NSW Aboriginal Heritage Legislation Reform Sydney Workshop · 2012-02-23 · Aboriginal Heritage Legislation Reform – Sydney Workshop 15 November 2011 1. Background Aboriginal people,

NSW Aboriginal Heritage Legislation Reform Sydney Workshop 15th November 2011

DELIVERED TO

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE DARLINGTON, SYDNEY

D

EVELOPED BY

Tania Jones and Max Hardy, Twyfords Level 1, 156 Keira Street Wollongong NSW Australia Ph: (02) 4226 4040 [email protected]

NOVEMBER 2011

Aboriginal Heritage Legislation Reform – Sydney Workshop

15 November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................2

1. Background ...............................................................................................3

2. Introduction................................................................................................4

2.1. Workshop Objectives ............................................................................................... 4 2.2. Workshop Process ................................................................................................... 5

3. Workshop Outcomes.................................................................................7

3.1 Workshop Session I .................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Workshop Session II ............................................................................................... 16

4. Next Steps...............................................................................................25

APPENDIX A: List of Workshop Participants .................................................26

APPENDIX B: Workshop Parking Lot ............................................................27

PPENDIX C: Workshop Slide Presentations ...............................................29 A

© TWYFORDS 23 February, 2012 Page 2 of 29


15 November 2011

1. Background Aboriginal people, mainstream communities and industry groups have long called for

change to the current Aboriginal heritage regime and its enabling laws in NSW. In

response to these calls, the NSW Government has announced a review of the

legislation and is seeking the views of a diverse range of stakeholders to begin a

conversation about how the system could be improved in the future.

At present, the legislative provisions for the protection of Aboriginal culture and

heritage sit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (the NPW Act), a piece of

legislation that is primarily about the protection of flora and fauna. Under this Act,

almost all NSW Aboriginal objects are considered ‘property of the Crown’, with the

Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet as the legal custodian

responsible for their protection. This model is widely seen as a legacy of another

time, pointing to the need to review the existing laws and explore options for a new

legislative model.

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has carriage of the reform process

and Phase 1 (November – December 2011) includes a series of regional Aboriginal

community workshops and roundtable meetings with peak industry bodies

(environmental groups, local government, Catchment Management Authorities and

archaeologists).

This report details the submissions and requirements gathered from participants

attending the Sydney roundtable meeting at Darlington on Wednesday 15 November

2011. It has been prepared by the workshop facilitators - Twyfords. The outcomes

listed at section 3 of this report have been transcribed from the posters prepared by

workshop participants, with some small edits made to assist the reader, such as

including full names instead of acronyms, including the official names of government

agencies, and extending shorthand terms.



15 November 2011

2. Introduction The aim of these workshops is to seek different stakeholders’ views and perspectives

on the issues to be addressed through any new legislation. Feedback gathered

through the initial round of workshops will contribute towards the development of

draft recommendations for legislative reform that will be taken back to Aboriginal

communities and other stakeholders for further public input in 2012.

A diverse range of stakeholders including representatives of community and

environment groups, agriculture, business, Catchment Management Authorities,

archaeologists, local government, the NSW and Federal Governments, and industry

attended the Sydney workshop. A list of groups and organisations that were

represented at the workshop is set out at Appendix A.

A few questions and issues were raised in the session that could not be

workshopped to completion and have been captured in Appendix B - Parking Lot.

All presentation materials referenced in the workshop have been included in

Appendix C.

2.1. Workshop Objectives

The objectives of the roundtable workshops in support of the Aboriginal heritage

legislation reform include:

• Protect and manage NSW Aboriginal culture and heritage.

• Clarify role of Aboriginal people in management of, and decision-making about

their culture and heritage.

• Create clear roles and responsibilities for Aboriginal people and communities,

heritage professionals, government agencies, and industry.

• Link Aboriginal heritage law to NSW natural resource management and

planning processes.

• Ensure streamlined and flexible regulation of Aboriginal heritage.



15 November 2011

2.2. Workshop Process

The workshop began with a presentation and Q&A with Cathryn Ferguson from NSW

Office of Environment and Heritage, on the NSW Aboriginal legislation reform

process.

