Joint Management Structures & Yorta Yorta/Barmah-Millewa Campaign for National Park, 2004

1. Joint Management Structures & Yorta Yorta/Barmah-Millewa Campaign for National Park, 2004 Outline & Structure Dr Wayne Atkinson, Yorta Yorta-Ddja Dja Wurrongr Senior Lectuer, Indigenous Studies, Dept Political Science University of Melbourne

3. Governing Structures of Yorta Yorta

4. Mutawintji & Mungo Agreements • Models of existing arrangements under NSW joint management legislation. • Application to Yorta Yorta & Barmah-Millewa National Park

5. Key Issues for Barmah Millewa Campaign • Structure and Function of Board of Management-BOM • The management and protection of Cultural Heritage • Indigenous Employment and Training • Provisions for Conflict Resolution • Cross Cultural Awareness • The merits and drawback of Joint Management of National Parks on the Models of Mutawintji and Mungo National Parks, NSW & Kakadu National Park, NT.

6. Mutawintji National Park NSW • Pecked designs in sandstone of men, boomerangs and emu tracks. • The pounding and puncturing process represented, contrasts with the abraded grooves impressions and scratchings found in other sites. • Comparable human figures and tracks dominate in the represntational art style of painted rock sites in south-eastern Australia. Aboriginal ranger Michael Whyman with rock engravings at Mutawintji Historic Site

7. Mutawintji National Park, NSW • Mutawintji National Park is approximately 150km north east of Broken Hill in New South Wales. • The Mutawintji Lease Agreement is the result of a 15-year struggle for the Aboriginal people of the Broken Hill area. On the 5th of September 1998, the Mutawintji National Park, including over 76,000 hectares of land, was returned to the traditional owners, on the condition that the park was leased back to the government for a minimum 30-year period. • Under the agreement, the traditional owners won hunting, fishing and food gathering rights, as well as an assurance that the majority of the jobs within the park would go to Aboriginal people. • In September 1983, after a history of dispossession, the traditional owners of the lands now comprising Mutawintji National Park, Mutawintji Historic Site and Mutawintji Nature Reserve, blockaded the area to champion their desire to regain ownership, control and management of their traditional lands. The area was a sacred meeting place for a many tribes and is renowned for its rock art, specifically its hand stencils and engravings (1999.tMutawintji National Park Lease’ Australian Indigenous Law Reporter, 4 (4) 98- 107).

8. Mutawintji Local Aboriginal Land Council • In the period from 1983 and 1991, the Mutawintji Local Aboriginal Land Council lobbied on behalf of the traditional owners to convince the NSW government to recognise Aboriginal interests in the area. In 1991, the first National Parks and Wildlife (Aboriginal Ownership) Bill was tabled in Parliament to facilitate recognition of Aboriginal ownership of certain National Parks and Reserves in NSW. • Over the next five years a series of consultations and negotiations about the proposed legislation were conducted. In December 1996, the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Aboriginal Ownership) Act was passed. The Act enabled the lease between the Mutawintji Aboriginal Land Council and the State government to go ahead, It was the first of its kind in NSW. • The Mutawintji Agreement is highly relevant to Barmah-Millewa and the Yorta Yorta, both because it necessarily overlaps in terms of NSW legislation dealing with joint management, and because of the issues which emerged for Traditional Owners engaged in the Mutawintji process (1999. Mutawintji National Park Lease, Australian Indigenous Reporter, 4 (4) 98-107).

9. Mungo NP Joint ManagementAgreemant • Mungo National Park is located in the Willandra Lakes Region in New South Wales. • The Mungo National Park Joint Management Agreement was made between the Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council, on behalf of the Barkindji, Mutthi Mutthi and Nyiampaa tribes, and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSWNPWS). • In order to formalise the involvement of traditional owners in the management of Mungo National Park, the parties, including other Aboriginal community members, entered into discussions about options for co-management of the Park. • Following extensive discussion, the Elders Council sanctioned the agreement on 24 March 2001. The World Heritage-listed Walls of China in Mungo National Park.

