1

ABN:66129413297ICN:3630

POBox11219,FrankstonVIC3199Ph:(03)97701273

www.bunuronglc.org

Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Gas Pipel ine Advisory Committee

Expert Witness Statement of Dr David Tutchener

1. Introduction

1.1. I have been asked to undertake a review of the Aboriginal cultural heritage implications of the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline (the Project).

1.2. I have reviewed the technical report for Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Environment Effects Statement (EES).

1.3. I have been instructed by Dr Sean Sexton on behalf of the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) to review the relevant parts of the EES, Technical report and give evidence on the cultural heritage implications of the Project relevant to my area of expertise.

1.4. The BLCAC has been appointed by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 as the recognised Registered Aboriginal Party for the Mornington Peninsula, Westernport and part of South-West Gippsland.

1.5. I am employed by BLCAC as the Principal Cultural Values Consultant.

1.6. Annexure A contains a statement setting out my qualifications and experience, and the other matters raised by Planning Panels Victoria’s Guide to Expert Evidence which I have read.

1.7. A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Annexure B.

2. Summary of key issues, opinions and recommendations

2.1. Key issues identified in this Statement are:

There are significant aspects of the Bunurong cultural landscape and the places within Bunurong Country that are not considered adequately within this EES or the supporting documentation. This includes a complex socio-cultural landscape with numerous features that indicate the vibrancy of the ethnocultural record and the Bunurong connection to this area.

The EES Submission and the supporting documentation does not adequately assess the risk of impact from this project to Aboriginal cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. As the CHMPs that inform Technical Report P (Biosis 2020) are not in yet in draft form (they are still being prepared) consequently, they have not completed assessing the potential impacts

2

of this project. Therefore, the data that informs any risk matrix (Biosis 2020:59-61) is incomplete.

2.2. Recommendations

As the CHMPs that inform Technical Report P (Biosis 2020) are still to be completed it would be practical that any potential impact to intangible heritage is assessed and incorporated before the approval of the CHMPs and any ground disturbing works for the ESS begins. As these CHMPs have not completed assessing the potential impacts of the project on the tangible heritage this is still possible, when this is completed a risk assessment matrix for this project should be re-assessed.

The risk matrix provided by Biosis (2020:59-61) suggests mitigative measures for any impacts to intangible heritage should include a cultural heritage induction, which typically occurs prior to any ground disturbing works in the activity area, this would do nothing to mitigate this risk. The adequate assessment and inclusion of any intangible places, associated values and significance assessments during, or before the CHMP process would enable the appropriate appraisal of risks associated with Aboriginal cultural heritage that this project may impact. This can be achieved through further in-depth consultation regarding these specific issues with the BLCAC.

2.2.1 Any comment on Biosis (2020) and whether they are sufficient to appropriately manage the cultural heritage implications of the proposal.

Overall the Biosis (2020) technical report assesses what risk it can with the data available. However, the available data is incomplete both in respect to the tangible and intangible aspects of the Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area and the broader cultural landscape. Therefore, the current measures to appropriately manage Aboriginal cultural heritage cannot be sufficient as the cultural heritage data and consultation with Traditional Owners is incomplete.

3. Declarations

3.1. I declare that I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the IAC.

3.2. In giving my evidence before the IAC I confirm I:

• will be alone in the room from which I am giving evidence and will not make or receive any communication with another person while giving my evidence except with the express leave of the Panel;

• I will inform the Panel immediately should another person enter the room from which I am giving evidence;

• during breaks in evidence, when under cross-examination, I will not discuss my evidence with any other person, except with the leave of the Panel; and

3

• I will not have before me any document, other than my expert witness statement and documents referred to therein, or any other document which the Panel expressly permits me to view.

David Tutchener

October 1st 2020

4

4. Report of Dr David Tutchener to the Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Gas Pipel ine Advisory Committee

1. What does the ethnocultural record tell us about the history and identity of first peoples and their use and occupation of land and waters in the vicinity of either the pipeline or other related works of the Crib Point Project. This would include Westernport Bay, and French Island.

