.

Co-management is an important way that the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) can work in partnership with Aboriginal communities. It is also a way of bringing together the interests that Aboriginal people and the broader community have in the land.

Through co-management Aboriginal people’s relationship with the land is recognised while acknowledging that in DEC’s role as a land manager we have an important responsibility to work with Aboriginal people.

Co-management enables us to provide better experiences for visitors and to work together on park issues. It allows us to protect areas of high cultural significance while also providing employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal people.

This is a relatively new approach for NSW, with an expansion in the number of co-managed parks over the last five years. The Wentworth meeting provided a good opportunity for everyone to get together to share information and ideas. In particular the workshops gave those involved in co-management a chance to discuss what works for them and how others may benefit from their experiences.

I would like to acknowledge all those people who participated in the meeting, who gave presentations, who facilitated workshops and who organised and led the field trip.

It is an exciting time for DEC, a time that sees us working with Aboriginal people for the common goal of protecting the environment and cultural heritage. I hope that this report and the enclosed DVD of the meeting can be used to share our experience of that journey with others.

Lisa Corbyn Director General Department of Environment and Conservation


�

SummaryWith Aboriginal people sharing the management of ten national parks across NSW, 140 people—including representatives from 19 Aboriginal communities and Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) staff from around the state—met in Wentworth and Mungo National Park in April 2006. This was the second time that people had come together from across the state—from Byron Bay to Narooma to Broken Hill—to share their experiences and learn from each other. The first statewide meeting was held in May 2003.

The Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee and the Lower Darling Area, Far West Region hosted the April 2006 meeting. This included hosting a field trip to Mungo National Park, where the Three Traditional Tribal Groups of Paakantji, Mutthi Mutthi and Ngiyampaa people co-manage the park with DEC. The field trip included the award-winning Mungo National Park Discovery program, run by the Three Traditional Tribal Groups (see the ‘Field trip’ section of these conference notes).

Each of the 19 Aboriginal community groups and DEC staff gave presentations on what they have been doing in their parks (see the ‘Community presentations’ section). A series of wonderful posters were also put up at the meeting.

Several workshops were held on key themes relevant to Aboriginal co-management (see the ‘Workshops’ section). The people at these workshops made a number of recommendations to DEC about improving the Aboriginal co-management program.

The recommendations made at the workshops were made by the people there on the day. They are not DEC policy and DEC will not necessarily adopt all of the recommendations. The Executive of DEC considered all the recommendations and agreed on a formal DEC response to those recommendations. This response was provided to everyone who came to the meeting.


�

Contents

Background—about co-management and the meetings 6

Mungo National Park—the meeting in the woolshed 8

Mungo National Park—the field trip 15

Community presentations 16

Introductory speeches 16

Presentations 18

Workshops 37

Workshop 1 Processes for developing plans of management— using Arakwal National Park and others as case studies 38

Workshop 2 Connection to land and cultural practice 45

Workshop 3 Employment and training 51

Workshop 4 Support for boards and committees 57

Workshop 5 Wild resource use, culture camps and partnership projects: what do we need from statewide policies to assist in facilitating Aboriginal cultural practices on DEC reserves? 65

Workshop 6 Managing the transition from negotiations to co-management 71

List of participants 77


�


Background— about co-management and the meetings

Aboriginal communities, including the Aboriginal owners of Mutawintji, had pushed very strongly for the introduction of these changes to legislation, starting with the Aboriginal owners’ blockade of Mutawintji Historic Site in the 1980s. The changes were also made in response to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Report. Recommendation 315 aimed to ‘protect and preserve the rights and interests of Aboriginal people with cultural, historical and traditional association with national parks through, among other things:

• the encouragement of joint management between identified and acknowledged representatives of Aboriginal people and the relevant state agency, and

• the granting of access to Aboriginal people to national parks and nature reserves for subsistence hunting, fishing and the collection of material for cultural purposes.

The second co-managed park in NSW came about through a different pathway. It was the result of a native title claim under the Native Title Act 1993 by the Arakwal people. In 2001, the Arakwal people and the state negotiated an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) that included the creation of a new co-managed park within the lands claimed by the Arakwal people. Since then the Saltwater ILUA has been finalised. ILUAs can be negotiated with native title holders where there is a native title claim lodged in the Federal Court under the Native Title Act 1993.

Aboriginal co-management of parks is now part of park management across Australia and is reflected in similar arrangements with indigenous peoples around the world. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has acknowledged that indigenous peoples have the right ‘to participate effectively in the management of the protected areas established on their lands or territories’.

In March 2003, the NSW Government made a commitment to establish partnerships with local Aboriginal communities through protecting cultural heritage, expanding co-management of national parks and creating jobs in Aboriginal communities.

The NSW Government commitment to expand co-management arrangements builds on the work that Aboriginal communities and the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) have put into co-management over the last ten years.

The history of these arrangements can be summarised as follows.

The first Aboriginal co-managed or jointly managed parks in NSW were Mutawintji National Park, Mutawintji Historic Site and Mutawintji Nature Reserve. They were returned to Aboriginal ownership and leased back to the NSW Government in 1998.

This was the first type of Aboriginal co-management arrangement in NSW. In 1996 an amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 introduced a similar model for Aboriginal co-management to that in place for Commonwealth parks such as Uluru and Kakadu. Certain parks can be granted to Aboriginal Land Councils and leased back to the government and then jointly managed through a Board of Management with a majority of registered Aboriginal owners. The Board of Management is responsible for the care, control and management of the park, which is an equivalent role to Director-General of DEC. The Aboriginal owners are Aboriginal people who have registered under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 giving them legislative rights to hunt, gather and to use the land for ceremonial and cultural purposes. Since the handback of Mutawintji in 1998, three parks have been returned to Aboriginal ownership. These are Mt Grenfell Historical Site and Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks.

�

ILUAs may cover all public lands in the claim area, not just parks, and can involve other government departments. ILUAs can deal with the exercise of native title rights, which are rights in relation to land arising out of traditional law and custom, such as rights to camp, hunt, gather and practice culture. ILUAs can provide for co-management of parks in the claim area, but unlike the Aboriginal-owned parks there is no legislative structure for the co-management decision-making process and no transfer of ownership of the parks to the native title holders of parks.

The third co-management arrangement in NSW was for Mungo National Park and it came about through a third pathway. Mungo National Park was a park that could be returned to Aboriginal ownership. However, in 2001 the Three Traditional Tribal Groups (3TTG) Elders Council and DEC commenced discussions and the 3TTG Elders Council indicated they did not want to start that process at that time. Instead they negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DEC that set up a co-management arrangement.

Background

Since then MOUs have also been put in place for Kinchega National Park, Goobang National Park, Snake Rock Aboriginal Area and Pilliga Nature Reserve. This type of arrangement is not legally binding and is a statement of the intention of the parties or the goodwill of the parties. There is no legal title or recognition of native title rights and there are no legislative or court processes to determine who is involved. Aboriginal communities can determine the group themselves. There are no legislative requirements about the co-management structures and the scope of what can be covered is fairly open and flexible.

These are examples of the three different legal models for co-management that are now used in NSW. The use of these different approaches reflects that there is no simple formula for co-management of parks. Each community and each park has its own set of circumstances and so co-management arrangements need to be flexible.


Workshop participants gathered at the historic woolshed and were welcomed to Mungo National Park by Mary Pappin on behalf of the Mutthi Mutthi people, Junette Mitchell on behalf of the Paakantji people and Roy Kennedy on behalf of the Ngiyampaa people. Mary is the Chair of the Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee and Junette and Roy are Committee members.

Mungo National Park lies at the centre of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area. This area achieved World Heritage status because it contains outstanding cultural and natural heritage of universal value. It contains evidence of human remains dating back more than 40,000 years. The Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area is the home of Mungo Lady and Mungo Man, and of the 20,000 year-old footprints that the Three Traditional Tribal Groups discovered only a few years ago. It is an area of beauty with a history that reaches deep into the human past of Australia and the world.

The Willandra Lakes area has significant cultural values for the Three Traditional Tribal Groups—the Ngiyampaa, Mutthi Mutthi and the southern Paakantji. These tribal groups have used the area as a place to meet, to hold ceremonies and trade items for millennia.

In more recent times Mungo National Park has had a shared history, through European settlement of the

Mungo National Park— the meeting in the woolshed

region during the pastoral era. One of the features that remain from this era is the iconic Mungo Woolshed.

Now Mungo National Park is jointly managed by the Three Traditional Tribal Groups and the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The Three Traditional Tribal Groups have worked together seeking greater involvement in managing this significant place for many years. The Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council developed a concept of ‘shared heritage’ and agreed that management decisions inside the World Heritage Area boundary and Mungo National Park were the business of all three tribes.

Together, the Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council and DEC developed a new model of co-management for Mungo National Park. This model was the first of such arrangements to be developed in NSW national parks. In 2001 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the joint management of the park was signed by the Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The MOU, known as the Mungo National Park Joint Management Agreement, established a way forward coordinated by the Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee.

Mungo National Park represents a working example of how the co-management of national parks can work. This working co-management arrangement and the shared cultural significance of the area made the woolshed and Mungo National Park an ideal place to hold the meeting.

DECC

DECC

�

Meeting in the woolshead

Mary Pappin

Mutthi Mutthi elder and Chair, Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Mungo has always been a meeting place for mobs to come together. These days they meet to discuss management issues. They come together just as their ancestors did many thousands of years ago.

Mungo is all about sharing and all the co-management groups here at the meeting will be sharing ideas and looking at Country and cultural heritage. They are ensuring that the cultural heritage—that’s been there for 60,000 years—is there for future generations.

Steve Millington (Regional Manager, Far West Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC) listened to the Three Traditional Tribal Groups with regard to joint management and respected our decision not to enter into Aboriginal ownership until we had the necessary training. We knew this was vital to enable us to

look after Country and to make us better managers down the track.

It’s been a long process and the Mungo mobs have experienced a lot of heartache. Many of the older people have passed on and those who remain carry that on their shoulders. But we know we are walking with our ancestors and carrying on from them in looking after the cultural heritage.

Junette Mitchell

Paakantji elder and member, Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Welcome everyone to Mungo National Park to share knowledge and feelings that have been passed from family members about Mungo. As a youngster, my mother used to walk with her mother from Pooncarie to the park to play with the station owner’s daughters. Thanks everyone for coming and I hope you all enjoy yourselves.

Roy Kennedy

Ngiyampaa elder and member, Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

The Ngiyampaa tribe, also known as the ‘dry land people’, come from a vast area where Willandra Creek was the only source of running water. We used to follow the creek and meet up with other tribes and hold ceremonies.

There have been ups and downs since co-management started but there have also been a lot of good times, and a lot of work has been done around the park. DEC should be acknowledged for the work that has been done in the park and I’m proud to be a part of co-management.

‘We’re going to be looking at Country and … our cultural heritage that lays on the ground out here. Make you feel proud, make you want to look after your Country wherever you go back to—to see that cultural heritage on the ground and be proud of it.

Where else can you get 60,000 years of cultural heritage that’s still in place. Where else can you get a race of people that have lived for all those many generations … We’ve survived—we can survive anything—and we’re just getting back into looking after Country the way we did traditionally.’

‘It’s a credit to the organisation what’s been done … and it makes me that proud, a fella my age, I think I’ll never see that but I’ve seen it—it’s all coming together and it really makes me proud to be part of this show.’

�

Steve Millington

Regional Manager, Far West Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

For many years, the local elders have been travelling thousands of kilometres to attend such gatherings. It’s

great that this time people have travelled to the west to discuss co-management, to hear from elders and to exchange stories.

It’s symbolic that the co-management meeting was held in the west where there are three arrangements with the traditional owners.

Within the far-western region, there are some 85 permanent staff and 40% of them are Aboriginal people. In the Lower Darling Area, 60% of the

permanent staff are Aboriginal people.

Mungo National Park is about 30% of the Willandra Lakes Heritage Area. As well as visiting Mungo National Park, the group will also be visiting Joulni, a property which was handed back to the Three Traditional

Tribal Groups. Joulni is of great significance to the Three Traditional Tribal Groups because Mungo 1 and Mungo 3 were found there—that is, Mungo Man and Mungo Lady.

Later there will be a presentation on the footprints, which were found in the Willandra Lakes Heritage Area (see Michael Westaway’s presentation). Mary Pappin Junior discovered them three years ago in a clay pan and identified them as potentially significant and, since then, it has been verified that they are between 19,000 and 23,000 years old. It is the largest human trackway in the world and has great significance. Their discovery was kept secret for three years but is now out in the media.

Lisa Corbyn

Director General, DEC

Thank you to the Three Traditional Tribal Groups, the Paakantji, Mutthi Mutthi and Ngiyampaa people for welcoming us here today to their Country and for hosting this meeting in Mungo National Park.

It is an honour and a privilege to be here in this Country today at this second statewide Aboriginal co-management meeting. I think it is significant that we are holding the meeting in Mungo National Park and the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area, because it a place of shared heritage.

Also because Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area is the home of Mungo Lady and Mungo Man, and the home of the 20,000-year-old footprints that the Three Traditional Tribal Groups discovered not far from here, only a few years ago—footprints of adults and children going about their lives on the edge of the lake 20,000 years ago. It is inspiring to think about the connection between those people, the people standing here today and this land. This place symbolises the depth of Aboriginal people’s relationship with this land and of Aboriginal culture.

It is Aboriginal people’s relationship with the land that is central to co-management of national parks. Co-management is about working together to manage lands that are important to Aboriginal people, but also to all of the people of NSW, Australia and the world.

The Mungo National Park Joint Management Agreement is a good example of co-management in practice. The development of the arrangement demonstrates what can be achieved through cooperation. Through discussion about the park,

‘In the far west we’ve got three arrangements with the traditional owners which I am very, very proud of, very proud of. Most of them have come from the ground up, from the grass roots up and they are working very, very well.’

‘Mungo National Park and the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area are places of shared heritage. Shared heritage for the Three Traditional Tribal Groups, between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and between Australians and the rest of the world.’

‘We all want the same thing, which is to care for country, to respect and maintain Aboriginal culture and to pass on that land and that culture to future generations.’


10

the Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service developed a Memorandum of Understanding about the joint management of the park, called the Mungo National Park Joint Management Agreement. This does not involve legal transfer of title to the land or the legal recognition of native title rights, but neither does it prevent these things happening in the future.

The Joint Management Agreement establishes the Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee. Through that Committee the Three Traditional Tribal Groups make the decisions about the management of the park and have developed a plan of management that reflects the Three Traditional Tribal Groups interests and the importance of this land to Aboriginal people. The Three Traditional Tribal Groups are involved in all aspects of park management and the training, and employment of the Three Traditional Tribal Groups within the park has increased since the joint management arrangement has started. The Mungo National Park Discovery Program, run by the Three Traditional Tribal Groups, received a NSW Tourism Award in 2005. And I am pleased that we will all get to experience that award winning program over the next couple of hours, when we go on a guided tour with the Three Traditional Tribal Groups. These are only some of the significant achievements of the joint management arrangement and over the next few hours I am looking forward to hearing more.

It is also a privilege to be standing here with so many people from all corners of the state. The last statewide Aboriginal co-management meeting was held in May 2003 in Sydney and involved 14 different communities and parks around the state. This second meeting involves 19 communities and parks around the state.

At the last meeting, the community representatives requested that meetings be held on a regular basis and the National Parks and Wildlife Service committed to having a meeting every couple of years. At that meeting it was requested that members of the DEC Executive attend these meetings and I’d like to introduce the Executive members present at this meeting: Dr Tony Fleming, the Head of the Parks and Wildlife Division, Josh Gilroy on behalf of Simon Smith, Executive Director of the Environment Protection and Regulation Division, who deals with development control and planning issues, and later today we will be joined by Russell Couch, Acting Executive Director of the Cultural Heritage Division. Jody Broun, the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and Steve Wright, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, are here also.

Since that last meeting was held, there have been some significant achievements for Aboriginal co-management in NSW, which have already been talked about last night, but I would like to highlight some.

• Mt Grenfell Historic Site was returned to Aboriginal ownership and leased back to the Government in 2004 and a Board of Management established to jointly manage the lands. This was the second time that a park has been returned to Aboriginal ownership in NSW.

• I am pleased to announce that Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks were returned to Aboriginal ownership only last week. There will be a formal celebration to mark the handback in May 2006 and the Board of Management should be appointed soon afterward.

• The Saltwater Indigenous Land Use Agreement was signed in December 2005.

• In 2005 the Pilliga Nature Reserve Aboriginal Consultative Committee entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with DEC.

• In 2005 the Peak Hill–Bogan River Traditional Owners Group entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with DEC for the management of Goobang National Park and Snake Rock Aboriginal Area.

• The Arakwal people and the Arakwal Indigenous Land Use Agreement were awarded the prestigious Fred M. Packard International Parks Merit Award for Distinguished Achievements in Wildlife Preservation by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature at the 5th World Parks Congress held in South Africa in 2003. The Arakwal Plan of Management was prepared by the Arakwal National Park Joint Management Committee.

So the last three years have seen some significant achievements for Aboriginal co-management of parks in NSW. The aim of this meeting is to share those experiences with each other. To discuss what has worked over the last three years and what has not worked, with the aim of learning both from our successes and from our mistakes.

There are a range of different models for co-management in NSW, with different legal effects, rights and responsibilities.

I think it is important that we think about what co-management is about. What are we trying to achieve and how do we get there?’


11

These differences reflect that co-management should not be a one-size-fits-all approach and different circumstances, different communities, different parks may lead to different approaches. However, I think there are some key elements common to all of them, that we need to think about over the next few days and years.

Co-management is about caring for Country and developing a common vision for the lands and working together to achieve that vision. It is about recognition of rights, but also about responsibilities. Responsibility for the land, for each other and to the people of NSW. It is about accountability to your communities and to the NSW public.

From DEC’s perspective co-management is about relationships between Aboriginal communities and DEC staff and with the land. It is about respect, listening to each other,

honesty, trust, give and take and a commitment to work through issues and, where necessary, to compromise.

It is about recognising both limitations and opportunities. Managing parks provides opportunities to care for Country and to educate the public about Aboriginal culture. Co-management of parks may form a base to manage parks and other Aboriginal land in an integrated way. However, there are limits to what you can do on parks and to the economic opportunities associated with parks. DEC has certain legislative obligations that it must meet and may not be able to be flexible on certain issues. Aboriginal communities have responsibilities to the land and to their communities and may not be able to be flexible on those. Co-management is about working through these things and figuring out what are the things we can achieve together and also what are the things we can’t.

None of these things are easy and they don’t happen over night. But I hope that through this meeting we can get a sense that co-management is something that is worth doing and to think about constructive ways to improve what we are doing.

I am looking forward to hearing your stories over the next few days and to participating in the meeting.

Jody Broun

Director General, Department of Aboriginal Affairs

I am an Indjibandji woman from the Pilbara of Western Australia and feel much more comfortable in Country than I often feel in Sydney. I am also an artist and get inspiration for my art when visiting home and places like Mungo.

I would like to acknowledge all the other people who have come from different Country and different Aboriginal nations around NSW and think it is important that the group will be sharing information.

Co-management is an important aspect of the Two Ways Together Aboriginal Affairs Plan. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) works by influencing other agencies and trying to coordinate across agencies. To this end, it has developed a ten-year plan to get government agencies to work together better and to coordinate better. To get the desired results, there are other agencies besides DEC that need to be involved, for example the Department of Lands, the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Natural Resources.

Two Ways Together represents Aboriginal people working with government and shows that there are two ways of doing things and that they need to be brought together to complement one another to make desired achievements happen.

