independent report - future use of deebing creek ... · web viewhare interests not w i l li n g to...

of 65 pages

Final Project Report - DATSIP0138

An Independent Report for the

Future Use of Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve

Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd PO Box 5584Stafford Heights QLD 4053 ABN 70 681 325 467ACN 116837417

Contact: John Anderson Phone: 0437 534 516Email: j ohn@ p i -c a t s . c o m . a u

of 65 pages

PROJECTMILESTONES

Date 09 January 2017

Project Client Project Supplier

Manager Site Registrar, Cultural Heritage Policy Level 6, 75 Williams StreetBrisbane QLD 4000

Supplier Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd PO Box 5584Stafford Heights QLD 4053Contact Dr Steve

Nichols (07) 3405 3049Steph e n.nic h o l s @dat s ip.qld. g o v .au

Contact John Anderson 0437 534 516john@ p i - cat s . c o m .au Project

Contract Approved

Ron Weatherall, DDG DATSIP 18 July 2016 Meeting

Project Contract Approved

John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 15 July 2016 Meeting

Project Plan Agreed

Dr Steve Nichols01 August 2016 Meeting

Project Plan Agreed

John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 01 August 2016 Meeting

Interim Report Received

Dr Steve Nichols19 September 2016

Interim Report Completed

John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 16 September 2016

Project Plan Variation Agreed

Ron Weatherall, DDG DATSIP26 September 2016 Teleconference

Project Plan Variation Agreed

John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 26 September 2016 Teleconference

Project Extension Agreed

Clare O’Connor, DG DATSIP 02 November 2016 Email

Project Extension Requested

John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 31 October 2016 Email

Final Report V1 Reviewed

A/DDG Helena Wright 23 November 2016


John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 23 November 2016


A/DDG Helena Wright 27 November 2016


John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 27 November 2016

Final Report V3 Completed

A/DDG Helena Wright 03 December 2016


John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 03 December 2016


A/DDG Helena Wright 09 January 2017


John Anderson EO Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd 09 January 2017

of 65 pages

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................7

2. Summary of Recommendations...........................................................................................................8

3. Project Introduction....................................................................................................................................113.1. Background ....................................................................................................................................113.2. Scope of Works ..............................................................................................................................11

4 Project Deliverables - Consultation with stakeholders.................................................................................124.1 Customer Staff ...............................................................................................................................124.2 Key Non-Aboriginal Party Stakeholders .........................................................................................124.3 Key Stakeholders ...........................................................................................................................134.4 Consensus and Discord ..................................................................................................................144.5 Aspirations for future use and management .................................................................................164.6 Options and risks for future use and management .......................................................................17

5 Who holds the most legitimateinterest?......................................................................................................185.1 Native Title Act 1993 Lens .............................................................................................................185.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 Lens ...................................................................................20

6 Policy imperatives - future use and management of Cemetery Reserve.......................................................226.1 Future use .....................................................................................................................................22

7 Practical considerations for day-to-day management..................................................................................25

8 Policy Nexus for the wary............................................................................................................................308.1 Mousetrap Policies ........................................................................................................................30

REPORT APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................34

Appendix A: 2005 Cultural Heritage Body Extent – Jagera Daran Pty Ltd ....................................................35

Appendix B: DATSIP List of Stakeholders ....................................................................................................36

Appendix C: Yarning Scripts© ....................................................................................................................40

Appendix D: Stakeholder Conversations .....................................................................................................41

Appendix E: Extract from Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreement for QI2007/037 ...............................44

Appendix F: 2008 Ipswich City Council ILUA with Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People .............................45

Appendix G: 2015 Frasers Property Australia – Land Interests ....................................................................46

Appendix H: 2015 Frasers Property Australia – Tenure History by Margaret Cook ......................................47

Appendix I: 2015 Frasers Property Australia – Cemetery History by Margaret Cook ....................................53

Appendix J: 2016 Heritage Register No: 602251 Deebing Creek Mission (former) ........................................56

Appendix K: Key Enablers – Co-Design and Partnerships ............................................................................58Enablers ....................................................................................................................................................58

of 65 pages

Appendix L: Strategy for Joint Management ...............................................................................................60Project Title ..............................................................................................................................................60Target Outcomes ......................................................................................................................................60Outputs ....................................................................................................................................................61Work Plan .................................................................................................................................................61Indicative Budget .....................................................................................................................................61

Appendix M: Project Management Framework ..........................................................................................62Governance ..............................................................................................................................................62Quality Management ...............................................................................................................................62Organisational Impact ..............................................................................................................................62Outcome Realisation ................................................................................................................................62Project Review .........................................................................................................................................63Project Funding ........................................................................................................................................63Project Advocacy ......................................................................................................................................63

Appendix N: Julia Ford nee Sandy: Notes from Michael Aird on 27 November 2016 ....................................64

AC KN O W LED G E M E N T

This Report is dedicated to those contributors whose lived example, generosity of spirit and persistence with the life circumstances dealt to them is both inspiring and humbling. I particularly acknowledge the recently deceased members of the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul families whose passing gives credence to this Report and influenced the reserved manner of how the stories and contributions of Aboriginal persons have been presented.

John Anderson 09 January 2017

of 65 pages

IMPORTANT NOTEApart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be reproduced by any process without the written consent of Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd. All enquiries should be directed to Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd.

We have prepared this report for the sole purposes of the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (“Customer”) for the specific purpose of only for which it is supplied (“Purpose”). This report is strictly limited to the purpose and the facts and matters stated in it and does not apply directly or indirectly and will not be used for any other application, purpose, use or matter.

In preparing this report we have made certain assumptions. We have assumed that all information and documents provided to us by the Customer or because of a specific request or enquiry were complete, accurate and up-to- date. Where we have obtained information from a government register or database, we have assumed that the information is accurate. Where an assumption has been made, we have not made any independent investigations with respect to the matters the subject of that assumption. We are not aware of any reason why any of the assumptions are incorrect.

This report is presented without the assumption of a duty of care to any other person (other than the Customer) (“Third Party”). The report may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of a Third Party or for other uses. Without the prior written consent of Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd:

(a) this report may not be relied on by a Third Party; and

(b) Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd will not be liable to a Third Party for any loss, damage, liability or claim arising out of or incidental to a Third Party publishing, using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter contained in this report.

If a Third Party uses or relies on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter contained in this report with or without the consent of Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd, Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd disclaims all risk and the Third Party assumes all risk and releases and indemnifies and agrees to keep indemnified Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd from any loss, damage, claim or liability arising directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance on this report.

In this note, a reference to loss and damage includes past and prospective economic loss, loss of profits, damage to property, injury to any person (including death) costs and expenses incurred in taking measures to prevent, mitigate or rectify any harm, loss of opportunity, legal costs, compensation, interest and any other direct, indirect, consequential or financial or other loss.

Docu me nt Status

Version Purpose of Document Orig Review Review Date

First Internal Review JDA JDA/DATSIP 25.11.2016

Second Internal Review JDA JDA/DATSIP 29.11.2016

Third Final Review JDA JDA 03.12.2016

Fourth Final Report JDA JDA 09.01.2017

Appro v al f or I ss ue

Name Signature Date

John Anderson 09.01.2017

of 65 pages

Executive Summary

1. Executive SummaryThe Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (DATSIP) engaged Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd as The Supplier to consult with identified stakeholders regarding the future use and management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve, and to provide recommendations to the Director-General, Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (DATSIP).

The Project commenced on 18 July 2016 and was expected to be complete by 31 October 2016 on acceptance of a Final Report by the Director-General. A Project extension was given by the Director General on 02 November 2016 to accommodate the ‘sorry business’ of a family of key informants. This family of key informants were further consulted on Monday 21 November 2016 causing adjustments to the largely completed Final Report. It should be noted that there have been eight bereavements of Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul family members associated with the former Deebing Creek Mission and surrounding districts since the Supplier contract was signed on 18 July 2016.

In all, four Aboriginal stakeholder forums were convened and over 60 individual contributions were made mainly from informants living in South East Queensland plus Rockhampton, Sunshine Coast, Cherbourg and Toowoomba.

This Report aligns with the Project’s scope of works while also provoking thought as to how DATSIP might influence Queensland policy settings in addressing the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders including:

Proposed 2017 State Planning Policy;

Role and function of the Department as Trustee for a Cemetery;

Enhanced administration of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003;

Local Government planning and development approvals processes; and

Community-lead studies of former reserves, missions and places of cultural significance Aboriginal aspirations for future uses of the Cemetery Reserve include:

A place from which to share the history of the Deebing Creek Mission, the Cemetery, and stories of Aboriginal people associated with the site and surrounding areas;

A place to lay deceased Aboriginal people to rest;

A Memorial Wall or Garden of Remembrance;

An Aboriginal education connection with schools in the surrounding district;

The reunification of the Cemetery Reserve and former Mission land proper;

The former Mission site and Cemetery be handed back as a cultural landscape to support the creation of a living culture village featuring bush foods, meeting place, Education Centre and amphitheatre.

A case is provided for the recommended establishment of a Deebing Creek Aboriginal Mission and Cemetery Trust as the vehicle for commuting a Heritage Agreement under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 to meet the stated aspirations of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal stakeholders for future use and management of the Cemetery Reserve.