4.1 In order to answer this question, I think it is best to discuss the persistence of Bunurong people and their connection to their cultural landscape or Country. Through taking this approach, it re-orientates the position of contemporary Bunurong people, their values and perspectives within the discussion of the impacts of this project. 4.2 The idea of cultural landscapes is not new, either to archaeology, ecology or heritage studies and the 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act reinforces this concept, by using language such as ‘place’ rather than the sterile archaeological term ‘site’ and through the promotion of the protection of intangible heritage. Bradley (2011:46) comments that in general, a cultural landscape approach tries to demonstrate how people make use of their environment, and how it can provide evidence of cultural practices and act as repositories for cultural knowledge. This approach is an attempt to move away from Western centred views of static landscapes and endeavours to break down the artificial barrier between cultural and natural landscapes (Harrison 2015, Meskell 2011). Crucially, the 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act (Section 5) defines an Aboriginal place as:

(1) For the purposes of this Act, an Aboriginal place is an area in Victoria or the coastal waters of Victoria that is of cultural heritage significance to Aboriginal people generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginal people in Victoria.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), area includes any one or more of the following—

(a) an area of land;

(b) an expanse of water;

(c) a natural feature, formation or landscape;

(d) an archaeological site, feature or deposit;

(e) the area immediately surrounding any thing referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d) to the extent that it cannot be separated from the thing without diminishing or destroying the cultural heritage significance attached to the thing by Aboriginal people;

(f) land set aside for the purpose of enabling Aboriginal ancestral remains to be re-interred or otherwise deposited on a permanent basis;

(g) a building or structure. 4.3 We can see from this definition that within the 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act (5,1) Aboriginal places are not limited to archaeological sites (or just the places where

5

archaeological material may have been found), specifically ‘area in Victoria or the coastal waters of Victoria that is of cultural heritage significance to Aboriginal people’ and ‘the area immediately surrounding any thing’ 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act (2)(e), which in this case refers to a ‘a natural feature, formation or landscape’ 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act (2)(c). To achieve this broader and deeper understanding of what Aboriginal places are, more is required than simply swapping the terms ‘site’ for ‘place’, or ‘tangible’ for ‘intangible’. In its narrowest sense, archaeological science looks at discrete ‘sites’, however broader understandings of place incorporate ideas from numerous fields to gain better understandings of people and culture both in the present and in the past. This is reflected by BLCAC’s view of place within their cultural landscape (Submission from Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation #2322). These broader definitions enable an explanation of Aboriginal places within cultural landscapes that empowers Aboriginal people and is rich in culture, knowledge, language, art and tradition, and not narrowly defined by Western science. The Bunurong conduct their obligations as a RAP as a way of connecting with and caring for their cultural landscape or Country. The idea of Country is explained by Rose (1996:7):

Country is a place that gives and receives life. Not just imagined or represented, it is lived in and lived with. Country in Aboriginal English is not only a common noun but also a proper noun. People talk about country in the same way that they would talk about a person: they speak to country, sing to country, visit country, worry about country, feel sorry for country, and long for country. People say that country knows, hears, smells, takes notice, takes care, is sorry or happy. Country is not a generalised or undifferentiated type of place, such as one might indicate with terms like ‘spending a day in the country’ or ‘going up the country’. Rather, country is a living entity with a yesterday, today and tomorrow, with a consciousness, and a will toward life. Because of this richness, country is home, and peace; nourishment for body, mind, and spirit; heart’s ease.

4.4 This deeper and complex understanding of cultural landscapes as Country guides a broader picture of Bunurong people’s relationship to places and their cultural obligations to care for and defend their Country. It is through this understanding that we can move closer to appreciating why Bunurong people have a connection to this cultural landscape, and why impacts to their Country should call for deep engagement. 4.5 The following explanation of the ethnocultural landscape is not designed to outline all of the known ethnographic material that relates to Bunurong people within the greater Westernport Bay area, but simply to demonstrate that this cultural landscape is vibrant, complex and visible to an extent within the record. The present EES activity area is largely within three Bunurong clan areas, the boundaries of which were fluid and changed over time; the Bunerong Bulluk, the Mayone-bulluk and the Yallock-bulluk whose territory includes the Koo-Wee Rup Swamp. At the threshold of colonialization, a senior man of the Bunerong Bulluk was Bobinuren (Waa), of the Mayone-bulluk was Budgery Tom (Bunjil) and of the

6

Yallock-bulluk was Kurboroo (Bunjil) (See Figure 1).* The Bunurong people are discussed at length in primary sources, specifically the journals and papers of William Thomas (1793-1867). William Thomas was the Assistant Protector of Aborigines during the early colonial period and his daily notes on his work with the people of the Kulin cultural bloc provides a useful resource. Specifically, Thomas undertook a journey with Bunurong people within the present EES activity area in 1840, a portion of the map of his trip is shown below (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Drawing of Kur-bo-roo (by Wil l iam Thomas).