DEC has been good at drawing other agencies together as part of their action plans. There are now 35 different agencies signed up to actions to work together.

Other aspects of the culture and heritage plan involve languages. Dual naming and signage are important. In New Zealand Maori language is widely spoken and there is dual signage on all government buildings. It would be good to see similar signage in Australia. DAA has also supported many language projects around the state and established the Aboriginal Language and Research Resource Centre.

‘Co-management is about getting to know each other and building a relationship over time. It is recognising that we are all in this together.’

‘In terms of the culture and heritage aspect of the Aboriginal Affairs Plan, it is led by DEC and I have to acknowledge that DEC has done a fantastic job in that. DEC has made a real commitment … the way they are working with Aboriginal people, the way they are promoting Aboriginal partnerships. I think is really important, and that’s a key principle of the Plan.’


1�

The types of activities that DAA is involved in support co-management. Two Ways Together recognises that all of the pieces need to fit together and cannot be done in isolation. Culture and heritage are important aspects of the plan and related issues cutting right across government.

Employment is an area that DAA is keen to progress right across government and they are pushing for agencies to do more in terms of employment of Aboriginal people. We want to see them employed, not just in the lower levels and in separate Aboriginal units but throughout organisations. We want to make Aboriginal business a core business of agencies.

Tony FlemingDeputy Director-General and Head, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

There have been some significant achievements in Aboriginal co-management over

the last three years. These achievements are a result of hard work on the part of both Aboriginal communities and DEC staff and I commend them for that, and for their commitment to managing parks for the benefit of all of us here and for future generations.

There are a range of different legal approaches to co-management in NSW. There is the formal transfer of ownership to Land Councils on behalf of Aboriginal owners and lease back to the Minister such as at Mutawintji, Mt Grenfell and now Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks. There are Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) with native title holders such as the Arakwal ILUA and the Saltwater ILUA. And there are Memoranda of Understanding such as here at Mungo National Park, at Kinchega National Park, Pilliga Nature Reserve, Goobang National Park and Snake Rock Aboriginal Area.

There are significantly more parks with less formal arrangements for access and use of parks for cultural activities. For example, there are at least 20 parks around the state which have regular culture camps that may or may not involve DEC staff.

Currently there are a number of negotiations between DEC and Aboriginal communities around the state for each of these different types of arrangements, and at least half of the people here are negotiating new co-management arrangements.

Arrangements and agreements may evolve and develop over time as people get more experience and build their capacity to work together and to manage land. Co-management should be adaptive and should involve ongoing evaluation and review of how we are going, what we are doing, what we have achieved and where we are going.

The challenge over the last few years has been to establish new co-management arrangements. The challenge for the future is to make sure that we review those arrangements and adapt and change them where appropriate. This includes looking at what we are doing around the state to see where things are working and why they are working, to look at the models we are using and how we can improve them and to look at whether we are being fair and equitable. It is also to draw on the experiences to date and provide information that can be used by staff and communities around the state, so we don’t reinvent the wheel.

The aim is that Aboriginal people make decisions about management of land and are involved in managing the land. The aim is that Aboriginal people can access and use land for cultural activities. The aim is that government and Aboriginal communities work in partnership and build our capacity to manage lands. The government and DEC are both committed to working with Aboriginal communities to achieve these aims.

An issue raised at the last statewide meeting was employment and training, in particular the types of positions available and training programs that can be run. DEC has a number of programs in place for Aboriginal employment and training. A key program is the Trainee Field Officers and the Cadet Ranger program. This year there are eleven Cadet Rangers and five Trainee Field Officers working for DEC. Six of the Cadet Rangers are working in areas where either there is a co-management arrangement or where a co-management arrangement is being negotiated.

‘These different approaches allow us to respond to different circumstances and different needs. Nor is the use of any one approach locked in stone.’

‘While there are different models, the aims are the same. The aim is to care for Country, to respect Aboriginal culture and to pass on the land and culture to future generations.’


1�

Importantly, co-management has also led to increased Aboriginal involvement in recruitment and selection of employees, through involvement in selection panels and decision-making about jobs in particular parks. This can

involve some difficult decisions about the best mix of training and employment and the need to ensure that employment options are sustainable given the funding available and amount of work needed on any one park.

Another important thing to think about is that while employment and training with parks may offer significant benefits to communities, there will always be a limit to employment opportunities with parks—there are only so many jobs available.

DEC and Aboriginal communities need to consider other potential economic opportunities associated with co-managed parks. How can Aboriginal communities develop businesses associated with park management, that can grow and expand to develop business relationships with other land managers and with the broader community? Examples might be businesses associated with tourism, bush regeneration, weed and pest control, planning and education. What do we need to do to get there? How do we figure out what the realistic economic opportunities are? What planning is needed? What training and development is needed?

An issue raised at the last workshop was the need for better interpretation and education of Aboriginal heritage. I think for co-managed parks we have improved, but this is an area where we need to improve further. We should use Aboriginal languages more in education, interpretation and signs. We should think more about what information we are presenting. Part of this is about educating staff and DEC has spent the last year looking at what we need to do to raise the cultural awareness of our staff.

Another issue raised at the last meeting was cultural heritage assessment. We have been developing new ways to do this that emphasise the Aboriginal cultural values of landscape. An example is the Arakwal National Park ethnobotanical study which mapped the culturally important plants in the park so they can be managed and used.

Three new issues discussed at this meeting which were not discussed at the last meeting are developing the plan of management, the support needed for Boards and Communities and managing the transition from negotiations to co-management. Discussing these issues reflects two things. One is that co-management has been in place for a longer period of time and we now have some experience with plans of management and with issues for Boards and can discuss those experiences. The other is that the number of co-management negotiations is expanding, so there are more people who have an interest in hearing what may lie ahead.

Terry Korn

Director, Western Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Terry—speaking a short period before retiring as Director of Western Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC—said that he felt very proud that Mungo had been selected as the venue for the meeting and was both surprised and pleased to see such a large gathering of people discussing co-management.

Two years ago a group from East Timor visited Mungo. DEC has since been working with them to establish a protected area system in East Timor that will culminate in the declaration of a park in August 2006. I have been working on this project since its beginning four years ago. The East Timorese looked at the co-management process in Mungo, talked to the Three Traditional Tribal Groups and decided it was a good way of doing business. In the area to be set up as the first national park in East Timor there will be six villages to bring together to work together in the co-management process. I’m proud to have been associated with the East Timor project and acknowledged that I was only able to do that because of the work done with DEC and with the people in the west.

‘Co-management arrangements have resulted in increased training and employment of Aboriginal staff, as is shown here at Mungo National Park where more than 60% of the staff are Aboriginal people.’

‘Who would have thought five years ago that we would have a group like this together talking about co-management—it’s fantastic.

I wish you well in your travels and doing business with DEC in this important area of co-management. I think it’s a fantastic achievement that we’ve had in this process over the last few years and it can only go on to bigger and better things.’


1�

1�

The field trip to Mungo National Park was hosted by the Three Traditional Tribal Groups: the Paakantji, Mutthi Mutthi and Ngiyampaa people.

The Three Traditional Tribal Groups took participants on guided tours of the dunes (or lunettes) on the edge of the lake and pointed out features that demonstrate the long connection of their people to this land. These features include stone hearths, fossils, tools and other artefacts. They also pointed out different plants and explained their uses and spoke about the types of animals that are found in the area, such as emus and kangaroos.

They explained how the Three Traditional Tribal Groups and DEC are managing the land together and talked about the techniques they use to protect the land. These included a talk about the Discovery tour programs run by the Three Traditional Tribal Groups during school holidays. Twenty-five people have been trained in tour guiding and the Three Traditional Tribal Groups have developed a manual for each group that can be used by the Discovery rangers.

The Three Traditional Tribal Groups talked about the importance of Mungo National Park to their people and the length of their people’s connection to the land. They told the story of Mungo Lady, who was uncovered in this area and who represents the oldest recorded burial in Australia. The Three Traditional Tribal Groups Corporation is working toward building a keeping place to look after Mungo Lady as well as other important artefacts and remains that have been returned to them.

The field trip included a visit to Joulni—an area of land next to the park that is owned by the Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council Corporation. Joulni is the proposed location for the keeping place. Michael Westaway, the World Heritage Executive Officer, and Gary Pappin from the Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council, talked about the importance of Joulni and plans to build the keeping place.

DEC would like to thank the Three Traditional Tribal Groups on behalf of everyone who participated in the field trip.

Mungo field trip

Mungo National Park—the field trip

DECC

DECC

DECC

DECC

1�

Community presentations

Junette Mitchell and Warren Clark welcomed everyone to the meeting on behalf of the Three Traditional Tribal Groups. Clare O’Kelly, the facilitator of the meeting, acknowledged the following guests:

• Mayor of Wentworth (Cr Margaret Thompson)

• Deputy Mayor of Balranald (Cr Ron Mengler)

• Deputy Mayor of Mildura Shire Council (Cr John Arnold)

• Director, Western Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC (Terry Korn)

Clare O’Kelly thanked Lynda Wild and Lenore Fraser for organising the conference.

Introductory speechesOn the evenings of 11th and 12th April 2006, a representative of each of the Aboriginal community groups gave a presentation about their co-management negotiations or arrangements. The aim of these presentations was for people to introduce themselves to each other and to give a brief overview of what they have been doing and what were the most important issues for them. The following gives a summary of those presentations and includes some of the slides that were shown. These presentations with all of the slides are also included in the enclosed DVD.

‘We’re here to talk about how we can move forward and travel together on this path of co-management, how we can share our experiences.’

Marg Thompson

Mayor of Wentworth

Marg Thompson, the Mayor of Wentworth, spoke

on behalf of Wentworth, Balranald and Mildura Shires. Wentworth is about the river, which is the focus of the community’s livelihood.

Marg mentioned three important parks in the region—Tarawi on the South Australian border, Mallee Cliffs and the Willandra Lakes Area, which incorporates Mungo. Other important sites in the Shire include Lake Victoria and the Scotia Sanctuary (privately owned) near Broken Hill, where a lot of reclamation work is being done.

She spoke about the Mungo festival, which this year celebrates 25 years of World Heritage Listing for Willandra Lakes.

Terry Korn

Director, Western Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Terry has spent a lot of time in the area working on Lake Victoria issues. When he started with DEC in 1998, there was no co-management. Now there is a suite of co-management arrangements across the state and there has been tremendous advancement in DEC and communities working together. The conference offers a great opportunity to learn together and share experiences.

There has been an impressive advancement in co-management in NSW in the past seven years with arrangements in place at Mungo, Kinchega, Pilliga, Mt Grenfell, Peak Hill (Snake Rock), Arakwal, Biamanga and Gulaga, Stockton Bight and Warrell Creek.

Terry suggested the purpose of the conference was to talk about how to care for Country, the water, soil, air and the spiritual connection between all of those things. This is for the benefit of future generations.


1�

Lenore Fraser

Coordinator Aboriginal Co-management Program, DEC

Lenore spoke about the commitment made to

co-management by the NSW Government at the last election. The Minister for the Environment, Bob Debus, is very committed to co-management.

There is also commitment from DEC staff through a Statement of Reconciliation made five years ago. Through this statement DEC staff expressed a commitment to:

• greater involvement of Aboriginal people in the management of parks

• gaining a better understanding of Aboriginal people’s connection to the land, and

• ensuring Aboriginal people can access land to nurture their culture.

Co-management is about government and Aboriginal people sharing responsibility for park management; talking to each other and explaining what each means about managing and caring for land and working together to develop a common vision.

It means making decisions about land management, managing areas of cultural importance, and improving Aboriginal people’s access to parks for cultural activities e.g. culture camps.

It means educating people, telling them the history of the land and the significance of the land to Aboriginal people and it’s about training and employment for Aboriginal communities.

There are various agreements in place. There are Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) in place for Kinchega National Park, Pilliga Nature Reserve, Goobang National Park and Snake Rock Aboriginal Area. MOU negotiations are starting in other areas such as Central Coast Hunter Range and Culgoa National Park. These are arrangements where DEC and the community get together to agree how to do co-management.

There are a number of parks that have been returned to Aboriginal ownership, to be held by a Land Council on behalf of the Aboriginal owners: Mutawintji National Park, now Mt Grenfell and Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks. DEC is in negotiations at the moment for more of these arrangements in Stockton Bight near Newcastle and South Beach near Nambucca Heads. In the future, arrangements may be negotiated for Jervis Bay and Mt Yarrowyck near Armidale.

There are a number of Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) with native title holders under the Native Title Act 1994, for example the ILUA at Arakwal National Park. Last year the Saltwater ILUA near Taree was also signed, and negotiations are under way for others around the state including Githabul near the Queensland border and Gundungurra in the Blue Mountains. There are further potential ILUAs in the future—preliminary discussions are being held with the Tubba-Gah and Bandjalang people.

There are similarities between the co-management agreements in that they all acknowledge the importance of land and culture to the Aboriginal community. They all set out some sort of arrangement for DEC and communities to talk and to make decisions, for example through a board of management or management committee or just through talking to the relevant elders council. All have input to and a role in the plan of management, which is an important document because it sets the direction for what happens on the land. They all deal with cultural heritage protection and with cultural activities on land, i.e. practising culture and making sure it continues. They all deal with training for Aboriginal communities and DEC staff so that each has a better understanding of the other’s relationship with the land.

‘All of the different co-management models have different legislation and different rights for communities but the aims are the same: DEC and communities working together to share views and perspectives on the management of land and why it’s important to both parties. The common link is looking after Country.’

‘Co-management is about government and Aboriginal people sharing responsibility for park management … developing a common view about a vision for the management of the land into the future.’

Community presentations — Introductory speeches

PresentationsMungo National Park

Warren Clark, Executive Officer, Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

There are three tribal groups involved with Mungo: Paakantji, Ngiyampaa and Mutthi Mutthi. When joint management first started, they all met with key stakeholders such as landowners and local shires and established a Joint Management Committee with a majority of elders and with Mary Pappin as chairperson.

The community had their own logo designed by a Mutthi Mutthi person, Craig Charles. The logo means spirit and place and represents Mungo and the lake. Discovery rangers have their own shirts with the logo on them.

The committee has a majority of Aboriginal members with three

representatives from each tribal group. They created standing orders and drafted a plan of management for the park to address a wide range of issues.

Currently training is under way for about 25 Discovery rangers on the park who are employed during school holidays. Through the Discovery program a manual

was developed for the rangers with help from Dr Jeanette Hope.

Recently some training was run for commercial tour operators. Jeanette Hope also produced a manual for them, with the assistance of the elders and joint management people.

Meetings of the Joint Management Committee are held in various locations around the area and sometimes when the committee is visiting other areas e.g. Bourke or the Blue Mountains.

‘Mungo National Park is a Schedule 14 park due for full handback but the elders for the 3TTG involved with the management of the park said they don’t want it that way until they get people trained in all aspects of management—to manage the park as sensitive and spiritual as Mungo requires a lot.’


© Willandra Lakes Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council

DECC

DECC

1�

Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks

Mary Duroux, and Karen Lee—Biamanga and Gulaga Aboriginal Negotiating Panel and Trisha Ellis, Aboriginal Project Officer, DEC

Glenis Kelly, Gulaga Aboriginal Negotiating Panel

Trisha Ellis, Aboriginal Project Officer, DEC, spoke on behalf of Mary Duroux, Glenis Kelly and Karen Lee who belong to the Yuin people from the far south-east coast of NSW. Mary was Moruya’s Aboriginal representative on the negotiating panel. Glenis was the Wodonga Land Council representative and Karen was the coordinator for the panel.

The process of handing back the Biamanga and Gulaga national parks to the Aboriginal people on the coast was represented by a pictorial timeline. Trisha explained the artwork in the timeline, which was done by Lyn Thomas, a Yuin woman. This timeline is shown on the enclosed DVD.

Throughout the clouds there are spirit beings representing the spirit of the land. The land represents where we are standing and the water is the unseen.

There are thunderclouds to represent the creation of the land and within that the first mountain depicted is Biamanga Mountain, which has very significant Aboriginal sites on it. From the top of the mountain down to a rock pool is where the men mostly carry out ceremonies. The spirits in the clouds show the men and the tools they used to pass on the laws. They also show the men doing dances.

Further along is the female mountain, Mt Gulaga. The top of the mountain belonged to women. The men also did ceremonies further down the mountain. Above the mountain are shown the spirits of the women who danced. Further along is a small mountain called Little Dromedary or Najunaga—Gulaga‘s younger son.

Next is Marunna Point, a ceremonial site near Wallaga Lake and behind that is Montague Island or Barranguba—Gulaga’s older son. There is a good

interpretation of the totemic animals predominant on the coast as well as bush foods and medicines. The last mountain depicted is Mt Imlay down near the Bega and Eden area. The pictures and words depict the period from the early 1960s until the present.

The negotiations for Biamanga and Gulaga have now been finalised and the leases have been signed. Preparations are under way for a ceremony in May 2006 to celebrate the handback.

Trisha noted that care had been taken to try and acknowledge everyone who had a part in the process including the many Aboriginal people before them who had worked very hard. It is this generation and the younger ones who will benefit from the work of those people.

‘We’ve come to the end of our negotiations. I believe that the leases have been signed and we’re heading now into the big event of the century I believe. We’re going to have one hell of a party on the 6th May and everybody is invited.’


1�

Mutawintji National Park

Kim O’Donnell, Chair, Mutawintji Board of Management

Kim has always been involved with Mutawintji National Park but has been in the background for a while, going to university and getting a higher education. She started as a teacher, graduating in 1986, then went up to the Northern Territory and lived on a cattle station for three years. She has just finished university again since completing a Masters in Primary Early Health.

At the first meeting of the new Board in 2005, Kim was elected as Chairperson of the Mutawintji Board. Being chairperson was a huge learning curve but she was grateful to have elders like Uncle Will to guide her in the process.

There are thirteen Board members and Uncle Will has been there since the beginning, since the handback in 1998. A big party was held and it was a great time. Mutawintji was a test case—the first park to be handed back to traditional people.

Meetings are held on park at Mutawintji so that other people on the Board can get a feel for Country. Kim lives in Adelaide so enjoys returning and experiencing those quiet times just talking and walking with the elders. It provides time to unwind from the fast pace of life.

Governance training has just started with Burdon Torzillo from Alice Springs, which Kim said has been great, and has provided a better understanding of where everyone sits in the scheme of things. About six training sessions have

been held so far. Kim said it’s bringing families back together and it’s good for those people who have been away.

Uncle William Riley, Mutawintji Board of Management

Uncle William Riley was born in White Cliffs and left school at fifteen. He is well-known around the western area of NSW.

He worked in Wilcannia then Lake Cargellico undertaking stock work. It was good money, but he stopped when he realised that Aboriginal sites were being destroyed. He returned to Wilcannia in 1994 and accepted a job with the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

‘Uncle Will here— he keeps me on track and lets me know when I’m putting my foot out of place … it’s very good to have the elders to be able to guide us in this process and walk together in this process.’

‘My aim is to keep fighting to educate our people, bring all our people together, black and white, and try and save what’s left of our Country.’


Kim O’Donnell

�0

Kinchega National Park

Patsy Quayle, Dale Doyle and Marindah Doyle—Menindee Aboriginal Elders Council

Patsy Quayle, Dale Doyle and Mahrinda Doyle are all members of the Menindee Aboriginal Elders Council.

In July 2002 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between NPWS and the Menindee Aboriginal Elders for the management of Kinchega National Park. The MOU was re-negotiated in December 2005.