Summary of Recommendations

of 65 pages

2. Summary of RecommendationsThe following stream of consciousness informs the shaping of the nine recommendations below, of which more detailed background is provided in the body of the Report:

(a) This Reportcentresonthe AboriginalCemetery,forwhichfutureuse andmanagement is contested by Aboriginal stakeholders

(b) All Aboriginal Stakeholders ask forthe returnofthe Cemetery andMissionproperto Aboriginalownership and management

(c) The Cemetery andMissionproperare subjectto the AboriginalCulturalHeritage Act 2003

(d) The Cemetery andMissionproperare heritage listed undertheQueensland Heritage Act1992

(e) The Cemetery andMissionproperholds the interestof allAboriginalstakeholders

(f) The IpswichCity Council2008 registeredIndigenous LandUse Agreement is bindingonthe Aboriginalsignatories who are the key Aboriginalstakeholders inthe Cemetery Reserve

(g) DATSIP hasobligations as Trustee, whichitought to demonstrate its efficient andeffectivemanagement ofthe AboriginalCemetery before anydecisionismade about future transfer,ownershipanduse

(h) In exploringTrustee obligations,the reality ofthe resources,costs, governance andadministrationinmanaging and caring forthe Cemetery Reservemight then betterinform the paths to future transfer, ownershipand use

(i) The processof definingandmeetingobligations as Trustee thenprovides anopportunityto bringallAboriginal stakeholdersalongthe journey to fullandpropercemetery management includingdemonstrating to Aboriginal stakeholdersthe practicalitiesofcaring andmanagement i.e.what ittakes

(j) The journey to bettermanagementofthe Cemetery by the Trustee can be utilisedas ameans ofcoalescingvision, commitment and harmony amongAboriginalstakeholders

(k) The networkedgovernance andmanagement modelthat emerges thensets firm groundforthe establishmentof a Cemetery Trustorthe like, which Aboriginalstakeholders couldform alternativeviews about h o w to implement withthe benefitof12-24 monthengagement inthe processwithDATSIP throughsteps (g) to (i) above

(l) Shouldthe Cemetery Reserve be consideredfortransferring, the heritage listingunderthe QueenslandHeritage Act 1992 wouldstillstand.

R e c omm en d a t i o n 1

Government to note there are a number of differing and in some cases conflicting aspirations among the various Aboriginal stakeholders regarding future uses of the Deebing Creek Cemetery Reserve including:

A place from which to share the history of the Deebing Creek Mission and Cemetery and the stories of Aboriginal people associated with the site.

A place to lay deceased Aboriginal people to rest.

An historic place for a memorial wall or garden of remembrance.

A place from which to pursue education connections with schools in the local area.

of 65 pages



Government to note there are many Aboriginal people with demonstrated connections to the Deebing Creek Mission and Cemetery Reserve area, including traditional owners from the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul people as well as those with historical and familial links to the former Mission. Even with differing aspirations regarding future uses of the Cemetery, there is widespread consensus that both the former Mission and Cemetery Reserve areas comprise a significant cultural landscape.


Government to note the Ipswich City Council has a registered Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) for the Ipswich local government area, which incorporates a cultural protocol between Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul people and consider whether this protocol may be relevant to any future consultation and decision- making processes required in relation to future management of the Cemetery Reserve.


Government to ensure the results of the Ground Penetrating Radar survey commissioned by DATSIP fully informs any future development or ground disturbing activities on or near the Cemetery Reserve. A suitable buffer zone to recognise the potential for burials to exist beyond the northern boundary of the Reserve is to be established.


DATSIP to identify and quantify the recurring financial liabilities associated with the ongoing management and maintenance of the Cemetery Reserve and recognise the need to incorporate these liabilities into an appropriate funding model in the event of any future change of Trustee for the Reserve.


DATSIP consider establishing a Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Trust Project Team incorporating Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul representatives and other Aboriginal stakeholders with traditional, historical or familial links to the Deebing Creek Mission to support and advise the Director-General in relation to key decisions concerning the future management and use of the Cemetery Reserve and as a vehicle for building consensus among different stakeholder groups.


DATSIP and a Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Trust Project Team consider a Heritage Agreement under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, which can support an appropriate historic memorial reserve entity, to help fund the future use and management of the Cemetery Reserve.


of 65 pages


DATSIP continue in the role of Trustee for the Cemetery Reserve with support from the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Trust Project Team (membership at Recommendation6) and consider developing a longer-term strategy for transferring the Reserve to an appropriate Aboriginal organisation in accordance with the Aboriginal Land Act 1991.


Government to note Aboriginal interests in Queensland’s State Planning Policy and explore with Aboriginal people a range of fundamental protective measures to be embedded in future land use planning and local planning schemes for the proactive management of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and places.

Project Introduction

of 65 pages

3. Project Introduction3.1. BackgroundThe Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve is located about eight kilometres south of Ipswich City on part of the former Deebing Creek Mission Aboriginal Reserve founded by the Aboriginal Protection Society of Ipswich on 130 acres at the southern end of Grampian Drive in 1887.

On 2 January 1892, construction was completed and the reserve was officially proclaimed aReserve for the use of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the State.

DATSIP was appointed as Trustee of this Cemetery Reserve On 6 December 1980.

Jagera Daran Pty Ltd is the registered Cultural Heritage Body (Appendix A) covering the Deebing Creek area since 2005.

DATSIP engaged Ngaran Goori Pty Ltd, a Jagera-led enterprise, to undertake maintenance of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve, which the service had long been performed voluntarily by those who have connections with Deebing Creek Descendants.

In May 2015, DATSIP was notified of a proposal for the burial of a Jagera family descendent at the Reserve.

In March 2016, DATSIP engaged RPS Australia East Pty Ltd to undertake a ground penetrating radar survey on the Reserve proper.

The preliminary survey results (htt p s :/ / www .da ts i p .q ld .go v . a u /re s o urces / d a t sim a / p e o p le- c omm un i ties/ c u l tu ra l - h e ri t age / d e e b i n g - c ree k -r e p ort . p df ) indicate that there have been disturbances to the land which are consistent with burials. The burial area appears to extend to and across the northern boundary, but appear to be restricted to the eastern half of the gazetted cemetery lot.

There are conflicting interests in the future use and management of the cemetery reserve by several Aboriginal parties and individual stakeholders.

3.2. Scope of WorksThe agreed Project Scope of Works regarding the future use and management of the

Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve comprises:

Consultation with identified stakeholders across groups with various interests. It is anticipated that stakeholder groups will include identified Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul family groups, Local and State Government representatives and a diversity of community members;

Seeking and collating all views from consulted stakeholders about the future use and management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve; and

Development of a report based on the stakeholder consultation, outlining options and risks for the future use and management of the Deebing Creek, giving regard to stakeholder interest, existing legislation and the role of the Director-General of Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships as trustee for the

Project Introduction

of 65 pages

Cemetery Reserve.

Project Deliverables - Consultation with stakeholders

of 65 pages

4 Project Deliverables - Consultation with stakeholders

4.1 Customer StaffIt was acknowledged at Project start that DATSIP staff input would be pivotal to Project success.

One of the initial project conversations was held on 26 July 2016 with Bradley Saunders,

RegionalDirector SWQ and Vicki Sunderland, Senior Project Office at the DATSIP Ipswich Regional Office.The meeting provided the Supplier with critical background on relationships and sensitivitymapping undertaken by the Regional Office. The Supplier was also provided with a copy of the 2008 Ipswich City Council Indigenous Land Use Agreement and the list of stakeholders.

DATSIP staff assisted with identifying key Project stakeholders including any associated risks.

As part of a Briefing to the Director General Clare O’Conner and key Regional and Central Office staff on Friday 25 November 2016, further questions were identified for which DATSIP would like information including:

1. Who among stakeholders would hold the most legitimate interest in the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve;

2. What are the policy imperatives to consider in relation to the future use and management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve; and

3. What are the practical considerations for the day-to-day management of the Cemetery Reserve?

4.2 Key Non-Aboriginal Party StakeholdersKey conversations were held with the broader group of stakeholders notably Frasers Property Australia and Ipswich City Council.

Frasers Property Australia demonstrated a willingness and capacity to be a “good neighbour” in relation to the Cemetery Reserve. Their suggestion of planning buffer areas adjacent to the Reserve proper and having consistent, open and inclusive conversations with shared stakeholders appear to demonstrate a sound approach to meeting cultural and historic heritage obligations.

Ipswich City Council are rightly proud of their agreement-making record with the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People as well as provision for upholding the interests of the broader Indigenous community in their City Council planning regime.

The Council are hopeful that State Government and developers would go about their business in relation to the Cemetery Reserve and the former Mission site without contributing to division or disharmony in the Aboriginal community.


of 65 pages

4.3 Key StakeholdersThe Supplier made an analysis of the DATSIP sensitivity mapping and stakeholder list to create a greater understanding of the key moral and cultural authority holders. An applied colour-code highlighted who among Aboriginal stakeholders from each interest group held key influence in conversations about future use and management of the Deebing Creek (Appendix B).

The Supplier designed the Project methodology with this value-adding sensitivity mapping in

hand. The Pi-CaTS Pty Ltd Yarning Script© (Appendix C) approach was trialled in conversations

withseveral Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul individuals in the first instance before introducing its use to ensure a practical and consistent engagement process.

Three key questions were posed using the Yarning Script©:

1. What the matters of interest are for me/us with the Cemetery…

2. What the Cemetery means to me/us…

3. What Cemetery management looks like to us…

To gather stakeholder views around these three questions, interviews were conducted either in group-work, face-to-face or by telephone.

The Yarning Script© helped to secure meaningful data from Aboriginal contributors in culturally- grounded conversations. The Yarning Script© is based on a blend of communication and art- based approaches that enable a common ground on which to converse and explore otherwise difficult, sensitive or complex topics.

Contributors were informed that the conduct of the Project involved the collection, access, and/or use of personal contributions. Contributors were also told that their personal information was confidential and would not be disclosed to third parties without their consent. Contributors understood that a de-identified copy of the data may be used for Project Report purposes however their anonymity would be safeguarded.

Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul family members were comfortable with the de-identified views of contributors being used to ensure there were valuable lessons learned from the Project. The Supplier is thankful for the family support and trust for Elder legacies to be loaned to this Project.

Outside of the telephone sessions, the Yarning Script© proved successful in harmonising the language and dialogue of the facilitator/interviewer and stakeholder meetings. The results of conversations have been aggregated into a tabled series of themes.