The first workshop session involved all of the participants working in table groups to

consider a series of questions regarding Aboriginal legislation reform. Participants

were asked to join the question table that most interested them for two different

rounds of dialogue (World Café). Each group recorded their ideas on butcher sheets

for feedback and discussion. The groups’ ideas and responses to the six questions

posed by the reform process can be found in Section 3.1 of this report.

The second session involved the group breaking into pairs and conducting an

interview (Appreciative Inquiry) to determine success factors required for effective

legislation, and supporting process, for the protection and management of Aboriginal

heritage. These success factors and comments are recorded in Section 3.2 of the

report.



15 November 2011


15 November 2011




15 November 2011

3. Workshop Outcomes

3.1 Workshop Session I

The first part of the Workshop was focused on exploring issues and requirements

relating to the NSW Aboriginal heritage and culture legislation reform.

Questions were allocated to one of six (6) tables and participants were invited to go

to a question table that they felt most strongly about and participate in a dialogue on

the question.

Two rounds of question dialogue were undertaken with the participants (45 minutes

each round). Table transitions were randomised so that workshop participants had

an opportunity to listen to and share their views with a wide cross-section of

representatives.



15 November 2011

Question 1: What specific aspects of Aboriginal culture and heritage do you think should be protected by law?

Workshop Scribe(s): Tim Owen, Chrissy Grant, Deb Swan, Chris Langeludd, Jenna Weston

World Café Round I

• All Aboriginal Culture and Heritage – question how this awarded

e.g. tangible heritage. • Heritage significant to Aboriginal community. • Link to other legislation e.g. copyright. • Question date placed on what is included (in heritage) historic

heritage, Act or own Aboriginal legislation. • Need to include modern and future. • Advantage of Historic Heritage – can we use this? • Community not always aware of historic heritage. • Balance between historic and Aboriginal heritage is not

balanced. Aboriginal not protected as much. • Next question: is everything of equal value – no but should be

less or more – all be protected. • Address fact more emphasis on scientific value as opposed to

cultural – need clear way for Aboriginal community to say it is significant.

• Aboriginal community needs ‘tools’ to be able to do this. • CHAR – doesn’t always do this. • Site specific – small bit of land no bigger picture for whole of

landscape. • Issue cumulative impact. • Issue intergenerational equity. • Definition of a site is an issue – setup based on physical objects

such as stone middens artefacts but no connection to other physical feature. Issue: How do you protect the intangible particularly where no evidence of tools, etc.?

• Only power if it is an Aboriginal place. • Need cultural landscape/resources e.g. tool areas. • AP – but need something easy to register, no, so time consuming• Need to be linked to “speak for Country”. • Look at the Victorian and Queensland frameworks.

Workshop Scribe: Lucy McLean

World Café Round II

• Tangible and intangible aspects; need clear definitions with high

values indentified by local groups – note connection with who speaks for Country.

• Protection of high value aspects to decide upfront what is important.

• Proactive approach must be encouraged rather than reactive approach to projects – Aboriginal community must work together to make decisions before proponents are involved.

• Significant assessment of intangible and tangible aspects. • Community needs a tool or process to assess significance.



15 November 2011

• AHIMS needs to be improved – need to be meaningful, improve

access and information, address duplication, incorporates intangible aspects – start again?

Other Issues

• Consultation guidelines are dividing community and caused problems.

• Need a register of who can speak for Country. • Need partnerships to assess culture and heritage in national

parks; ESD & intergenerational equity.

Question 2: (a) Who should be responsible for making decisions on protecting Aboriginal culture and heritage?

(b) What management structures and processes will effectively manage Aboriginal culture and heritage protection in NSW?

Workshop Scribe: Denis Gojak

• Difficult in identifying knowledge holders, especially in Sydney. • Opera House model – reference group.



15 November 2011

World Café Round I

• Conflict of interest – protector/development approvals. • Concern at over-streamlining processes. • Appeals process. • State-wide responsibility. • Need to identify authorities. • Guaranteed independence. • Need not to be swayed by developer dollars. • Lack of public awareness of sites. • This process is not working on what is wrong with system right

now. • e Aboriginal people who have lost Does process includ

connection to Country?