The MOU formally acknowledges DEC’s commitment to working cooperatively with the Menindee Aboriginal Elders in the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage and sites in and around Kinchega National Park. It formalises procedures so Menindee Aboriginal elders who have traditional or contemporary ties to Kinchega National Park can have real and meaningful involvement in the management of the park. DEC consults with the Menindee Aboriginal Elders Council in the protection, management and interpretation of Aboriginal cultural sites within Kinchega National Park and the Menindee area.

Areas of management that the elders (and their children) participate in include deciding on capital and recurrent projects and priorities, recruitment, site monitoring and management, visitor management, plans of management, training programs and interpretation and holiday programs.

Peak Hill–Bogan River Traditional Owners Group—Goobang National Park and Snake Rock Aboriginal Area

Anthony Wilson, Senior Field Officer, Lachlan Area, DEC and Peak Hill–Bogan River traditional owner

Anthony has been the Senior Field Officer for two and a half years in the Lachlan Area. Anthony said co-management has been good

As a field officer, my commitment is to Snake Rock and to the Service.

for increasing Aboriginal employment. Previously there were only two Aboriginal Field Officers but since co-management there are now four.

Snake Rock is a men’s rock—it’s a hunting rock where young people are taught.


DECC

�1

��

Mt Grenfell Historic Site, Gundabooka National Park

Phil Sullivan, Chair, Mt Grenfell Board and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer, DEC and Fay Johnstone, Deputy Chair, Mt Grenfell Board

Phil is currently the Chair of the Mt Grenfell Board and Fay is Deputy Chair. Both were part of the negotiating panel. Fay feels proud to be one of the first Board members from Mt Grenfell. Her family lived around Cobar and her grandfather was Cobar Bill.

Phil has been the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer in Bourke for ten years. He said that working in this position has been challenging but has helped him to find out who he really is and to learn about his people. One of his first tasks was to look for the traditional owners for Gundabooka and Culgoa National Parks.

Mt Grenfell is listed in Schedule 14 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 for handback to the Aboriginal community. For about ten years Phil worked on getting the mob together for the handback. The handback happened in July 2005.

Phil believes that Schedule 14 listing and the full handback of land to Aboriginal communities is the best management option as it gives the Aboriginal community ownership of the land—legal standing. Legal standing is important as it provides security against changes of government.

Phil believes the environment is a reflection of who we are. At the moment it is not in such a good state. We need to work together to improve it.

‘These couple of days, we’re actually stopping, we’re assessing where we are … we’re going together.’


DECC

DECC

��

In the last few years, the Sandstone Caves have been the most important visitation attraction of the Nature Reserve. They are important

to the Aboriginal community and with the help of the Consultative Committee, there has been a major upgrade of the walking track including an interpretive display board in the local Aboriginal language.

Recently, three local Aboriginal people have been trained in identifying and recording Aboriginal sites. They are doing five weeks’ work identifying and recording about sixty important Aboriginal sites within the Nature Reserve.

The Consultative Committee has been very keen to run culture camps in the Nature Reserve. The community takes children out to camp and teaches them skills in the bush.

‘The community was very keen to have a continuing connection with the Nature Reserve and wanted to be involved in its management.’

Pilliga Nature Reserve

Michael Murphy, Ranger, Barradine Area, Western Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC and Uncle Danny Trindall, Pilliga Nature Reserve Consultative Committee

Pilliga Nature Reserve covers 85,000 hectares in Gamillaroi country on the north-west slopes and plains.

Pilliga Nature Reserve is a very important place for the Aboriginal community. In recognition of this, in 2004 an Aboriginal Consultative Committee was established with elders and representatives from local Aboriginal communities. This Committee gave the communities direct access to DEC to comment on the sorts of things DEC was doing in managing the Nature Reserve.


��

Arakwal National Park

Yvonne Stewart, Chair, Arakwal National Park Joint Management Committee and Cape Byron Trust

Yvonne noted the struggle for Arakwal began a long time ago but it was not until 1993 that it became official. Arakwal is now under joint management organised through an Indigenous Land Use Agreement.

The park is about 200 hectares and includes the Cape Byron Trust area.

Yvonne said it took an Eddie Mabo High Court decision to allow Aboriginal people an opportunity to get engaged in land management. Before that they were never asked to be involved in management and were in fact pushed off Country in the early 1980s. They still continued traditional practices and went back to Country all the time, but officially the campsites and areas were closed down. Aboriginal people had no political power.

Currently Yvonne is the Chair of Arakwal National Park and of Cape Byron Trust. The area has about 1.7 million visitors per year so they are heavily engaged in land management issues as well as cultural issues.

When the Arakwal people negotiated Arakwal National Park, they did not know they wanted to have a park. They knew only that they wanted to be involved in land management and put in a native title claim in order to save and protect those lands.

About a hundred people from a range of stakeholder groups wanted to be part of the claim. The Cape Byron Consultative Committee was established to sift through them. The people selected were very considerate of Aboriginal issues and the outcome was joint management, which was the best option at the time.

Initially the Arakwal community people asked what was in it for them. They had to seriously consider the obligations that came with managing land including managing visitors, repairing damage from previous sand mining and dealing with stakeholders.

The community had no money but DEC did, so they felt joint management was the best way forward for them. It meant the community could go back to the land where their grandparents and parents were born and where all their resources were.


DECC

��

They put forward some recommendations that included employment, training and input into management decisions. This started a homeland movement in Byron Bay. They encouraged people to get licences to help them get jobs. The program started out with two traineeships but in the last four years they have put through five trainees plus one administrative person.

Yvonne said that previously they had no Aboriginal employment, no Aboriginal housing or services and no resources. The best way to help their people manage Country was through employment and encouraging them to work.

Now there are fifteen Aboriginal people working on Country. This has been achieved by breaking down the five funded positions into contract work, getting people skilled in areas of contract work, using the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) program and encouraging people to go into retail and administration.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service opened the door for joint management but the process was not easy. It was a struggle for the community coming from a low economic background with no opportunities and no skill base. Fortunately they encountered excellent regional and area managers who made the effort to develop relationships and brought people back to Country.

Bringing people back to Country to share stories and to document and map plants of cultural significance has encouraged cultural renewal. Elders have taken

younger ones around and shown them old pathways they would never talk about before. Now there is a massive collection of information available to Aboriginal people. A great deal of knowledge is gained when the management committee goes out onto Country and this happens a lot, particularly during the process of developing the plan of management.

The elders might not have understood some of the concepts of joint management but once they were out on Country they were happy to talk about things and a lot of oral information was gathered. Tim Low, a botanist, was able to gather enough information to put together Place of Plenty, which maps many of the plants of significance to the elders.

Networking has been important. A lot of work had to be done building relationships between the Committee and their own community. Information was shared on special days like NAIDOC and DEC was invited to come and put up displays to illustrate the process of partnership building. The community doesn’t always agree with the DEC approach but the process is about patience, protocols, respect and time.

Yvonne noted that it’s been a long process—twelve years to date. Stage one was completed in 2001. Stage two negotiations started the next day and are ongoing today.

‘We got a little park, like I said, 183 hectares, but it was our back yard—it was our playground, it was where my mother was born and my grandmother was born just up the road and it was where all our resources were.’


DECC

Saltwater National Park

Auntie Pat Davis-Hurst, Saltwater people

Auntie Pat has been involved since the beginning of the Saltwater claim at Taree which was eleven years ago. Negotiations were expected to take only two to three years because they just wanted to be able to camp at Saltwater Reserve—as they had done previously for probably thousands of years until the Council stopped people camping there about forty years ago. The Council put up ‘no camping’ signs and started chopping into the reserve which took away the birds and the bush and all sorts of animals like possums and goannas.

Auntie Pat said that before the Council put a stop to camping, every Christmas and Easter the community went there from the mission, where they lived under a manager who required them to sign in and out whenever they left because he wanted to know where they were at all times. They went down to Saltwater in carts and sulkies loaded up with their belongings and set up gunyahs and humpies with tin walls. They were happy just to get away from the mission, to get some relief from the manager and the welfare. Mothers used to run to the bushes every time a strange car came because they thought it was welfare coming to take the children.

Only about twelve years ago, after much negotiation, Taree Council once again started to allow camping at Saltwater. A Saltwater Advisory Committee was set up for

about eight years with only two Aboriginal people on it—Auntie Pat and John Clark, CEO of the Land Council at Purfleet. The majority of the committee were white local council members.

However, the Aboriginal people still believed there must be something they could do to get their land back, so eleven years ago they put in a native title claim which also dragged on.

About six years ago Auntie Pat read that the National Parks and Wildlife Service was taking over land like

‘It was a great relief to go somewhere like Saltwater to have that privacy and get away from all the traumas of mission life.’

Saltwater so she contacted them and they agreed to look into it and this resulted in a whole new direction for negotiations. They negotiated with DEC, solicitors and the Native Title Tribunal. An Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) was suggested and they decided to risk it if it meant getting the traditional camping grounds back.

There were still a lot of obstacles to overcome with the local council and the Lands Department but also with their own people because everyone wanted a piece of Saltwater. A lot of people who had settled in the Taree area claimed to be part of the tribe which made it more complicated.

The ILUA was signed last year. It took a long time but the community got what they wanted. They feel that DEC has been really good to them and has a great relationship with them.


DECC

DECC

DECC

��

Githabul Native Title Claim

Trevor Close, Githabul people

The Githabul people are based on the north-east coast. We have ten national parks in our claim, we’ve got native title back too.

There will be a Githabul management committee that control things set up under the ILUA, in other words management of the national parks. It’s taken ten years to reach this point.

Traditional owners have hunting and fishing rights and are able to access state forest lands, nature reserves and travelling stock routes.

It’s a great precedent for Aboriginal people in NSW.

The native title deeds will be signed off by Christmas so it’s an exciting new phase for all Aboriginal people here in NSW.’

Kevin Carter, Area Manager Manning River, DEC

Kevin Carter said it had been a privilege to work with someone like Auntie Pat.

He said that Saltwater is only nine hectares but it is a really lovely place with a fantastic beach and lagoon and is good for fishing.

Saltwater was made an Aboriginal Place in 1982 in recognition of its cultural connections. Kevin said it is a great place to camp, has lots of Aboriginal sites and is a beautiful headland as well as a famous surfing spot.

Auntie Pat’s mother was the one who sat in the dress circle at the Taree picture theatre in the 1960s when Aboriginal people were supposed to sit in the first two rows. She was stubborn and refused to move. That broke the cycle and everyone could sit where they wanted to after that.

DEC dedicated the park in record time despite a number of issues needing resolution. For example, it was initially suggested there could not be an ILUA

without an insurance policy covering all public liability for anything that might happen to any member of the public whenever the community camped there. This is not asked of anyone else camping in a national park. To solve the problem, this was dealt with through the Department’s normal insurance cover for any park.

The ILUA is now in place and allows traditional owners the sole privilege to camp at Saltwater and undertake activities like collecting food for the community.

‘Saltwater’s only nine hectares … but it’s an important nine hectares and it’s damn pretty too.’


��

Stockton Bight Aboriginal Negotiating Panel

Lennie Andersen, Stockton Bight Aboriginal Negotiating Panel

Lennie Andersen is a Worimi man. The Stockton Bight area is important to him. His family has lived there for a long time. He was previously CEO of the Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) and he acknowledged the contribution of the people from the LALC.

In May 1995, the Worimi LALC lodged a claim over Stockton Bight as vacant crown land at midnight the night before all the mining leases had become exting-uished. Bob Carr had hoped to announce it as a national park but the Aboriginal land claim took precedence.

Negotiations are now under way to lease the land back to DEC. Lennie said that the community did not have the resources to look after the land themselves and realised DEC was also trying to protect the environment and cultural values of the area. This realisation helped to build trust between DEC and the community.

Lennie noted that the Aboriginal owners were looking for four major things: employment, education, training and business structure for Aboriginal people.

The 6,000-year-old shifting sand dune system at Stockton Bight is unique in the area but conservation was not the only consideration in the negotiations.

Consideration had to be given to other users of the beach such as quad riders, four wheel drivers and commercial tour operators. To accommodate such users, part of Stockton Bight has been made into a state conservation area rather than a national park.

The next step will be to sign a lease. Lennie said that it’s been a long and sometimes difficult process but DEC has listened to the community and has been helpful. The Aboriginal owners now trust them and rely on them for support.

Lennie noted that Stockton Bight needs to be looked after. Recently, 139 culturally significant sites were recorded in an area 500 m wide by 10 km long and there is a further 20 km of beach to be surveyed. The land is the community’s only asset so they feel they must use it ethically in terms of both the environment and commercial activities, so children can benefit into the future.

In the Port Stephens area, an education program for children is currently being run, called Narunji. It involves taking students with difficulties from high schools in Port Stephens into the bush to teach them about their culture and how to survive in the bush. In a six-month period 22 students were taken through the program and two of them ended up going to University.

‘We must utilise the land, in the best way we can … environmentally, structurally, ethically, morally … to better our people … our children.

Stockton Bight … will be a great education area for many things but mostly to teach us to be proud of our background, our knowledge and where we come from.’


DECC

��

South Beach Negotiating Panel

Uncle Harry Mumbulla and Francine Edwards—South Beach Negotiating Panel

Harry was one of four native title claimants who put in a native title claim over South Beach when Nambucca Land Council and Unkya Land Council also put in land rights claims. The land rights claims were rejected at the time. The two Land Councils and the state Land Council appealed the decision in the Land and Environment Court. In 1996 the elders put in a native title claim over exactly the same area. The claim is still being processed.

Harry noted that meanwhile other actions have been taken. For example, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been drafted between Aboriginal communities about how they will work together, and an ethnobotanical report for the lands has been prepared by Francine Edwards’ sister, Chels Marshall.

Harry and the others are currently in lease negotiations with DEC. Conclusion is close, but the agreement is not yet completed. The South Beach Negotiating Panel has been appointed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Members of the Panel are pressing for a holistic approach to negotiations with the government—that is with

Warren Mayers, Area Manager, Cobar Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC and member Stockton Bight Negotiating Panel

The Stockton Bight negotiating panel has been meeting two days per month since November 2004. Warren acknowledged the time and effort put in by the Aboriginal community to attend meetings.

He finds co-management interesting and challenging. He manages Mt Grenfell Historic Site as Area Manager for DEC and is on the negotiating panel for Stockton Bight to represent Aboriginal owners. Balancing the two roles can sometimes get confusing but has worked well so far.

One of the reasons the Stockton Bight negotiations have been successful to date is because all panel members are members of the Worimi Land Council. About 80% of the Land Council members are traditional owners from Worimi Country.

The main priorities for Stockton Bight are meaningful employment, education and business opportunities for Worimi people.

Negotiations have been going on since November 2004. The next step is to negotiate rent with DEC. Warren said this will be a testing time for all with a move away from peppercorn rents to a fair and just compensation as per the intentions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The negotiating panel visited Arakwal National Park and learned a lot from the people there. The Mount Grenfell Board also had the Biamanga and Gulaga mob visit them in Cobar and exchanged ideas and knowledge. Down the track they will be able to pass their knowledge on to others.

departments such as Fisheries and Natural Resources as well as with DEC—but this has not happened to date.

There are two main issues outstanding: the lease arrangement and the valuation of the area concerned to negotiate the rent for the lease. Harry believes that the valuation needs to take into account the spiritual as well as the monetary value.


© Chels Marshall

© Chels Marshall

��

the process of developing the Plan of Management for Kosciuszko. The previous plan of management had only one paragraph referring to the cultural heritage values of the park. The current one, which is completed but awaiting sign off, has a chapter dedicated to the cultural heritage values of the park.

Iris noted that Kosciuszko does not have a co-management arrangement at present but it is their intention to move in that direction. Involvement in the plan of management process and involvement in the Aboriginal Working Group provided an opportunity to go back to Country. That is just the beginning of a lasting partnership.

Rod Mason, Aboriginal Education Assistant, Snowy Mountains Region, DEC

Rod is an education officer and community liaison officer for Kosciuszko National Park. He sought out the knowledge holders that he knew of in his area and told them about issues in the Snowy Mountains. Rod said the Snowy Mountains is a very special place to Aboriginal people all around Australia. Aboriginal people from the Top End and Western Australia have said the Snowy Mountains is the place where spirits go into the sky when people die. They say that when people die, they go through the rainforest, across the desert, through the woodlands and their last journey before going up into the sky is through the Snowy Mountains. There is a big door and when the sun is in a certain position the door opens and lets the spirits through. If the sun is not there the sprits can’t go through until the next time the door opens.

Rod supported Iris’s comments and acknowledged they needed guidance and support from DEC and this was their reason for attending the conference.

‘There was a myth that there were no Aboriginal people connected to the Monaro and Kosciuszko. For those of us that do have traditional connection back to that country it was a really exciting time.

The plan of management process gave a lot of us the opportunity to go back to Country. Let’s not stop at that. We see that process as the beginning of a lasting partnership.’

‘Gatherings are very special—they’ve been missing from our lives in the past—we need more gatherings, a lot more, like this.’

Kosciuszko National Park Aboriginal Working Group

Iris White, Kosciuszko National Park Aboriginal Working Group and Snowy Mountains Regional Advisory Committee

Iris became interested in co-management with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) about ten years ago. Before setting up the Kosciuszko National Park Aboriginal Working Group, NPWS staff made contact with some of the people who have a connection to Kosciuszko. For those who have a connection, it was a really exciting time. She thanked and acknowledged the DEC staff who supported them through that process.

In Kosciuszko, many Aboriginal people were forced off Country. Her grandmother and great aunt, when aged nine and eleven, were taken from Country and placed in Cootamundra Girls Home. Iris said this was typical of what happened to a lot of people. Others were walked off Country around the same time but were able to stay connected through stories from both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who live in that Country.

Iris noted that real involvement for Aboriginal people came with the formation of the Working Group as part of


DECC

�0

Philip McLeod, Kosciuszko National Park Aboriginal Working Group

Philip is relatively new to the area, having spent time as Director of Booderee National Park in Jervis Bay

through connections on his mother’s side. His father was a Monaro man from Kosciuszko and his mother was from the Wandandian tribe on the south coast.

When Dave Darlington contacted them to ask about who the original people of the area were, he learned a lot from the older people about the four clan groups in the area.

Philip felt privileged to have worked on the plan of management with Iris and the rest of the working group.

Central Coast Hunter Range Region Aboriginal Co-management Committee

Lennie Andersen, Central Coast Hunter Range Aboriginal Co-management Committee and Worimi Traditional Aboriginal Elders Group Southern Areas

Lennie Andersen is a traditional Worimi man from the Port Stephens area and is the Public Officer of the Worimi Traditional Aboriginal Elders Group Southern Areas. He was one of the first Aboriginal archaeologists.

Lennie works in an area that also includes Awabakal, Worimi, Wanaruah and Darkinjung people out near Mt Yengo in the Hunter Range. Lennie said this is an area that is very significant to the four local groups. Acknowledging this, Tom Bagnat suggested forming a committee to allow all the groups to get together and put forward their ideas about what should happen in some of the parks in the Central Coast and Hunter Range. They met in the bush with Tom Bagnat and his staff, and developed mutual respect by asking each other questions.

Lennie noted that the department listened and they have since developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Once the MOU is signed, members of the committee will be paid sitting fees.

Four things were sought through the MOU: education, training, employment and recognition and respect for Aboriginal

people’s wishes. The committee also investigated commercial operations and asked that Aboriginal people be responsible for interpreting Aboriginal culture.

Lennie believes they need to maintain and protect their culture including oral history, mythological and intellectual property and save it for their kids. They need to give their kids some form of direction and something they can build on and be part of. To do this they need to utilise everyone’s knowledge.

‘The community told DEC they did not want to be an advisory committee but an integral part of management. They wanted co-management.’