Over 60 contributors from SEQ plus Rockhampton, Sunshine Coast, Cherbourg and Toowoomba informed Project conversations.

In-depth yarning was focussed through four key Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul forums whose contributors aged from 28 to 82 years on:

26 August 2016 Ngaran Goori Ltd 6 Attendees

28 August 2016 Deebing Creek Descendants 12 Attendees

30 August 2016 Jagera Daran Pty Ltd 3 Attendees


of 65 pages

13 November 2016 Deebing Creek Descendants 11 Attendees


During August to November 2016, around 75 individual conversations were held by telephone, email and face-to-face with members of each of:

Stakeholder Contributors Affiliations

Jagera 3 Bonner, Bray, Thomson,

Nunukul/Yugerra 2 Ruska

Ugarapul 2 Graham

Ugarapul/Yugara 6 Thompson

Yugara/Yuggera 9 Bekue, Carr, Sandy, Smith, Thompson

Others 11 DATSIP, Fraser Group Australia, Ipswich City Council, Purga Elders, Sunshine Coast Reconciliation Action Group

4.4 Consensus and DiscordVarious combinations of the major views expressed (Appendix D) are themed in the table below ( for noting). The category “Others” includes historic heritage practitioners, Frasers Property Australia and Ipswich City Council plus Aboriginal stakeholders not affiliated with any of the Traditional Owner groups.

Views

1. Aboriginal Ownership of Reserve

2. Aboriginal Management of Reserve

Jagera, Yuggera Ugarapul Others

- - - -

3. Willing to Share Interests

4. Not Willing to ShareInterests

5. Maintain TO Interests

6. Maintain DescendantsInterests

7. True History of people/place

8. Organisation has Capacity

9. Organisation has Capability 10. Development is impacting

on Reserve

11. Former Deebing Creek Mission to be added to the Reserve

K e y to ta bl e - is not preferred is ambivalent is supportive is preferred

Page 14 of 65 pages

of 65 pages


The following interpretation of the afore-described Consensus and Discord table depicts the views of each stakeholder group.

View Consensus Discord

1 Most stakeholders prefer that there should be Aboriginal ownership of the Cemetery ReserveMost non-Aboriginal parties support Aboriginal ownership of the Cemetery Reserve

2 Most stakeholders prefer that there should be Aboriginal management of the Cemetery ReserveMost non-Aboriginal parties support Aboriginal management of the Cemetery Reserve

3 Jagera People are willing to share interests Yuggera and Ugarapul are against sharing to various degrees.

4 Jagera People are willing to share interests Yuggera and Ugarapul are against sharing to various degrees.

5 All Aboriginal stakeholders prefer that Traditional Owner interests should be maintainedMost non-Aboriginal parties support that Traditional Owner interests should be maintained

6 Yuggera and Ugarapul prefer that Deebing Creek descendants’ interests should be maintainedJagera and most non-Aboriginal parties support that Deebing Creek descendants’ interests should be maintained

7 All stakeholders prefer that the true history of people and place should be told

8 Jagera organisations have significant capacity Yuggera and Ugarapul don’t have significant capacity

9 Jagera organisations have significant capability Yuggera and Ugarapul don’t have significant capability

10 All Aboriginal stakeholders prefer the view that development is impacting on the Cemetery Reserve

An evenly balanced ambivalent view is held by non-Aboriginal parties that development is impacting on the Cemetery Reserve

11 All Aboriginal stakeholders prefer the view that development is impacting on the Cemetery Reserve

An evenly balanced ambivalent view is held by non-Aboriginal parties that the former Mission land should be added to the Cemetery Reserve


Page 16 of 65 pages

4.5 Aspirations for future use and managementAboriginal stakeholder contributions incorporated aspirations for future uses of the Cemetery Reserve including:

A place from which to share the history of the Deebing Creek Mission, the Cemetery, and stories of Aboriginal people associated with the site and surrounding areas;


A Memorial Wall or Garden of Remembrance;

An Aboriginal education connection with schools in the surrounding district; and

The reunification of the Cemetery Reserve and former Mission land proper.

Should such a reunification transpire, the wish then is that the former Mission site and Cemetery be handed back as a cultural landscape to support the creation of a living culture village featuring bush foods, meeting place, Education Centre and amphitheatre.


Government to note there are a number of differing and in some cases conflicting aspirations among the various Aboriginal stakeholders regarding future uses of the Deebing Creek Cemetery Reserve including:

• A place from which to share the history of the Deebing Creek Mission and Cemetery and the stories of Aboriginal people associated with the site.

• A place to lay deceased Aboriginal people to rest.

• An historic place for a memorial wall or garden of remembrance.

• A place from which to pursue education connections with schools in the local area.


Government to note there are many Aboriginal people with demonstrated connections to the Deebing Creek Mission and Cemetery Reserve area, including traditional owners from the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul people as well as those with historical and familial links to the former Mission. Even with differing aspirations regarding future uses of the Cemetery, there is widespread consensus that both the former Mission and Cemetery Reserve areas comprise a significant cultural landscape.

Factors causing stress and frustration among Aboriginal family groups and organisations is the capacity and capability to comfortably navigate the town planning and native title overlays plus the cultural and historic heritage systems from a plain and shared understanding (Appendix A, E-I).

The Customer may have introduced complexity in organising and coordinating an efficient and effective Aboriginal community response to challenges associated with Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve and former Mission by its interpretation of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and application of the last-man-standing provisions therein. The following Section 5 provides further points for consideration in this regard.


Page 17 of 65 pages

4.6 Options and risks for future use and managementThe Supplier is to provide recommendations for the future use and management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve after consulting with identified stakeholders and conducting an analysis of relevant information in the context of the Director-General as Trustee for the Cemetery Reserve.

As part of a Briefing to the Director General Clare O’Conner and key Regional and Central Office staff on Friday 25 November 2016, further questions were identified for which DATSIP would like information including:

1. Who among stakeholders would hold the most legitimate interest in the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve;

2. What are the policy imperatives to consider in relation to the future use and management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve; and

3. What are the practical considerations for the day-to-day management of the Cemetery Reserve?

The additional questions posed by the Customer is addressed in the following Section 5

Who holds the most legitimate interest?

5 Who holds the most legitimate interest?5.1 Native Title Act 1993 Lens

It is widely accepted that Aboriginal People have occupied Australia for thousands of years. Aboriginal people have a long history and a rich, complex and ancient culture.

Prior to colonisation there are believed to have been more than 3000 Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People occupying the country subject to the Jagera People Native Title Claims.

The sub-clans who are an acknowledged part of the Yagara Language Bloc include:

the Jagera of the Lockyer Valley,

Cooparoojargin of South Brisbane,

Mianjin of Brisbane,

Bolingan of Beenleigh,

Goobanbul of Cleveland,

Warpai of Ipswich,

Chepara of Coorparoo,

Gnoolongpin of Lytton/Wynnum,

Ugarapul of West Ipswich and

Gatabil of Perserverance/Withcott.

The country these groups are associated with reside within Clan Estate Areas starting from the mouth of the Brisbane River, south to the Logan River, West to the foothills of the Great Dividing Range, north to Esk (southern part) and east along the Brisbane River to Sandgate.

In this instance, the Cemetery Reserve is within the collective Homeland Estate of the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People's. Throughout the period of European settlement, many Aboriginal people were forcibly removed from their own Homeland Estates and contained on mission sites within the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People's collective Homeland Estate. Numbers of people living within this Homeland Estate are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who live in this area by choice and some have an established historic connection.

It’s estimated there are over 13,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons currently living within the Brisbane and Ipswich areas. It is therefore important for respect to be accorded to the Traditional Custodians regarding their homelands and culture so as to not impact further upon their rights or perpetuate displacement.

A cultural protocol between the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People who have this country of origin interest is articulated in the Indigenous Land Use Agreement QI2007/037 (area agreement for tenure resolution) between the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People and the Ipswich City Council registered by the National Native Title Tribunal on 19 September 2008 (Appendix E).

#dr_52252_68.DOC Page 18 of 65 pages

of 65 pages


Re c omme n d a ti o n 3

Government to note the Ipswich City Council has a registered Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) for the Ipswich local government area, which incorporates a cultural protocol between Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul people and consider whether this protocol may be relevant to any future consultation and decision-making processes required in relation to future management of the Cemetery Reserve.

This Cemetery Report then is not bound in the context of then Cemetery being an integral part of any current overlapping land claims.

The following table describes the native title context in which Traditional Owner c u l t ural he r i tage i nt e r e s t s in the Cemetery Reserve are positioned.

Date Element Comment

2002 Jagera People (QUD 6031/02; QC 02/33)

Discontinued claim

2006 MoU between Jagera People and the Ipswich City Council

Agreed as signed by the Parties on 27 November 2006.An Agreement between Ipswich City Council and Jagera People #2 Native Title Claim Group comprising of: Kenneth Henry Bonner, Clarence William Bonner, Caroline

William Bonner, Caroline Joyce Bonner-Bray, James Bonner and Madonna Williams; and

representatives of the Jagera/Yuggera/Ugarapul People, comprising Ross Anderson, Eddie Ruska, Eileen Oerte and Henry Thompson

The MoU lists preliminary ideas and suggestions for specific outcomes (including cultural heritage management, development of policies and procedures for dealings between parties, the 'promotion of involvement of the Jagera People in the broader social, cultural and economic life of the City of Ipswich', etc) by both the Jagera People and the Ipswich City Council

2008 Indigenous Land Use Agreement QI2007/037 (area agreement for tenure resolution) between the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People and the Ipswich City Council

Registered by the National Native Title Tribunal 19 September 2008 The Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People and Ipswich City Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) agreed between Ipswich CityCouncil and Kenneth Henry Bonner, Clarence William Bonner,Caroline Joyce Bonner-Bray, James Bonner, Madonna William (Jagera People), Eddie Ruska, Michelle Thomson (Yuggera People), Ross Anderson and Eileen Oertel (Ugarapul People).The purpose of the ILUA is to provide a framework for an ongoing relationship between the parties in the lead up to a native title determination.Ipswich City Council, through the Agreement, recognises the special position of the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People as the Traditional Owners of the City of IpswichThe ILUA sets out compliance measures for activities in relation to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

2015 Jagera People #2 (QUD 6014/03; QC 03/15)

Determination yet to be made


Page 2 of 65 pages

5.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 LensThe human remains within the Cemetery Reserve and external to its northern boundary do not “belong” to one homogenous group. First Nations people “own” the burial sites of their ancestors and it is their responsibility to ensure the deceased are respected and sites preserved. First Nations peoples must have access to these burial sites always, regardless of who “owns” the land on which they are located.