Figure 2: Thomas, Wil l iam 1841 Map of Westernport District (Presland

2017:32). Source: PROV VPRS 6760 item 1 on microfi lm 4467 unit 5 dated 1 February 1841.

4.6 Figure 2 demonstrates the location of some of the early colonisers’ stations and several Aboriginal names for places. Thomas’ records are an essential part of understanding the

*AnoteshouldbemadeherethatthespellingofallofthesenamesandclanareasinEnglisharenotnecessarilyaccurate,andtherearenumerouspermutationsinthehistoricalrecord.Consequently,thespellingusedhereonlyreflectsmyinterpretationoftherecordandanyerrorsaremine).

7

Bunurong cultural landscape. An excerpt from Thomas (1859:68) describes portions of the extent of Bunurong Country:

The geographical limits of the two Melbourne tribes [Bunurong and Wurundjeri] are from the source of the Yarra eastward, S.E by the river Tarwin; dividing range between the Yarra and the Golburn river, north; south by the sea coast; the river exe [Werribee River] to the west. Aboriginal boundaries are judiciously defined, by rivers, creeks and mountains; which by what I have learnt, is universal. For example, the Yarra tribe claim all the country south and north of the river to dividing range; on this ground, that all the waters flow into the Yarra. The Western Port of coast tribe claim all the country from ranges, creeks, &c. [etc], that fall into the sea, to the Tarwin.

4.7 Thomas’ records are valuable; however, they can be supplemented by several other useful sources (Bunce 1859, Howitt 1904, Smyth 1878). These sources explore much of the social structure, myths and stories of the Bunurong and the broader Kulin cultural bloc.

4.8 Although perceived by early Western settlers as marginal land that impeded travel, intensive farming and pastoralism, wetlands and swamps throughout Bunurong Country are an important part of existence as they rich in life and resources. Many swamps were drained throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries to ‘improve’ the land for farming and pastoralism. This ‘improvement’ included the draining of Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp which had two Bunurong names, Cowrip (referring to the outer swamp) and Panderambuit (referring to the inner swamp). The Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp or the great swamp forms a significant part of Bunurong Country and was almost impassable, except with the aid of Bunurong signal fires. As custodians for the area, the Bunurong are answerable to the being Lun (spirit being), who was part of the Koo-Wee-Rup swamp. Lun required visitors to this place to undergo a water-based ritual. The Bunurong host would dig a hole, which would fill with water and then be stirred with a stick. The visitor would then be allowed to consume three mouthfuls, but these must be drunk slowly. If this was not done correctly, it was believed that the visitor’s throat would close. When the visitor ate meat, only small pieces of cooked meat were put into his mouth; he was not allowed at all to touch the meat with his lips (Gunson 1968:3). These customs are a part of caring for Country through managing who was there and caring for these visitors to keep them safe from harm; these rituals also ensured that there was respect from visitors for Bunurong law and language.

4.9 There are several stories that relate to this portion of the Bunurong cultural landscape that can be found in both the primary and secondary sources. Massola (1968) outlines a number of stories from the Kulin cultural bloc, including a story within the greater Westernport Bay area. He discusses the Wiwonderrer’s, which was the name given to certain animals who would appear in human form but were made of stone. Their home was a mountain to the northeast of Westernport. They attacked and killed anyone whom they happened to meet but could be killed if one were lucky enough to spear them either in the eyes or in the mouth.

8

4.10 There is another Bunurong story attached to a river to the north of Westernport Bay. The Bunurong or ‘Western Port Blacks’ call the Bunyip ‘Too-roo-dun’ who lives in the water that is available year-round and inhabits the deep waters and the thick mud beneath it. Bunurong people never bathed in these waters, as long ago some people had, and they were eaten by Too-roo-dun (Smyth 1878:436). Included in Smyth’s account is a drawing of Too-roo-dun, which was made by a person called Kurruk and is very emu like in appearance (See Figure 3).

Figure 3: An image of Too-roo-dun or the Bunyip, by Kurruk (Smyth 1878:436).

4.11 During dry weather, water holes were used as a snare for catching emu. Emu were often run-down or trapped, one of the methods for catching them was by excavating a hole in an almost dry swamp. The hole would be about 20 feet in diameter and was made very muddy and soft, with a little bit of water in the centre. When the emu would wade in to take a drink, they would get bogged and were then easily captured (Dawson 1881:92).