‘We are strong, we will always be strong because we have the belief of our people behind us.’


DECC

�1

Culgoa National Park

Josie Byno, Morowari Tribal Council

Josie comes from Weilmoringle, which is a small town near Bourke and Brewarrina. Weilmoringle is a small property next to Culgoa National Park. About sixty people live there and there is a school with an Aboriginal teacher and about 19 Aboriginal children. Josie taught there for about 21 years.

Weilmoringle is in the process of being bought by the Aboriginal community. It is currently with the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) waiting to be signed off. The community hopes to work with DEC to get some projects going on the property and around Culgoa National Park which is on Morawarri land. At the moment there’s a picnic area and camping ground

that the community use. The Morowari tribe is working with DEC and is trying to develop a Statement of Intent about Culgoa National Park.

Josie believes that DEC is now more open to working with traditional owners and getting things sorted out and getting projects started.

Phil Sullivan added that DEC played an important role in helping bring the mob back together. This enabled them to organise themselves to go to the ILC and get Weilmoringle back—at present they have a lease for three years after which they will own it.

Jervis Bay National Park

Jean Wellington and Jean Davenport—Jerrinja Elders, and Rodney Wellington, Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Officer, South Coast, DEC

Rodney Wellington spoke on behalf of the elders and noted that a lot of changes had occurred in DEC since he joined in 1981.

In 1996 Aboriginal staff raised concerns about the way Aboriginal heritage was being dealt with and negotiated a new direction. The result was the establishment of the Cultural Heritage Division. A focus of the negotiation process was the need for an Aboriginal person on the DEC Executive. This did not happen straight away but eventually change spread to the higher levels of the agency. Now Jason Ardler is on the Executive and there are many more Aboriginal staff working at higher levels and having input into management of cultural heritage.

Jervis Bay was one of the first Schedule 14 parks. However, Schedule 14 listing coincided with a native title claim. Rod believes that this drove a wedge between many families and caused aggravation.

Rod noted that discussions are now starting to take place and there is hope of getting some sort of co-management arrangement for Jervis Bay.

Jean Wellington and Jean Davenport are looking forward to seeing Jervis Bay develop along similar lines to the Mungo National Park experience.

Jean Wellington said she was pleased to be at Mungo and enjoyed the field trip. She said the elders groups were pleased to be involved with DEC people at Nowra and thanked Diane Garrood and other staff. Jean Devonport also extended thanks for the invitation to attend the meeting.


DECC

DECC

��

Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area—Footprints

Michael Westaway, Executive Officer, Willandra Lakes World Heritage Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

The footprints represent a very significant discovery in the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area. They were discovered in 2003 during an archaeological survey when Mary Pappin Junior came across the fossil trackway. The Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area is made up of a chain of lakes and there is a small meandering stream, which 40,000 years ago was about the size of the Murrumbidgee River. It was a powerful river flowing from the Snowy Mountains and feeding the lake system. Back then it was a very healthy and rich system. Aboriginal communities lived along the boundaries of the lake system. There is archaeological evidence of occupation all across the landscape.

The site is an essential record for understanding the complexity of the ancient Aboriginal past. But it is also important to realise that there has been continuity; that those people are still here today. The people employed in the park today are the descendants of these ancient people who colonised the Willandra. It is important to pass on the story of that continuity and that is what the Discovery rangers do.

Fossil footprints are a rare occurrence in the records of the past and there aren’t many of them in Australia. Footprints from one such site in Western Australia were stolen, hence the impact of visitors was foremost in the minds of the elders who wanted to make sure the location was kept anonymous.

Research was done to see what has been done to conserve human footprints found elsewhere in the world. One site at Laetoli in Africa has some of the oldest footprints in the world, dating to three and a half million years ago. They are the footprints of australopithecines—a very early human. This site was preserved by some people from the Getty Conservation Institute who visited the Willandra. Each site is preserved in a very unique way. At Laetoli they had a volcanic eruption and ash covered the footprints. The site was also covered by other sediments, which hardened over many years and became hard sandstone. Many museums around the world have a re-construction of this site on display because of its significance.

The Australian Museum has been talking to the elders about the stories that can be told from the trackways here.

In April 2004, Michael Westaway began working with the elders to help conserve and interpret the site. He invited Dr Neville Agnew from the Getty Institute, who has published a number of papers on the conservation of fossil footprints, to visit and provide advice. Dr Agnew explained the various conservation processes to the elders, talked about potential




��

impacts on the site and discussed his experiences of other sites. The elders questioned him for two days. He was very frank in his answers and provided a lot of good information, which provided a good foundation for the community to go ahead and start conservation.

A very simple recommendation was made which involved placing stockings full of sand over the footprints to protect them because the landscape is very prone to erosion. The wind is very severe and carries sand, which is very abrasive and destructive.

The antiquity of the site also needed to be verified because the community was considering asking the State and Commonwealth to contribute money to its conservation and interpretation. By digging beneath, but not disturbing the pavement, they established a date of 23,000 years.

Recently, work has started on the conservation plan. The Australian Museum has been assisting with the

conservation of the site and has looked at different features to gather information about the condition of the site. They used ground-penetrating radar, which showed the site extends far beyond what has been uncovered so far.

Some of the footprints are very well-preserved and it is possible to see the mud pushing up between the toes. There are prints of four or five adults sprinting in the same direction and amongst them is a single right foot, which suggests someone hopping. There are also prints of children meandering between the adults. More than 400 footprints were found.

There has been a lot of positive press about the footprints including a powerful editorial by the editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and a story in Time Magazine. Catalyst and National Geographic are planning to run stories on the footprints as is a science program in Japan.

Positive press and assistance from the Environment Minister’s press secretary has enabled the elders to negotiate ownership and copyright of a series of photographs of the footprints. Sale of these images has provided a source of income for the communities.

The elders are keen to develop a cultural centre and keeping place, which will be important for regional development in the area.

‘These people are still here today, they didn’t go away and they didn’t disappear. We’ve got 60% employment across the park of people who are the descendants of these ancient people who colonised the Willandra.

The Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald said: … “imagine the sensation that young Mary Pappin must have experienced because she didn’t find one, she found over 400 of the footprints and they were over 20,000 years old.” ’



��

Lanin National Park, Argentina

Bruno Carpinetti, Director, Board of Directors, National Parks Administration, Argentina

Bruno began his presentation with an overview of the history of national parks in Argentina. The Argentinean national park system was created in 1934. Parks were created for geopolitical reasons and to protect spectacular landscapes. For this reason, most parks were in Patagonia. Then in the 1980s the parks system began to change. Parks were created in the centre of the country and were chosen so that eco-regions not represented in existing parks could be preserved.

More recently, in the last few years, Argentina has had political problems. Since this time the government has been re-organised and the constitution has been amended. For national parks, this means that the parks system is now managed according to three pillars: regional planning, community participation and international cooperation. Bruno explained the significance of each of these pillars. Regional planning is important as parks must be managed along with other land—they cannot be islands of nature. Community participation is important for ethical, political and practical reasons—parks cannot be conserved without the support and involvement of the community. Community participation is particularly important in Argentina where the large population places pressure on the environment. International cooperation is important because conservation is a global problem.

After describing the history of parks and current management in Argentina, Bruno introduced Lanin National Park in northern Patagonia. Lanin is one

of the oldest parks of the Argentinean system and covers about 400,000 ha. Although Lanin is not high in biological diversity there are many species endemic to the park. The park is divided into three management categories: national park, national reserve and strict nature reserve. The national park zone is managed to preserve communities living within the park area. The national reserve zone is a buffer between settled areas and nature reserve areas. No activities are allowed in the strict nature reserve area.

The Lanin area has been settled by Mapuche people for a long time. However, it is only recently that rights of the Mapuche people to own and settle the land have been recognised. Previously, Mapuche were frequently persecuted and pushed out of the area. In the 19th century the Mapuche nation resisted European colonisation but eventually they were defeated and signed a peace agreement in 1885. Following this, most Mapuche took refuge in mountainous areas. When the National Park was created, the authorities tried to make Mapuche communities leave the area. Some were able to resist as they were living in the mountains, but the persecution nevertheless had a big impact on Mapuche culture and political life.

Even a hundred years after the war between Mapuche people and the Argentinean army ended, the social and economic opportunities of Mapuche communities remained poor. Furthermore, there was no legal framework to manage land. Land was not conserved but was inevitably stripped of resources needed for daily life.

In the last ten years there have been many political changes. Argentina signed the International Labour Organisation Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries and ratified


© Administracion de Parques Nacionales Argentina


��

the Convention on Biological Diversity. In 1994, the Argentinean constitution was amended to finally recognise Mapuche political and land rights. But although this was ten years ago, the new rights didn’t have many practical implications for some time.

So Mapuche communities began to organise themselves and fight for a level of autonomy within the Argentinean system. A group sent a proposal to National Parks Administration to co-manage settled areas in Lanin. This was a difficult concept for the people at national parks as there was no precedent for this kind of management. Wanting to know more about co-management, they looked on the internet and found that Australia had experience in co-management.

Mapuche people organised the Mapuche Federation to unify the communities in the National Park and all around the country. National Parks Administration have three representatives on the Federation and there is one representative from the National Institute on Indigenous Affairs. Decisions are made by consensus.

A co-management committee was created made up of four Mapuche representatives and four government representatives. A central question being discussed in co-management committee meetings is how to define the boundaries of land to be transferred to Mapuche communities. Other issues discussed include, for example, cattle grazing. Basically, the co-management committee is interested in anything relating to management of park land.

In addition to the main co-management committee, each of the seven Mapuche communities living in the park is represented by a sub-committee. These sub-committees deal with issues that can be solved at the local level. The co-management committee deals with issues which cannot be solved at the local level.

Committee decisions are made by consensus, not by vote. This method of decision-making is not easy, but committee members prefer to make decisions slowly, rebuilding the relationship between government and Mapuche. There was genocide in Argentina so confidence has to be rebuilt slowly.




A copy of this paper can be obtained from the Aboriginal Co-management coordinator, DEC

��

��

Workshops

WorkshopsThese workshop topics were suggestions put forward by the participants. Through these workshops we shared our experiences, talked about successes and also mistakes and came up with constructive recommendations about how we could improve the way we work together. In making the recommendations, workshop participants were asked to think about whether they were realistic. This involved thinking about what is the community’s role and what is DEC’s role and what would need to happen to make the proposed changes. In thinking about the workshops, people also thought about how some of these issues could be dealt with in all parks not just co-managed parks.

DECC

��

Workshop 1

Processes for developing plans of management—using Arakwal National Park and others as case studies

Exhibition of the draft plan

Letting people comment on the draft plan

Preparing a draft plan

Reviewing public submissions

What do we need to change in the plan to address people’s comments?

The roles of the co-management committee and the DEC State Advisory Council

Finalising the plan

Approval of the plan by the NSW Minister for the Environment

Facilitator

David Edwards, Eco-Connections (formerly DEC Ranger for Arakwal Plan of Management)

Presentations

Arakwal Plan of ManagementDavid Edwards,

Yvonne Stewart, Chair, Arakwal National Park Joint Management Committee

Participants

Brett Norman, Phillip McLeod, Melinda Murray, Preston Cope, Mick Murphy, Carla Rogers, Yvonne Stewart, Mary Duroux, Trevor Close, Mick Murphy, Glenis Kelly, Greg Wallace, Joan Slade, John Clark and Victor Zander.

Introduction

The workshop on developing plans of management for a co-managed park provided an informal opportunity for participants to step through the plan of management process and discuss opportunities and constraints to improving Aboriginal community involvement, ownership and outcomes in plans of management processes. Presentation of material from the Arakwal National Park Plan of Management process assisted participants in seeing a practical example of how this can be realised.

What are plans of management?

Key stages of a plan of management

Yerribie

1/Dhirray

n2

Our Mother binds us to our laws/lores.

This country is our Mother. We - the Aboriginal3 People of the Mountains - belong to this country. She is our

beginning, giving us our identity and culture. She brings us together, and takes us away.

The Mountains are very old and an ongoing life force that strengthens the ancestral link of our people. We have a

living, spiritual connection with the mountains. We retain family stories and memories of the mountains, which

makes them spiritually and culturally significant to us. Our traditional knowledge and cultural practices still exist

and need to be maintained.

We recognise the diversity of Aboriginal clans and People of the Mountains - Wiradjuri, Wolgalu, Ngunnawal,

Monaro Ngarigo. We recognise that Wiradjuri, Wolgalu and Ngunnawal are known by their totem, and

acknowledge the matrilineal (mother’s) bloodline of the Monaro Ngarigo people. We also acknowledge that many

other clans have associations with the mountains. The mountains recognise the language names given by our

people and naming of places strengthens our living culture.

Our people travelled from many directions over long distances to gather peacefully on the mountains for trade,

ceremony, marriages, social events and to settle differences.

The cycle of life and many seasons influence the movement of our people through the mountains to the sea and

the desert. The stars, clouds, sun and the moon guided people to and from places of importance. These travel

routes continue to be used and spoken about today.

Living by natural cycles, the land provides our people with life, ceremony, family lore/law, and resources, such as

tools, plant medicine, plant food, waters, fish, animals and insects e.g. the Bogong moth, while the melting of the

snow gives life to the many creeks and rivers that flow out of the mountains. There are places of spiritual and

physical significance to our people, and we are committed to working in partnership with others to protect,

maintain and manage these places.

Forced separation from our land had a profound impact on our family life. European governance disrupted and

destroyed our traditional ways. We were moved away from our country, and many people were herded onto

missions. Aboriginal family lives were torn apart with the removal of children, and people were threatened with

death in some instances if they tried to practice their traditional ways, especially lore, language and culture.

Let us not forget the past while we look forward to the future. Past and present practices make us strong and we

are committed to making this a better country for all.

It is our vision for the future to cooperatively and collaboratively work with the National Parks and Wildlife Service

to manage the park and maintain its spiritual, natural and cultural values. This will build a strong cultural and

economic base for future generations of our people. The development and provision of employment, training and

economic opportunities will deliver benefits to our people and communities. Our culture will be strengthened by

access to our traditional lands and the development and participation of our people in cultural camps and cultural

maintenance programs. By passing on knowledge to future generations of Aboriginal children, our culture will stay

alive and strong.

Written by members of the Kosciuszko Aboriginal Working Group on behalf of Aboriginal people associated with the mountains.

Kosciuszko Aboriginal Working Group

Monaro Ngarigo Sharon Anderson, John Dixon, Paul McLeod, Phillip McLeod, Carl Mundy, Doris Paton, Matthew Stewart, Iris White,

Pat Davison (Community Forum representative)

Wiradjuri & Wolgalu Ramsay Freeman, Phyllis Freeman, Alice Williams, Mary Williams

Ngunnawal Carl Brown, Dorothy Dickson, Tina Williams

Ngyimpa Richard Kennedy (for Mungabareena Aboriginal Corporation, Albury)

Elders and others

Monaro Ngarigo Aunty Deanna Davison, Aunty Margaret Dixon, Aunty Rachel Mullet, Aunty Rae Solomon-Stewart, AuntyValmai

Tungai, Colleen Dixon, Stan Mundy

Wiradjuri & Wolgalu Aunty Margaret Berg, Uncle Vince Bulger

Ngunnawal Louise Brown

1 Yerribie means going, moving in the Ngarigo language.

2 Dhirrayn means mountain in the Wiradjuri language.

3 Aboriginal is defined in this statement as Aboriginal people who are descendants of the traditional owners of this country.


��

The planning process: stages in preparing a plan

Step 1Identifying and involving stakeholders

Who do we need to talk to?

What are some of the ways to encourage awareness and involvement of communities in plans of management?• Be clear about expectations: what is and isn’t achievable?

• Communication is important, for example newsletters are useful if the community is spread over a large area and best contacted by post.

• Break down issues into bite size pieces so the process of plan development isn’t too overwhelming and discussions aren’t disjointed.

• DEC staff turnover is an issue. This can be managed through a handover of former staff to new staff members and by arranging for former and new staff members to meet the community together.

• DEC and the community need to establish a relationship. The relationship should be developed prior to discussing park management issues. Rather than focusing on the process including working groups and interim management committees, there need to be meetings to bring people together.

• Communities need time to re-connect and work out their own relationships.

• Meetings can occur at existing community events or gatherings rather than separate ones. It’s better for the community to feel ownership of the meeting rather than attending a government meeting.

• Keep meetings informal and social. Provide food and allow opportunities for interaction.

• Provide communities with time between meetings to digest information, discuss issues and let others know about what has occurred. Communicate clearly. Ask people what they want and make sure the consultation process is designed with the particular community in mind.

How can we involve the mob? The Arakwal National Park experience• Gatherings e.g. ‘Arakwal Back to Country Days’

• Walk and talk e.g. visit Country and discuss issues

• Documents e.g. issues papers, newsletters

• Co-management meetings

• Word of mouth—‘The Bush Telegraph’

• The media

Aboriginal community

Co-management representatives

Native title groups

Elders groups

Other stakeholders e.g. LALCs, knowledge holders

Role of a community liaison person

Wider community

Leaseholders/neighbouring land holders

Recreation groups

Tourism groups/operators

Conservation groups/ ‘land carers’

Other interest groups

General public

Visitors

Government

Local government

State government land management agencies e.g. DEC

Federal government e.g. Shared Responsibility Agreements

Workshop 1

�0

Pros and cons of stakeholder input

Opportunities Constraints

• Improving communication and relationships

• A seat at the negotiating table

• Identifying all the issues and the best process to deal with them

• Time

• Politics

• Money

• Disinterest

Step 2Understanding values—the importance of Country

What values are associated with this part of Country?

What are some of the ways to work with communities to identify their values for Country?• Be specific about what is important and why.

• Share and tell the stories of the land.

• Acknowledge the contemporary, living connections, not just the spiritual and ceremonial values.

• Provide access to Country (e.g. through site meetings) so people can express their values in a place where they can feel and talk about it.

• Expressions of culture can be through the arts including painting, singing, dancing and poetry. Art is especially useful as a way in which children can express their connection to Country.

• Use recordings (video and audio) to document values. Photos and maps are better than words. Cultural mapping is a good tool.

• It is important to document stories of elders so they can be told to the next generation.

• Some information is private. Some sites and values should not be recorded due to the sensitivity of the information.

• Culture camps offer communities an opportunity to talk about their values.

• Employment of local Aboriginal people in DEC helps to increase the use of local knowledge in management.

How can we identify the importance of Country? The Arakwal National Park experience• Review of existing information

• Cultural landscape mapping

• Surveys and discussions

• Oral history collection

• Meetings and gatherings

Cultural use

Getting together with the mob—social values

Ceremonial and other special places

Spiritual values

Bush tucker and materials

Earth, water & the bush

Cultural landscapes

The bush

Waterways

Threatened species —rare plants and animals that need help to survive

Visitor use

Recreation

Interpretation and education

Tourism

Commercial use

Tours and talks

Accommodation

Saleable items

Resource collection


�1

Pros and cons of identifying values


• Getting back on Country

• Renewing and learning culture

• Building trust and mutual understanding

• Seeing others’ point of view

• Handing over sensitive information

• Information misuse

• Intellectual property issues

• Conflicting values

Step 3Identifying issues

What issues affect the park and how people use it?

What are some of the ways to get the community involved to identify and address issues affecting Country?• DEC needs to be proactive in developing opportunities for communities to be involved in resolving park

management issues.

• Communities need access to DEC decision-makers so they can communicate effectively. Lobbying at a political level is necessary in order to change the things that matter.

• Develop protocols and relationships that work for that community.

• There are opportunities to blend scientific with cultural information to resolve issues.