Recommendation 4

Government to ensure the results of the Ground Penetrating Radar survey commissioned by DATSIP fully informs any future development or ground disturbing activities on or near the Cemetery Reserve. A suitable buffer zone to recognise the potential for burials to exist beyond the northern boundary of the Reserve is to be established.

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 in Part 2 Division 1 Section 14 “Object and Intent”

specifically states that:

1) The object of this part is to make rules about ownership, custodianship and possession of Aboriginal cultural heritage.

(2) The basic intent underlying the rules stated in this part is that Aboriginal cultural heritage should be protected.

(3) A supporting intent is that, as far as practicable, Aboriginal cultural heritage should be owned and protected by Aboriginal people with traditional or familial links to the cultural heritage if it is comprised of any of the following—

(a) Aboriginal human remains;

(b) secret or sacred objects;

(c) Aboriginal cultural heritage lawfully taken away from an area.

The intention of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 is very clear regarding human remains whether in the curatorship or control of the state i.e. the Queensland Museum or the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery.

Any Division or provision following this section must accord with the legislative intent. The narrow application of the “last-man-standing” provision in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 by Customer representatives to date have arguably not accorded with the intention of this Division in relation to the Cemetery Reserve. The last-man-standing” reference on the Customer website then ought to be reviewed for accuracy and consistency with over-arching legislation.

Additionally, the matter of “last-man-standing” under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 is subordinate to the cultural heritage provisions in the Indigenous Land Use Agreement Registered by the National Native Title Tribunal 19 September 2008.

of 65 pages


The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 in Part 4 Section 34 “Native title party for an area”

Subsection 1 (b) (ii) thus wholly read:

(1) Each of the following is a native title party for an area—

(b) a person who, at any time after the commencement of this section, was a registered native title claimant for the area, but only if—

(ii) the person has surrendered the person’s native title under an indigenous land use agreement registered on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements

With federal registration of the 2008 Native Title ILUA, Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul Peoples all become a native title party for the registered ILUA area, which includes the Cemetery Reserve. Funereal rites for an Aboriginal person interred from elsewhere means that certain remains will likely to have been accompanied by goods, possessions, artefacts associated with their own country, faunal and floral items, and messages. Similarly, the heritage-listed former Mission site features flora that was brought from the homelands of former residents and planted.The future use and management of the Cemetery by extension then, could thus be sustained by an argument that the Cemetery Reserve doesn’t belong to any one or all of the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul Peoples and that care and control should be one of joint management responsibility.

Additionally, while a decision has been enacted to recognize the Jagera People under the “last-man-standing” provision in relation to the Native Title Act, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 does provide for more than one Aboriginal Party by design. This flexibility then enables collective responsibility for those human remains for whom there is a traditional or familial links to the same by way of connections via:

a) community of origin;

b) community of association; or

c) community of association.

Policy imperatives - future use and management of Cemetery Reserve

Page 22 of 65 pages

6 Policy imperatives - future use and management of Cemetery Reserve

6.1 Future useThe policy imperatives to consider in relation to the future use of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve ought to be in keeping with Aboriginal aspirations that include:

A place in which to share the history of the Deebing Creek Mission, the Cemetery, and stories of Aboriginal people associated with the site and surrounding areas;


A Memorial Wall or Garden of Remembrance; and

A first-person Aboriginal education connection with schools in the surrounding

district. Cemeteries are usually held in freehold and managed by the relevant local

government.

Future management arrangements of the Cemetery Reserve are considered in the next section.

6.2 Future managementA most significant policy imperative to consider in relation to the future management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve includes a complicated perpetual care liability.

Some of the many factors that influence a cemetery’s perpetual care liability include:

ground acreage;

cost of wages and benefits for labour;

price of fuel;

age of property structures;

ornateness and quality of materials used in the construction of fences, driveways, mausoleums, and entranceways;

presence of chapel(s), buildings and structures;

irrigation systems, vehicles and other relevant equipment; and

insurance and landscaping costs.

A perpetual care liability will accumulate over time.

The above policy imperative is secondary to satisfying the question of what preferred legislative options might be available to support future management and ownership by and/or with Traditional Owners.

As the Customer Director General currently has trusteeship obligations, it may be prudent to engage a qualified consultant to develop a detailed financial model and perform a cost analysis to determine the value of the perpetual care obligation as relates to each of the


Page 23 of 65 pages

current and future management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve.


Page 24 of 65 pages


DATSIP to identify and quantify the recurring financial liabilities associated with the ongoing management and maintenance of the Cemetery Reserve and recognise the need to incorporate these liabilities into an appropriate funding model in the event of any future change of Trustee for the Reserve.


DATSIP consider establishing a Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Trust Project Team incorporating Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul representatives and other Aboriginal stakeholders with traditional, historical or familial links to the Deebing Creek Mission to support and advise the Director-General in relation to key decisions concerning the future management and use of the Cemetery Reserve and as a vehicle for building consensus among different stakeholder groups.

The pros and cons of principal options include:

A. Native Title Act 1993

o Prescriptive process already in place, which provides opportunity for community healing and consensus building.

o Land Transfer Agreement - A type of Agreement which includes the transfer of land from one party to another based on the subject matter of an agreement rather than a specific category of agreement.

o Indigenous Partnership Agreement - An agreement between Indigenous and non- Indigenous parties whereby the parties set out their intention to jointly cooperate over a variety of important issues.

o Con – costs to Government in making Cemetery Reserve ready for transfer of responsibilities including delisting under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.

o Con – Aboriginal interests won’t be satisfied with just influencing care of the Cemetery proper when the major body of influence in the former Mission site remains principally with the developer/land owner and the Ipswich City Council development approvers.

B. Aboriginal Land Act 1991

o Pro - Prescriptive process already in place, which provides opportunity for community healing and consensus building.

o Pro - transferable land - granted to existing land trusts or corporations registered under the Australian Government Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006.

o Con – costs to Government in making Cemetery Reserve ready for transfer of responsibilities including delisting under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.

o Con – Aboriginal interests won’t be satisfied with just influencing care of the Cemetery proper when the major body of influence in the former Mission site


Page 25 of 65 pages

remains principally with the developer/land owner and the Ipswich City Council development approvers.


Page 26 of 65 pages

C. Queensland Heritage Act 1992

o Pro - Prescriptive process already in place, which provides opportunity for community healing and consensus building.

o Pro - Heritage Agreement can be made between the land owner and other persons who have an interest in the site for the conservation and management of the:

Cemetery Reserve; or

Cemetery Reserve and former Mission site.

o Pro - Management and ownership by agreement could be manifest in a Trust such as for Newstead House, Brisbane.

o Pro – relieves the developer and Governments of costs and responsibilities for longer term maintenance and care of the area subjected to a heritage agreement;

o Con – costs to Government and developer/land owner in making Cemetery Reserve ready for transfer of responsibilities.

o Con – Fraser Group and Ipswich City Council are critical in convincing the Queensland Heritage Council and Aboriginal Parties to make a well-constructed case to the relevant Government chief executive.

The benefit of making an agreement for the Cemetery and former Mission site under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, is that it caters to all party interests in an area that is subject to development pressures and associated approvals processes.

The agreement could provide each party with clarity for:

respectful short-to-medium term relief and certainty for Traditional Owners and the broader community;

respectfully manifesting individual and shared aspirations for longer term goals;

an enabling framework in which to advance mutual and individualinterests;

roles and obligations in meeting individual and shared interests; and

resourcing model to support individual and shared efforts.

The establishment of a “Deebing Creek Aboriginal Mission and Cemetery Trust” as the vehicle for commuting a Heritage Agreement under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 potentially meets the stated aspirations of Aboriginal stakeholder for future uses of the Cemetery Reserve.

Re c omme n d a ti o n 7 DATSIP and a Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Trust Project Team consider a Heritage Agreement under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, which can support an appropriate historic memorial reserve entity, to help fund the future use and management of the Cemetery Reserve.

Practical considerations for day-to-day management

Page 27 of 65 pages

7 Practical considerations for day-to-day managementThe Customer Director General, as Trustee for the Reserve, might consider how well Trustee obligations are currently being met with diligence against the criteria below, which underpins real- world everyday management of a cemetery reserve.

In readying for any decided transfer of responsibilities for the day-to-day management of the Cemetery Reserve, each of a diverse range of elements may require the effective establishment and management of a Cemetery Trust with support and guidance of a capable and creditable joint board of management.

An indicative approach for pre and post-transfer is described in Appendices K, L and M. The transferring of responsibility ought not to manifest in a transfer of long-term burdening cost or debt.


DATSIP continue in the role of Trustee for the Cemetery Reserve with support from the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Trust Project Team (membership at Recommendation 6) and consider developing a longer-term strategy for transferring the Reserve to an appropriate Aboriginal organisation in accordance with the Aboriginal Land Act 1991.