Workshop Scribe: Deb Faring


• egional Aboriginal liaison officers to share R

knowledge/recommendations. • t the peak body should consult Peak body should represent, bu

with the traditional owners. • on any peak body. Aboriginal people should sit • Local government has an increased responsibility with added

Das, Civil Works, etc. • nning standard Natural Resource Local Environment Pla

Management clauses, sensitivity mapping, Aboriginal heritage studies.

Question 3: (a) Should legislation make a statement about ownership of physical and intangible Aboriginal heritage?

(b) If you agree that the legislation should address the issue of ownership how should any new laws address ownership of physical and intangible Aboriginal heritage?

Workshop Scribe(s): Jillian Comber, Jason Ardler, Alison Dejanovic

A) Yes B) Preamble in legislation acknowledging Aboriginal ownership. • Ownership could be established through NSW ALR Act –

Aboriginal owners provision (Register of Aboriginal owners). World Café Round I

• Look at international examples. • If ownership not established, provisions still need to be made for

engagement. • established, provision to be made for If ownership is

management. • wnership of object by Museum “conceptual”. NT example of o

Ownership vested in “owner” but held/managed by independent organisation (hand back of NP’s as example). Owners still to be



15 November 2011

given rights to speak for and manage their heritage.

• objects” Physical and intangible must be protected – not just “cultural landscapes, spiritual sites, story sites, etc – all in association with each other and not “objects” in isolation.

Workshop Scribe(s): Teresa Gay, Daniel Percival, Tory Stening, Alison

Nightingale, Claudia Niro, Val Attenbrow

A) Yes • Ownership/custodianship. • Legal rights. • Ownership = de

World Café cision-making ability.

Round II B) Values should be able to be defined/mapped

• What is the loss if intangible is impacted? • Robust process for establishing those values.

Question 4: (a) What are your views about who speaks for Country?

(b) What do you think are the best ways to ensure that the appropriate people speak for Country in public processes including who resolves conflict?

(c) Should these mechanisms be reflected in legislation or protocols and guidelines?

Workshop Scribe(s): Justin Noel

Current situation

• At the moment Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) are on the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) list given to consultants/archaeologists.

• . Real privacy issues with this• Native title registrar specific toWorld Café

Round I

certain groups and interests. • Due diligence. • Many groups won’t work together. • New groups emerging . • Proponent decides whom at present. • Currently LALC’s only reference point. • Theory/practice . • Varying reports i.e. quality in reports.

What we need

• NSW needs a system that suits the communities in this State –



15 November 2011

we have such a different landscape.

• Someone must take on the role. • Should not have to work through filters or third parties. • Need appropriate skills and training for reports/assessments. • Contract standardisation re outcomes. • Fixed price for surveys? • Knowledge holders should be paid for their sharing/involvement. • Industry standards for costs. • Look at Victorian process – annual register by Aboriginal

communities/representatives • s of who speaks for Country. Register/checklist of bona fide

Workshop Scribe(s): Chris Langeludd, Jillian Comber, Oliver Brown

(a) Curre tly flawed. n(b) Building capacity for community to decide (OEH can’t just say community decides, they have to resource the decision-making). • Interested parties. • Determining parties. • An arbiter (Aboriginal-run through OEH or other). • Allowing historical association. • Allowing overlapping and multiple determining parties.

World Café ( Pc) rinciple/basic requirement in legislation. • Mechanisms in protocols/guidelines.

Round II O eth r:

• Issue of consultation predicated by AHIP. • Multiplicity of groups, multiple memberships of groups work

against outcomes in practice. • Employment issue …. • Outcomes compromised by process that created adversarial

relationships. • l” getting the oil. “Squeaky whee• Enforcement of pre-invasion cultural boundaries wrong.

Question 5: (a) Do you understand how Aboriginal cultural heritage is protected in legislation and planning instruments?

(b) How could Aboriginal heritage be better protected through land-use plans and other planning instruments?

Workshop Scribe(s): Sam Higgs

World Café

Round I • Key constraint is timing of identification of Aboriginal culture; too

late in development process reacts to development, instead of proactive work at the rezoning stage is more proactive.

• Silent on post contact.



15 November 2011

• Community reluctant to make some knowledge public.

• EP&A Act needs to be merged into new legislation. • Create a register of important places that can be added to. • Information movement between OEH and Council. • EP&A and NSW Acts should be considered together. • Need to sell the idea that it is everybody’s heritage to reduce fear

and “us & them” situation; celebration of Australian culture – education.