4.12 Another Kulin story that is relevant to the EES area that was recorded by Howitt includes the story of the Loo-ern, (Howitt Papers Box 1053/3B and 2c cited in Ellender 2002) which tells of a ‘gigantic being like blackfellow’ who:

…lived on the Yarra and when baking eels in a ground oven on the Yarra flats when he spotted a swan’s feather on the south wind. He traced it to its source where he found flocks of swans resting on the Western Port Bay. After a time, the swans flew off to the east and Loo-errn followed them to the Corner Inlet at the Wamman (the Bunwurung (sic) name for Wilson’s Promontory).

4.13 Although this story is not based strictly within the present EES activity area, this story encapsulates the Bunurong cultural landscape that includes Westernport Bay. Consequently, there is considerable cultural significance attributed to the coastline and waterways within

9

Bunurong County. When examining the cultural significance of Bunurong Country it becomes clear that water is an important aspect of place. This is reflected in the following Kulin dreaming stories, where the role of water within creation stories is integral the following story was told to Smyth (1878:423):

As Bunjil created the world, and as Pal-hj-yari created women from the magical transformation of water. Bunjil created all things, but he made no women. Bunjil has a wife named Boi-boi, whose face he has never seen. Yet he has a son whose name is Bin=heal, and a brother named Pal-hj-yan. Although Bunjil was the creator of all things, he still required help from Bun-heal and Pal-hj-yan. Bunjil always carries a large knife or sword, and when he made the earth (Beek) he went all over it, cutting in many places, and thereby forming creeks and rivers, mountains and valleys.

4.14 Pal-hj-yari is sometimes described as the brother of Bunjil, and sometimes as a son. He is the supreme being that controls all rivers, creeks, and lagoons and the sea. All creatures that live in either the depths or the shallows obey him. His favourite pastime is to dive to great depths in the deepest waters that he controls. One day he was playing in a waterhole, and Pal-hj-yari thumped and threshed the waters with his hands, in the same way women beat the drums when men dance during corrobboree. The water became thick as mud; and Pal-hj-yari could no longer see through it as before, however he could see something and divided the thick waters with a stick, to see better. In the mud, he could see hands, such as Bunjil had given to the men he had created. Pal-hj-yari took a strong twig, and bent it into the form of a hook, and again divided the waters, and there appeared two heads (such as Bunjil had given to men), then bodies (similar to those made by Bunjil), and finally two young women emerged. Pal-hj-yari named one Kunnerwarra, and the other Ku-ur-rook, and he brought them to Bunjil, his brother, to show them to him. Bunjil gave each man whom he had created a woman. Bunjil put into the hands of men spears and to each woman he put into her hands a digging-stick. Pal-hj-yari and Bunjil both stayed with the men and women and taught them how to use these tools and left amidst a great storm on the third day and were seen no more. This story was also told to Smyth (1878:427).

4.15 There is considerable Aboriginal biocultural knowledge and associated Aboriginal cultural values that relate to the present EES activity area, which will be impacted by this project. Again, this is part of the broader cultural landscape of the Bunurong people, which includes the ‘natural’ world. As an example, a very general guide to the plant food resources of the Westernport region and their seasonality was collated by Gaughwin almost 40 years ago in 1981 (Table 1). Table 1: Plant resources in Bunurong Country (Adapted from Gaughwin 1981:238).

Species Common Name

Season Use

Acacia sp. Wattle Perennial but especially Exuded gums or ‘manna’ were

10

Species Common Name

Season Use

Autumn eaten

Cyathea australia

Rough-tree Fern

Perennial but especially spring - early summer

New shoots were roasted

Dickonis antartica

Soft-tree fern

Perennial but especially spring - early summer

Pith near crown and shoots eaten raw or roasted

Microseris scapigera

Yam daisy Perennial but especially spring and autumn

Tuber roasted or eaten raw

Solanum aviculare

Kangaroo apple

Autumn Fruit eaten

Kanthorrhoea australis

Austral grasstree

Perennial but especially spring and after fires

Flowers, young shoots, base of inner leaves eaten

4.16 The ethnohistorical record indicates that the present activity area, and the surrounding area forms a significant part of the dynamic Bunurong cultural landscape and Aboriginal places. The ethnohistorical record and the associated intangible heritage are a crucial aspect of how Bunurong people define their connection to Country, place, cultural values and identity.

2. What issues or deficiencies from an ethnocultural perspective have you been able to identify in the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Technical Report.