10. Mungo Plan of Management • Mungo National Park is wholly contained within the Willandra Lakes Region World Heritage Area. In the plan of management for the WHA, all of the traditional tribal groups who occupy lands within the boundaries were recognized. • Rather than separating the WHA on a tribal basis, the three tribal groups established a concept of ‘shared heritage’ and created the Three Traditional Tribal Groups Elders Council. • After consultations between the Elders Council and the NSWNPWS, a joint management advisory committee was determined as the favored option for co-management of the park. Accordingly, the Mungo National Park Advisory Committee was set up. • The committee consists of a majority of traditional owners who advise the NSWNPWS on park management and related issues. It meets regularly to discuss the management of the park and provide advice to the NPWS on key issues involving: The plan of management; -Any licences for commercial tour operations in the park; -Contracts for work on the park; -Job opportunities and employment within the park.

11. Cultural Awareness Training • The Mungo joint management agreement also stipulates that NSWNPWS will ensure that employees undertake a cross-cultural awareness training program, and that Aboriginal employees involved in administration, care control or management of the park shall receive training in their work. • Mungo National Park is listed on Schedule 14 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW). That is, the Park be returned to Aboriginal ownership and leased back by the NSWNPWS. • However, at this stage, the Aboriginal community has chosen not to pursue full joint management.’ In this way, the Mungo National Park Agreement warrants some examination for its application to Barmah-Millewa in that it offers an example of variation on full joint management, within the NSW legislative framework. (Joint Management Agreement for Mungo National Park,

12. Kakadu National Park Model • Joint Management under Kakadu National Park • Relevance to Yorta Yorta&Barmah-Millewa Campaing

13. Kakadu National Park: Joint Management Agreement • Kakadu National Park is declared under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999), and is managed via a joint management arrangement between the Aboriginal Traditional Owners and the Director of National Parks. • As Kakadu is a Commonwealth national park, The Director manages the park through Parks Australia, which is a branch of the Department of the Environment and Heritage. • Around fifty per cent of the land in Kakadu National Park is Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. and the majority of the remaining area is currently under claim by Aboriginal people. • Title to Aboriginal land in the park is held by Aboriginal land trusts, who have leased their land back to the Director of National Parks for the purpose of a national park for the enjoyment and benefit of all Australians.

14. Traditional Owners & Decisions • The Traditional Owners of Kakadu made the decision to engage in joint management on the expectation that having the land managed as a national park would assist them in looking after their land in the face of mounting, and often conflicting pressures. • They saw establishing a national park as a way to manage the land in a way that could protect their interests and be understanding of their aspirations. Parks Australia and the Aboriginal traditional owners of Kakadu are committed to the principle of joint management of the park, and the fourth Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (1999-2004) details the arrangements in place to assist the success of joint management of the park. • http://www.atns.net.au/biogs/A00l234b.htm

15. Process of Joint Management Kakadu • Joint management in Kakadu is an amalgamation of a legal structural framework established by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the current lease agreements with the traditional owners of Aboriginal land in the park, and the ongoing relationship between Parks Australia staff and traditional owners. • The process of joint management in the park is continuously refined and changed in accordance with the work and input of Traditional Owners, other Aboriginal People and Parks Australia. The aim is to ensure that the joint management of the park is as effective as possible. As such, it is an ever-evolving process, with important lessons for other joint management arrangements in ensuring the ongoing flexibility and adaptability of any agreement established for co-management.

16. Relevance of Kakadu to Yorta Yorta • The Kakadu arrangement is significant Australia-wide and for the Barmah-Millewa case in point. It demonstrates that joint management cannot work unless the partners trust each other and are committed to making it work. As the ... acknowledges: • “Just as when people live and work closely together, there can be disagreements at times. Joint management is about deciding things, solving problems and sharing responsibility for decisions. It is about the joint management partners feeling comfortable in the relationship and that they benefit from it.” • The Kakadu arrangement is also highly significant in highlighting other pragmatic issues that may emerge in joint management. • In 1995 Parks Australia commissioned a consultant, Dr David Lawrence, to put together a history of the park’s establishment and to examine the joint management arrangements. • The draft report outlines how joint management is understood and what it means in the context of Kakadu, both historically and currently. The consultant identified a number of ‘crucial issues’ that must be addressed before joint management will function in a more successful way (Department of the Environment and Heritage, Kakadu National Park: Joint Management Agreement; New South Wales, National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974, Part IV (a).). http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/kakadu/parkjointmang/jointmang/

17. Issues in Joint Management • The Kakadu arrangement is also highly significant in highlighting other pragmatic issues that may emerge in joint management. In 1995 Parks Australia commissioned a consultant, Dr David Lawrence, to put together a history of the park’s establishment and to examine the joint management arrangements. The draft report outlines how joint management is understood and what it means in the context of Kakadu, both historically and currently. The consultant identified a number of ‘crucial issues’ that must be addressed before joint management will function in a more successful way. These issues include: •The Strength and effectiveness of the Board of Management; •Employment and training of Aboriginal staff; •Growth of park management bureaucracy; •Who owns, manages and uses research done in the park; •Management of feral animals and weeds; and •Tourism and providing access to new areas.

