Council seeking greater protection
Alandowner’s decision to dismantle a portion of an ancient stone arrangement at Lake Bolac has highlighted a need for greater awareness of and legal protection for culturally significant sites.
Earlier this month, Adrian Mcmaster removed a 60-metre tail section of a 1500-year-old heritage-listed site – known to Traditional Owners as the Kooyang Stone Arrangement – from his property.
Metropolitan media reported that Mr Mcmaster, who has acted as caretaker for the property since his father died in 2018, said he was unaware of the overall significance of the site. He apologised for his actions.
Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation, the registered Aboriginal party operating in the area, stressed the 176-metre-long stone arrangement in the shape of an eel was of major cultural and historic importance and was a gathering place for Traditional Owners before European colonisation.
The group has since joined a chorus of voices, including Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, raising concerns about ‘major gaps’ in the Aboriginal Heritage
Act 2006, designed to protect sites. Cultural heritage manager John Clarke said while strong, the Act needed work to set an international best-practice standard for care of cultural heritage.
“There are certainly better ways to protect sites on private property and we’re certainly up for that conversation,” he said.
“We don’t have the power to enter private property. That’s a concern, but we’re not in the business of entering landowners’ back yards – that’s not what we do.
“Our interest is to best protect Aboriginal heritage places where we can and have the ability to make visitations where we believe sites are at risk.”
Mr Clarke said it was important for authorities and landowners to forge relationships to ensure sites were protected.
“I have no doubts in many cases a lot of landholders would be interested in what they have on their property and how best to interact with those places,” he said.
The heritage council wants the Act changed to allow authorised officers and Aboriginal Heritage Officers to enter land or premises without the consent of the occupier.
Under the Act, if a landowner refuses permission for an officer to access their property – for the purposes of identification and prevention of damage to the site – they are unable to proceed.
Heritage council chief executive Rodney Carter said although the proposed change might seem like it impeded landowners’ rights, it was necessary to strike a balance between rights of all parties.
“Once you don’t own land, you don’t have that immediate connection and you’re on the other side of the fence looking in,” he said.
Mr Carter said the need for change was ‘crucial’ because instances of the Act failing to protect sites were happening at an ‘alarming’ rate.
“We need to change the law so that Traditional Owners can stop destruction of our most sacred places,” he said.
“The destruction of Juukan Gorge and here, in Victoria, the Kooyang Stone Arrangement, illustrates how our cultural heritage is not protected across Australia.
“If you rang any one of the 11 registered Aboriginal parties in the state, they would be able to share some immediate examples of intrusion, damage, harm to cultural heritage that is taking place every day.”
The council plans to release proposed changes to the Act, to better protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, in coming weeks.