Challenging cemetery reserve attributes to manifest and navigate include but are not limited to:

Tr u s t g o ve r n a nce

1 The cemetery trust

General responsibilities of trust members

Powers and duties of cemetery trusts

Appointment and removal of cemetery trust members

The potential for conflict of interest

Trust members and personal liability

The common seal of the trust

Appeal of a decision of a trust

2 Legislation

Cemeteries Act 1958

Regulations to the Cemeteries Act

Rules and regulations made by a cemetery trust

Penalties

Other legislation

Legal advice


Page 28 of 65 pages

3 The role of government

Governor in Council

Minister for Health

The Department of Human Services

4 Officers of the trust

Trust secretary or manager

Authorised officers5 Trust meetings

Frequency of meetings

Quorum of trust members

Meeting procedure

Meeting venue

Minutes of meetings

Budget meeting

C e m e t e r y ma n ageme nt

6 Procedure for a burial

Booking procedure and confirmation

The grave

The coffin

Essential documentation

Permit to bury

Public safety

Carrying the coffin

Lowering the coffin

7 Burial conducted by a family

8 Burial of a stillborn child

Disposal of pre-viable tissue

Documentation required prior to burial

9 Burial of poor persons

No right of burial is issued for a public grave

Practical considerations


Page 29 of 65 pages

10 Cremation

Crematoria in Queensland

Legislation

The coffin

Additional contents of coffins delivered for cremation

Documentation

Authority concerning disposition of cremated remains11 Cemetery monuments

No work without trust approval

Trust responsibilities concerning monument safety

Monument construction procedures and standards

12 Plaques and headstones for lawn-area graves

Range of options

Plaques

Granite headstones and monuments

Other materials

13 Mausolea

Construction

Above-ground burial procedure

14 Memorials for cremated remains

Range of options

The option of limited tenure for cremation memorials

Interment of cremated remains in a grave

Authority required to remove cremated remains

15 Obtaining additional cemetery land

Site selection

Purchase by the Crown, funded by the trust

Approval required by Governor in Council

16 Development of the cemetery

Design considerations

Environmental considerations

Set out of burial areas

Town planning and building permits

Security and public access


Page 30 of 65 pages

17 Closure of a cemetery for further burials

Pioneer memorial parks

18 Perpetual maintenance obligations

Advance planning

The acceptable standard of maintenance and safety

Heritage conservation

C e m e tery

a d m i n is t r a t i o n 19 The

right of burial

Rights and responsibilities of the holder of the right

Exercising the right

Transfer of the right

Expiry of an unexercised right

20 Cemetery records

• Register of burials

• Register of cremation memorials

• Cemetery plans

• Computerisation of registers and plans

• Security and back-up of registers and plans

• Public access and privacy considerations

21 Risk management

• Regular review to determine potential risks

• Action to remove or diminish those risks

• Insurances

• Cemetery trust members and personal liability

22 Financial management

• Accounting and financial reporting

• Preparing an annual budget

• Setting fees and charges

• Consent for proposed scale of fees

• Application of approved scale of fees

• Payment of commissions is considered inappropriate

• Funds received pre-need

• The financing of development works


Page 31 of 65 pages

• Perpetual maintenance fund


Page 32 of 65 pages

• Purchasing and tender procedures

• Partial rebate of water charges

23 T•axes Ta

Gxoods and Services Tax (GST) Peayroll deductions of income tax (PAYG)

s Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) Debits Tax exemption

Payroll Tax exemption

24 Conditions of work

• Employee or contractor?

• Employees’ conditions of service

• Cemetery Employees Award

• Negotiations towards improved flexibility

• WorkCover insurance

• Superannuation guarantee

• Long service leave

• Equal employment opportunity

25 Occupational health and safety

• Occupational Health and Safety Act

• A safe workplace for all persons, not only trust staff

• Particular workplace hazards in a cemetery

• Documentation of safe work requirements

• Accidents and incidents to be reported to WorkSafe

26 Industry associations and contacts

Policy Nexus for the wary

Page 30 of 65 pages

8 Policy Nexus for the wary8.1 Mousetrap PoliciesIf a human rights lens was placed over the Ipswich City Council local government and surrounding region, it would be starkly obvious that there is no framework in which to evaluate the efficacy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizenship and consumer rights education. Nor is there an obvious approach on how to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander awareness or education in how to assert and enjoy the benefit of those universal rights.

Of the 60+ conversations with Aboriginal people in this Project, it became very clear that the convergence of the policies of Governments combined with development priority interests sees Aboriginal cultural and spiritual values diminished further exacerbating community disharmony and health circumstances.

The cultural, social and emotional impact of uncoordinated implementation of policies in a place- based context creates Indigenous casualties of “mousetrap” policy as exampled in the following three subsections.

(a) Cultural Heritage Body

The first example is the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 providing for the recommendation and appointment of a Cultural Heritage Body.

While there is a provision to cause a review of a CHB’s functions and operations or to remove its licence to operate, this provision in the Act is rarely applied. While Jagera Dargan might say it has reserved space for Yuggera and Ugarapul People in its constituency, its broadening of representation hasn’t been demonstrated.

Jagera People might have the benefit of being last-man-standing conferred on it by the State through a narrow interpretation of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003.

However, any other Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person with particular knowledge and traditional or familial responsibility for human remains and significant cultural heritage within the Cemetery Reserve are first provided for under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and ought to be consistently and respectfully engaged.

A question that has been asked is can a CHB be held to account for failing to ensure that no harm comes to the significant cultural heritage of a former Aboriginal resident of a Reserve, which was created expressly for all Aborigines and not just for the local traditional owner? Further, could a CHB be penalised under the act given there are no protections reserved in the legislation for a CHB.

of 65 pages


(b) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and the Queensland Heritage Act 1992

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 gives the following meaning to significant Aboriginal area, which is an area of particular significance to Aboriginal people because of:

either or both of the following:

(c) Aboriginal tradition;Note— Under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 36 (Meaning of commonly used words and expressions), Aboriginal tradition means the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginal people generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginal people, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs and beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships.

(d) the history, including contemporary history, of any Aboriginal party for the area.

Given that burials extend beyond the northern boundary of the Cemetery Reserve, there reasonably ought to be consideration given to declaring this extension a significant Aboriginal area to ensure there is protection from disturbance.

The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 specifically states:

This Act does not apply to —

(a) a place that is of cultural heritage significance solely through its associationwith Aboriginal tradition or Island custom; or

(b) a place situated on Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander land unless the place is of cultural heritage significance because of its association with Aboriginal tradition or Island custom and with European or other culture, in which case this Act applies to the place if the trustees of the land consent.

Furthermore, the type of heritage listing (Appendix J) entered on the Register 24 September 2004 is described as “Health and care services: Aboriginal reserve/mission” with the following themes:

1.4 Peopling places: Family and marking the phases of life

6.1 Building settlements, towns, cities and dwellings: Establishing settlements and towns

7.2 Maintaining order: Government and public administration

9.1 Educating Queenslanders: Providing primary schooling

History is mainly written by the victors and not the vanquished and arguably the above themes and place type would be viewed differently by Aboriginal Queenslanders and their enlightened supporters. The demystifying process of the Julia Ford headstone is a case in point (Appendix N) in that a commonly held belief was that the deceased was a white woman because no Aboriginal person could possibly have afforded such an expensive headstone.

The former Mission is principally heritage listed because it was part of a reserve for Aborigines. If it wasn’t for a matter of subjugation and subduing of Aboriginal People, it’d be unlikely that the heritage listing of this area would have manifest.


Page 32 of 65 pages

The question then is should the former Mission site be delisted under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 and otherwise be declared a significant Aboriginal area under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 given the earliest development of the area was through the efforts and wages of Aboriginal people?

Delisting would support the relevant Aboriginal Parties to effect management and custodianship of a declared contiguous significant Aboriginal area comprising of the current Cemetery Reserve and remains of the form Mission site.

Conversely, maintaining the current heritage listing would arguably provide more effective planning policy dealing with Aboriginal cultural heritage under the proposed Queensland State Planning Policy 2017 discussed further below.

Herein is a policy mousetrap that if unaddressed will continue to perpetrate a social and moral injustice some 125 years later.

(c) Queensland State Planning Policy 2017

Another timely example is the Queensland State Planning Policy, which is out for public information and feedback until February 2017.

The SPP Part C: Principles state:

An effective land use planning system must enable and facilitate the delivery of development that advances the social, economic and environmental needs of all Queenslanders.

The key word is “all”.

Invariably the rights of Aboriginal peoples are subject to the community disposition and political climate of the time as is very clearly demonstrated by viewing the tenure history of the Deebing Creek Mission (Appendix H).

The SPP refers to Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Heritage and draws a distinction between them in Part D Page 29.

The way the proposed SPP refers to Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Heritage diminishes Aboriginal community expectations and aspirations for caring for country in the case of Deebing Creek Cemetery Reserve and the former Mission. In this case, it’s nominally the one consensus point from Project Stakeholders subjected to four different layers of legislation for the one contiguous Aboriginal site of significance.

Considering current engagement with the Aboriginal community around the future use and management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve, the Queensland Government might engage more with Indigenous Queenslanders to better inform on how to influence the proposed SPP.


Page 33 of 65 pages

Improved Aboriginal community engagement could better influence local planning instruments to engender broader respect for and protect Indigenous cultural and historic heritage places such as Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery and the former Mission site.


Government to note Aboriginal interests in Queensland’s State Planning Policy and explore with Aboriginal people a range of fundamental protective measures to be embedded in future land use planning and local planning schemes for the proactive management of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and places.