• There is a need for whole-of-government solutions as many issues cross over jurisdictions.

• It would be useful to reinstate cultural protocols through plans, so elders and knowledge holders can again play their role in communities.

• Communities could develop solutions and present them to DEC rather than waiting for DEC to come up with ideas.

• Having DEC local Aboriginal staff to share DEC information with the community about what is happening can help improve communication and resolve issues.

• Aboriginal staff should be encouraged to give presentations and display their work. This would help overcome stereotypes within their own community and also the wider community. NAIDOC and reconciliation weeks are good opportunities for this.

• Holding workshops like this one are useful for resolving issues.

Land management issues

Bushfire

Weeds and pest animals

Threatened species protection

Land degradation e.g. erosion

Pollution

Cultural use issues

Who, when, what and where

Sustainability

Public perception and equity

Licensing/consent

Visitor use issues

Types of visitor use permitted

Visitor numbers (carrying capacity)

Facilities

Interpretive/ educational opportunities

Publications

Commercial use issues

Types of commercial use permitted

Size, nature, frequency and duration of activity

Business planning, financial viability and marketing

Accreditation, insurances, licensing and leasing

Workshop 1

��

• The community needs to be involved early in the park plan of management process so they can look at options and have ownership over the final decisions.

• DEC must recognise that issues need to be dealt with under Aboriginal lores, not just DEC laws.

• Plans evolve and need updating—they need to have some flexibility.

• DEC should consult the community about proposed work programs. People can contribute when they know something solid is proposed.

• Cultural mapping is a good tool to identify ‘no-go’ zones or where extra protection measures are needed.

Pros and cons of identifying issues


• Working together and shared learning

• Looking at issues within the bigger picture

• ‘Nipping problems in the bud’

• Finding solutions to complex problems

• ‘Letting the cat out of the bag’

• Law and lores—some things just aren’t allowed

• Imperfect information

• Complex or lengthy decision-making processes

Step 4Listing the actions

What needs to be done to protect values and address issues for the park?The Arakwal National Park Plan of Management

Land management

Bushfire management

Weed and pest animal control

Soil and water management

Cultural use

Community decision-making

Access and use

Wild resource use plans

Cultural camps

Issuing of licences/consents

Visitor use

Visitor access, use and facilities

Information and publications

Commercial use issues

Commercial use areas and activities

Issuing of licences and leases

Pros and cons of action plans

The importance of Country

What values do we need to protect?

Looking after Country

What jobs need to be done?

Using Country

What activities do we/don’t we want in the Park?

Getting things done

What are the most important jobs to do first and how will we go about it?


��


• Provides clear direction and a strong starting point

• Can provide a common goal for people that are otherwise different

• Can give everyone a sense of ownership in reaching outcomes

• Allows you to prioritise from a long list of things to do

• Can break a big project up into smaller stages

• Enables you to lobby for budgets to implement actions

• Managing expectations

• If actions are unrealistic it only becomes a ‘wish list’

Step 5Implementing the final plan—making the words become reality

What are some of the ways to ensure actions within plans are implemented?• Priorities may change if new information is received. Plans need to be flexible. The goal posts—e.g. laws and

policies—are always moving.

• Big projects have smaller steps that need to be kept track of along the way. Plans may identify a process that can be followed up at a later date as the issue may not be able to be resolved at the time of drafting a plan (e.g. burials in parks).

• Progress of plans should be checked though audits, reviews and monitoring.

• Lobbying is important in order to get funding to do the work.

• It is important that plans are realistic and written in clear language.

• Quotes and artwork are just as important as technical information.

• Even where there is no formal co-management arrangement, plans should consider cultural heritage in an integrated way. Cultural heritage should not be listed as a separate section in plans.

• Communities need to be clear about what they don’t want as well as what they do want in order to avoid unacceptable proposals having to be dealt with after the plan is made.

• Project planning is important so goals are set each year and built into DEC work programs.

• ‘Selling’ success stories is important to help get things done in other parks.

• It is also important to learn from mistakes so they are not repeated.

• Everyone has a different way of operating so it is important to be very clear about the process and desired outcomes for park management.

Getting resources

How do we get funding to do the work?

Monitoring outcomes

How do we know if we are achieving our goals?

Reviewing the plan

When and how will we update the plan?

Workshop 1

��

Recommendations

• It is very important to involve the Aboriginal community at all stages of the planning process using culturally appropriate methods, for example including local Aboriginal staff, establishing co-management committees and holding informal social gatherings.

• There is a need to integrate cultural heritage values and actions throughout plans and include quotes, pictures and artwork from local community members.

• Plans can provide both community development and cultural renewal opportunities as well as helping DEC to better manage cultural heritage.


��

Workshop 2

Connection to land and cultural practice

Facilitator

Russell Couch, Acting Executive Director, Cultural Heritage Division, Director Cultural Heritage Policy and Knowledge, Cultural Heritage Division, DEC

Keeping place—repatriation project—Mungo National ParkMichael Westaway, Executive Officer, Willandra Lakes World Heritage Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Presentations

Keeping place—repatriation project—Mungo National ParkMichael Westaway, Executive Officer, Willandra Lakes World Heritage Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DECIndigenous land management techniques workshopsRod Mason, Presenter and Education Officer, Snowy Mountains and Dave Darlington, student and Regional Manager, Snowy MountainsMapping country—a landscape approach to cultural heritage and biodiversitySimone Barker, Bandjalang people. Damien Hofmeyer, Ranger, Northern Rivers Region and Ashley Moran, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer, Northern Aboriginal Heritage Section

Participants

Dave Darlington, Jennifer Jude, Russell Couch, Ashley Moran, Therese Tran, John Gibbins, Damien Hofmeyer, Amanda Bryant, Jeffery Betteridge, Simone Barker, Rod Mason, Fay Johnstone, Allen Madden, Thomas Miller, Ron Gordon, Gary Pappin, Mary Pappin, Bruce Cohen, Harry Mumbulla, Steve Ryan and Michael Westaway.

Workshop 2

Presentation• The Previous Possessions and New

Obligations (PPNO) policy document for museums provides direction for management of repatriation. This policy has recently been updated to Continuous Cultures, Ongoing Responsibilities and is available on the Museums Australia webpage (www.museumsaustralia.org.au).

• Verifying the provenance of an object, that is the location of where something has come from (e.g. Torres Strait trophy skulls) is important and needs to be supported by evidence.

DECC

��

• ‘Keeping Culture’ is a resource to help properly set up museums and look after material.

• The Australian Museum, the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne and the South Australian Museum all hold material from Willandra Lakes.

• Willandra elders are passionate about repatriation but don’t want material to be returned to them until they are able to look after it properly.

• Amateur collections and local museums also hold huge amounts of material.

• The Three Traditional Tribal Groups (3TTGs) have identified that they don’t want contemporary researchers removing material to universities.

• There have been problems in the past with scientists doing work and not communicating with the community.

• The fossil footprints study is an example of a new approach with the 3TTGs sharing and managing information, providing secure ownership of material and the stories emanating from the material.

• Bark burials from Carnarvon were stolen from caves and traded worldwide, with some remaining in the Queensland Museum. There were diverse views within the community regarding repatriation and burials. Eventually, they worked out that bark burials could be returned and caves sealed, however some couldn’t be repatriated to caves that were publicly accessible. These are now held in a keeping place.

• Communities are more interested now than they have been in the past in working with museums and park services on repatriation.

Group discussion

• In some circumstances conservation reserves may be perfect for receiving returns.

• Communities can choose for museums to continue to hold material until they are skilled in dealing with repatriation and have an appropriate keeping place.

• Communities need to develop relationships with curatorial staff from museums.

• There is uncertainty as to which community sector should be responsible for dealing with repatriation. LALCs don’t want to deal with it and are often not the appropriate agency. The group view is that responsibility should rest with traditional owners.

• There are scientific methods available to investigate issues of determining the original location of remains, for example isotope analysis.

Issues

• Issues arise in repatriation from the complex bureaucratic processes.

• There is limited community capacity to repatriate material.

• Ongoing management and sustainability of repatriation needs careful consideration.

• There are many issues needing consideration, for example the question of where to put material that belongs to people from communities located in other Country due to cultural practices such as punishment killings.

• Staff can be affected by handling material that they shouldn’t touch.

• There can be conflicts in groups due to gender issues and different levels of knowledge.

As staff from the DEC Cultural Heritage Division (CHD) who are involved with the repatriation process were unable to attend the workshops, they provided some comments about the repatriation process after the meeting. Their comments were:

Repatriation of remains to sites within national parks is a very complex and difficult process that must be coordinated through CHD. For repatriation to be possible provenance must be established. DEC has a process for working with museums to ensure that provenance is established. The repatriation coordinator, Adrienne Howe-Piening, handles all repatriation matters within CHD and should be contacted if staff or communities are


��

approached directly by museums. The main role of the Repatriation Program within CHD is maintaining a consistent approach across DEC to the way that repatriation services are delivered to communities. The Program advocates an approach which has been developed over a period of more than � years and continues to evolve as DEC experience in the area grows. Its aim is to expedite repatriation processes.

Recommendations to DEC

• Returns are local matters: decisions should rest with the traditional owners.

• DEC needs to identify how it can assist and support repatriation and ongoing management.

• Information on how communities can deal with repatriation needs to be provided.

Indigenous land management techniques workshopRod Mason, Presenter, Aboriginal Education Officer, Snowy Mountains Dave Darlington, student, Regional Manager, Snowy Mountains

Presentation

• Dave Darlington’s cultural awareness education by Rod Mason started with travels around Australia and introductions to a number of communities.

• Dave then realised the cultural heritage training he had done in the 1980s was very limited and culturally inappropriate.

• Rod explained that Dave’s journey was through the kinship system, which helped him to learn who he is and where he is from.

• Storylines go right across Country and ancestors travelled from and along rivers leaving ‘rubbish’, for example stone chips.

Workshop 2

• It’s important to teach land managers kinship stories.

• Culture or kinship is like a big ‘spider web’.

• Culture comes from natural resources.

• Site descriptions are not just about stones and bones but also encompass medicinal plants, food, shelter etc.

• The Indigenous Land Management Techniques Workshops journey started at South Tuross Head (Brunderee) coastal camp sites with lessons on plant resources and bush tucker.

• The next lesson was in the open forests of Eurobodalla National Park with information on bush tucker including berries, pademelons and story, song and dance associated with these resources. Medicinal plants were also covered.

• Moving inland, the lessons focused on the riverine resources, emphasising the need for a change in cultural attitude as the vegetation changed. Food changed to turtles, eel and different fish. Plant resources also changed.

• Continuous use and association is evidenced by an old hut which Rod’s dad built and which helps to tell stories today about life in times past. A family of thirteen lived in the hut and farmed and ran cattle. These activities are still occurring today.

• As the lessons moved up river the landscape and vegetation changed. As the landscape changed, so did the use and purpose of resources and the management of those resources.

DECC

��

Group discussion

• The type of detail in Rod’s presentation, would be excellent for providing evidence for native title claims. Native Title Services, the Department of Lands and the Crown Solicitors Office should be taken out on Country by knowledge holders and traditional owners. Judges also now want more evidence delivered by traditional owners rather than by ‘specialists’.

• One difficulty with transfer of cultural knowledge is that managers are always trying to filter cultural knowledge through government administrative structures.

• Traditional owners need to properly utilise specialists.

• The use of ‘black middle men’ historically was very dangerous and was considered a betrayal by Aboriginal communities.

Issues

• It is difficult to get the expertise of knowledge holders recognised. There is a need for recognised prior learning for Aboriginal knowledge.

• Is cultural knowledge being used for management?

• What is the quality of cultural knowledge being used for management?

• What is DEC’s role as managers in acquiring cultural knowledge?

• Can DEC use knowledge? How can DEC managers responsibly use knowledge? Should there be guidance on how they use their cultural knowledge?

• ‘Middle men’ may prevent the passing on of knowledge.

• There is a risk associated with removing specialist ‘middle men’ such as anthropologists and archaeologists due to quality control issues.

• Identification of traditional owners is difficult at times due to the numerous groups on Country. Knowledge must come from the people of the Country.

• What do we do when there are no traditional owners left from that Country or if none are known? The group view is that resident caretakers with historical attachment can act as intermediaries until such time as traditional owners are found or returned to their Country.

• Young people are not interested in receiving knowledge.

• Bureaucrats are using specialists to create ‘distance’ and avoid confronting Aboriginal issues directly. How do we deal with ‘white’ fear?

• Mutual fear needs to be confronted.

• Stories were told on how to use fire to manage resources in Wadbilliga.

• Spear and rope-making workshops were held in Wadbilliga.

• The Monaro waterholes were discussed.

• Moving into the mountains, resources and their use changed again. The higher the group went the more spiritual the area became and more singing was performed.

• To go into Country you need to have the right attitude towards food, fibre, shelter, song, ceremony, dance and language.


DECC

��

Recommendations for DEC

• For cultural training to be appropriate, DEC needs to talk to community members and go out to Country with them to develop an understanding of their particular relationship with the land.

• More funding is needed for repatriation.

• Communities need clarification about funding processes and responsibilities. They need support for and co-ordination of cultural heritage and repatriation projects.

Mapping country—a landscape approach to cultural heritage and biodiversitySimone Barker, Bandjalang people Damien Hofmeyer, Ranger, Northern Rivers Region Ashley Moran, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer, Northern Aboriginal Heritage Section

Workshop 2

Presentation

• Suggested practice is for DEC staff to request the permission of traditional owners to manage Country.

• DEC needs to understand the cultural value of natural resources.

• DEC needs to develop an attitude of respect towards the knowledge holders (‘the mob’), as the land is their property.

• Staff must develop an honest and open relationship with the community to cooperatively manage land.

• Mapping projects demonstrate that culture and nature are inseparable.

• Maps don’t divulge knowledge but portray places, features and resources of importance.

• Much new information has been gained, some of which highlighted gender issues.

• The group found that legislative protection is limited for many areas. This resulted in nominations for new Aboriginal places and Aboriginal Areas.

• Aboriginal names for places were provided.

• Continuing ‘yarning’ is very important for effective cooperative management.

• DEC needs to focus on getting Aboriginal people working on Country.

Group discussion

• Successful management of Country can only occur by bringing people together (connecting people).

• The term ‘managers’ has negative connotations for many Aboriginal people as it recalls mission days.

�0

Issues

• How can DEC foster long-term connections with communities?

• The current Aboriginal identification process for filling vacant DEC positions is problematic in that it doesn’t target people with the right connections to Country.

• Communities need to be able to access information about their site.

• Trust is an important issue. Community trust needs to go beyond individual DEC staff and extend to a sense of trust in the Department as a whole.

Recommendations

• AHIMS (Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System) needs to be developed to hold landscape level information.

• AHIMS needs to be two-way.

• The different divisions of DEC need to be clearer about their different responsibilities, communicate clearly and work closely together.

• Proper payment needs to be provided for training by knowledge holders and traditional owners.


�1

Workshop 3

Employment and training

Facilitators

Carolyn McGregor, Learning and Development, DEC

Fatima Abbas, Workforce Planning Section, DEC

Presentation

DEC Cultural Awareness ProgramCarolyn McGrefor, Learning and Development, DEC

DEC Aboriginal Employment and Developmant Strategy Fatima Abbas, Workforce Planning Section, DEC

Arakwal National Park employment and training and business developmentMark Johnston, Regional Manager, Northern Rivers Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Participants

Shirley Goodwin, Gloria Williams, Mark Johnston, Mike Patrick, Steve Horsley, Rhonda Ward, Gary Currey, Graeme Towney, Anthony Wilson, Francine Edwards, Anthony Andersen, Lennie Andersen and Jo Gorman.

DEC cultural awareness programCarolyn McGregor, Learning and Development, DEC

Presentation

Carolyn started working for DEC less than twelve months ago. She realised there was a need to talk to Aboriginal staff and Aboriginal communities to work out the way forward for cooperation and cultural awareness. The first step was to invite tenders for a needs analysis. This was undertaken by Swinburne University. Focus groups were held which included representatives from communities and staff. The report provided was more than 200 pages long and covered a wide range of issues for moving beyond training to a cultural awareness program.

Recommendations and key points have been put to the DEC Executive and include:

• Development of a program to address Aboriginal cultural awareness with twenty protocols to be included in the program.

• DEC needs to ensure Aboriginal people co-facilitate or facilitate the program.

• There is a need for a specialist program in the identification of sites.

• Aboriginal staff feel culturally isolated. DEC needs to look for ways to support them.

• Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff hold a great deal of knowledge.

• There is concern regarding the diminishing number of knowledge holders.

• DEC should investigate options for putting together packages to help communities.

• There are concerns about non-Aboriginal staff signing consents to destroy.

• There is confusion regarding the role and responsibilities of DEC compared with those of other departments.

Workshop 3

��

• Within the framework of Two Ways Together a learning and development project team could be formed including Carolyn, an Aboriginal person and a mix of staff from other Divisions. Their role would be to implement core training and specialist training modules.

Group discussion and issues

• It is impossible to generalise Aboriginal heritage. Three Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Officers for each Region is nowhere near enough.

• Staff bring different types of skills and experiences to the job. For example, the skills of elders and people in the field are different from those with a degree.

• It is important to train local people rather than train others to come and tell local people what to do.

• Training for cultural awareness should not be conducted by non-Aboriginal people. The intention is to use local Aboriginal people to help deliver training.

• Local people must be recognised and must be involved in training—local knowledge cannot be beaten.

DEC Aboriginal employment and development strategyFatima Abbas, Workforce Planning Section, DEC

Presentation

DEC currently has an Aboriginal Trainee Field Officer program, which has been running for a number of years. Those who complete the program receive a Certificate II in Conservation and Land Management from TAFE. The program runs for twelve months, including the TAFE component. The majority of graduates have moved into permanent employment. Six people were employed as Aboriginal Field Trainee Officers this year.

There are moves to expand the employment strategy so that it covers more than entry level Field Officer positions. There are plans to develop a Cadet Ranger program but positions have been difficult to fill. Before they can be filled DEC needs three to four years to develop the program and an association with the local community. There has been mixed success with this program but the financial support is there and cadets are permanently employed at the successful completion of the cadetship.

A new program being developed is the Discovery and Interpretation Program. Participants are awarded a Certificate II in Land Management. This year there were two positions available in Southern Branch as a pilot program. We were able to fill one of the two positions.

Areas of focus identified by staff, communities and the Swinburne report are:

• Employment programs need to be across DEC (not just Parks and Wildlife Division).

• The lack of support for remote positions is a problem.

• The Parks and Wildlife Division Executive determines priorities for allocation of cadetships and traineeships and considers existing co-management commitments as part of these deliberations.

• DEC must be able to provide permanent appointment upon completion of training.

• A focus of the traineeship program is to ensure the program is competitive in the job market.

• Progression opportunities must be provided for staff.

• There are many different interpretations by Aboriginal representatives as to the meaning of having a cultural association with communities—some are very strict and some are very relaxed.


��


• It might be useful to give talks to year 11 and 12 school students about employment opportunities with DEC.

• Scholarships have been used at a school in Lennie’s area to encourage development of skills.

• There are a variety of ways forward. People need to be engaged at a young age.

• DEC and Department of Education and Training partnerships should be utilised and TAFE options should be considered.

• DEC can learn from existing programs, for example Pat Hall’s program at schools in Nowra (experiential learning).

• DEC must take the education to children and change frameworks to fit what works for the communities. For example, some might not want to leave their community. This may be an issue for geographically isolated areas where going to TAFE isn’t possible.

• Investigate the Hunter program—Discovery training for the Aboriginal community.

