State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Name:
Organisation: Bolga-Manero-Yuin Descendant, Cann River.
(Far East Gippsland).
Date: 12 July 205
This template is provided to help you respond to the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) discussion paper. Please answer as
many or few questions as you would like to provide input for. All submissions will be considered by DELWP in the development of the draft
policy and policy impact assessment. Any group or individual that provides comment will be kept informed and included in further
consultation.
The information you provide in your submission will only be used by DELWP and EPA for the purpose of reviewing Water SEPPs. However, it
may also be disclosed to other relevant agencies as part of the consultation process. All submissions will be treated as public documents and
may be published online for public access. While formal requests for confidentiality will be honoured, please note that freedom of information
access requirements will apply to all submissions.
If you wish to access information in your submission once it is lodged with DELWP, you may contact the SEPP (Waters) Review team by
email at Water.SEPPreview@delwp.vic.gov.au.
Questions from discussion paper
Please enter your response
1
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Any general comments on the proposed scope of
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters):
As an Aboriginal person, I find the complex matrix or maze of the many
agencies and Organisations, as well as local government, cultural heritage,
Land management, fire, fisheries, agriculture, rivers and lakes, forestry and
national parks and other stakeholders across the arena of "water/land"
management a very real challenge, and a systemic hurdle that contributes
to the exclusion of many Aboriginal individuals.
I would like to see a "one stop shop" for Aboriginal people in the State of
Victoria. We need only look to the example of NSW Water, where it's
legislated NSW Indigenous Water Initiative Program undertake substantive
work both by Aboriginal people, and in close consultation with Aboriginal
communities around water sharing plans and a range of restorative and
cultural recording of waterways places of significance places is required.
It also auspices a NSW Statewide Elders Group (NSW Water) to promote
direct consultation with various communities.
Question 1: What is your understanding of your roles
and responsibilities under Water SEPPs?
As a member of society, I want to ensure that all our children enjoy the right
to healthy water supply and the peace of mind, that this enjoyment is
affordable and accessible the "average" family. I understand SEPP
manages a whole range of environmental protection policies, but
concerned about the "transgression or rather lack of specific policies
around cultural values.
Question 2: What aspects of Water SEPPs does your
organisation currently use? How could Water SEPPs be
improved to assist your organisation’s day-to-day
operations and longer-term strategic planning?
I am an individual users of water, rates payer and would like to see more
direct community consultation around future day to day operations, so that
individual can participate in an informed manner.
Question 3: Do you have any concerns about the
proposed working title of State Environment Protection
Policy (Waters)? If so, what are they?
No
2
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Aspirations are fine, and play an important role, and indeed feasible
in terms of cultural incorporation at a substantive level, is difficult to
Question 4: What is the best way to reflect what is
feasible versus what is aspirational in the context of a 10- measure. in terms of other feasible measures, these are also good for
year policy cycle?
ongoing monitoring, performance guides and identifying priorities.
in many respect the two compliment each other.
Question 5: Do you support the proposed SEPP
(Waters) objective of “this policy is to protect and improve
the quality of Victoria’s waters while providing for
economic and social development”? Why?
Yes, the policy will help overcome the past separation and give the public a
more cohesive future approach.
Question 6: Do you support the need to balance
economic and social development with overall protection
and improvement of water quality for Victoria’s water
environments? Why?
Yes, there needs to be a balance, but this is the same balance aced by
Aboriginal people in relation to balance of developments vs site protection
and cultural priorities. The Victoria Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 2066 has
not undertake a "single" prosecution since its inception, so I would question
the actual objective to balance economic and social development in
principle, as opposed to what may actually occur.
Question 7: What are the challenges of balancing
economic and social development with protecting and
improving water quality?
How should we manage the appropriate trade-offs
between them?
The challenges may wellbeing of providing the public with the governance
accountability and transparency that is required to gain public confidence in
the balancing act of economics vs social.
Question 8: Do you foresee any problems or
opportunities that may arise from creating one consistent
SEPP to apply to all Victorian waters? Are there other
options for streamlining the policies that we should
consider?
No, however, smaller rural locations and communities need to be assured
that their representation is not absorbed in the streaming process which
may see regional and state SEPP operations inadvertently dominant.
3
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Question 9: Are there any specific types of water
environments, for example, a wastewater treatment
lagoon, where you think beneficial uses should not be
protected?
Certainly, there needs to be a broadening of the interpretation and
understanding of "cultural values" to include a wider scope for the
protection of cultural values.
The current beneficial uses list is not inclusive enough, and the interesting
aspect of the beneficial uses is that there is no requirement for "permits"
so I am questioning the current capacity of relevant agencies to undertake
compliance and monitoring.
Question 10: Do you think the current measures for
classifying surface water and groundwater segments are
No, there maybe a need to reassess these classification.
still appropriate? Are there other measures that should be
explored?
Question 11: Are there any problems with the spatial
arrangements or segment boundaries in the existing
Water SEPPs? If so, what are they?
I understand that these boundaries are asked on "water quality" attributes.