REPORT APPENDICES

Page 34 of 65 pages

REPORT APPENDICES

of 65 pages

2005 Cultural Heritage Body Extent – Jagera Daran Pty

Ltd Appendix A: 2005 Cultural Heritage Body Extent – Jagera Daran Pty Ltd

DATSIP List of Stakeholders

Page 36 of 65 pages

Appendix B: DATSIP List of StakeholdersNote: Key stakeholders of influence

Person OrganisationLevel of

Consultation (H, M, L)

Address Contact Number

Louisa Bonner Jagera–and Board member of Ngaran Goori Ltd

H 17 Casey StreetLeichhardt QLD 4305

0418 744 645

James Bonner Jagera and Director for Jagera Daran Pty Ltd H Work Address - 124 Racecourse Rd, Ascot

QLD 4007 0413 423 786

Caroline BrayJagera and Director for Traditional Owner and Jagera Daran Pty Ltd

H Unknown – Madonna Thomson’s mother

Madonna Thomson Jagera and Director for

Jagera Daran Pty Ltd H Work Address - 124 Racecourse Rd, Ascot QLD 4007 0435 795 337

Uncle Sam Watson

Board Member of Purga Elders H 3891 2822

0401 227 443

Aunty Pearl Sandy

Yugara and Secretary of Purga Elders and Descendants

H 1/56 Warwick Road, Ipswich 0423 592 851

Aunty Lilly Davidson

Member of Purga Elders and Descendants H Not Available 0434 372 696

Purga Elders and Descendants

All members and board members H Given Hard Copy from ORIC Site

Jackie McDonald

H Unknown see Aunty Pearl Sandy 0408-369629m c to g o 2 @ g ma il . c o m


Page 37 of 65 pages




Roberta Graham Ugarapul H 10/29-31 Thorn

Street Ipswich QLD

Des Sandy Ugarapul H 6/128 Chaucer StreetMoorooka QLD 4105

Wade Thompson & Deebing Ck descendants

Ugarapul/Yugara H 46 Moonlight DriveBrassall QLD 4305

0421 679 0703813 0805

Shale Thompson Ugarapul/Yugara H 51 Diamond StreetRiverview QLD 4303

Deebing Creek Descendants All members M See Wade Thompson for information

Deebing Creek Descendants Committee

Pat Connor (Thompson)

Yugara - Aunt Patricia Thompson - elder statesperson for the Thompson family

H Rockhampton 0749332681

Dianne Gibson Daughter of Aunt Patricia Thompson H Rockhampton 0409599384

Sonny Thompson Yugara H Unknown (Wade Thompson’s Father)

Aunty Faye Carr Yugara H 26 Alice StreetGoodna, QLD 4300

0434 058 054

Henry Thompson Junior

Yugara H 13A Marian Street Ipswich QLD 4305 0423 592 851


Page 38 of 65 pages




Henry Thompson Senior

Yugara 13A Marian Street Ipswich QLD 4305

Budga Davidson Yugara H Lake Macquarie NSW 0478 802 283Jill Davidson Yugara H 39 Wade Street, Bundamba 3282 5586

Madonna Carr Yugara H 16 Taylor StreetDinmore QLD 4300

Larena Thompson Yugara H 1/56 Warwick

Road Ipswich 0455 489 942

Samantha Carr Yugara H 20 Hook StreetInala QLD 4306

Sheryl Thompson Yugara

Francis Wright Yugara and Daughter of the late Les Davidson H Unknown

John Schiavo Manager Cultural Heritage Unit, DATSIP M

Neville Bonner BuildingLevel 6B, 75 William StreetBRISBANE

3003 64700479 028 098

Anne McKenzie

Senior Cultural HeritageOfficerMetropolitan Region Department of Transport and Main Roads

MFloor 12 313 Adelaide Street | 313 Adelaide StreetBrisbane City Qld 4000

30666736 or 0477319 795

Tina MareeLongford

Indigenous Land UseAgreement Coordinator M Ipswich City Council 3810 6640

Kerry Silver Councilor L Ipswich City Council 3288 5899


Page 39 of 65 pages




Shayne Neuman Member for Blair M 68 Hunter St, Brassall QLD 4305 3201 5300

Jim MaddenMember of Ipswich West MLA L

Shop 1, Brassall Shopping Centre68 Hunter Street, Brassall QLD 4305

3447 3100

Ian Rickuss Member for Lockyer Valley MLA L Shop 1, 47 North Street

Gatton QLD 43435351 6100

Scott Ullmann Development Manager –Frasers Property Group L Level 3, 154 Melbourne Street, South

Brisbane QLD 41010417 257 971 32497422

Margaret Cook Historian – Frasers Property Group L C/O Level 3, 154 Melbourne Street,

South Brisbane QLD 4101

Eddie Ruska Leader of Nunukul Yuggera Dance Troupe H

Work Address4 Barnes St Redbank Plains 4301PO Box 611 Redbank Plains 4301

381603110438 772 1990419 718 578

Uncle Tommy Willmot

Historical person and former caretaker H 5 Avon Street, Leichardt 0423 245 893

Sonya Coghill Community Member M UnknownMatt Gnech Community Member MDouglas Kemp Community Member L Unknown

Daniel Habermann

Solicitor. Author of Deebing Creek and Purga Missions 1892-1948

L

Carla Davidson- Fewquandie

Kambu Family Support Worker L 20 Brisbane Street

Churchill QLD 43050403 706 4353812 2219

Queensland Times Editor L 260 Brisbane Street West Ipswich Qld 4305 3817 1717

Teddy Collins UnknownSean Davis Unknown

of 65 pages

Yarning Scripts©

Appendix C: Yarning Scripts©The Yarning Script© approach is a culturally-grounded engagement methodology devised by Pi- CaTS Pty Ltd as a blend of:

Intentional design for outcomes pioneered by the Overseas Development Institute (London UK);

Most Significant Change technique championed by Dr Jess Dart (Horizon Training, Melbourne AUSTRALIA); and

A common-ground pedagogical framework using an Indigenous standpoint methodology inspired by the work of Dr Karen Martin and Dr Martin Nakata (Aboriginal Knowledge and Practice Centre, Dubbo AUSTRALIA).

The Yarning Script© is a framework in which authentic cultural conversations can be held regardless of communities of origin, association, affiliation or interest. The Yarning Script© also enables a skilled facilitator to establish a sense of what changes might be significant to an individual as a direct or indirect result of a program that has been specifically designed for outcomes.

A key benefit of the Yarning Script© is that conversations become more exploratory in nature and not restricted by a codified set of words that often create a conversation that is more clinical and directed rather than relational.

This approach is quite innovative in that conversations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and communities is posited in a framework that is largely void of the power imbalances that usually accompany say a Government-led community engagement.

Stakeholder Conversations

Page 41 of 65 pages

Appendix D: Stakeholder Conversations

Historically, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have mostly taken an approach where “no one is left behind”.

Governments and developers would do well to openly adopt this approach to cater to the unique interests of Aboriginal peoples associated with the Ipswich area.

In no order of priority or gathering, harvested comments include:

What t h e m a t t ers o f i nt e rest a r e f or m e / us w i t h t he C em e t er y…

o Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders share agreement that Aboriginal burials are not confined to within the Cemetery boundary;

o There has been inconsistent messaging by DATSIP Regional and Central Office around the cemetery being closed or not;

o The cemetery ought to be closed;

o The Cemetery should have a Remembrance Garden or Wall so as limited use is had;

o Still not knowing who was buried onsite in 2015;

o Differing anecdotes about whether the Foote headstone belongs to an Aboriginal woman or a non-Indigenous wife of and Aboriginal man;

o No in-depth conversations held with the Mission descendants apart from a copy of the report from the ground penetrating radar activity showing the extent of the burials;

o Whether those preparing the grave for the deceased person understood that the grave site was within an area where there exist several historic burials;

o When preparing the grave for the burial, remains were reportedly unearthed but there was no remedial action taken or report made of the find;

o Questions as to whether the burial in the cemetery was motivated by developer’s intention to build, particularly with only one Ipswich family being in the know to what was happening;

o Respect is not being shown to the broader group of traditional owners or the deceased by the way the place is being looked after i.e. a sobering-up or detoxing place for the itinerant “caretaker”;

o Communication with all traditional owners hasn’t been consistent and respectful leaving room for improvement;

o Government ought to be reporting to all traditional owners regarding the cemetery proper;

o The role of the cultural heritage body is confusing and not logical – it is ignoring the knowledge and experience of traditional owners moved to Deebing Creek Mission, who hold a lot more knowledge of Aboriginal cultural and social heritage in that landscape;

o The cultural heritage body is not fulfilling its role as was intended and is provided for under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003;


Page 42 of 65 pages

o The last man standing element of the native title process is acknowledged, but it is being applied in a way that diminishes the rights and interests of other traditional owners;

o Major concern about the number of burials being unearthed and interfered with across the Ipswich City Council development footprint. These activities are hidden and not reported with Descendants sharing stories of machinery operators being told to keep quiet;

o There is no evidence that Governments, developers or land managers have been formally trained to recognize or identify human remains, particularly the estimated thousands of deceased Aboriginal people interred in country prior to and since colonization;

o Developers undertaking their requirement to comply with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 are doing it through a self-assessed duty of care process - there have been no cultural heritage surveys undertaken by the developers;

o A hanging question too about what the status of the ILUA is between signatories and the Ipswich City Council. The ILUA has passed its sunset term and yet there is still an ILUA Coordinator in place with engagement only being made with a select number of signatories; and

o Ongoing marginalising of Aboriginal interests through ignorance, questionable decisions and inaction of key decision-makers.

What t h e C em e tery m e a ns to m e/ u s …

o A place to bury our deceased people;

o Closing the Cemetery to further burials;

o Maintaining the Cemetery as a place of learning and sharing culture;

o Sustaining the continuing caring-for-place practices given it’s critical to keeping family’s oral history alive as well as supporting cultural health and wellbeing;

o The management and care of the Cemetery should come back to the Deebing Creek Descendants group;

o We get to manage the place and look after our people;

o We are supported to maintain a connection to our deceased family members;

o The Cemetery being a respected place and behaviours by all accord with that central tenet i.e. no drinking, late night parties, rendezvous and liaison spot for young people;

o The cultural protocols of this place are obvious and observed;

o The Cemetery is governed by healthy leaders and decision-makers;

o Behaviours are modelled by respectful/respected Leaders (paramount!!);

o (Place management by) Knowledge holders who have worldly views and vision rather than blinkered vision;

o No more fighting (between parties); and


Page 43 of 65 pages

o Behaviours of each of those involved, particularly leaders, should demonstrate:

- Self discipline; and

- Self education (commitment to).