• original Heritage Act. Separate Ab• Local Environment Plans are a good/powerful instrument but

Councils don’t have the expertise. • uncil. Regional liaison offices to assist Co• Requirement to come in prior to subdivision/rezoning, too late by

DA stage. • re SEPP need more exemptions or some sort of Infrastructu

delegation; conflicting requirements to service community. Is a very different situation to a moneymaking development.

• Need a consideration of significance impacts, too low significance should be exempted.

Wor cribe(s): Yvonne Kaiser-Glass kshop S

• Legislation requires a) conservation/protection (it’s legislated for) but b) different pieces of legislation conflict with each other. World Café

• Also process driven.

• Why not start with everyRound II

thing is protected, and require convincing arguments to contrary.



15 November 2011

Question 6: (a) How well do you think current natural resource management processes help protect Aboriginal heritage?

(b) How could Aboriginal cultural values be better incorporated into natural resource management processes?

Workshop Scribe(s): Yvonne Kaiser-Glass

World Café Round I

(a) Not well • Commonly by default. • Process (and contained language) does not explicitly provide for

Aboriginal culture and heritage. Often a secondary consideration at best.

• Integration is not accounted for in the decision-making process.

(b) No criteria around heritage sustainability – stated as principles but no policy and procedures around them.

• Even where there are principles enshrined in law, unless there is sufficient definition around them the implementation becomes problematic.

• Legal definitions of non-legal terminology. • Long-term objectives so we don’t lose sight of where we want to

be.



15 November 2011

• Once areas/sites and landscapes are identified as having high

cultural and archaeological significance and have been captured in a conservation management structure, this stands in perpetuity!

• Levy to ensure long-term management of above outcomes. • Government commitment to funding.

Workshop Scribe(s): Sam Higgs


(a) Under current situation the cultural and the natural are separate and when one is protected the other is often destroyed.

• Separate funding arrangements creates division; NSW Native Vegetation Act should include cultural values, need education across the wider community. Knowledge of natural resources comes under the intangible heritage.

• No links between environmental and heritage regulators and transference of information. Need a better definition of where natural resources are and its links with human activity.

• This legislation needs to look at wider connections. • Heritage should not be divorced from natural heritage. • Conservation of natural resources under the current Act should

incorporate conservation of Aboriginal heritage. • Conversely we protect the obvious elements of heritage (e.g.

lithic) and destroy the landscape around it. • The whole landscape and values should be looked at as one. • Coastal sites being impacted on by rising ocean levels (climate

change) not being considered under current planning. • Need focus on recording values within zones that may be

affected soon. • Need focus on early research. • Communities and researchers working together. • More Government funding and create a central repository of

information collected through the various studies and Aboriginal natural cultural resource management committee.

• Need for peak body to champion natural cultural issues; at present a number of separate bodies.

• Water Act separate for CMA’s should be considered and linked with Aboriginal cultural heritage legislative cultural heritage reports no with include some natural heritage but natural heritage reports don’t include cultural heritage.

• There is a comprehensive mechanism in Federal Legislation for linking natural and cultural.

• How should significance be assessed? • Regional plans should be written in language groups. • The language group/nation can then assess significance.



15 November 2011

3.2 Workshop Session II

The second part of the Workshop used Appreciative Inquiry to explore what aspects

of the existing legislation, and supporting processes, worked well in the participants’

experience and would need to be retained and replicated.

Participants were invited to interview another workshop attendee (somebody that

they would normally not work with) by answering the following questions:

Share a story with each other about an example where Aboriginal heritage

and culture was well understood, respected, valued and supported?

1. What contributed to the success of that example?

2. What can we learnt from that experience?

3. What role might legislation play in promoting/ensuring more of these

experiences?



15 November 2011

The following experiences were commonly held amongst participants:

• Persistence and not aiming for perfection but improvement.

• Being respectful.

• Involvement Day 1 and involved in all decisions.

• Asking the right questions and getting beyond the register.

• Patient and deliberative in consultation.

• Needing to explain rationale behind decisions.

• Mutual beneficial focus on long term.

• Process owned and driven by community.

Specific experiences of factors for success in managing Aboriginal heritage and

culture are detailed in the following section.