• DEC must link with other groups because the Department can only provide a finite and limited number of opportunities for employment and training.

• People work for twelve months in DEC then end up back in their community without a job. This can be very detrimental.

• DEC is not currently working well with other land management agencies. They could look at working more closely with the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Lands etc. (e.g. rotational training). However, a central agency must coordinate any joint initiatives. It is also important to remember that when it comes to bush jobs, DEC is the key agency.

• Engagement with private industry could be considered, e.g. requiring contractors to undertake Aboriginal training components in work they undertake.

• DEC should find out more about the Inuit in Canada, there might be some useful lessons from the Canadian experience.

• Regional education centres or mobile education centres should be considered.

• It is important to note that employment issues across the state public sector are being addressed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Arakwal National Park employment and training and business developmentMark Johnston, Regional Manager, Northern Rivers Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Presentation

Mark discussed issues surrounding jobs, training and business in Arakwal National Park.

In negotiating the co-management arrangement it was important to have a vision and this was revisited to ensure negotiations were on track. Negotiations considered many issues but jobs, training and business opportunities were an important one.

When negotiating it was important to negotiate the number of jobs, the type of jobs and to identify the organisations that could supply jobs eg DEC, Marine Parks Authority but also others eg Local Council. Once negotiated, the group built relationships with

Workshop 3

DECC

��

organisations, and identified opportunities to develop skills and career development opportunities.

Some principles used in developing job opportunities at Arakwal were:

• should have connections by cultural knowledge

• applicants should be selected on merit

• should include a representative of Arakwal people on selection committees.

The real work started when people began their employment with DEC. Literacy and numeracy skills needed to be addressed. The local TAFE developed a course on how to deal with DEC forms. It was important to ensure that a person’s gender was appropriate for the work required.

There are two types of training: on the job training and external training. The Arakwal people chose to use one of the positions for capacity building in the lead-up to

opening a cultural centre. This position allows community members to be employed for set periods of time to learn and develop skills that are applicable in workplaces other than just DEC. It was important to think about what future opportunities and businesses the Arakwal people wanted to develop and to use this to develop the training opportunities – both what areas people wanted training in (for example administration, operations, business) and the qualifications needed (eg drivers licence, boat licence).

The Arakwal people looked at business opportunities during the negotiations. This included looking at options like: taking up the licence of existing businesses when they expire or negotiating the right of first offer for new contracts. The Arakwal Corporation developed a business plan. When they developed their business plan Arakwal realised that they needed to update their corporate structure. Another outcome was to set up complementary service provision between DEC and Arakwal.

Overall group discussion and issues

Employment• There must be equity in community involvement across the state.

• Training finishes after two years and graduates should be given a job.

• Early education could be considered by DEC. It would be good to involve children.

• Target the specific community with a cultural association with the lands for recruitment and employment opportunities.

• There needs to be a simpler process than that offered by the current system and there should be simpler terminology in position descriptions and job advertisements.

• Medical tests are a problem (particularly for field staff) where fitness requirements exist for permanent positions. However, it is recognised that DEC has a minimum standard which must be met to ensure the safety of staff.

• Do we really need all Field Officers to have fire-fighting abilities?

• Can the training program be expanded to include DEC strands other than Rangers or Field Officers—for example GIS positions, a Cultural Heritage Division trainee program and administration and business training?

• DEC should visit communities to find out what skills they have and therefore target the trainee strands more appropriately.


DECC

��

• The selection process could be much simpler.

• Position entry requirements need to be more realistic about what people actually need to bring to the position when a lot of the training will occur on the job.

• DEC should develop a better connection with Community Development Employment Projects.

• Linkages with other departments need to be improved (for example Tourism NSW).

• Work experience programs could be developed.

• The limited capacity of DEC to take cultural knowledge into account in selection criteria is an issue.

• Induction of all staff into the area needs to include a discussion on co-management.

• There is already a Discovery ranger program in the Hunter with the Environmental Trust, but this has not been consolidated across the state.

• Support is needed for non-Aboriginal staff engaging with Aboriginal communities.

• DEC could consider how Aboriginal employment could be addressed in negotiations over purchases of private land.

• Mentoring is an important issue. Regardless of where communities and staff members are located, they can be very isolated. Staff members need support.

Cultural association with local communities• Opinions vary on the selection criteria of ‘cultural association with local communities’. Some believe it is

sufficient that applicants have knowledge of the area. Some think they must be from the area.

• If cultural association is left up to the Aboriginal representative on the selection panel and the representative takes a liberal approach, then it is possible that people can accidentally be excluded from the selection process if we’ve asked for a local connection in the advertisement and people thought they were not eligible to apply.

• The Aboriginal community representative on the selection panel should be trained in interview and selection skills.

Recruitment• DEC needs to go to schools at least once a year to encourage students to consider employment with DEC.

• It would be useful to develop a program to target appropriate Aboriginal staff for promotion and higher level positions. This should be done in consultation with other conservation programs in other departments.

• Equity of Aboriginal representation across the state remains an issue within DEC.

• Development of a shadowing program may assist skill development.

• DEC needs to be clearer in advertisements. Terminology must be clear and the skills expected of the successful applicant must be explicit.

• Managers need to be more creative in thinking of ways to fill a position.

• At a regional level, DEC should map out opportunities for the agency to engage Aboriginal people in direct employment and in contract work.

• DEC must talk to the communities and discuss what communities need.Recommendations

1. Recruitment• Target specific communities in the selection process, particularly where multiple community groups exist

• Simplify wording for selection criteria

• Factor cultural knowledge into recruitment and selection process

• Make selection process less intimidating – review size of panels; consider processes other than interviews

• Training provided to selection panel is important, particularly for independent people who are on the panels

• Review Managers awareness of Aboriginal recruitment issues and processes

Workshop 3

��


2. Engaging with the community• Map out opportunities with the communities before creating/recruiting positions• Provide capacity building prior to employment with the Department• Link with schools and events such as volunteer days• Provide information about what the Department does and what positions do so that community members

can effectively apply for roles• Consider equity in allocating positions – consider where communities are located not just where DEC offices

are located• Consider other employment opportunities eg with private organisations contracted by DEC; other

organisations etc (DEC only has limited amount of employment and training opportunities)

3. Development of DEC capacity to meet Aboriginal community expectations• Provide mentoring to support communities and assist DEC with how to engage with communities

• Shadowing – new Aboriginal staff working with existing staff mentor – observing and hands on learning

• Succession planning – existing and new Aboriginal staff

• Induction processes to include co-management – involving staff very early on in the need to engage with elders – introducing people to elders and partnership and co-management arrangements in their Region

• Work experience – eg high schools, raise people’s interest and understanding about what DEC does and giving children exposure to think about future careers

• Provide non-Aboriginal staff with experience in relationship building

• Provide development assistance for discovery rangers programs – getting community on country and educating wider community

4. DEC structural issues• Grading of positions – provide progression opportunities through skills development for people coming in at

entry level

• Provide vocational traineeships in addition to Field Officers and Rangers, eg IT, legal, GIS. Engage with community about these traineeships.

• Beware of workloads on Aboriginal employees in areas with few other Aboriginal staff members – expectations to deliver on Aboriginal issues as well as Aboriginal community expectations

• Assist Aboriginal communities to get experience needed for positions such as field officers – eg fire training etc.

• Look at other organisations that can deliver on land management and land management skills (DEC is not the only one)

• Reality checking – DEC is limited in what employment and contractual opportunities it can deliver – be honest with communities

• DEC staffing strategies – look at progression within DEC.

• Look at equity between regions

DECC

��


Workshop 4

Support for boards and committees

Facilitator

Kim O’Donnell, Chair, Mutawintji Board of Management

Presentations

Mutawintji Board of Management—corporate governance trainingKim O’Donnell, Chair, Mutawintji Board of ManagementArakwal National Park— Programs to support committee members and community membersSue Walker, Area Manager, Byron Coast Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DECMt Grenfell Board of Management —corporate governance trainingSteve Wolter, Regional Manager, Upper Darling Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC and Kiersten Griffiths, Project Officer and Ranger, Cobar Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Participants

Kiersten Griffiths, Iris White, Sue Walker, Jo Erskine, Steve Wolter, Fay Johnstone, Kim O’Donnell, William Riley, Tom Bagnat, Brad Welsh, Lenore Fraser, Adam Faulkner, Diane Torrens, Tim Shepherd, Maxine Naden, Peter Kelly, David Dutaillis, Shaun Stephens and Joshua Gilroy.

Kim O’Donnell

Mutawintji Board of Management Corporate Governance TrainingKim O’Donnell, Chair, Mutawintji Board of Management

Presentation

Kim opened the workshop by introducing herself and her uncle, William Riley. She spoke about her connection to Mutawintji through the Quayle family on her mother’s side. Mutawintji consists of the National Park, Nature Reserve and Historic Site.

Kim’s presentation was a part of her final assessment for her Masters degree in Primary Health Care from Flinders University, South Australia, where she works as a Research Associate. The presentation showed pictures of Mutawintji—‘our Country’. Kim is coming back to where she started. She has been away from Country too long. Kim has worked hard

Workshop 3

��


to obtain ‘that bit of paper’ (academic qualifications) but now needs to learn from her elders and others who have worked hard towards making the joint management process a success at Mutawintji National Park.

Mutawintji National Park was the first park in NSW to be handed back to its traditional owners to jointly manage with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Handback occurred in 1998.

Some key points about the Mutawintji joint management model are:

• The Board consists of thirteen members, eight being traditional owners from the Quayle, Dutton, Tyler-Barlow and Gibson families. The Board also has representatives from the Mutawintji Local Aboriginal Land Council, the local shire council, neighbouring pastoralists and DEC (including the Director Western Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division).

• Members of the Board travel from Wilcannia, Broken Hill, Dubbo, Canberra and Adelaide to management meetings four to six times a year. Meetings are held on park so everyone can get a ‘feel for Country’ and learn from each other. Bringing the children back to Mutawintji and making them feel welcome is an important part of the management process. Playground equipment has been purchased from the Community Development Fund to ensure they have somewhere safe to play during Board meetings.

• The Area Manager, Brett Norman, and the former Director of Western Branch, Terry Korn, have been very supportive of the Board and of joint management and attend all meetings.

• The Board is currently working on the plan of management for the park and has organised a subcommittee to work through outstanding issues. Their recommendations will be brought to the next Board meeting. The Board has also worked through changes to the lease agreement.

• A Joint Management Coordinator position was recently advertised. The successful applicant will work closely with the Board to ensure effective management of the park, in particular developing sustainable employment opportunities for more Aboriginal people on park.

Governance training began this year with Burdon Torzillo who are based in Alice Springs. They are a well-respected business, with over 30 years’ experience working with Aboriginal people. The governance training was organised to coincide with Mt Grenfell’s training. Rob Burdon and staff have facilitated five workshops on governance and what it means to the Board in relation to effective management of the park.

Elders are becoming more involved at Mutawintji and the governance training workshops are helping members and their families to understand the process involved in joint management. Since the training, relationships between the Board members have become stronger as people understand more and more of where the Board sits within the big picture. William Riley said that it would have been good to have the governance training when the land was handed back in 1998 to avoid many issues that the Board has had to deal with since handback. The Board is making up for lost time now!

There are still some issues for the Board to overcome. Regular communication strategies need to be developed and the Board needs a practical travel funding structure to assist Wiimpatja people to travel back to Mutawintji for meetings. The Joint Management Coordinator Position will assist the Board to develop these programs.

Governance training has helped those involved in joint management at Mutawintji to stay focused on the big picture and to develop a vision of how they want to see Mutawintji in ten years time. It has encouraged Board members to feel comfortable in discussing issues openly.

Governance training has also helped Kim to understand her role as the Chair of the Board:

‘The Chair is not a token role, you have to work and be responsible for decisions that you make. It is important for the Chair of the Board to listen to everyone and make sure members understand the issues being discussed. It’s also important to stop for breaks when discussions get heated to give people time to calm down, to talk in small groups and to grab a cuppa for the next round of discussions!’ Kim O’Donnell


��

Aboriginal Co-management Meeting 2006 — ProceedingsWorkshop 4

William Riley said that it was interesting to see how things are going with Mungo National Park. He has learnt from Mungo that there is money around that Mutawintji can apply for. Kim said the Board plans to invite more people involved in land management to attend Board meetings to give presentations about their work and discuss ways of working together to access funding opportunities. For example, two local project officers from the Western Catchment Management Authority were invited to a Board meeting in March 2006 to present their work and inform the Board of various funding and training opportunities. Maureen O’Donnell and William Riley are following up these opportunities so they can build their skills and share their life experiences and knowledge with others.

Arakwal National Park Programs to support committee members and community members Sue Walker, Area Manager, Byron Coast Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Byron Coast Area is a new area that was established as a result of the Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) with the Arakwal people. Sue said it was an honour to have a job working for the Arakwal people.

The first agreement with the Arakwal people was the 1996 Cape Byron Agreement with the Cape Byron State Conservation Area Trust. Yvonne Stewart was the one Arakwal representative on the ten-person trust. The Arakwal ILUA was developed through the Cape Byron Community Consultative Committee and was signed in 2001. The ILUA establishes the Arakwal National Park Management Committee, which has representatives from the Arakwal people, NPWS and the local council. The Management Committee oversees management of the park.

Before the ILUA was signed, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and the Arakwal people met and held practice meetings of the Management Committee. Those practice meetings involved electing a Chairperson, a Deputy Chair and a Secretary. They involved developing agendas beforehand and taking minutes. They practised meetings for about one year before the ILUA commenced operation, so that when it started, the Committee was ready to make decisions.

The Committee found the Audit Office’s On Board publication very useful. Informed by this document, the Management Committee set up rules that addressed: • purpose of Boards• strategic direction• statutory requirements• chairperson and leadership• liaising with stakeholders• nominating a NPWS manager to provide leadership and give policy advice

One of the most important things for the Committee was to develop communication between committee members. For NPWS this required doing things that were not ‘normal’ NPWS activities:

• Acknowledgment and welcome to Country procedures were new for NPWS. People who want to use the lighthouse for publicity or public events have to meet with the elders first and if the elders agree to the proposed

DECC

�0


use, elders must be acknowledged. For example, the Minister would have to meet with Arakwal elders before he could make announcements about the land or issue media releases.

• On the way up to the lighthouse, there are a number of power poles owned by the local council and Country Energy, which the Arakwal have painted. NPWS facilitated discussions between the council and Arakwal people.

• Arakwal people own land next to the national park that was contaminated by a council rubbish tip. They could not do anything with the land due to a contamination order. NPWS and Arakwal worked together to undertake an investigation and develop contamination reports so that the land could be remediated. It is now available for use.


• Arakwal also own other land that is the birthplace of the elders. They want to build houses on this land. NPWS worked with Arakwal people rehabilitating the land using Environmental Trust funds.

• The Arakwal people hold regular ‘Back to Country’ days on the park.

• NPWS representatives attend Arakwal events that are not necessarily about the park, for example NAIDOC day and Survival Day events.

• NPWS recognise the need to support Arakwal in the wider community.

Knowledge and understanding of the land and of park management are also important to support Committee and community members. Initiatives in this area include:

• Before the Management Committee prepared the plan of management, they put together a weed and pest management plan. NPWS and the Management Committee went out on park and talked about weeds and pests about once every month. Because of this preparation, when the weed and pest management plans were presented to the Board meetings everyone knew what the issues were.

• Fire management plans were developed in the same way. NPWS met with the elders and the neighbours on Country.

• Culturally valued plants in the park were mapped. Tim Low, a scientist, was contracted to do this. He went out onto Country with the elders and talked about the plants. He prepared confidential documents that are only used by the Management Committee. A public document entitled ‘A Place of Plenty’ was also prepared to inform the wider community about important plants on the park.

• All documents published about the park have quotes from the elders.

• Younger people are involved in park management and there are educational programs for students. Flora and fauna surveys on the park are inclusive of younger people.

• The elders are concerned about low numbers of animals on the park and have put a moratorium on taking animals from the park.

• The plan of management is not in the standard NPWS style. Instead, the language of the Arakwal people is used. For example, the chapters in the plan are called: ‘Cultural Landscape’, ‘Legal Rules’, ‘The importance of Country’, ‘Looking after Country’, ‘Using Country’ and ‘Knowing about Country’. The plan details the Arakwal vision for Country and each section has quotes from the elders.

Arakwal are now negotiating the Arakwal Stage 2 ILUA. This will cover the whole of the Arakwal native title claim area and all the parks in that area. The number of Arakwal people and the local council representative on the Committee will stay the same, but there will only be one DEC representative and there will be new representatives from the general community. They are now beginning the process of holding practice meetings with the new

DECC

�1


Committee. Within current Management Committee meetings, after the formal agenda for each meeting is concluded, the Committee discuss parks in the Stage 2 area.

The last six months have involved many indoor meetings. Now the Committee is trying to get back out on Country again.

Minutes of Committee meetings are public documents. Any member of the public can meet with the Management Committee provided they give two weeks notice.

75% of the staff of the Byron Coast Area are Aboriginal. Involving them more in the Management Committee meetings is the next step for the Committee.

Mt Grenfell Board of Management governance trainingSteve Wolter, Regional Manager, Upper Darling Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC and Kiersten Griffiths, Project Officer and Ranger, Cobar Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Mt Grenfell Historic Site is near Cobar and is a small park that was created in recognition of the cultural significance of the rock art in the park. Some of the key points in relation to the handback are:

• Negotiation of the lease commenced in 2002. Mt Grenfell Historic Site was handed back to the Aboriginal owners in July 2004.

• The lease involved the appointment of two new Aboriginal staff—a Ngiyampaa Field Officer and Ngiyampaa Cadet Ranger. The Mt Grenfell Board of Management has a logo for the park which was designed by Norm Ohlsen.

• There was funding for the management of the park that was negotiated as part of the lease negotiations. Projects that have been undertaken are: flora and fauna surveys, a cultural survey, a landform survey, an ethnobotanical project, art monitoring, art site protection and the development of a visitor area management plan, development of an interpretation design plan,

training and erosion monitoring. All projects have involved paid Ngiyampaa people. Work with TAFE has also occurred, for example on fencing training.

• DEC have gathering days with the Aboriginal owners on the park. Issues discussed include, for example, the interpretation plan for the park.

After the handback, it took a further eight months for the Board of management to be appointed. During this period before the Board was formally appointed, interim meetings were held.

Why did we decide to have governance training? During the first meetings of the Board there were a number of issues related to insurance and sitting fees. The Board of Management didn’t understand their roles or the lease. The Board agreed that they needed to postpone discussions and undertake training.

DEC contracted the independent consultants Burdon Torzillo to deliver training. Strictly speaking the process was not simply training but involved the Board developing a way to work together and developing a tool kit for the Board to use to run its meetings and to carry out its business. This tool kit also serves as a training kit that can be used to train new Board members.

DECC

��


Burdon Torzillo acted as facilitators for the Board members to develop these tools. The tools are very visual and outline agreed approaches and rules in visual and graphical ways. The governance kit is being developed over six workshops.

The aim is that at the end of the process people on the Board can train any new Board members using the tools that have been developed. At the end of the current Board’s term, the current Board can use these tools to train the new Board.

Kiersten and Steve then ran through the tool kit.

The first parts of the toolkit are about what is good governance:• The Board developed a shared vision for the lands.

• The Board then discussed the guiding principles—these are the principles to make sure that the Board is working to achieve the vision. The principles keep the Board on track in working towards their vision. This is represented visually as the guiding principles being on the side of the road that leads to the vision.

• The Board then developed what the characteristics of good governance are, for example: serving people’s needs, participation, rule of law, transparency, consensus decision-making, equity, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, strategic vision. In doing this they used the Audit Office’s On Board publication that Sue Walker talked about.