What C e m e t e ry ma na g e me n t l oo k s li k e to u s…

o (Based on a) Regional governance model based on Traditional Owner foundations of lore, practice, discipline, ceremony, respect, entering and leaving “country” protocols, caring for country;

o Government letting go of the Cemetery;

o “Us” not being defined solely through the lens of our Cemetery (i.e. interests in other land plus the ILUA with Ipswich City Council);

o Land is central to us now and for our aspirations (four priority areas identified by Ngaran Goori through their planning and Deebing Creek Descendants looking at the whole of the former Mission and Cemetery as a culturally and spiritually contiguous landscape);

o Detailed process, that is simple and quick (timely), designed in conjunction with us to handover land/s e.g. Council ILUA;

o The reunification of the Cemetery and former Mission land proper;

o The former Mission site and Cemetery be handed back as a cultural landscape; and

o A living culture village established featuring bush foods, meeting place,Education Centre and amphitheatre.

of 65 pages

Extract from Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreement for QI2007/037

Appendix E: Extract from Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreement for QI2007/037

of 65 pages

2008 Ipswich City Council ILUA with Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People

Appendix F: 2008 Ipswich City Council ILUA with Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul PeopleIndigenous Land Use Agreement QI2007/037 (area agreement for tenure resolution) between the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul People and the Ipswich City Council registered by the National Native Title Tribunal on 19 September 2008

of 65 pages

2015 Frasers Property Australia – Land Interests

Appendix G: 2015 Frasers Property Australia – Land Interests

2015 Frasers Property Australia – Tenure History by Margaret Cook

Appendix H: 2015 Frasers Property Australia – Tenure History by Margaret Cook

Page 47 of 65 pages

1860s Land leased by government to selectors

1867 Joseph Gutteridge leased Portion 197 (57 acres) on the left bank of Deebing Creek. Portion 204 (53 acres) was leased by R Wilkinson.

c1869 Portion 369 (42 acres) had been leased by Thomas Long

1887 Government declared Portion 369 a Camping and Water Ground. Reserve 65.


Page 48 of 65 pages

1892 Camping and Water Reserve cancelled and became a “Reserve for the use of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the State”. Reserve 772.

1892 Additional land added to the Aboriginal Reserve on 31 March


Page 49 of 65 pages

1892 On 2 May 1892, “Aborigines’ Home for the District of West Moreton” opened

1897 Lease held by Joseph Gutteridge cancelled and land added to Aboriginal Reserve

1897 Land became known as Deebing Creek Mission

1913 Government decision to relocate Aboriginal Mission to Purga

1915 Aboriginal Mission moved to Purga

of 65 pages


1917 Aboriginal Reserve at Deebing Creek rescinded (cancelled) but the land remained government (Crown) land. May have been used for grazing cattle for Purga Mission.

The land remained government land and became overgrown with lantana

1948 25 December 1948, Portion 218 comprised an area of 352 acres

of 65 pages


1948 25 December 1948, Portion 218, an area of 352 acres, was gazetted as Perpetual Lease Selection (PLS) 7869 under the provisions of The Land Acts, 1910 to 1953. Leased by Nellie Veronica Foote

1952 Area of 6 acres, 2 roods and 20 perches, a strip one chain wide along the south-western boundary of PLS 7869, was resumed as a road and gazetted in September 1952. The lease was reduced to 345 acres.

1956 PLS 7869 transferred to Selwyn Stuart Clarke Foote of Brighton Street, Southport.

1964 Southern Electric Authority of Queensland constructed an electricity transmission line over PLS 7869 and two easements through the property


Page 52 of 65 pages

1966 Selwyn Foote sold PLS 7869 to Albert JohnO’Neill and Francis Ambrose Adams of 21 Quarry Street as joint tenants.

1974 31 March 1974 PLS 7869 was converted to an Agricultural Farm 7869 under the provisions of The Land Act 1962-1971

1976 February 1976 - An area of about 3600 square metres was resumed from Agricultural Farm 7869 and gazetted as an Aboriginal cemetery.

The cemetery was gazetted as Lot 228 Crown Plan CC2905.

1980 Richard Ambrose Adams took over one third of the lease.

1984 Land converted to Lot 218 on Plan Cc2906, an area of 139,963 hectares. It was purchased as freehold land by Albert John O’Neill, Francis Ambrose Adams and Richard Ambrose Adams as tenants in common in equal shares.

2015 Frasers Property Australia – Cemetery History by Margaret Cook

Page 53 of 65 pages

Appendix I: 2015 Frasers Property Australia – Cemetery History by Margaret Cook

1973 Les Davidson informed the State Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs that an area on the northern boundary adjacent to Deebing Creek, section 218 on the Perpetual Lease (PLS 7869), had been used as an Aboriginal Cemetery during the Mission era.

Government were told that area contained one headstone belonging to Julia Ford and an unknown number of Aboriginal graves.

1976 February - an area of about 3600 square metres, part of Agricultural Farm 7869, portion 218, was resumed and gazetted as an Aboriginal cemetery. A road providing access to the site was also gazetted.

1976 Les Davidson began clearing the site of lantana with the hope of clearing the gravesites and creating a recreational reserve on adjoining land. He pegged 63 grave sites previously marked by rocks and fenced the site.


Page 54 of 65 pages

1978 Les Davidson died at Easter

1978 9 September 1978 Deebing Creek Cultural Association formed with the aim of protecting the cemetery.

A concept plan of the area was drawn to identify the cemetery and provide a buffer around the cemetery to protect it from cattle.

1984 The Les Davidson Memorial Park and Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Organisation formed.

Frances Wright, the daughter of Les Davidson, was the Chairperson. Neville Bonner and the Mayor of Ipswich were the Trustees. The group had the objectives of preserving the cemetery and to foster a good relationship between those interests in its history.


Page 55 of 65 pages

1984 Photos showing headstone and pegs marking out grave sites

1985 An electronic scan was taken of the cemetery area in 1985, funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, to try and locate the grave sites. The results were not definitive.

1991 Local land owners excavating sand from Deebing Creek uncovered skeletal remains. Council banned sand and gravel extraction

2001 William ‘Junior’ Davidson re-fenced and tidied cemetery but mistakenly removed some pegs marking graves

2009 & 2015 Recent burials in the cemetery

2016 Heritage Register No: 602251 Deebing Creek Mission (former)

Page 56 of 65 pages

Appendix J: 2016 Heritage Register No: 602251 Deebing Creek Mission (former)


Page 57 of 65 pages


Also known as

Deebing Creek Aboriginal

Reserve; Deebing Creek

Aboriginal Mission; Deebing Creek

Aboriginal HomeClassification State Heritage

Register status Entered

Date entered 24 September 2004

Type Health and care services: Aboriginal reserve/mission

Themes

1.4 Peopling places: Family and marking the phases of life

6.1 Building settlements, towns, cities and dwellings: Establishing settlements and towns

7.2 Maintaining order: Government and public administration

9.1 Educating Queenslanders: Providing primary schooling

Construction period 1887–1915, Deebing Creek Mission (former) (c1887-1915)

Historical period 1870s–1890s Late 19th century

Address South Deebing Creek Road, Purga

LGA Ipswich City Council

Coordinates -27.68613562, 152.76516755

Key Enablers – Co-Design and Partnerships

Page 58 of 65 pages

Appendix K: Key Enablers – Co-Design and PartnershipsEnablers

Three identified enablers could place Ipswich Aboriginal organisations and businesses in a well- determined and resourced position for the future use and management of the Deebing Creek Aboriginal Cemetery Reserve.

The three recommended enabling phases are:

Enabler 1 – Community healing initiative Co-design and implementation of an Ipswich Aboriginal Community Healing initiative to foster a more cohesive, coherent, connected and culturally vibrant Regional Indigenous Community.

The aims of successful healing programs are to support Aboriginal people to reassert control over their lives, increasing community cohesion and cultural identity and self- esteem, cultural knowledge and skills and cultural connectedness. Healing involves dealing with lateral violence and a renewal and affirmation of language, dance, story, music, art, identity and land.

Attempting to develop consensus about the future of the Cemetery Reserve will be overly complex without mediation or healing between individuals, families and clan groups.

Enabler 2 - Networked governance Co-design of a networked governance model capable of creating and sustaining a healing Ipswich Aboriginal community.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance is best described as networked governance. It is dynamic and sophisticated, having:

interdependent connections between people, places and things (past, present and future);

layered systems of representation and leadership;

overlapping memberships and mandates;

dense networks of relationships and mutual responsibility; and

corresponding dispersed layers of decision making, accountability and

authority. Networked structures not only form the basis of traditional Aboriginal and

Torres StraitIslander governance; they are also visible and inform many contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance solutions across Australia.

Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly demonstrates how a regional governance solution can bring together multiple interests and manage contributions for the best possible returns for beneficiaries.

Similarly, the Empowering Communities model provides an insight into what is possible to bring divergent and fractured interests together for more positive gains.

Enabler 3 – Partnerships Solid Four Way Partnership for the Future of Deebing Creek between Indigenous Land Use Agreement members, Ipswich City Council, Frasers property Group, and DATSIP.

Key Enablers – Co-Design and Partnerships

Page 59 of 65 pages

Ipswich City Council works with the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community identifying and supporting community-led initiatives that have the potential to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians while creating an opportunity to share in the prosperity of the area.

Ipswich City Council openly supports the Local Government Association of Queensland initiative in promoting the Constitutional Recognition of Australia's First People.

As identified in the Ipswich City Council Community Plan i2031 Council will:

Promote reconciliation understanding, recognition, protection and preservation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and culture, native title and other issues relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as active contributors to local community identity and heritage.