18. Key Issues/Questions Arising from Joint Management • These are issues which have relevance to the Yorta Yorta in working for a joint management arrangement for Barmah-Millewa • The fourth Kakadu National Park Plan of Management attempts to tackle these issues and to identify a way of ensuring park management decisions are better shared by the joint management partners, as are the problems and responsibilities of managing a large and complex national park.’ • As such, Kakadu is a worthwhile study to illuminate some of the issues arising in Barmah-Millewa, as it indicates some of the key issues that the Kakadu joint management arrangement is grappling with.

19. Board of Management • Both the NSW Act and the current Barmah-Millewa National Park Proposal stipulate that lands must be managed by a Board of Management, with Traditional Owners forming the majority on the Board (New South Wales, National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974, Part IV (a).

20. Barmah-Millewa Proposal • In addition, the Barmah-Millewa NP Proposal currently recommends that the National Parks Act 1975 (Vic) (NP Act) be amended, in line with the current NSW Act, to contain provisions for joint management of National Parks. • The Proposal recommends that this include the provision for the constitution of the BOM, specifying the inclusion of one person nominated by conservation groups, and possibly a member of the local council, a person nominated by the appropriate state government agency, and a person nominated by owners/occupiers of land surrounding the national park’ ( Yorta Yorta Nations Inc & Friends of the Earth, Barmah-Millewa National Park: Proposal and Briefing Document, 2002:25) • As such, the Barmah-Millewa NP proposal suggests a BUM comprised of six voting members — four Yorta Yorta representatives, one local council representative and one scientist (ecologist), and four non-voting members — one Victorian and one New South Wales state government representative, one elected conservation representative and one representative member for local industries. • The NSW Act specifies the composition of the B0M as follows: majority Aboriginal Owners, taken from the Register, a representative of the Local Aboriginal Land Council, and Representative of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, a representative of local government, a representative of local conservation groups, and a representative of park neighbors (NSW, National Parks & Wildlife Act, 1974,Part IV (a).

21. Key Issues of Representation • The BOM’s decision-making ability is directly influenced by the seniority of the Parks and wildlife/state representative who sits on the Board. • That is, it is the representative’s level of seniority that dictates whether the BoM can make independent and enforceable decisions in its own right, or whether all decisions must be referred back to the state body.

22. Composure of BOM • Yorta Yorta Nations Inc • Conservation representative • Shire council representative • Neighbor/Non-Indigenous community representative

23. Functioning of BOM • In many of the existing joint management arrangements, problems have arisen with the functioning of the BOM relating to the different levels of literacy and meeting skills of representatives on the Board. • This in turn feeds into the issue of disparity in participation in decision-making processes.

24. Recommendations • The specification of the level of seniority/position of the state? Representative to the Boom in either the lease agreement or the joint management arrangement~ may be advisable to ensure the BOM sufficient autonomy in decision-making. • It is also worth noting that representatives from a high level within the Parks service structure may in turn be hindered in availability. This should be borne in mind when selecting an appropriate level of seniority. • The issue of the differing levels of literacy and meeting skills within BoM may be addressed via the implementation of training in these areas for BoM members. If this is an anticipated issue, there may be some scope to include this in the joint management proposal for Barmah-Millewa. • Further exploration of the potential to use a consensus decision making model, incorporating an independent facilitator as opposed to a chairperson may prove useful in catering to these issues in decision-making process and meeting skills in a way which best suits the needs of the particular BoM. • 1

25. Recommendations (cont) • The most holistic and logical recommendation to the issue of differing levels of literacy and meeting skills within BoM, and the impact of this on decision-making process, is investigation into alternative decision-making models. This is an area that requires further research. • In terms of the Co-Operative Management Agreement, it must be ascertained how the Yorta Yorta Joint Body will interact with a Barmah-Millewa National Park Board of Management. That is, which will have authority and whether there is a need for duplication or if the Joint Body will replace the board of management in the current national park proposal.

26. Conflict Resolution Process • The current Barmah-Millewa Joint Management Proposal calls for the Victorian National Parks Act (1975) to be amended to facilitate conflict resolution. • It recommends an arbitration body be established for the purpose of resolving conflict or confusion over policy and planning decisions.’( Yorta Yorta Nations Inc & Friends of the Earth, Barmah-Millewa National Park: Proposal and Briefing Document, 2002:11)

27. Issues • Despite the inclusion of conflict resolution clauses into many of the lease arrangements for existing joint management agreements, there has been some issue for traditional owners with state park management bodies side-stepping the formal activation of this process in favor of informal resolution. This has not always been a satisfactory arrangement for TO’s.

28. Payment of Rent • The Current NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act, Part IV (a) stipulates that rent will be paid by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to Traditional Owners to compensate for the loss of full enjoyment of property. The amount is to be agreed by the two parties, with mechanisms for arbitration and as a final resort, determination by a Valuer General. The Act also stipulates that rent money may only be spent on park management consistent with the management plan.22 • The final legislation for the management of Mutawintji NP includes the provision for the payment of rent to Traditional Owners. Under this, rent is paid directly to the Mutawintji Board of Management (BoM). In the case of Mutawintji the Act restricts the expenditure of this rent money to activities directly related to the park . • Issues: • The payment of rent may lead to a case scenario where the BoM receives two pools of money. That is, I) State funding for park management, as is standard for all parks, and ii) the rent received by the BoM as compensation to the Traditional Owners for leasing their land to the state. • The issue with this occurs where there is debate/conflict as to which activities should be funded out of rent money, and which should be funded through the park’s normal operations budget. This is a particularly

29. Recommendations • The charging of admission fees for entrance to the National Park by tourists may be an appropriate avenue of income for the elders’ council, either in lieu of rent payment provisions or as an additional fee. The control and management of revenue from such an entrance fee should be specified within the joint management proposal. • In the case of a proposal for a ‘payment of rent’ provision to be included in any joint management agreement, if the rent is designated for use in park-related matters, the specific exclusion of expenditure on certain items, such as wages may circumvent the issue of conflict over expenditure.

30. Indigenous Employment • All positions within the Mutawintji National Park except the area manager are ‘Aboriginal designated.’ That is, all employees must be Aboriginal, unless there are no suitably qualified applicants. • The Mungo NP Agreement requires that the Minister and Director-General provide for the appointment or temporary employment of at least three members of the 3TTG’s in the administration or care control and management of Mungo National Park (Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee Agreement, section 9 (9.1). • The Agreement also specifies that in all instances, Aboriginal members of the 3TTG’s must be considered and promoted as a priority when planning and implementing works plans. Membership of the 3TTG’s is verified in writing by the Elders Council within fourteen days.

31. Key Issues • While the designation of Aboriginal positions is explicitly permitted under anti­discrimination legislation, this does not cover whether the person is a Traditional Owner, has local knowledge, and association and other case specific criteria.

32. Recommendations • The issue of ensuring Traditional Ownership and local knowledge in any appointees to ‘Aboriginal designated’ positions within the Park may be addressed by the inclusion of relevant criteria in any job description. Furthermore, the discretion of the selection panel may further augment the ability of the BoM to ensure the most suitable appointees. • In the case of the Mungo Agreement, it is specified that membership of one of the 3TTG’s be a mandatory qualification for the appointment or employment of a person in a designated Aboriginal position in the administration or care control or management of Mungo NP. This type of provision may be stipulated in a Barmah-Millewa Agreement, ensuring real employment opportunities for Yorta Yorta people in the management of a NP. • The inclusion of Traditional Owners on any selection committee convened to consider applicants for a position in the day to day care, control and management of the NP can ensure greater involvement in and control over the implementation of the provisions for Indigenous employment opportunities. As such, the requirement of representatives from Traditional Owner groups on any selection panel may be advisable for inclusion within the NP proposal, and any later joint management agreement.

33. Cross Cultural Awareness • Feedback from Traditional Owner Groups engaged in joint management processes indicates that a lack of cultural understanding and sensitivity on behalf of the relevant state service dealing with the park has frequently caused friction in dealings within the board of management and subsequently in park management (Consultations with Traditional Owners, Kakadu, 1984, Mootawingi, 1992)

34. Recommendations • The inclusion of provisions for cross-cultural awareness training may assist in addressing this issue. For instance, the Mungo NP Agreement requires that any officer or employee of NPWS involved in the administration or ongoing management of the NP attend a cross-cultural awareness course within 12 months of appointment. The broad objectives of the training are agreed to by the advisory committee (25 Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee Agreement, section 9 • Stipulating stringent requirement for cross-cultural awareness training may circumvent a scenario where lack of formality around this issue results in lack of cultural understanding/sensitivity on behalf of state service staff involved in either the BoM or ongoing park management

35. Right to practice culture, including right to restrict public access. • This is a priority issue in the case of Barmah-Millewa. Judicial denial of native title rights to the Yorta Yorta increases the importance of ensuring that Yorta Yorta rights and interests in land, and the rights to practice culture is firmly established and protected under any joint management arrangement on traditional lands. • The current Barmah-Millewa Joint Management Proposal calls for Yorta Yorta ability to limit visitor access to sensitive areas, in order to protect the Yorta Yorta right to protect culturally and spiritually important areas (Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation & Friends of the Earth Melbourne (Barmah –Millewa Collective), Barmah-Millewa National Park: Proposal and Briefing Document, 2002:10-11).

36. Issues & Recommendations • The experience of Traditional Owner groups engaged in joint management indicates that without clear provisions dealing with ability to practice culture or to limit public access to sensitive areas, these issues are not adequately catered for at the pragmatic level. • It is worth noting that in some cases, it is perceived that the transfer of ownership to Aboriginal people will lead to Aboriginal owners excluding non-Aboriginal people from the parks (Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation & Friends of the Earth Melbourne (Barmah –Millewa Collective), Barmah-Millewa National Park: Proposal and Briefing Document, 2002:10-11).

37. Recommendations • It is worth noting the possibility of excising specific areas of land within the national park for use by traditional owners.28 This enables the full protection of sensitive sites, and provides clarity around public access. • The reservation of areas of land within the National Park to which traditional owners have access for ceremonial purposes may also be appropriate. • The establishment and formalisation of mechanisms, within the joint management proposal and any following agreement with the state government, which enable Aboriginal custodians to be in control of protection and access to sites of cultural significance may also ensure Yorta Yorta autonomy in this area (28 Austlii-Reconciliation and Social Justice Library, National Report Volume 4: Joint Management. Recommendation 315, 2004, p3.

38. Is a “National Park” the best model for joint management arrangements? (Are BM creating a slightly amended national park or a new classification of conservation reserve?) • According to the 1994 definition by the world Conservation Union (IUCN), a protected area is: “An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” (IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, Gland, IUCN, 1994. P 7). • There are six IUCN different categories of protected area: • I) Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area; • II) National Park: • III) Natural Monument; • IV) Habitat/Species • Management Area; • V) Protected Landscape/Seascape; and • VI) Managed Resource Protected Area. • The rights and interests of Indigenous people are now recognised in all of these categories, except ‘Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area’(31 IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. Ibid). • Of these categories, National Parks are certainly the most significant category of protected area in the public perception.

39. Issues • As a consequence of the levels of protection involved in management of a National Park, this may be argued to have limiting effects on the scope of management options for Traditional Owners engaged in a joint management arrangement. • This has emerged particularly in relation to the overlap between the ability to practice culture, and traditional rights to hunt and fish, and threatened species protection and legislation as well as feral animal control within national parks

40. Recommendations • There are alternative options to a National Park model, including an arrangement structured around principles of community management. • These may be incorporated into the joint management model.

41. Associated community and economic developments for Indigenous community (ie cultural education, ecotourism, assoc industries-nurseries, aquaculture, research) • Issues: • Despite the promotion of Indigenous employ ment and training within the scope of the Kakadu joint management agreement, the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study (a report highlighting Aboriginal disadvantage in the region) indicates that most Aboriginal people are not benefiting form regional development (Kakadu Region Social Impact Study,2003).

42. The role of Green\Environmental Groups • The campaign for a jointly managed Barmah-Millewa National Park is forced to grapple with a number of key environmental, as well as land rights issues. • These significantly include the need to return environmental flows to the Murray-Darling River system, remove cattle grazing and timber harvesting, reintroduce traditional management such as burning, and control some high impact recreational uses in the area. • As a consequence of this, the interface between green groups and Traditional owners is a key issue.

43. Problems in Relationship between Green Groups & Indigenous Interests • It must be acknowledged that the interface between green groups and traditional owners in the establishment and ongoing management of jointly managed areas in Australia has frequently been problematic. • Historically, the Green movement in Australia is founded on the concept of preserving ‘wilderness,’ or “land that is wild and uninhabited” (Oxford Definition of Wilderness). • This position subsequently often places Green groups at odds with Indigenous groups working to achieve justice over stolen lands, in that at this fundamental level, the understanding of ‘wilderness’ precludes the recognition of prior habitation or ownership. • Without solid ideological foundations, relations between Indigenous and environment groups can be problematic, with alliances formed and decisions made for short-term goals and political expediency, rather than long-term commitment to shared ideals. As such, the potential for positive outcomes on both a land rights and environmental front is dependent on the management of this partnership. • This issue has arisen in the Kakadu and Mutawintji arrangements

44. Recommendations • The combination between the shared objectives of the core environment and Indigenous groups in turn provided the impetus for the establishment of clear protocols and statement of intention for the Barmah-Millewa working group. As such, the principles of self-determination form both a goal and a mode of operation in the campaign for joint management. The Barmah-Millewa campaign collective mission statement explains that the campaign is built on three main foundations: • To achieve a joint management system over Barmah-Millewa as a means to achieving control over land that has been denied the Yorta Yorta through the courts; • To sustainably manage the whole forest (both sides of Dhungalla) for the protection and conservation of its ecological and cultural values; and • To gain real and diverse employment opportunities for the Yorta Yorta people (Barmah Millewa Collective, Op cit. Mission statement)

45. Future Directions • Adherence to and understanding of this combined land justice/conservation agenda must be borne in mind when selecting the conservation representative to a Barmah-Millewa BOM. • Furthermore, this representative should have existing relationship with the Yorta Yorta Nations Inc and the Elders council in order to facilitate decision-making around conservation issues.

46. Act acknowledges and secures the right of Aboriginals who are the traditional Aboriginal owners of certain land in the Northern Territory of Australia, and certain other Aboriginals, to occupy and use that land, to establish a National park comprising that land to be known as the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park, to provide for the management and control ofthat Park and certain other land, and for related purposes Establishes a Joint Management Structure for Management of Park. NITMILUK (KATHERINE GORGE) NATIONAL PARK ACT,2000

47. Composition of Board • (1) The Board shall consist of 13 members appointed by the Minister, of whom – • (a) 8 shall be traditional Aboriginal owners of the Park appointed on the nomination of the Jawoyn Association; (b) at least one is to be a member of the permanent staff of the Commission appointed on the nomination of the Director of the Commission; • (ba) 2 are to each hold an appointment (whether as an employee or a Chief Executive Officer) under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and are to be appointed on the nomination of the Director of the Commission; • (bb) one is to be the presiding member of the Kakadu National Park Board established under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 of the Commonwealth or another Aboriginal member of the Kakadu National Park Board; and • (c) one shall be a resident of the Katherine area appointed on the nomination of the Mayor of the municipality of Katherine.

48. Joint Park Management at Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park, • 'I think Aboriginal people and Parks Australia have been working together really well… the traditional owners and Parks Australia are experts the way we look after our great national park for all Aboriginal people and for the people of Australia and overseas visitors to come and see and enjoy’ (Yami Lester - Board Chairman 1986 - 1996) • Tjukurpa, Anangu traditional law, knowledge and religious philosophy, guides everything that happens in the Park - as it has done for thousand of years.This concept is expressed on the cover of the Plan of Management by the words: • 'Tjukurpa Katutja Ngarantja‘ means Tjukurpa above all else

49. The title deeds to this land were handed back to the Traditional Anangu Owners by the Governor General of Australia in 1985. In turn the land was leased back to the Australian Government to be reserved as a national park for 99 years. "Now we are living together, white people and black people.We are working together, white and black, equal.Everything at Uluru still runs according to our Law.All the rangers wear badges carrying the image of Uluru.That is as it should be." http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/uluru/together.html

50. Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park,1985 • On 26 October 1985, the Governor General Sir Ninian Stephens presented the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park title deeds back to Anangu, the traditional owners. • In return Anangu leased the lands back to the Australian Government through the Director of National Parks (formerly the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service) for 99 years. • The Director is assisted by Parks Australia (a division of the Department of the Environment and Heritage). • Since hand-back, Anangu and Parks Australia staff have worked together to manage the Park. This process of working together has come to be known as 'joint management'. • All management policy and programs aim to: • maintain Anangu culture and heritage • conserve and protect the integrity of the ecological systems in and around the Park • provide for visitor enjoyment and learning opportunities within the Park.