Factors for Success Scribe

1

• Consulting early. • Building trust with the Aboriginal community. • Resourcing needs to be sufficient. • Managerial and community support. • Ensure practical guidelines and clarity for all

parties. • Give everyone certainty and empowerment. • Industry has knowledge of the process.

Lyndon Patterson, GML

2

• Processes already in place to recognise intangible; Aboriginal places (i.e. is a good thing) but we need to improve the assessment and getting places declared.

• Horsley – Equestrian artefact. • Monitor burial artefacts. • Executive of organisation took it seriously, not old,

not my Country. Open and honest. • Glenn’s assertiveness confronted them. Also,

clarity about not speaking for city. • Communication/relationship with community.

Glenn got connected. • Scar Tree/Artefacts. • People need protecting as well.

Glenn Comber

3

• Respond to all party’s views. • Understanding the needs and desires of the

Aboriginal community and acting accordingly. • Taking a reasonable management approach. • Allowing appropriate time for consultation etc. • Legislation: There are limits to legislation.

You cannot require people to be respectful, etc of heritage. We need to understand that

Daniel Percival, RTA



15 November 2011

these limits exist.

• Possibly legislation could encourage the distribution of information, research, etc to make it more meaningful to the broader community.

4

• With public service experience; Aboriginal representatives, archaeologists.

• Threatened species – new personnel – no previous agenda – dealing with RTA.

• $200K compensation package (offsetting) compared to a million for threatened species embedded in planning provisions.

• Aboriginal naming and access. • Lead to Part 3A – stopped model from being

continued. • Sufficient time for consultation with the

Aboriginal community was allowed.

Anon

5 In developing policies and procedures for RTA which were applicable in any community across NSW. 1. “Resistance” it had to be done – not aiming

for perfection but improvement. 2. Ongoing consultation and showing respect,

consideration and understanding, and don’t have to adopt need to explain decisions made and why consultation matters.

3. Can legislate for consultation etc to be undertaken but cannot legislate for types of issues that were important above.

Anon

6 • The legislation and process for protecting

Aboriginal heritage and culture could benefit from people having a better understanding of each other’s culture.

• Training, education, courses, etc could involve aspects of cultural exchange to understand the understanding behind decisions and thinking that aims to protect Aboriginal sites.

• Standing in someone else’s shoes can give insight into the other side of a debate when seeking an outcome.

Anon

7 Success: • Working with the community to analyse

artefacts excavated under an AHIP.

Learning: • Heritage and respect (two-way both

archaeological and community). • Making sure knowledge is accessible.

Anon



15 November 2011

Legislation: • No legislative control (otherwise will go the

way that consulting for dollars has gone).

Custodianship of Aboriginal Artefacts: • Needs another alternative between the

difficult “Care and Control Agreement” process and destroy consents. Mid-road e.g. educational purposes.

8 • Having very strong qualifications and skills

legislated for (i.e. archaeologist as per Heritage Council requirements) to ensure good quality work.

• Also to provide basis for refusing applications when work unsatisfactory.

• Genuine engagement cannot be legislated for e.g. often kills it.

Anon

9 • Ask the right questions. • High level of understanding and awareness

by the developers. • Early notification of intangible Aboriginal

heritage to avoid delays and able to make good decisions at the right time.

• Engage with Aboriginal communities as early as possible.

• Mutually beneficial outcome in long term (developer and community).

• Community united in course of action (i.e. Federal Minister injunction).

• Cohesion and clarity over cultural values.

Anon

10 • Demonstrate respect. • Plan. • Plan to listen. • Put yourself into shoes of other (Atticus

Finch). • Know about the groups/people; their

processes, wins, the people. • Selflessness. • Play the ball not the person. • Work “with”. • Keep engaging people i.e. constant contact. • Behaviours and outcomes.

Anon

11 • Thoughtful, planned conservation. • Getting people on board. • Working and planning ways to get to the

outcome when there are so many players in the mix.

• Respect and make sure individuals are given

Anon



15 November 2011

the time and effort required to come on board.