This causes type of classification has flaws, and in relation to cultural
values,these transcend such boundaries, and we would need improved
means of classification boundaries.
Question 12: What do you think are the advantages or
problems with the new approach to segments and subsegments?
I recommend further consultation with Aboriginal people's to asserting
problems around the new approach. I would still strongly advocate
incorporating Aboriginal legislative/policy requirements into the new policy
frameworks a pathway towards address this particular issues, and the full
gambit of Aboriginal "water" management.
Question 13: Are there any features of the landscape
that you would like to see as a standalone segment or
sub-segment?
Most certainly, and I refer to the NSW Indigenous Water Initiatives Program
which deals directly with various Aboriginal communities to record and
protect Aboriginal cultural water places of significance, with the view to
restoration, revitalization and rehabilitation of water sources, and the
involvement of Aboriginal communities in the wellbeing and management of
their cultural areas.
4
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Question 14: Do you believe that all beneficial uses set
out in Table 2 of the discussion paper should still be
protected under the new SEPP (Waters)? Where do you
think a beneficial use would not apply? Why?
Yes, beneficial uses needs to protected, maybe even need to broaden the
scope for other users as well. the issues of non-permits in this user
group should be assessed, and mechanism for Aboriginal water sharing,
cultural flows, licensing and cultural plans need to apart of this process.
In any case, adopting an transition period around time frames for beneficial
uses could be adopted in the Interim.
As previously mentioned, and I would need further clarification, the
Question 15: What method or approach could be used to
aligning of beneficial uses to segments also interacts with the criteria of
apply the beneficial uses to segments and sub"water quality" and this presents an issue, in particular in relation to
segments?
Aboriginal cultural values.
Question 16: Are there any additional beneficial uses
that you believe should be protected? Are there any that
you think should no longer be protected? Why?
Most certainly, it is my view that Aboriginal water/cultural beneficial uses
needs to not only protected, but interpreted, understood and managed
appropriately. Examples that come to mind, Traditional acquacultural,
fishing, harvesting, cultivation of freshwater and marine foods, fish,
grasses, medicines and filtration of wholistic water holes/camps. I would
like to see Aboriginal (Female/male) Inspector/compliance Officers to
undertake community protection.
Question 17: What do you think about the current
indicators, the approach for deriving objectives and the
proposed changes?
The objectives and proposed changes are a step in the right direction,
however, I do not have sufficient knowledge in relation to current indicators
or any applicable benchmark to provide an informed comment.
Question 18: How have nutrient load targets been useful
in driving environmental investment outcomes? Would
you like to see a different approach, and if so, what might
that be?
would like more information to comment, however, I would question
the emphasis on an investment outcome as the determinant.
5
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
At risk areas for the Aboriginal community of Far East Gippsland,
in particular Cann River (Catchment/Twofold/VIC/NSW Border)
need improved intervention and regulation, as it is difficult to
Question 19: What is the preferred method for
capture the potential and actual risk already "damaged" Aboriginal water/
management of at-risk areas?
cultural values that present in our environmental landscape.
Are there activities that need greater intervention or
Our waterway, lakes, rivers and places of significant have not been
regulation?
What would the intervention be, for example, voluntary or comprehensively surveyed for a long period of time. Our sites registrar that
is managed by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria is not complete, there are "gross
mandatory codes of practice, regulation via licensing?
gaps" in their database, and local knowledge has been disregarded and put
at risk of loss, with the event of Aboriginal Elders with such knowledge
no longer here.
Question 20: What do you think the role of SEPP
(Waters) should be in identifying and filling knowledge
gaps over the life of the policy? How can we assure an
adaptive approach within SEPP (Waters)?
SEPP has the opportunity to address the Aboriginal cultural values'
surrounding our "water" in a substantive and meaningful manner should it
consider the steps and precedent established by NSW Water and it's
most successful Aboriginal Initiatives Program., and embracing the crossborder Aboriginal responsibilities relating to "water", filling the knowledge
gaps and broadening the approach to make "water" security. access,
quality and costs within them means of all sectors of community.
6
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Any other information you would like to share:
Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People's which provides for the internationally recognized
standards relating to the governments relationship with its Indigenous
people. Whilst it recognizes the collective rights of our people's, it also
acknowledges the right for individuals to remain distinct and maintain their
own economic, social, cultural and representative voice and path.
In particular, Articles 22-25 and Article 29 which demonstrate the breath of
such standards. (See attachment 1 and 2: Source Australian Human Rights
Commission website July 2015.)
The Australian and New Zealand Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and
Marine Water 2003 also acknowledge the special connection of
Aboriginal people's in relation to "water".
It is my view, that whilst our Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2006,
and Commonwealth Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Legislation 1984 operate
in tandem for protection of Aboriginal sites and places of significance, there
are significant gaps, flaws and hurdles for Aboriginal people to overcome in
their efforts to enforce compliance, just as there are debatable concerns
around "the self-regulating" aspects of current SEPP beneficial uses types.
The Environment Protection Act 1970 provides another layer of
"protection" but once again, there are hurdles for Aboriginal people to
overcome.
7
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
8
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
9