The next part of the tool kit is about people, land, culture and history: • The first graphic is about the relationships between the Board, the Minister, DEC, the Aboriginal owners, the Land

Council and other interest groups. There was a lot of discussion about this part of the kit to develop consensus.

• This part of the kit shows where the Board members come from in NSW and where people with a connection to Mt Grenfell live.

• A very important graphic in this part of the kit is the Ngiyampaa dreaming line which connects important sites and places through the stone country of Central Western NSW. It shows how Mt Grenfell is connected to other important places. The dreaming line shows the influence of the different sites and also shows which of these are in government protection. This part of the kit was developed very early in the workshops. Kim O’Donnell noted that this graphic was also very important in the Mutawintji governance training.

• The important places are also represented on a map, as are scientific areas such as bioregions.

• The last part of this section of the kit shows the timeline, showing significant events starting with the dreamtime and going up to the lease renewal in 2034.

The next part of the kit deals with the corporate structure: • This part can be adapted for other Part 4A Boards of Management because the structure is the same.

• This shows who is responsible for what and the line between governance, management and implementation of decisions.

• This shows the separation between policy making (the role of the Board) and day-to-day management (carried out by DEC and contractors).

The kit also deals with accountability and empowerment, legislation, roles and responsibilities, financial management and compliance. Fay Johnstone added that she found the financial management part very useful and that it presented information in a way that could be understood by all Board members.

Overall group discussion and issues

Questions

Were there any issues within DEC with the Arakwal Plan of Management?

While the plan of management used different headings and language, the structure is the same as other plans and the same issues are covered. The state National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council did have some concerns but they came and met with the Arakwal Management Committee to gain a better understanding of the proposed Plan.


��


Other than the Management Committee, did other park staff do the governance training?

At Mutawintji, the Area Manager attended all the governance training and other staff attended parts of it. At Mt Grenfell, the Area Manager, project manager and the Mt Grenfell Field Officer have been involved in the governance training and also sit in on all Board meetings. Sue Walker explained that Arakwal staff members are not involved in Management Committee meetings. She noted that it would be good to have a poster for external people and staff to educate them about the co-management process and the role of the Management Committee.

Would people recommend doing governance training before the Board of Management is appointed?

Undertaking some governance training before the first Board meeting would be useful to prepare the members. However, the negotiators may be different people to the people on the Board or Committee, so the process of governance training would need to be managed carefully. Governance training should be about team building for the Board—so it would be useful to run some training for potential Board members but not full governance training. In any case, it is necessary to start talking about these issues as early as possible during co-management negotiations. It would be useful to discuss key issues early on, for example the role of the Board and what is expected of Board members. It would be good if Board members could be identified and appointed earlier than they have been in the cases presented.

Strengths of governance training• Empowers the Board.• Puts everyone on an equal standing.• People have the same direction.• Provides team building.• Simplifies policies, legislation.• Educates people in systems of governance, decision-making, bureacratic processes.• Establishes boundaries and improves understanding of roles and responsibilities.• If delivered by an outside organisation, changes the power balance within the Board.• Keeps people on track with guiding principles and vision.• Provides an easily understood summary with large diagrams.• Emphasises the importance of transparency in budget allocations.• Helps people deal with stress.• Supports self-determination.• Allows stronger family involvement.• Acknowledges culture.• Needs to be flexible.• Shares knowledge and skills between community and government organisations.• Promotes learning from each other.• Builds stronger relationships and respect.• Provides a mechanism to put Aboriginal people on an even field.

Issues with governance and support for Boards and Committees• Governance training can be expensive and it may not always be possible to have an outside organisation run

the training.

• Payments, travel and logistics of getting people together are the biggest issues. The current system is not based on community needs or staff needs.

• There is a need for better support for Committee members to enable them to attend meetings, for example childcare, provision of health foods, breaks etc.

• Regular community meetings on Country should be held in addition to Board meetings. Community meetings with Board members are very important if Board members are to effectively represent their communities.

• There is a need for coordination between DEC, the Board and the community. Are DEC staff employed to undertake this role?

��


• The relationship between Aboriginal community members and park managers needs to extend beyond park management. It would be good to have community days for staff and the community (social activities outside of issues or particular projects).

• Park management is all about relationships and staff members need to know who the mob is.

• There is a need to incorporate time for building relationships and obtaining funding for projects.

‘If you want elders to be there they have busy lives and really need to have extra time and funding to get them together.’

The group discussed that the term ‘capacity building’ is usually applied to Aboriginal communities but staff need to build capacity too. It would be better to talk about sharing knowledge and skills.

The group discussed the fact that staff members need to be brought on board—some staff might not understand how co-management works or understand their relationship with the Board (that they are implementing decisions of the Board).

‘Meeting on country is important because there is no separation between staff and community—we are all together. For the government people you can’t bring your hierarchical role with you—have to see all people as equal and bringing different skills to the team.’ Kim O’Donnell

Parks Victoria has a program called Kick the Dirt where new parks staff have to go out in the park with indigenous rangers and Aboriginal community members for half a day. The community members show the staff around their Country.

The group discussed the need for DEC staff to act as coordinators between community and DEC and Boards of Management. For example, Mutawintji is advertising for a Joint Management Coordinator. Having someone employed as Joint Management Coordinator means the logistics are looked after and the Board can focus on business. Maxine Naden noted that in her job she has a community coordination role for a whole NPWS region. She provides support for other staff and assists them to build relationships with Aboriginal communities in the region. The group felt that, ideally, similar positions would exist for all regions.

Recommendations• Aboriginal people who have gone through governance training should assist other communities and groups.• DEC should take the time to meet with Aboriginal people on their Country.• DEC should develop a co-management governance framework based on the Burdon Torzillo governance

training package and the Audit Office’s On Board guide.• It would be useful to incorporate governance into guidelines to be developed by DEC for co-management

arrangements.• It would be good to begin governance training before and during negotiations using a governance training kit.• DEC could better outline the different

co-management options for interested communities.

• DEC needs to develop mechanisms for improved flow of information between key players.

• DEC could investigate and develop options for payment of transport costs for community members and improve the timing of payments, for example:

− payment on the spot (at the meeting) − pre-payment − coordination of transportation to get community members to attend meetings

− accounts set up at fuel stations.


��


Workshop 5

Wild resource use, culture camps and partnership projects: what do we need from statewide policies to assist in facilitating Aboriginal cultural practices on DEC reserves?

Facilitator

David Major, Major Perspectives (consultant to Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC)

Presentation

Culture camps—Mid North CoastPat Davis-Hurst, Saltwater people and Kevin Carter, Area Manager, Manning Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Culture camps—Far South CoastTrisha Ellis, Project Officer, Far South Coast Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Participants

Pat Davis-Hurst, Kevin Carter, Amos Donovan, Trisha Ellis, Dan Trindall, Sylvia Trindall, Brian Leahy, Mark Conlon, Jenny Robinson, Karen Lee, Roy Kennedy, Beryl Kennedy, Jean Charles, Tanja Charles, Warren Clark, Josie Byno, Vera Nixon, Michael Wright., Lisa Corbyn, Anthony Siever, Therese Tran, Preston Cope and Glenis Kelly

IntroductionThe workshop had 23 participants including the DEC Director General and other DEC staff from around the state, Aboriginal community representatives from coastal and inland areas and a representative from the NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

The workshop began with presentations from Kevin Carter and Aunty Pat Davis-Hurst from Taree, about their future plans for Saltwater National Park co-management and cultural use, and from Trisha Ellis from Far South Coast Region about the challenges involved with culture camps in reserves in her area. These presentations set the agenda for discussions on the who, what, when and where of cultural use of DEC reserves.

The participants then broke into two smaller groups to discuss the specific subjects of resource use and culture camps. The smaller groups spent about an hour discussing each issue before wrapping up as a whole group.

Each subject was guided by a set of questions and challenges:

What is ‘resource use’?

What are ‘culture camps’?

Why are they important?DECC

��


Deciding who

• Who is allowed?

• Who decides who is allowed?

• How do you apply or request to carry out practices?

• What requirements need to be met?

Managing use

• How do we ensure sustainability? (resources, Country, practices)

• How do we consider public health and safety?

• The challenge of cultural practices and high-use visitor areas

• Permit and fee issues

The outcomes of the two discussions and suggested recommendations were as follows.

Culture camps

Group discussionMany communities around the state are beginning or continuing to carry out ‘culture camp’ activities on DEC reserves. The camps are sometimes coordinated solely by Aboriginal communities and sometimes organised in partnership with government departments such as DEC, DOCS, Juvenile Justice and NSW Police. Camps are held in general public use areas as well as in specially designated areas exclusively available for Aboriginal culture camp uses.

One of the challenges of managing the culture camp aspirations of Aboriginal communities is deciding what should be considered as a culture camp as opposed to just people camping in a DEC reserve.


��


What is a cultural camp and why is it important?• Passing on knowledge and skills

• Teaching about plants and animals in Country

• Eating bush tucker

• Teaching cultural protocols and respect

• Sharing Aboriginal culture for the purposes of community education

• Connecting with Country and family

• Building cultural awareness

Participants felt there might be three different types of ‘culture camp’:

• Family camps—primarily social gatherings where Aboriginal people gather for the primary purpose of connecting with Country and family. Cultural learning occurs when generations mingle during social activities.

• Educational and cultural awareness camps—camps held primarily for the purpose of building cultural awareness and an understanding of Aboriginal connection with Country. These camps would be attended by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

• Camps for cultural practices—these camps are conducted specifically by Aboriginal elders and knowledge holders for the purposes of passing on knowledge, skills and the respect for cultural protocols to other Aboriginal people (often young people).

The groups felt that all of these types of camps should be considered culture camps and are important for the continuation of Aboriginal culture and for improving understanding of Aboriginal connection to Country within the whole community.

The groups then discussed the question of who should be allowed to hold culture camps. This question inspired much discussion with different points of view expressed depending on what Country people came from and the issues of ‘ownership’ they were facing. Group members from the far west of the state felt that it was relatively easy for them to identify traditional owners and their rights to carry out camps in their country. Coastal group members expressed the challenge of identifying owners and Country due to the massive dislocation of people and resulting conflict about who are the ‘right people’. Coastal issues were also impacted by development and urban pressures and public access issues in relatively small DEC reserves in their Country.

It seems from these discussions that the notions of Country and connection will need to be flexible enough to deal with regional differences. It was also apparent that the term ‘traditional owner’ was considered by Aboriginal community participants as being broader than the legal meaning of the term under Native Title.

After discussing the challenges of ‘who is allowed’ and ‘who should decide who is allowed’, the groups concluded that it would be useful to develop general principles to assist the process rather than prescriptive rules. This conclusion was reached following consideration of the difficulties in finding any clear solution to these issues as well as the immediate need for Aboriginal elders and communities to share their knowledge on Country.

The premise of the general principles proposed is that they would focus on looking after Country and sustainability while being flexible enough to assist diverse Aboriginal community aspirations at various stages of identifying protocols about owners and Country.

General principles on culture campsSome of the general principles raised at the workshop were:

• Where traditional owners are clearly identified, they should decide who may conduct culture camps in their Country.

• Respect for Country and looking after camping areas is more important than fighting over who is allowed.

• A ‘leave it as you find it’ or even a ‘leave it better than you find it’ rule should apply to any culture camps, as a proactive step for looking after Country.

��


• Where two groups or families wish to use the same area or reserve, groups should negotiate using the site at different times rather than letting conflict result in no use at all.

• It is important to find out whether the culture camp is about accessing a specific place due to its cultural significance, or if the camp is primarily about accessing Country in general.

• Many issues and challenges around culture camps may need to be considered differently inland than in coastal areas due to factors such as community structure (identification of owners), the size and remoteness of reserves, the amount of public use of reserves and the ability to access water for camp purposes.

• Exclusive use of public camping areas isn’t a reasonable request during peak use periods such as school holidays.

• Aboriginal community members with aspirations to conduct culture camps need to notify DEC area staff of their wishes and negotiate a process that focuses on sustainability and considers public health and safety.

• Notification shouldn’t be seen as a permit or licensing process but more as a discussion of access and use. This notification may be a face-to-face meeting (individual, community level), a letter outlining aspirations or a phone discussion with the DEC Area Manager.

• Any arrangements for culture camps must involve planning meetings between camp coordinators and DEC area staff to agree on:

− When camps are to be held, and for how long

− How access will be organised (booking, keys etc.)

− How many people and who will be attending camps

− What protocols need to be agreed upon (OH&S, contacts, impact)

− How camps will affect and be affected by DEC operational activities such as general maintenance and incident management (fire etc.).

• Aboriginal people with connection to the Country that the culture camp will be held in should not be required to pay park use fees. However, non-Aboriginal people involved in cultural awareness and educational camps should not be exempt from fees. The question of fee exemption for Aboriginal people attending from outside Country focused on the need to assist local custodians with camp costs rather than paying fees to DEC.

• Where there is a DEC Aboriginal advisory or co-management committee in place, this group could play a role in decision-making about the conduct of culture camps.

• There are many advisory groups and committees that local Aboriginal elders and custodians already sit on. It should not be necessary to set up another DEC advisory group just to deal with the issues of culture camps and resource use.

Recommendations from culture camp discussions• Future consultations for the development of culture camps need to consider the range of camp purposes from

family camps to educational and cultural awareness camps to camps that enable cultural practices.

• Future discussions around the state should consider the option of developing general principles rather than prescriptive rules. The principles developed in this workshop should be discussed further and other principles should be considered that give clear direction for DEC staff and community stakeholders while ensuring flexibility of options and allowing for regional differences.

• DEC staff are generally very supportive of Aboriginal culture camps, but have raised the issue of the need to manage public perceptions of ‘special access treatment’. It is recommended that future consultations consider how a joint message from DEC and Aboriginal communities can assist in improving people’s understanding of culture camps. Mechanisms for improving awareness of culture camps need to be adopted through all levels of DEC from statewide promotion of co-management to information support for field staff so they are better equipped to deal with questions from members of the public.


��


Resource use

Group discussionThe groups acknowledged that discussions on the use of resources in DEC reserves for cultural practices have been long and tortuous! From the days of ‘hunting and gathering’ policy development, to ‘wild resource use’ and more recently the broader discussion of ‘cultural practices on park’, the challenge of coming up with a name for the issue has struggled to maintain currency with trends in what is considered culturally appropriate language.

The workshop participants generally felt more comfortable with the term ‘cultural resource use’, but expressed a view that resource use was often inseparable from other practices like culture camps and being in Country. They noted that ‘cultural practices’ should be pursued as a broader agenda for discussions about Aboriginal access and use of parks and resources.

It is clear that cultural resource use has been happening in DEC reserves around the state for many years, and is now governed by informal arrangements between DEC area managers and Aboriginal community groups. In most cases these arrangements are working well and don’t need statewide policies and guidelines getting in the way!

However, with an increase in the development of formal and informal co-management partnerships and an increase in Aboriginal community aspirations to access Country, DEC staff and Aboriginal stakeholders are looking for some direction and support at a statewide level. Support is needed to guide local cultural resource use protocols and associated legislative licensing or permit issues and also to manage public perceptions of ‘special treatment’ of Aboriginal people.

Questions of ‘who is allowed’ and ‘who decides who is allowed’ were difficult to resolve in the workshop. Regional differences clearly indicate the need for flexible protocols and principles. Some workshop participants believed that traditional owners should be the only people allowed to access and use Country. Others noted the dislocation of Aboriginal people and loss of knowledge and access to traditional Country, asserting that all Aboriginal people should be assisted in carrying out cultural practices in Country that they have developed an historical connection with. They felt that this kind of approach would better promote Aboriginal identity and culture across the state rather than focusing on the divisiveness of ownership.

Discussions came back to the need to focus on the sustainability of cultural resource use and the need to combine Aboriginal cultural lores and protocols with government laws in the development of general principles to guide cultural practices. The groups felt that Aboriginal lore could guide discussions of cultural rights while government law could guide practices. Lore rights could be endorsed by legislation. The group considered the interplay between lore and law to be very significant and noted that it should be central to any policy on cultural practices.

General principles on resource useSome of the general principles that emerged from discussions were:

• Aboriginal people who wish to carry out cultural resource use in a DEC reserve should be able to prove a cultural connection with the Country that the reserve is in. The group discussed this principle at length and noted the need for further consideration.

• A process may be required to identify Aboriginal people with lore rights to access Country and resources. Some suggestions were an ID card or form similar to the indigenous fishing exemption process, or a list provided to DEC from a traditional owner or elders group identifying appropriate people.

• Agreement to access and use a resource should not be reached until an assessment of sustainability and appropriate methods for access and use is discussed by DEC and Aboriginal stakeholders.

• It should be recognised that Aboriginal culture is evolving, and that utilising modern methods of resource use is a continuation of the cultural practice of using the most efficient method available. It is essential that sustainability guides any protocols for the use of modern tools or methods that allow for easier collection of resources.

• Aboriginal communities associate the use of cultural resources with the health of their elders and see resource use as an important tool for improving the conditions and life expectancy of their people.

• It should be recognised that many cultural resource use activities are fairly unobtrusive and have relatively little impact on the environment (for example collection of leaves, flowers, fruit or discarded feathers).

�0


• Any use of native flora and fauna in DEC reserves requires a permit. DEC staff could assist Aboriginal stakeholders to understand and meet requirements for permits.

• In recognition of cultural lore rights, traditional owners shouldn’t be required to pay permit fees to access cultural resources.

• DEC and Aboriginal stakeholders must ensure that public safety is considered in any cultural resource use agreement.

• Methods of resource use must consider public safety, animal welfare, government licensing requirements and sustainability prior to any agreement being reached.

• It is important to recognise that cultural resource use assists with education and awareness raising. It is part of the process of sharing cultural knowledge with and between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people (such as cultural tourism, Discovery activities) and builds upon the message that Aboriginal culture is a living culture, which requires living resources.

• Cultural knowledge about flora and fauna should be managed to ensure that intellectual cultural property rights are maintained.

• Cultural resource use and cultural knowledge of flora and fauna should assist the management of DEC reserves (for example input into recovery planning, pest and weed management, public interpretation).

• Any cultural resource use arrangement needs to have a monitoring phase and incorporate relevant penalties for misuse. Aboriginal communities should be part of the decision-making processes during this phase.

• Threatened species should generally not be available for cultural resource use, but their use could be considered in some cases depending on the proposed collection method and impact (for example using parts of threatened plants may be okay).

• Gun use should only be considered in remote reserves where there is no threat to public safety. All gun licensing laws and protocols must be observed.

Recommendations from cultural resource use discussions• These general principles and protocols should be discussed further as part of future workshops and other

consultations in order to assess their practicality across the state and at a legislative level.

• The challenges of meeting legislative requirements surrounding the use of flora and fauna in DEC reserves means that any cultural resource use agreements must be developed carefully and sensitively to ensure that cultural aspirations are balanced by ecologically sustainable management principles.

• Aboriginal stakeholders may need to be flexible in their expectations around cultural resource use considering the range of values that exist across the whole community and the diversity of DEC reserves.

• Any statewide process must include a communication strategy to support DEC staff and Aboriginal communities in promoting the fact that sustainable cultural practice, a commitment to public safety and the protection of flora and fauna are central to cultural resource use.

Overall recommendations from workshop

• The workshop participants tackled the difficult questions of ‘who is allowed’ and ‘who decides who is allowed’ and recognised the importance of ensuring that ownership issues don’t inhibit processes of cultural renewal and connection to Country. Sustainability and looking after Country must be the key drivers for future discussions.