5.1 There are problems within the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Technical Report P (Biosis 2020) that has formed a part of this EES submission. Notably, one of the aspects of this report that has a baring on the EES submission is the language used in the technical report. The technical report (Biosis 2020) and the associated Chapter of the EES Submission (Volume 2, Chapter 21) both read as if the Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMPs) have been prepared, which can be read as completed to at least a draft stage, not still in preparation or still being prepared, for example (Biosis 2020:1):

To comply with the Minister's scoping requirements for the EES, three Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMPs) have been prepared under section 49 of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Plan required if EES required). These CHMPs cover the Project Area, and comprise of: • CHMP 15384 - Pipeline Works, from Tooradin to Pakenham

• CHMP 15383 - Pipeline Works, from Crib Point to Tooradin

• CHMP 16300 - Gas Import Jetty Works, Crib Point Jetty 5.2 As I am writing this statement, the archaeological testing is still being undertaken for this project, and the consultation process is incomplete. Technical Report P (Biosis 2020:21 – Section 4.4) does attempt to outline the assumptions and limitations of this report. However,

11

this does not outline the potential impacts of the project to any intangible heritage as it is not discussed. Consequently, the ability of Technical Report P to accurately summarise risks concerning the potential impacts upon Aboriginal places, both tangible and intangible that this project may cause is also ambiguous. 5.3 Specifically, when discussing Aboriginal cultural heritage, the EES submission suggests that ‘Underpinning these physical elements of Aboriginal cultural heritage are the intangible places where physical evidence of past cultural activities may not be present but hold spiritual significance’ (Volume 2, Chapter 21-1). Although this is discussed here in the introduction to this chapter, this significance is not explored at all in the EES or the associated technical report (Biosis 2020). The technical report only discusses the scientific significance of Aboriginal heritage places. As of yet, there has not been deep consultation or engagement specifically regarding intangible Aboriginal heritage with the BLCAC for each CHMP. In turn, this means that the project has the potential to unknowing impact significant Aboriginal places. 5.4 Worryingly, the EES (Volume 2, Chapter 21-8) states that ‘Before each CHMP assessment began, a search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) which contains all tangible and intangible Aboriginal cultural heritage places in Victoria was undertaken.’ Importantly the VAHR does not contain all of either the tangible or the intangible Aboriginal cultural heritage places in Victoria; it only contains a portion of known and registered places. Concerning the tangible Aboriginal places on the VAHR, even within the EES project area, this is still unknown as it is still undergoing archaeological assessment. In respect to the intangible aspects and the significance attached to the Bunurong cultural landscape, the only way to access this information, registered or not, is through consultation with the Bunurong. 5.5 To adequately assess the intangible aspects of significance within the Bunurong cultural landscape, the Bunurong need to be explicitly consulted concerning this. As it stands, Technical Report P (Biosis 2020) does not encapsulate or seek to understand a deeper appreciation of Aboriginal places within the Bunurong cultural landscape. Biosis (2020:60) does, however, include a section of their risk assessment (ACH5) for ‘Pipeline Works’ this includes ‘Disturbance of not previously registered intangible ACH places’ the risk pathway for which is described as ‘Disturbance of not previously registered intangible ACH places (e.g. aesthetic, social, religious, historic or cultural values) resulting in loss of heritage value.’ The risk matrix suggests that a mitigative measure for this impact would include ‘MM-AH01 Cultural heritage induction’, which typically occurs prior to any ground-disturbing works in the activity area. The impact of this project to a place with associated intangible values would not be mitigated through a Cultural heritage induction. The proposed mitigation measure conflates intangible heritage with material culture (stone tools or other tangible archaeological ‘sites’), effectively making it meaningless. The adequate assessment of any intangible places and the associated values, during (or even before) the CHMP process would enable the assessment of this risk to be accurate. 5.6 If the impacts of this project are to be adequately assessed, then more than a superficial understanding of Aboriginal places is required. It is also my opinion that if CHMPs are to be included in the EES process that these investigations should have at least completed the complex testing (sub-surface archaeological assessment) and final consultation with the

12

traditional owners regarding the significance of any Aboriginal places within or likely to be impacted by the activity be undertaken, and the CHMP be in complete draft form. Therefore, the information that is provided within the Biosis Technical Report (Biosis 2020) is essentially incomplete. Through improved consultation with the BLCAC regarding Aboriginal cultural values, the significance of Aboriginal places within the broader cultural landscape would create a more detailed and accurate perception of the broader tangible and intangible impacts of this project and any associated risks.

3. Are there particular risks or issues that arise from an ethnocultural perspective in relation to the project, that the panel should be informed of?