Develop and implement programs that showcase, celebrate and engage the broader community in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples culture.

Work with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community to ensure they are actively engaged in programs and services.

Review and update the Ipswich City Council Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Accord.

Continue to work with the traditional owners of the LGA area to progress the Indigenous Land Use Agreement.

Ensure the significant cultural heritage values of Ipswich such as historical architecture, Aboriginal cultural features, and mining industries are protected and maintained in a manner which reflects their contributions tothe City's identity and history.

Ipswich City Council is well-placed to influence Frasers Property to convert the planned open recreation space covering the former Deebing Creek Mission in their development as a cultural facility.

DATSIP involvement can facilitate the management and satisfying of State interests particularly with the cultural and historic heritage obligations that overlap legislatively though not quite practically.

Aboriginal Parties who are signatories to the Ipswich City Council Indigenous Land Use Agreement ought to be co-designers of the future uses and management of the Cemetery Reserve. Community tensions have been fuelled by electing to recognise just one Aboriginal Party.

Strategy for Joint Management

Page 60 of 65 pages

Appendix L: Strategy for Joint ManagementBased on the information outlined previously for enabling future uses of the Cemetery Reserve, a potential next phase of this Project will require more detailed scoping should a decision be made to test community appetite for assuming management and control. The information in the following sub-sections could form the basis of a Project Business Plan if such a project proceeds. This section contributes to scoping of the next project phase if it were to occur.

Project TitleDeebing Creek Historical Cemetery

Target OutcomesThe initial targeted outcomes for advancing the Project is described below:

1. Establish a Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team with a major composition of Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul Peoples;

2. Establish an approach to quality management and have it described so as it is clear, concise, culturally-attuned and user-friendly.

3. Canvas Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery proposal with potential “Friends of Deebing Creek” member organisations and affiliates;

4. Investigate and determine a preferred trading entity for a Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery option;

5. Investigate and determine a preferred corporate structure for the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery option;

6. Investigate and determine a preferred governance structure for the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery option;

7. Investigate and determine potential “Friends of Deebing Creek” member organisations and affiliates;

8. Develop strategies to attract membership of “Friends of Deebing Creek” organisations to commit to a change;

9. Develop detailed submission for the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery project; and

10. Develop Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Marketing Plan and product for targeting local Members of Parliament, Ministers, Government, Corporate Australia and the philanthropic sector.

The Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team should develop the outcome measures which will be used to measure their success, the dates for achievement and who is accountable.

The Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team should also undertake some early effort to engage with funders to obtain commitment and support in the first three years of operation of the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery project.

Item Approximate $M

Legal advice on constitutional mechanisms to support transfer of any assets from Government to new Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery;

0.05

Establishing an e-platform for managing education and information for Alliance members and public awareness; 0.2

Capital works of co-locating Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery administration and management; 0.4

Capital works of securing Cemetery surrounds and establishing cemetery reserve management regime; 0.6

Integrating and upgrading information technologies; 0.15

Legal costs of establishing new trading entity and property acquisition; 0.05

Facilitated change management; 0.05

Migration of electronic records and establishing connections with QLD Cemeteries and Crematoria Association, Link-Up and archived records;

0.1

Branding and marketing; 0.05

Quality Management System; 0.1

Project management; 0.2

Risk management; 0.1

$2.05

Page 61 of 65 pages

Strategy for Joint Management

OutputsBased on this Business Plan, the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team should ensure the development of a Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Plan, which would list the project outputs (deliverables). These outputs are new or modified products, services, businesses, or management practices that need to be implemented to meet each identified outcome. The Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Plan will identify who (project customer) will utilise each output to generate the target outcomes.

Work PlanA Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Work Plan is necessary to outline the project phases, major areas of work and key milestones of the project. Such a work plan is usually developed by a Project Manager. As an interim measure, the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team could use the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Marketing Plan and the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Plan to create the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Work Plan. These three documents will form the key planks by which the project can be progressed.

Indicative BudgetThe Project’s approximate budget and expected expenditure is summarised below. A more detailed costing is required in the project planning phase.

TOTAL

Project Management Framework

Page 62 of 65 pages

Appendix M: Project Management FrameworkGovernanceThe proponent must determine what parties will form the governance structure for a potential next phase of this Project and identify who may be approached to fulfil each role.

A Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team should be established in the first instance to guide the early stages of the project development.

As a minimum, the governance structure should comprise of:

Say DATSIP as Project Sponsor;

An incorporated (“Friends of Deebing Creek”) Business Owner, and

Project Manager.

As well as the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team, the governance structure might also comprise of one or more of the following parties:

Cultural Integrity Reference Group;

Aboriginal Party Working Group; and

Quality Consultants.

Quality ManagementThe Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team should establish their approach to quality management by their second project meeting, which may include:

methodologies and standards;

change, issue, and problem management; and

review and acceptance procedures.

Organisational ImpactThe work undertaken during the project will impact on the sponsor organisation and its “Friends of Deebing Creek” members and affiliates.

The Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team will need to give some consideration as to how will these impacts be addressed.

An Impact Management Plan allied to a Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Risk Management Strategy would be an appropriate vehicle for assigning accountabilities for addressing particular impacts in specific areas.

Outcome RealisationOutcome Realisation refers to the management of the use of outputs to meet the target outcomes, and bring about longer term benefits.

Project Management Framework

Page 63 of 65 pages

An Outcomes Mapping approach will help with the intentional design of a Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Outcome Realisation Plan, which will detail how outputs will be managed once they are delivered, and who will be accountable.

This Plan may change throughout as the project evolves.

Project ReviewThe Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team should give some early thought as to establishing and describing an approach to capturing lessons learnt throughout the project.

The approach should also describe what review will be done to assess whether the initiative is delivering the intended benefits.

Project FundingSeveral funding opportunities exist for the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project ranging from corporate, philanthropic and Governments. A list of philanthropic funding sources can be found here by way of subscription h t tp : // www .phila n t h r op y . org.au/s e e k - fun d i n g /ac c e ss -gra nt -ma k ers/

The Australian Business Financing Centre is another useful source of Government-related grants and loans http :// www .austral i a ngove r nm e ntgr a n t s . org/

Project AdvocacyA Lobbying and Advocacy Plan to advance Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project will be founded on establishing short to longer term relationships with potential project funders and supporters.

This approach first requires the Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Project Team to develop a Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Marketing Plan.

The Deebing Creek Historical Cemetery Marketing Plan and product can then be used for targeting local Members of Parliament, Ministers, Government, Corporate Australia and the philanthropic sector for various forms of support.

Julia Ford nee Sandy: Notes from Michael Aird on 27 November 2016

Page 64 of 65 pages

Appendix N: Julia Ford nee Sandy: Notes from Michael Aird on 27 November 2016


Based on Michael Aird’s research from various sources and acknowledging information supplied by Jackie McDonald, Michael provides some basic information regarding Julia Sandy and her burial at Deebing Creek.

Julia was born “a native of Southport” sometime around 1865 and died at Deebing Creek on 17 August 1896.

Extensive research has not determined how Julia is connected to other families from south-east Queensland that have the surname Sandy. There may well be no close connection to other families with this name, as the name Sandy was used in various ways by numerous individual Aborigines in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Julia married Arthur Ford (born c.1866-died 1954) at Nerang in 1883. Arthur Ford was an Aboriginal man from the Murwillumbah region in northern New South Wales. They had the following children together:

Lena Ford, born c.1883, Married Augustus Bostock in 1905 aged 22 years. Died 22/2/1949 Tweed heads

Seaver Rosile Ford, born 1883

Eveline Gertrude, born 19/9/1884 at Beenleigh, died 19/9/1884 or 24/12/1884. Possibly buried at Southport

Annie Ford, born 21/12/1885 at Beenleigh, died 16/2/1888

Curtis Ford, born 1/8/1888, died 16/6/1919

Esther Ford, born 1891 at Murwillumbah. Married Sam Mitchell. Was a twin with Lexie.Other information stated Esther & Lexie were born in 1893.


Page 65 of 65 pages

Alexandra (Lexie) Ford, born 1891 at Tyalgah, Tweed River. Died 1 January 1917 in Qld.Married Edward Andrews (non-Aboriginal man) 20/12/1907, Bungalora, Tweed Heads.

Jessie Ford, born 1892, died 1921, married William McDermott in 1910.

Rachel Ford, born 1892, died 1893. Was a twin to Jessie

Arthur Francis, born 23/2/1894

Julia Ford, born 1896, died 1900 in Sydney

It can be assumed that Arthur and his family were living at Deebing Creek from around 1892 to 1896. The following children were listed as attending the Deebing Creek School in 1896: Leanore Ford aged 13, Curtis Ford aged 5, Esther Ford aged 6, Lexie Ford aged 6, Jessie Ford aged 5.

There seems to be some confusion with the ages and they may not have been recorded accurately. This could indicate poor records being kept at Deebing Creek. Julia died at Deebing Creek in 1896.

After Julia Sandy's death Arthur Ford married Eva Williams (c.1877-died 1944), an Aboriginal woman from the Beaudesert region and they had somewhere around 13 children together.

Jackie McDonald is the granddaughter of Peter Ford (born 1912-died 1970). Jackie spent considerable time with her grandfather’s younger sister Florence Ford (born 1917-died c.2010) in her later years. Jackie is descended of Arthur Ford's second marriage. Much of the knowledge she has about Arthur Ford was told to Jackie by Arthur's last surviving child Florence, or as Jackie would call her, "Auntie Flo".

Jackie is not a descendent of Julia that is buried at Deebing Creek, rather she is a descendant of Arthur Ford's second marriage to Eva Williams. Even though Jackie is not descended of Julia, she will be concerned that the story about Arthur Ford's first wife Julia is portrayed accurately as the headstone was erected by Arthur and it tells a story about an important part of his life story.

independent report - future use of deebing creek ... · web viewhare interests not w i l li n g to...

Documents