• The workshop clearly indicated that flexible principles or protocols should underpin local discussions about cultural practices on reserves. Flexible principles are much more useful than prescriptive rules that could never adequately deal with the diversity of inland, hinterland and coastal social and environmental issues.

• It is important to consider the legislative and political realities of support for cultural practices on DEC reserves and to consider taking small steps forward together.

• Any statewide policies and guidelines developed must be accompanied by a communication strategy that supports DEC staff and Aboriginal communities—helping them to deliver the message that they are committed to ensuring the sustainability of cultural practices, to maintaining public safety and to protecting flora and fauna.

Workshop 5

�1

Workshop 6

Managing the transition from negotiations to co-management

Facilitator

Warren Mayers, Area Manager, Cobar Area, Upper Darling Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC and member Stockton Bight Aboriginal Negotiating Panel

Presentations

Pilliga Nature Reserve Memorandum of UnderstandingMark Fosdick, Area Manager, Coonabarrabran Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Mt Grenfell Historic Site— transitions from lease negotiations to co-management through the Mt Grenfell Board of ManagementWarren Mayers, Area Manager and Phil Sullivan, Chair, Mt Grenfell Board of Management and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer, DEC

Participants

Warren Mayers, Phil Sullivan, Kym Schramm, Alistair Henchman, Mark Ingram, Mark Fosdick, Fiona Mandelc, Brian McMullen, Rob Gibbs, Patricia Quayle, Adam Black, Mark Simon, Doug Pritchard, Rodney Wellington, Jean Wellington, Jean Davenport, Steve Millington, Glenn Storrie, Teresa Gay, Kathy Caruana, Wayne Stubbings, Dayle Doyle, Marindah Doyle, Megan Mebberson, Mark Pittavino and Lynda Wild.

Pilliga Nature Reserve Memorandum of UnderstandingMark Fosdick, Area Manager, Coonabarrabran Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Workshop 6

Presentation

In the past DEC liaised informally with Aboriginal communities on an issues basis (for example about Reviews of Environmental Factors). It was decided that some more formal arrangements were needed to deal with management issues in the area known as Sandstone Caves, which was known to be of significance to Aboriginal people. Staff wanted to develop a proactive relationship with the community rather than continue to deal with management issues reactively. The tourism industry was also interested in seeing the area promoted through signage and brochures.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) began discussing management issues with the community and considering the development of more formal arrangements. This led to the establishment of the Pilliga Nature Reserve Aboriginal Consultative Committee, comprised of representatives from Narrabri, Coonabarrabran and Baradine Land Councils plus local community members. Integrating the views of Aboriginal people into reserve management was one aim of the Committee, but the main focus was the development of employment and training opportunities and improvement of access to reserves. It became clear that connections to land had been severed and that communities were keen to re-establish ties with Country.

DECC

��

NPWS and the communities held discussions about how to organise the committee, how it should work and what its aims should be. The community agreed that in the first instance it suited them to proceed with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining DEC’s formal commitment to involving the community in management of the Pilliga Nature Reserve. By about the third meeting, the committee had developed its terms of reference.

The committee meets five or six times a year. Some of the achievements to date include:

• Several culture camps have been held which included activities such as site identification, bush tucker collection, art and dance, tool making and biodiversity surveys.


• A management plan has been developed for the Sandstone Caves area, which incorporates the use of dual-language signs and an agreement that there would be no directional signs on the highway. The community preferred that access should be via guided walks with Discovery rangers, hence they did not want signs directing people to the site.

• The Sites Survey Project—three Aboriginal people were trained in site surveying and recording methods and are currently undertaking a project which involves spending five weeks in the bush undertaking site recording activities.


The establishment of the Committee in 2003 coincided with the Brigalow Belt decision, when different groups in the community aligned themselves with different land use options. The Baradine Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) aligned itself with one of the proposed options under which no lands would be transferred to DEC management. DEC now needs to re-approach Baradine LALC to try and re-establish a relationship.

A participant from the workshop asked how it was decided who would be on the Committee. Mark advised that of the nine Committee members, three are from Land Councils and the rest are community elders. The community decided to call for local expressions of interest to join the Committee. As a result, only three Land Councils were nominated.

Another participant suggested that with regard to matters concerning cultural heritage, the traditional owners should be the first point of contact, rather than Land Councils.

The group discussed whether there was a change in the relationship between DEC and the communities once the Committee was formed. Mark Fosdick advised that the Committee felt that DEC was more committed, hence they felt more trust towards the Department and were more relaxed about management despite there being no legal basis to the arrangement.

The group discussed who was on the Committee and whether it was actually representative of the communities involved. It was noted that when consultation began for Namadji National Park (ACT) there was an attempt to make the process all-inclusive but the traditional owners wanted greater recognition for themselves. Some members felt that Aboriginal people needed to sort these issues out for themselves. Others suggested that the government needed to provide them with a framework to do that.

In Parks Victoria the approach is based on native title. Kym Schramm said that native title was determined in his area recently and those who are identified with the native title groups are now getting involved in park management. A co-management agreement is being developed to work with that group. He noted that people who have moved into the area from elsewhere could end up being excluded which could potentially lead to problems at a later time.

DECC

��

It was acknowledged that Land Councils do play an important role and do need to be involved but Kym re-iterated his belief that cultural heritage matters needed to be dealt with by traditional owners who have an association with the Country.

Mt Grenfell Historic Site—transitions from lease negotiations to co-management through the Mt Grenfell Board of ManagementWarren Mayers, Area Manager, Cobar Area, Upper Darling Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC and member Stockton Bight Aboriginal Negotiating Panel Phil Sullivan, Chair, Mt Grenfell Board of Management and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer, DEC

Workshop 6

Presentation

Warren Mayers took up the position of Area Manager two months after Mount Grenfell Historic Site was handed back. This was before the Board of Management was established. At that time, the traditional owners had no real understanding of the meaning of the lease. They made many decisions in good faith that were subsequently overturned by DEC. Perceptions varied. For example, some people believed the rent money was theirs to spend as they saw fit, but this was not the case. It took some twelve months to resolve some of these issues through the development of guidelines and protocols.

Discussions about Mt Grenfell began in 1991. The negotiating panel, consisting of 19 members, was appointed in 2002. The lease was finalised in 2004. It was necessary for the negotiating parties to go to mediation to try to reach agreement on the rental price because there were major differences in valuations. Mediation failed but agreement was reached on the rent outside of the mediation process. In addition to the rent, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) agreed to fund two new full-time employment positions.

The Mount Grenfell Board of Management was established, consisting of 13 members. The Board was allocated a budget of $350,000 for three years but the requirement to fit into the July-May budgetary cycle was problematic. Effectively, any money unspent at the end of the cycle would be lost. The Board was not officially appointed until May 2005 but funds were available from July 2004. A meeting was held in December 2004 with the nominated Board members to discuss the proposed works on the park for that year.

Once the Board was appointed, a range of issues became apparent. There were numerous things that the Board wanted to do but could not due to government constraints. For example, the Board believed that the two newly created positions were to be employed by them directly but in fact they were to be employed by DEC. Government regulations regarding payments for the use of private vehicles was a big issue for the Board. Vehicles were required to be comprehensively

DECC

DECC

��

insured but despite the Board being prepared to cover the cost of comprehensive insurance the insurance companies would not insure the vehicles because they were not worth enough money.

Corporate governance training was identified as a significant need for Board members. The Board visited the Blue Mountains for a briefing on corporate governance training being offered by Burdon Torzillo. Funding became available to undertake the training and so far eight of nine workshops have been completed.

Board members receive sitting fees, accommodation expenses, meals and travel costs.


The Board had many ideas about what they thought needed to be done but they did not realise there were rules and regulations that had to be followed when

managing a park. They were unaware they had to work within the plan of management.

It took some time for the Board to understand that while the Board oversees the budget, DEC has responsibility for spending it. It would have been helpful if the negotiating panel had had a financial adviser who could have prepared them for what to expect once the lease was finalised.

The Ngiyampaa people had a different perception than DEC of what handback meant. They did not understand that they would not actually own the land, which is vested in the Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) on behalf of the traditional owners. Often, traditional owners do not want to associate with the LALC. This raised the question of what would happen if the process failed. It was felt that such issues needed to be better explained to people early in the process.

It was suggested that before the financial aspects of the lease were finalised, it would have been beneficial if there had been a cooling-off period. A cooling-off period would have given the panel time to go through the lease, to undertake some training and to develop an understanding of the mechanics of how DEC and the Board would have to work together.

The facilitator asked each of the workshop participants to suggest what they thought needed to happen to improve the transition from negotiations to co-management. The suggestions were as follows:

• A step-by-step manual should be developed by DEC and an information and training package given to people negotiating the lease. The package should include such things as sample templates of policies and procedures and a suggested agenda for the first meeting of the Board.

• Kym Schramm for Parks Victoria expressed an interest in working cooperatively with DEC NSW, stressing the need for open communication between agencies and communities working towards a common goal.

• The following approach to co-management was suggested:

− People need to have a shared vision from the outset and need to be heading in the same direction for the same purpose.

− They need to identify their common vision and articulate it.

− Existing models should be examined to see what best suits the shared vision but this needs to be flexible.

− Move slowly and be realistic.

− Leave negotiation of rent and leaseback until last.

• There should be a cooling-off period to enable community people and DEC staff to undertake governance training.


DECC

��

• Community people need to have a clear understanding from the outset of what the lease outcomes are going to be.

• In learning from the experience of others, only adopt those aspects that suit the specific reserve and community in question.

• It would be useful to have a document which clearly states what the different co-management options are (for example Indigenous Land Use Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, etc.).

• Where there are multiple communities, they need to develop a single voice because those groups who can make decisions tend to be more successful. It may be possible for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or Native Title Services etc. to assist with this process.

• A whole-of-government approach should be pursued. This would provide more financial certainty for the future.

• Other avenues should be pursued for Aboriginal people to own land outright (that is, outside of national parks).

• Plain English fact sheets should be developed.

• The proposed manual should be about the whole process, rather than only outlining existing models.

• DEC should be aware that community involvement in such things as the plan of management processes could raise community expectations unrealistically.

• Perceptions and expectations, as opposed to feasible outcomes, need to be managed through the provision of information. For example, at present many community people think that co-management is more than it actually is.

• DEC needs to better explain the benefits and constraints of co-management.

• Managers need to have a better understanding of who in the Aboriginal community they should speak to when dealing with particular issues or pieces of land. The Menindee people have appointed someone people can ring as a first point of contact and she advises them who the appropriate contacts are.

• The co-management manual needs to have a section on pitfalls and constraints based on previous experiences. For example, it would be useful to outline what can and can’t be done and to be clear about the constraints within which DEC has to operate.

• Agency roles in co-management need to be made clear to communities.

• Communities need to have a better understanding of time frames and competing interests.

• There needs to be a clear, simple overview of DEC policies and procedures, what handback means, an explanation of the duration of the lease, the role of the Board, what the rent can be spent on etc.

Recommendations

• There should be a cooling-off period, after negotiations and before co-management begins, to enable the community to work through the lease and undertake corporate governance training so they can better understand what co-management entails.

• DEC should develop simple fact sheets containing general information with:

− clear explanations of the different co-management options

− a clear, simple overview of DEC policies and procedures

− an overview of what the lease means, clearly explaining what outcomes can realistically be expected (thereby managing community expectations)

− the roles of the Board and the agency

− what the rent can and cannot be spent on.

Workshop 6

��

• DEC should develop a step-by-step user guide for the period of co-management immediately after handback. This should be a flexible ‘working’ document written in plain English, containing:

− templates (for letters, briefing notes etc. to assist with the establishment of the Board)

− a draft agenda indicating the sorts of issues that need to be considered at the first Board meeting

− instructions regarding operating and financial management policies and procedures

− information about constraints—what can and can’t be done.

• DEC should develop a community consultation guide for managers covering:

− how to identify who should be consulted

− who should be consulted and when.

• Development of a whole-of-government approach to co-management is recommended in order to foster consistency and equity in negotiations by:

− developing clear guidelines including agency and community roles

− managing expectations versus outcomes

− using plain English fact sheets.


��

Name OrganisationAbbas, Fatima Workforce Planning Section, DEC

Andersen, Anthony Central Coast Hunter Range Aboriginal Co-Management Committee

Andersen, Lennie Central Coast Hunter Range Aboriginal Co-Management Committee

Arnold, John Deputy Mayor, Mildura

Bagnat, Tom Regional Manager, Hunter Coast Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Barker, Simone Bandjalang people

Betteridge, Jeff Ranger, Yengo, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Black, Adam Office of the Registrar, Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Broun, Jody Director General, Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Bryant, Amanda Area Manager, Kyogle, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Byno, Josie Morowari Tribal Council

Nixon, Vera Morowari Tribal Council

Carpinetti, Bruno Director, Board of Directors, National Parks Administration, Argentina

Carrington, Berenice Researcher, Cultural Heritage Division, DEC

Carter, Kevin Area Manager, Manning Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Caruana, Kathy Senior Legal Officer, DEC

Charles, Jean Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Charles, Tania Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Clark, John Parks Victoria

Clark, Warren Executive Officer, Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Close, Trevor Githabul people

Cohen, Bruce Northern Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Officer, DEC

Conlon, Mark Manager, Policy Planning and Programs Section, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Cope, Preston Area Manager, Far South Coast, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Corbyn, Lisa Director General, DEC

Couch, Russell Director, Cultural Heritage Policy and Knowledge, Cultural Heritage Division, DEC

Currey, Gary Manager, Cultural Heritage Division, Far West, DEC

Darlington, Dave Regional Manager, Snowy Mountains, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Davis-Hurst, Patricia Saltwater people

Davenport, Jean Jerrinja Elders

Donovan, Amos Aboriginal Community Coordinator, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Doyle, Dayle Menindee Aboriginal Elders Council

Doyle, Marindah Menindee Aboriginal Elders Council

Duroux, Mary Biamanga and Gulaga Negotiating Panel

Dutaillis, David Regional Manager, Northern Tablelands, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

List of participants

Participants

��

Name OrganisationEdwards, Dave Consultant, Eco-connections

Edwards, Francine Warrell Creek Negotiating Panel

Ellis, Dominee Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Ellis, Trisha Aboriginal Project Officer, Far South Coast, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Erskine, Jo Ranger, Bourke Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Faulkner, Adam Co-management Coordinator, Stockton Bight

Fleming, Tony Deputy Director General, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Fosdick, Mark Area Manager, Coonabarabran, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Fraser, Lenore Co-management Coordinator, Major Programs Unit, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Garrood, Diane Regional Manager, South Coast, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Gay, Teresa Director Aboriginal Heritage Operations Branch, DEC

Gibbins, John Principal Legal Officer, DEC

Gibbs, Rob Area Manager, Hunter Coast, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Gilroy, Josh Environment Protection & Regulation Division, DEC

Goodwin, Shirley Project Officer, Northern Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Gordon, Ron Central Coast Hunter Range Aboriginal Co-Management Committee

Gorman, Jo Area Manager, Lower Darling, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Griffiths, Kiersten Ranger, Cobar Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Henchman, Alistair Director, Southern, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Hofmeyer, Damien Ranger, Richmond Rivers, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Hope, Jeanette Consultant

Horsley, Steve Regional Manager, South West Slopes, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Ingram, Mark Area Manager, Armidale, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Johnson, Noel Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Johnston, Mark Regional Manager, Northern Rivers, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Johnstone, Fay Deputy Chair, Mt Grenfell Historic Site Board of Management

Jude, Jennifer Jennifer Jude, Director Native Title Branch, Department of Lands

Kelly, Danny Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Kelly, Dunno Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Kelly, Glenis Biamanga and Gulaga Negotiating Panel

Kelly, Peter Department of Sustainability, Victoria

Kennedy, Beryl Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Kennedy, Roy Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Kirby, Shiela Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Korn, Terry Director, Western Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Lawson, Patrick Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Lawson, Ray Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Leahy, Brian Cultural Heritage Division, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

continued


��

Name OrganisationLee, Karen Biamanga and Gulaga Negotiating Panel

Madden, Allen Central Coast Hunter Range Aboriginal Co-Management Committee

Major, Dave Consultant, Major Perspectives

Mason Rod Aboriginal Education Assistant, Snowy Mountains Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Mayers, Warren Area Manager, Cobar Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

McGregor, Carolyn Manager, Learning and Development, DEC

McLeod, Philip Kosciuszko National Park Aboriginal Working Group

McMullen, Brian Department of Lands

Mebberson, Megan Registrar’s Office, Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Mendelc, Fiona Regional Manager, Blue Mountains Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Mengler, Ron Deputy Mayor, Balranald

Miller, Tom Central Coast Hunter Range Aboriginal Co-Management Committee

Millington, Steve Regional Manager, Far Western Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Mitchell, Judy Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Mitchell, Junette Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Moran, Ashley Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Officer, DEC

Mumbulla, Harry Warrell Creek Negotiating Panel

Murphy, Mick Area Manager, Hay, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Murphy, Mick Ranger, Barradine Area, Western Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Murray, Melinda Principal Legal Officer, DEC

Naden, Maxine Aboriginal Heritage Planning Officer, DEC

Norman, Brett Area Manager, Mutawintji, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

O’Donnell, Kim Chair, Mutawintji Board of Management

O’Kelly, Clare Facilitator

Pappin, Gary World Heritage Officer, DEC

Pappin, Mary Chair, Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Patrick, Mike Regional Manager, Sydney South Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Pittavino, Mark Area Manager, Richmond Rivers, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Quayle, Patsy Menindee Aboriginal Elders Council

Riley, William Mutawintji Board of Management

Robinson, Jenny Peak Hill-Bogan River Traditional Owners

Rogers, Carla Regional Planner, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Ryan, Steve Tubba Gah Native Title Claimants

Schramm, Kym Parks Victoria

Shepherd, Tim Regional Manager, Far South Coast, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Siever, Anthony Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Simon, Mark Central Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Officer, DEC

Slade, Joan Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

continued

Participants


Name OrganisationStephens, Shaun Parks Victoria

Stewart, Yvonne Chair, Arakwal Joint Management Committee

Storrie, Glenn Area Manager, Coffs Coast, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Sullivan, Phil Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer, DEC

Thompson, Marg Mayor Wentworth

Torrens, Dianne Githabul people

Towney, Graham Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer, DEC

Tran, Therese Legal Officer, Legal Services, DEC

Trindall, Sylvia Pilliga Nature Reserve Consultative Committee

Trindall, Danny Pilliga Nature Reserve Consultative Committee

Wakefield, Brian Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Wakefield, Des Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee

Walker, Sue Area Manager, Byron Coast Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Wallace, Greg Ranger, North Coast Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Ward, Rhonda Central Coast Hunter Range Aboriginal Co-Management Committee

Waters, Kate Consultant Community Wellbeing Project

Wellington, Jean Jerrinja Elders

Wellington, Rodney Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Officer, South Coast, DEC

Welsh, Brad Aboriginal heritage Conservation Officer, Central, DEC

Welsh, Robert Central Coast Hunter Range Aboriginal Co-Management Committee

Westaway, Michael Executive Officer Willandra Lakes World Heritage Region, DEC

White, Iris Kosciuszko National Park Aboriginal Working Group and Snowy Mountains Regional Advisory Committee

Wild, Lynda Executive Officer, Major Programs Unit, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Williams, Gloria Githabul people

Wilson, Anthony Field Officer, Lachlan Area, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Wolter, Steve Regional Manager, Upper Darling Region, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Wright, Michael Director, Reserve & Wildlife Conservation Branch, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC

Zander, Victor A/Manager Central Aboriginal Heritage Section

continued

�0

Proceedings of the

2006 Aboriginal Co-management MeetingMungo National Park and Wentworth, NSW