12 Planner for Sutherland Shire Council received a DA and then checked the AHIMS register and found there was a shelter with sand floor and midden. Went to the owner’s property and sat in the shelter and explained the site and surrounding landscape in terms of Aboriginal cultural heritage and how they inhabited the landscape. At the beginning of the planner’s visit the owner was angry and thought he would lose his property to native title claim and never be able to develop. By the end he wanted to put up a plaque and was really proud to have a shelter and midden on his land.

Learnings:

• Education contributes to the success. • Educating people, both the non-Aboriginal

community and developers, may contribute to more positive outcomes in terms of Aboriginal culture and heritage.

Anon

14

The Segaworld building in Darling Harbour was being demolished to make way for a new development.

The land was owned by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority who commissioned Comber Consultants Pty Ltd, Archaeologists, to investigate re Aboriginal Heritage. Archaeologists found evidence of midden and stone tools which were salvaged and analysed.

What contributed to Success?

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority recognised the Aboriginal archaeological potential of the site and commissioned the investigation. Part 3A, EP&A Act required and assessment to be made.

Anon

15 “Stones”

• Openness to feedback. • Flexibility. • Listened. • Ability to change. • Medium for flow of ideas. • Overcome suspicions. • Willingness to acknowledge hostility and

move to understanding. • Realisation that NOT SIDES in the process. • Commerce not an issue. • Time was not an issue in decision-making. • Able to find the middle ground to a point.

Chris Langeluddecke, AMBS



15 November 2011

16 • Finding patterns and more objects. • Sensitive land 50-100m from creek. • Discuss with the Aboriginal locals, sharing

common interest and will to listen.

Sue Galt,

Blacktown City Council

17 • Nearby land of Aboriginal cultural significance

may be developed. • Council initiated talks with local Aboriginal

groups. • Issues and significance discussed with

community. • Interpretive display now being developed in

consultation with the Aboriginal community.

Deb Farina, RPS

18

What contributed to success?

• Project and identify long-term management not development related.

• Community consultation was in an informal setting, presented information with discussions, text and maps, community was cohesive and engaged, open to seeing what we already knew and what the community wanted to show us on Country.

• Willing community and built trust.

Legislation Help?

• Identify places and valued heritage outside of development context – more positive engagement.

• Promotion of Aboriginal culture, not just facilitating the destruction.

• Ensure Aboriginal community is given clear information and given it early.

• Bring Aboriginal heritage forward in the planning process.

Anon

19 • Nothing was done without support of the

whole community. • Community involved in all decision-making

and all aspects of the project, deciding if the project would go ahead and if it did who would complete it, how would it be done and what exactly the community

• Very high level of community involvement in decision-making and patience of project proponent that the project was not ruled and proper time was taken for consultation. Patience in getting whole of community involved and on board.

Anon



15 November 2011

20

Little Bay Midden, NSW

• Archaeologically above and beyond legislative requirement.

• Solid archaeology allowed research questions to be addresses.

• Human relationship modified the natural balance in shellfish species?

• Freedom to be an archaeologist not constrained by management/legislation process.

• Process of consultation had been completed. • Led to positive relationship with Aboriginal

community . • Led to better outcome for heritage. • Legislation – need freedom for archaeologists

to be archaeologist. Define who speaks for Country before work commences. Take consultation out of archaeologist’s questions.

OEH is leaving the problematic side of work to the consultants. If this were removed from archaeologist’s work we could focus on cultural heritage and outcomes.

Oliver Brown

21 • Early planning. • Support of community. • Support of managers, etc.

Jenna Weston, AMBS

Karen Harper,

Kogarah City Council

22 • Native Title – Policy – Represent to “views”. • How TC’s should be informed early. • The organisation/Native Title and other key

organisations were not informed prior to the event to engage and let their TC’s know at these Reform Workshops.

• Again not enough time for true consultation. • Giving people enough time to participate. • Including Aboriginal organisations to

determine the agenda prior to the workshops. • There are many more negative stories than

positive. • Legislation should give people enough time to

be engage. • Time - “Need enough Time”.

Anon

23 • Integrating cultural heritage and a broader

research program. • Looking for enduring positives, e.g.

publications, interpretation, increasing community awareness.

Denis Gojak,

Roads and Maritime Services



15 November 2011

• Education as a desired outcome for

Aboriginal people involved, wider Aboriginal community and the broader public.

• Flexibility to allow opportunities to be grasped.

