Victoria’s culture crackdown grabs six since 2007

Victoria’s much-debated crackdown on cultural heritage offending has gained just six prosecutions since 2007.

Rock climbing enthusiasts in the Grampians, where much of the best climbing routes have been banned due to cultural heritage reasons. Picture: Aaron Francis

There have been just six prosecutions since 2007 under Victoria’s controversial cultural heritage laws that are being used to threaten rock climbers with huge fines.

As debate rages over a rock climber being threatened with fines of more than $346,000, the Allan government has revealed the Aboriginal Heritage Act has been used only sparingly since it was first ratified by the parliament in 2007.

The highest profile case was in 2017 when an elderly farmer pleaded guilty in the Seymour Magistrates Court to causing harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage by extracting sand from a quarry on his farm.

Other fines and prosecutions include a 2010 fine of $2500 for an offender who was found guilty of offering Aboriginal objects for sale, a person pleaded guilty in 2013 to unlawful possession of ancestral remains, a person hindered an investigator in 2017 and was given a 12-month good behaviour bond and, in the same year, a person pleaded guilty to harming heritage and was fined $7500 without conviction.

The government said the six cases had resulted in court-imposed penalties of between $2500 and $35,000, well below the maximum current-day fines for an individual of more than $346,000.

The Australian revealed this week that a climber had been visited twice at their property by a First Nations-State Relations investigator who wanted to question them after their car was spotted in the Grampians National Park, where much of the best climbing routes have been banned due to cultural heritage reasons.

The bans came after First ­Nations people at Uluru forced the close of climbing on the rock due to spiritual concerns but also mistreatment of the area.

There are seven full-time enforcement and compliance authorised officers within an agency inside Victoria’s Department of Premier and Cabinet charged with investigating and monitoring compliance under the legislation and to enforce protection measures when necessary. They do not have the power to issue fines; these powers are held by the courts.

The Australian revealed this week that the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council warned in a pre-election legislative review that staff investigating alleged cultural heritage breaches had too little power to properly determine what has happened.

The council said in 2021 the law should be toughened so that officers can enter land or premises without the consent of the occupier, which would also mean ­investigators could walk on to farms or other land if the owner was away. The government has noted the request but is not pushing ahead with the recommendation.

There is a push among some First Nations leaders to more aggressively protect cultural heritage.

National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Martin Ollman

The government has spent the past four years targeting rock climbers in Victoria’s Grampians National Park but has become embroiled in controversy after Parks Victoria made a series of errors and unsubstantiated claims building the case for large scale shutdowns of climbing. It has reintroduced climbing in key parts of the park but, overall, dramatically scaled back the pursuit at what many believe to be one of the world’s best theatres for climbing.

The question of protecting heritage on private land has alarmed farmers, given that cultural heritage is ubiquitous across Australia.

National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said farmers wanted to protect cultural heritage but said there was confusion and ambiguity about rules at a state level.

“We hope other states considering similar legislation learn from the WA fallout and avoid ­repeating the same mistakes. We know the federal government is looking at reforming its laws to protect cultural heritage,’’ he said. “We wouldn’t want these changes to overlap with what’s being done at a state level. Instead, we’d like to see the commonwealth achieve some level of harmonisation.”