6.1 Due to the incomplete nature of the CHMPs and consultation with BLCAC regarding both tangible and intangible heritage that underpins the Biosis technical report (Biosis 2020), there is a significant risk that this project may negatively impact Aboriginal places and the broader Bunurong cultural landscape. 6.2 As the Commonwealth Minister for Environment determined that both the Gas Import Jetty Works and Pipeline Works require assessment and approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) due to the potential for both of the projects to have significant impacts on the internationally significant Westernport Ramsar site, listed migratory species, and listed threatened species and ecological communities. This EES submission is intended to serve as the accredited assessment process for the purpose of the EPBC Act under a Bilateral Assessment Agreement between the Commonwealth and Victorian governments. Consequently, I think it is crucial that the risk of potential impact to places within the Bunurong cultural landscape are informed by the EPBC objectives, which include to:

• enhance the protection and management of important natural and cultural places

• recognise the role of Indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity

• promote the use of Indigenous peoples' knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of, and in cooperation with, the owners of the knowledge

6.3 Currently, this EES submission and Technical Report P (Biosis 2020) do not meet the above objectives. As the data that informs the EES submission regarding Aboriginal cultural heritage places is incomplete, there are unknown risks of the proposed activity negatively impacting both the activity area and the broader Bunurong cultural landscape. These risks could be significantly reduced or appropriately assessed by completing the CHMP process to at least a complete draft stage. This assessment should include further in-depth consultation regarding both the tangible and intangible aspects of Bunurong cultural heritage within both the narrow activity area and the broader cultural landscape. A portion of this assessment (specifically concerning the intangible cultural heritage aspects) could have been undertaken much earlier in the process, which would have avoided any potential project delays.

13

References Biosis., 2020. Environment Effects Statement technical report Aboriginal heritage impact assessment. Prepared for AGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APA Transmission Pty Ltd. 05 June 2020. BLCAC., 2020. Submission from Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation #2322 Bradley, J., 2011. ‘Whitefellas have to learn about country, it is not just land’: How landscape becomes country and not an ‘imagined place.’ In The place of landscape: Concepts, contexts, studies, edited by Bradley, J., K. Wesley, E. Casey, and T. Schatzki, 45–64. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Bunce, D., 1859. Travels with Dr. Leichhardt in Australia. W. Fairfax & Company.

Dawson, J., 1881. Australian Aborigines: the languages and customs of several tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia (No. 26). Melbourne: G. Robertson.

Ellender, I., 2002. The Yowenjerre of south Gippsland: traditional groups, social boundaries and land succession. Artefact: The Journal of the Archaeological and Anthropological Society of Victoria, 25:9.

Gaughwin, D., 1981. Sites of Archaeological Significance in the Western Port Catchment; a Draft, October 1981. Ministry for Conservation.

Gunson, N., 1968. The Good Country: Cranbourne Shire. FW Cheshire.

Harrison, R., 2015. Beyond “natural” and “cultural” heritage: toward an ontological politics of heritage in the age of Anthropocene. Heritage & Society 8 (1):24-42.

Howitt, A.W., 1904. The native tribes of south-east Australia. Macmillan and Co., limited.

Massola, A., 1968. Bunjil's Cave, Myths, Legends and Superstitions of the Aborigines of South-East Australia, Lansdowne Press, Melbourne.

Meskell, L., 2011. The nature of heritage: The new South Africa. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

Presland, G., 2017. First People: The Eastern Kulin of Melbourne, Port Phillip & Central Victoria. Museum Victoria Publishing.

Rose, D.B., 1996. and Australian Heritage Commission, Nourishing terrains: Australian Aboriginal views of landscape and wilderness. Canberra.

14

Smyth, R.B., 1878. The aborigines of Victoria (Vol. 1). J. Ferres, Government printer.

Thomas, W., 1859. 1858-1859 Report of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on the Aborigines; together with the proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, Government Printer, Melbourne.

15

Annexure A – Matters Raised by PPV Guide to Expert Evidence

1. Name and address of the expert:

Dr David Tutchener

Principal Cultural Values Consultant

336 Nepean Hwy, Frankston, VIC, 3199

2. Expert’s qualif ications, experience and area of expertise

David holds the following degrees:

Bachelor of Arts (History and Politics) Monash University, 2010; Master of Museum Studies, Macquarie University, 2011; Post Graduate Diploma in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management, Flinders University, 2012; PhD Archaeology, Flinders University, 2018; and Master of Arts Candidate – Anthropology, Deakin University (2020-present).