24 Contributed to success

• Ability to overlay values; dreaming, contemporary/traditional cultural proactive, natural values.

• Able to be lead by community; methodology but not in a strict way.

• Sufficient time for the above to occur; unfold • Archaeology secondary. • Learning Applications; cultural landscape

living, contemporary interactions.

Legislation:

• Redefinitions object/site/place/landscape to allow listening/management.

Tim Owen, GML

25 • More intensive consultation (more than

currently required in guidelines). • Involvement of wider LALC members i.e. the

Board, not just Site Officer. • Early involvement, facilitation of more flexible

outcomes. Thinking outside traditional management mechanism.

• More flexible approach – legislation has a key role but guidelines can be more encompassing of a range of outcomes i.e. protection of an area within a development.

Sandra Wallace,

Artefact Heritage

26

Contributed to success?

• Willingness of proponent to do more than legislatively required.

• To accept intangible significance. • Willingness of Aboriginal community to share

information about the area.

What can we learn?

• Tackling the things that seem too difficult i.e. intangible culture.

• Should not underestimate understanding of cultural issues.

What role legislation?

• Easier as was under EP&A Act. As required wider assessment and cultural could come in.

Kylie Seretis,

Dept of Planning and

Infrastructure



15 November 2011

Community learnt stuff too!

27 • Whole package – not ACH in isolation but

looked at whole site, put in context with TS, plants, and animals – save site from development.

• Link to all things – protecting the larger site not just a small area – what is a site?

• No AHIB – start again. • Permanent protection. • ALLC – wrong body, need another dedicated

body solely for heritage (not employment etc).

Anon

The workshop participants were asked what would be the key messages that they

would wish for the Working Party to understand as they govern the process of

reform, and these included:

• Archaeologists/Consultants can help toward a practical system.

• Don’t rush it – worth getting it right!

• Making sure it is what Aboriginal community wants.

• Research Committee has a role – include us.

• Process to help us think through where we want to be in 30 years.



15 November 2011

4. Next Steps Throughout November and December 2011 a series of regional workshops have

been conducted with Aboriginal communities and roundtable workshops with peak

stakeholders (property, heritage, environment, local government, industry).

The findings from the Phase 1 round of workshops and written submissions will be

consolidated and will inform the process of review to be undertaken by the Working

Party in February 2012.

Further consultation with Aboriginal communities and peak stakeholders (based on

ideas gleaned from Phase 1) will commence again in April 2012.

The Working Party will report to Ministers in September 2012.



15 November 2011

APPENDIX A: List of Workshop Participants

COMPANIES/ORGANISATIONS/AGENCIES

WHOSE REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDED THE

NSW OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE SYDNEY ROUNDTABLE WORKSHOP

15 NOVEMBER 2011

Roads and Maritime Services Native Title Service

Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Comber Consultants

EPA Sydney Water

Department of Planning and Infrastructure Sutherland Shire Council

Artefact Heritage NSW Minerals Council

Kogarah City Council CMA

RPS Group Canada Bay Council

GML Arts NSW

Biosis Research Rural Fire Service

Australian Museum Native Title Service

Blacktown City Council Department of Human Services

Australian Association of Consulting

Archaeologists (AACAI)



15 November 2011

APPENDIX B: Workshop Parking Lot

SYDNEY ROUNDTABLE WORKSHOP PARKING LOT

15 NOVEMBER 2011

DISCUSSION ITEM

1 Reform Awareness

• Use the contact details of people registered with AHIMS to raise awareness. • Share the DVD with wider community, e.g. SBS, ABC. • Concern about the advertising and awareness around the sessions.

2 Reform Scope

• Heritage and culture should be inclusive of all - dance, song and language. • Why separate heritage and culture?

3 Reform Timing

• Could reform timing be pushed back? • Submission date moved back to end of December 2011.

4 Reform Process

• Representation of research interests on Working Party. • How were groups approached for Working Group. • Who is actually writing it?



15 November 2011



15 November 2011

APPENDIX C: Workshop Slide Presentations


Documents

NSW Aboriginal Heritage Legislation Reform Sydney Workshop · 2012-02-23 · Aboriginal Heritage Legislation Reform – Sydney Workshop 15 November 2011 1. Background Aboriginal people,