1 October 2014
Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria
GPO 2392
Melbourne VIC 3001
Email: Aboriginal.heritage@dpc.vic.gov.au
Dear Sir/Madam
Exposure draft – Aboriginal Heritage Amendment Bill 2014
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the exposure draft of the Aboriginal Heritage
Amendment Bill 2014.
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) recognises that this Bill has emerged from
two lengthy reviews. The first being the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2005,
which the MAV was involved in a working group, and the second the Parliamentary
Inquiry into the Establishment and Effectiveness of Registered Aboriginal Parties.
We are pleased that our involvement in the working group, and our two detailed
submissions to the review process, has informed the development of the exposure draft
and that many of our recommendations have been adopted.
We sought the input of councils in the preparation of this advice but do not purport to
represent the views of every council and it is anticipated that councils will have made
their own individual submissions where they believe change is necessary.
Our comments on the key elements of the exposure draft relevant to local government
are provided below:
Proposal
Comment
Suggested alteration
New purpose
The additional inclusions are
supported.
No alterations are suggested.
Modified objective
The wording change to refer to the
preference to appoint Traditional
Owners as Registered Aboriginal
Parties is supported.
No alterations are suggested.
Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage
Test (PAHT) and certification by
Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV)
This seems to be a sensible
mechanism to provide certainty to
an applicant about whether a
Cultural Heritage Management Plan
(CHMP) is required. It provides a
circuit breaker in circumstances
where an applicant does not agree
No alterations are suggested.
It is not always possible to
understand the full implications of
such a test until it is implemented.
To avoid unintended consequences
we suggest that the operation of
Proposal
Comment
Suggested alteration
with council about whether a CHMP
is needed.
this process be tested with
councils, technical heritage
advisers and applicants before
finalisation of the legislation.
This mechanism should also help
resolve the question of ‘significant
ground disturbance’ which has
been difficult for councils and the
subject of VCAT cases.
Activity Advisory Group (AAG)
The concept of such groups is
supported as applicants in areas
where there are no Registered
Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) struggle
to know who to engage with in the
preparation of a CHMP and to get
agreement from all parties.
The process should also be audited
in 12 months to provide advice to
AAV about how the new provisions
are working. The MAV would be
pleased to help facilitate the input
of councils to this process.
No alteration suggested to the
legislation.
Significant implementation issues
could exist and careful
management will be required.
The implementation of such groups
will be critical and requires:

The trigger for the
establishment of a Group
to be timely.

A process for a decision to
be reached by the group.

Clear terms of reference

Adequate support in the
same way as RAPs.
Public Land (Aboriginal Heritage)
Management Agreement
(PLAHMA)
A further sensible inclusion to
enable maintenance type works to
occur.
It would be useful to extend this
concept to council owned land to
enable councils to enter into an
agreement and undertake agreed
activities without concern that a
CHMP might be required.
An expanded compliance system
to establish greater Traditional
Owner participation in
enforcement activities and the
inclusion of 24 hour stop orders.
This proposal is supported provided
appropriate training is provided
about legislative responsibilities
and conflict resolution to authorised
officers. A 24 stop order is a useful
additional tool.
No modification required.
An expanded range of offences
including failure to:
The new offences are supported
and necessary to provide a robust
enforcement framework for the
protection of aboriginal heritage.
No modification required.

Comply with an cultural
heritage permit

Prepare a Cultural
Heritage Management
Plan

Comply with a Cultural
Heritage Management
Plan

Comply with a Public
Land (Aboriginal
Heritage) Management
Agreement
Proposal
Comment
Suggested alteration
The ability to amend cultural
heritage permits and cultural
heritage management plans
This is an important inclusion as a
development may change during
the course of a planning
assessment and it makes sense for
there to be a concurrent
amendment process for cultural
heritage permits and CHMPs.
No modification required.
We hope that the following key matters will be addressed in the Regulations, to be reviewed
in 2015:

Prescribed fees for evaluating, approving and amending cultural heritage
management plans, applications for cultural heritage permits and applications for the
certification. The exposure draft provides for the inclusion of these prescribed fees.

Further exemptions from Cultural Heritage Management Plans for:
 minor infrastructure works on council land
 small urban residential lots (we understand that this is likely)
We remain concerned that a commitment has not yet been made to improving the cultural
sensitivity mapping. We have highlighted on previous occasions that additional resolution of
the mapping is required to assist in decisions about whether a CHMP is required.
Should you have any queries about this matter, please contact Michelle Croughan on 9667
5541 or at mcroughan@mav.asn.au.
Yours sincerely
ROB SPENCE
CEO