David specialises in the broad study of Australian Aboriginal cultures (in both pre-colonial and colonial contexts) and work collaboratively with Aboriginal groups to better understand aspects of their past using various methods including ethno-historical, archaeological, historical and anthropological research.

David has worked as a consultant archaeologist in the Caribbean, the USA and Australia (WA, VIC, NSW, NT and QLD) and in museums in Europe and Australia. As a researcher David has published papers regarding heritage and archaeology in Malta, the Caribbean, the North Eastern USA, Melbourne and the Cape York Peninsula. David also maintains the position of Adjunct Lecturer (Level B) at Flinders University.

A copy of David’s curriculum vitae outlining his experience is included as Annexure B to this evidence.

3. Details of any other signif icant contributors to this statement ( if any) and their expertise

Nil

4. All instructions that define the scope of this statement (original and supplementary and whether in writ ing or verbal)

16

David Tutchener, Principal Cultural Values Consultant & Heritage Advisor at the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation, was instructed by Dr Sean Sexton, Operations Manager at the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation, to provide an expert opinion in regard on Aboriginal cultural heritage in relation to the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project for the Environmental Effects Statement (EES). David was instructed to address the following three questions:

1. What does the ethnocultural record tell us about the history and identity of first peoples and their use and occupation of land and waters in the vicinity of either the pipeline or other related works of the Crib Point Project. This would include Westernport Bay, and French Island. 2. What issues or deficiencies from an ethnocultural perspective have you been able to identify in the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Technical Report. 3. Are there particular risks or issues that arise from an ethnocultural perspective in relation to the project, that the panel should be informed of?

2. Detai ls and qualif ications of any person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the expert has rel ied in preparing the statement.

Nil

17

Annexure B – Curriculum Vitae

Dr David Tutchener QUALIFICATIONS > Bachelor of Arts (History and Politics) Monash University, 2010 > Master of Museum Studies, Macquarie University, 2011 > Post Graduate Diploma in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management, Flinders University, 2012 > PhD Archaeology, Flinders University, 2018 > Master of Arts Candidate – Anthropology, Deakin University (2020-present) BRIEF WORK HISTORY

Ø Principal Cultural Values Consultant Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) (2020- Present)

Ø Archaeologist/ Heritage Advisor

Ø Archaeologist / Heritage Advisor (Lead Consultant) On Country Heritage and Consulting (2018)

Ø Project Archaeologist/ Heritage Advisor Tardis Enterprises (2018)

Ø Archaeologist / Project Director Wenlock Goldfields and Surrounding Areas, Far Northern Central Cape York (2014 - 2018)

Ø Archaeologist / Team Leader Alngith Aboriginal Corporation, Weipa Cape York (July 2015)

Ø Archaeologist Saint Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research (SECAR) January 2014 and 2015

Ø Casual Academic / Adjunct Lecturer (Level B) Flinders University (2014- Present)

Ø Archaeologist (2013- 2016) (Full time / Part time / Casual) University of Vermont Consulting (USA) Archaeology Program

Ø Archaeologist (2012- 2019) (sub-contractor) On Site Cultural Heritage Management

Ø Cultural Heritage Advisor / Archaeologist (2011- 2012) Alpha Archaeology

18

Other Qualifications/Skills: > Diploma of Journalism (Freelance) – QED, 2010. > Diploma of Project Management – Alison Online, 2015. > Caring for Heritage Collections: An online learning program, The Centre for Cultural Materials Conservation University of Melbourne. > AIMA/NAS Level 1 Certificate. > PADI OPEN WATER and ADVANCED OPEN WATER Certificates. > Current First Aid Certificate. > Full Australian Driver’s license. Professional Memberships: Australasian Archaeological Association (AAA) Australian Society of Historical Archaeology (ASHA) Vermont Archaeological Society (VAS) Australian Archaeology Skills Passport National Committee Member (AAA) Publications: Peer Reviewed: Tutchener, D. 2013 Collective Identity and Heritage: Ebb and Flow at National and Global Levels. Journal of Globalization Studies Vol. 2, (Nov) 2013. Tutchener, D. 2015 Hard and Soft Power in Australian Cultural Heritage. Nexus: The Canadian Student Journal of Anthropology, Volume 23 (1), June, 2015: 68-48. Tutchener, D., S. Aird, M. Boulden, A. Cooper 2017 The ‘taphonomy’ of the Australian great bowerbird within the Wenlock Goldfields, Cape York Peninsula Queensland, Australian Archaeology, Issue 1-2. Tutchener, D. 2017 Rescue Archaeology: Battery Nassau, St. Eustatius. Australasian Journal of Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 41, 57-62. Tutchener, D. 2018 Persistence and Space: An investigation into the archaeology of the Wenlock region in Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. PhD Thesis, Flinders University, Archaeology. Tutchener, D., M. Morrison, D. Claudie, 2019 Results of Archaeological Surveys of the Pianamu Cultural Landscape, Central Cape York Peninsula 2014-2016, Queensland Archaeological Research 22:39-58. Tutchener, D. 2019 The Daniels Collection, Vermont. The KI Site Revisited; Lithic Analysis Dataset, Archaeology of Eastern North America 47:83-86. Tutchener, D. and D. Claudie 2020 Beyond Contact and Shared Landscapes in Australian Archaeology (Under Review), Australian Archaeology. Tutchener, D., R. Kurpiel, B. Ward, E. Toohey, D. Turnbull, R. Ogden 2020 Cultural Heritage Significance – Not to be Muted or Trifled with In E. Foley, C.Spry, D. Frankel and S. Lawrence (eds) Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Management in Victoria (In Press). Book / Exhibition Reviews:

19

Tutchener, D. 2015 The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture (Book Review). Society of Historical Archaeology Journal, 49:4. Tutchener, D. 2016 Wiyohpiyata: Lakota Images of the Contested West (Exhibition Review). International Journal of Heritage Studies, Volume 22, Number 6. Editor Reviewed / Encyclopedia Entries / Abstracts: Tutchener, D, 2011 The Auberge de Provence Valetta: a History of the Building, its Tenants and its Significance, Anthrojournal. Tutchener, D. 2012 and 2018 Museums of Malta. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Springer 2013, 2018. Tutchener, D. 2012 and 2018 Royal Exhibition Building, Melbourne. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Springer 2013, 2018. Tutchener, D. 2012 and 2018 Smithsonian Museums. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Springer 2013, 2018. Tutchener, D. 2018 Persistence and Space: An investigation into the archaeology of the Wenlock region in Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. PhD Thesis, Flinders University, Archaeology. Abstract in Australian Society Historical Archaeology Vol. 36: 99. Conference Presentations: Tutchener, D, 2013. Chimney Point and Adaptive Reuse. Eastern States Archaeological Conference, Portland, Maine (USA). November 2013. Poster. Tutchener, D. 2014. Labour Relations and Landscape: Slave Built Agricultural Retaining Walls on the Quill, St. Eustatius. ASHA/AAA Conference. Cairns Queensland. Poster. Tutchener, D. 2015. Far Northern Queensland, Cape York and Aboriginal Historical Archaeology: The Wenlock Goldfields. SAA Conference. San Francisco (USA). Poster. Tutchener, D. & R. Cook, R. Stelten 2015. Rescue Archaeology: Battery Nassau, St. Eustatius. IACA Conference, Saint Martin (Caribbean). Poster. Tutchener, D. 2019. Persistence and Space: An investigation into the archaeology of the Wenlock region in Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. Australasian Society of Historical Archaeology, Port Macquarie. Presentation. Tutchener, D. and D. Claudie 2019. Spatial Analysis of CMTs in the Wenlock region of Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. AAA Conference. Gold Coast Queensland. Presentation and CMT Session Co-Convenor. Tutchener, D., R. Kurpiel, B. Ward, E. Toohey, D. Turnbull, R. Ogden 2020. Cultural Heritage Significance – Not to be Muted or Trifled. La Trobe Colloquium. Professional Publications (Selection Only): Tutchener, D., S. Singleton, G. Niemoeller 2012. Heritage Assessment Report Alma Gold Mine Site Lot 217 (DP755918) 110 Half Moon Road, Mongarlowe NSW. Niemoeller, G., D. Tutchener 2012. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, Avoca Tank Project (Stages 1 & 2) Tritton Resources, Girilambone, Bogan Shire NSW 2831. Tutchener, D., G. Niemoeller 2013. Historical Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, Avoca Tank Project (Stages 1 & 2) Tritton Resources, Girilambone, Bogan Shire NSW 2831.

20

Tutchener, D. 2016, 2017. An Archaeological Investigation into the Wenlock Goldfields and Surrounding Areas, Report prepared for the Chuulangun Aboriginal Corporation. Tutchener, D. 2019 Bunjil Place Gallery: The Significance of Westernport bay to the Bunurong People. Statement prepared for the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation.