7
While protection of the natural resources of the park figured prominently in calls for its establishment throughout the twentieth century and its later management plans, the story of Gariwerd’s Aboriginal history and heritage has been rather different. In the first half of the twentieth century, some sought in particular to protect the rock art sites, although this was in response to the clear ambivalence of others. When the Manja shelter was uncovered for the first time by colonists, within days it was suggested that ‘The Government will be asked to provide funds that will enable us to shield the art of the aborigines in the Red Hand cave and the Glen Isla shelter. The walls should be enclosed with strong wire-netting, as is done with similar relics of primitive man in other countries.’1 Despite this, by 1935, The Australasian reported that ‘Deliberate acts of vandalism threaten to destroy the few specimens of aboriginal cave paintings which remain in Victoria.’ The newspaper said that A. S. Kenyon, of the Field Naturalists Club of Victoria, had led an ‘expedition during the holidays to the Moora Valley, which lies between the Grampians and the Victoria Ranges’. After the expedition, Kenyon told The Australasian that ‘unless steps were taken immediately by the Government and local bodies’, he was concerned that ‘priceless examples of primitive pictorial art of the Australian aborigine, which existed in Victoria in four places only, would be lost for all time’. The expedition had visited ‘the cave paintings at Langi-Ghiran, Mount Zero, and Glenisla. In every case stupid and thoughtless people had scribbled over and deliberately set out to deface paintings, which were of great anthropological and ethnological value.’2 The few rock art sites that are open to the public were, throughout the twentieth century, protected with fencing and grilles (Plate 7.1). Even today, there are fierce conflicts between recreational users of the park – such as rock climbers – and those, including Parks Victoria and Gariwerd’s Traditional Owners, who fear damage to sites of cultural significance.3
The Land Conservation Council report in the 1980s that led to the creation of the Grampians National Park emphasised Gariwerd’s natural features and made provisions for the protection of historic industrial relics but mentioned little of the area’s Indigenous history or heritage. It did note, nevertheless, that ‘rock paintings of Aboriginal origin are quite rare; indeed, they have been located in only a handful of areas. Of the presently known sites in the State, 80 per cent (containing the best examples of this art form) have been found in the Grampians area [and] the great majority of these are located within the recommended national park.’ The rock art contributed to making the ranges ‘one of Victoria’s most important outdoor recreation areas, attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors each year,’ it said. While Gariwerd’s rock art had been of great interest to those curious about Indigenous history, focus on the area for much of the twentieth century had otherwise been because of its natural and economic resources. That the ranges might be one of the most important Aboriginal places in south-east Australia, and what this meant in terms of Indigenous Australian people past and present, had rarely entered into the minds of the settler population.
National parks across settler-colonial societies such as Australia have tended to have a fraught relationship with their first peoples. Sometimes, the designation as a ‘wilderness’ ignores or actively obscures Indigenous occupation and disregards their use and management of the land. In some cases, such as at Yellowstone in the United States, the description of the park as wilderness necessitated the active removal of Native Americans still living there. More broadly, at the height of European imperialism, national parks were understood as one way to civilise landscapes.4 Even unproductive ‘waste’ lands could be brought under Western categories of property.5 That the Grampians National Park was established in the late twentieth century, however, meant that its story would soon encounter other movements of national and international significance. Controversies over the park’s Indigenous history and heritage emerged against a background of nationally significant Indigenous movements and issues, including controversies surrounding the Bicentenary celebrations, the revival of the notion of a Treaty in 1987 under the Hawke government, the beginning of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1988 and, more broadly, the emergence of newly invigorated spheres of Aboriginal arts, media, and culture.6
Of particular significance would be the 1992 Mabo land rights decision, which established communal native title as part of the common law of Australia and overturned the historical concept of terra nullius. The anxiety and turmoil that emerged in the wake of that decision, as well as the momentum for change in Indigenous affairs seized by the Keating government, would both be reflected in debates about the new Grampians National Park. Moves towards Indigenous reconciliation and land rights in the 1980s and 1990s drew Gariwerd into political controversies that went to the core of debates about Australia’s past and highlighted Gariwerd’s deep Indigenous history.
Restoring Jardwadjali and Djab wurrung names
In March 1989, the Warrnambool Standard announced on its front page that the Grampians, ‘a range of mountains in north-west Victoria and named by a Scotsman with a fine sense of the ridiculous, will be renamed by a Scotsman with a fine sense of history.’ The latter Scot was the Victorian government minister Steve Crabb, ‘who was born in Arboath near the foothills of the Scottish Grampians’. The reportage made much of the Scottish connection: ‘Mr Crabb, whose ancestors demolished the Roman army’s famed ninth legion and thereby led to the building of Hadrian’s Wall, said yesterday, “Why on earth would we want to borrow a foreign and erroneous name at that, when the [Victorian] Grampians have been known for thousands of years as Guriward? [sic] … When the white man came he wiped out thousands of years of civilisation and quite arbitrarily imposed names that were foreign and irrelevant.”’7 This came a century after one writer in 1886 had suggested much the same:
Why this fine range of hills was named the Grampians I have never been able to make out. I have been told there is not the slightest resemblance between the Scottish hills where young Norval’s father owned a sheep run, and the rugged mountains that form such a marked feature in the landscape over the greater portion of the Western district. It is surely not yet too late to ascertain and adopt the native name for this beautiful range of mountains. As an Australian I feel indignant at this slavish copying of the names of British landmarks. Australian names are better suited to Australian localities than are the names of any places in the old world, no matter how interesting are the traditions connected with them. It is natural that colonists would name their Australian homes after the houses or estates that were so dear to them in the old country, but when it comes to a range of mountains, a lake, or a division of the country, nothing but native names should be used.8
In any case, Crabb’s announcement was the beginning of many years of heated debate and political conflict over the meaning and significance of Gariwerd and the Grampians National Park. Five years after the establishment of the park, in March 1989, Crabb commissioned Ian D Clark and Ben Gunn – a historical geographer and archaeologist, respectively – to begin researching traditional names and to make recommendations to the government’s newly-formed Aboriginal tourism unit for the restoration of Indigenous names to the Grampians.9 In 1985, Gunn had already made submissions to the Victorian government, arguing that many of the European names were inappropriate and that new names should be chosen in consultation with local Aboriginal groups. The researchers eventually identified and documented 86 place names in and around the national park, along with nine preferred names for rock art sites. These names were derived from the words and vocabulary of Jardwadjali and Djab wurrung speakers. They argued that there was ‘a very strong case for the restoration of Aboriginal place names and for the ascertaining and publishing of the meanings of these words … Just as there is now a very definite interest and awareness of the need to maintain what has been left of Koorie life, culture, rock art and traditions, so there should be a growing awareness for the need to preserve Koorie place names.’10
Crabb did not consult with local Aboriginal groups, however, eliciting criticism from Indigenous leaders.11 Non-Indigenous politicians and members of the public also reacted swiftly. A local politician claimed that ‘people in the Grampians area would probably be offended by the move’, and described the proposal as ‘ludicrous’.12 One member of the public said that that ‘the Minister for Tourism … wants to rewrite history by renaming one of Victoria’s more historic and scenic areas’. The writer continued:
This would effectively deny recognition of the substantial human effort by Major Mitchell and his party more than 150 years ago to become the first Europeans to reach the area … Mr Crabb’s audacity is almost the equal of his ambiguity … There is some question as to the validity of any Aboriginal place name recommendations in The Grampians. This is based on the claim that there are no true descendants of The Grampians’ original inhabitants left … This exercise in audacity, if pursued, would set a dangerous precedent. Leave history, and The Grampians, alone Mr Crabb.13
Responses submitted to a subsequent consultation abounded with references to the potential to ‘wipe out’ British history, consigning the heritage of settlers to ‘the scrapheap of history’, and the fear that familiar places and their pasts would ‘disappear from the map’.14 One newspaper argued in May 1990 that Crabb should ‘leave history as it stands’.15 Even the Scottish Council of Clans considered renaming the Grampians as ‘a threat to Scottish heritage and pioneers’.16 In May 1989, a petition of 11 000 signatures in opposition to the name change was presented to the Victorian Parliament, and politicians linked the issue to Indigenous land rights. ‘Will the Minister for Tourism assure the House,’ asked one, ‘that his unpopular push to rename the Grampians Guriwurd is not part of a hidden agenda to hand over the area to people who may claim to be Traditional Owners and then lease it back, as is the case with Ayers Rock?’17
Despite these controversies, in October 1991 Crabb announced that the Victorian Place Names Committee had decided to restore 49 of the recommended place names, rejected 15, and asked for further investigation into four more. The park was subsequently renamed Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park. Many other landscape features received dual names, including Yananginj Njawi Gap (Victoria Gap); Mount Sturgeon (Mount Wurgarri) and Mount Marum Marum (Mount Nelson). The changes would be accompanied by a $1 million promotional campaign. Crabb maintained his enthusiasm for the changes, saying that the ‘Koori link is what can give a magnificent and rugged mountain range the depth and magic that distinguishes it from other spectacular mountain scenery.’ The mayor of nearby Stawell, however, said he was ‘incensed that one man [Crabb] can defy the wishes of the electorate’, and that ‘the name changes were the first step in handing control of the area to Aborigines’.18 Politicians opposed argued that ‘The government will spend $1 million to advertise the name change. We will have to change maps, notices, road signs and the like. Surely the State would be better off by putting off that name change until farther down the track when Victoria can afford it.’19 Another asked ‘How can he [Crabb] rename our Grampians? There was no community support for funds to be allocated for the name changes in the Grampians.’20
Some went as far as to question whether the mountain ranges had any relevant Indigenous cultural heritage or history at all. ‘I remember the beauty of the place,’ one politician said, ‘but I cannot remember anything about Aboriginal tribes living there. I cannot remember any signs or plaques saying that such and such a tribe actually lived in that area. I do not know where Mr Crabb got his idea from. Perhaps it came to him in the middle of the night and he said, “Eureka”, or whatever is the Aboriginal translation, “I am going to change the name of the Grampians.”’21 Others said Gariwerd was too difficult to pronounce or remember: ‘Garryowen, or something like that!’, joked a politician from Ballarat.22 In September 1991, a parliamentarian described the name change as a ‘gimmick’ and ‘a stupid decision!’ He argued that the Indigenous names chosen were ‘ones that people could not pronounce or spell’.23
In the October 1992 state election – just 12 months after the final decision with regard to Indigenous naming was made – Jeff Kennett’s Liberal–National Coalition defeated Joan Kirner’s Labor government, and Crabb’s attempts to have Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali place names restored to signage, maps and official documentation were brought abruptly to a halt under the new government. Although public attention had been directed to Gariwerd’s Indigenous heritage, little headway had been made in either formal government or popular recognition of ‘Gariwerd’ or other Aboriginal place names. As local writer Gib Wettenhall observed in retrospect, ‘citizens in townships surrounding the Grampians fought the reintroduction of Aboriginal place names as a major election issue on the grounds that Aboriginal clans had rarely visited the ranges. The citizens saw their indigenous antecedents as playing no part in creating their floral wonderland.’24
After the election, the new conservation minister announced that ‘Gariwerd’ would be removed from the name of the Grampians National Park. This time, the decision to rename the Grampians without reference to its Aboriginal heritage seems to have jarred with a new public and political interest in Indigenous Australian land rights and reconciliation in the early 1990s. Letters from members of the public expressed concern and disappointment with the decision. ‘Shame on you … for abandoning Gariwerd. … What else have you and your party in store for the Kooris?’ asked one. Another joked: ‘You little beauty, … Changing the Aboriginal word Gariwerd to the Scottish Grampians will teach them who’s running the state. If they don’t like it, they can go back to … um.’ A spokesperson of Action for World Development wrote that ‘This is a slap in the face to Koori culture and, in the light of next year’s International Year of Indigenous People, quite incomprehensible.’25 Another argued, the ‘claim that dual names had confused people is no justification … [the conservation minister] should, in my opinion, be promoting acceptance and understanding of Aboriginal culture within Australian society, so that such confusion will not occur in the future’.26 One tourist wrote: ‘In Scotland, I live north of the Grampians, but when in Victoria I would rather visit Gariwerd. It sounds, and is, much more romantic. There are thousands of years of history behind the name Gariwerd, while, in Scotland, the word Grampian is but a modern misspelling of an unidentified hill.’27 A cultural officer with Brambuk in Halls Gap, Tim Chatfield, told one reporter
the name Grampians is not the true name. It is only a Scottish name that has been brought upon us here. The name has been taken away from us once but I guarantee it won’t be taken away a second time. Some of the sites are over 20,000 years old. It is part of our heritage where we need to take our young children, or younger generation of Aboriginal people, to learn the stories. This is what government departments don’t appreciate.28
As the 1990s progressed, public awareness of Aboriginal heritage and culture increased in the wake of significant reconciliation and land rights campaigns. Although the Kennett government halted moves to rename the national park in 1992, since that time ‘Gariwerd’ had entered, to an extent, the public vocabulary. The Friends of Grampians group, established in 1984, changed its name to Friends of Grampians Gariwerd in 1997 because it ‘wanted to more formally recognise the importance of the Park to the indigenous peoples’.29 Throughout the 1990s, travel writers and media reports referred, inconsistently and variously, to ‘Grampians/Gariwerd’ and ‘Grampians (Gariwerd)’, as did politicians. The debate sparked in 1989 had spread awareness of the park’s Indigenous culture, heritage and names. The naming of the park varies to this day. The Commonwealth National Heritage List registers it as ‘Grampians National Park (Gariwerd)’, as does the Victorian National Parks Association, while Parks Victoria refers to ‘Grampians National Park’ in its official documentation.30 Signage in and around the park is similarly inconsistent.
When the 2003 national park management plan was released, it revealed a clear divide in thinking about Gariwerd. While Traditional Owners had pushed for the use of ‘Gariwerd’ at the time of the new plan of management, Parks Victoria was generally reluctant. The divide then was between the Grampians, a place of environmental importance, and the otherwise less well-known Gariwerd, a place that was once important to Indigenous people.31 By 2014, the executive officer of Brambuk said to a Victorian parliamentary inquiry into heritage tourism and ecotourism that
We would like to see things like the name of the national park revert to its traditional name of Gariwerd. We would like to see dual signage at the very least throughout the park, for the Aboriginal story to be told in the park. The park is marketed on its natural assets, and that is great, but there is a whole layer of Aboriginal heritage that is not part of it. If that happens, it will lift the profile of Aboriginal people and the profile of our heritage … I would love Aboriginal culture and heritage to be incorporated across the board, whether it is names, information or experiences. It should not be a difficult thing, but it has been in the past. It could be the start of something.32
Throughout the twentieth century, Gariwerd’s history and value has been contested, reflecting national debates around Indigenous rights, reconciliation and recognition. But Gariwerd also holds potential as a site for future recognition of Aboriginal history, heritage and culture. The use of Indigenous names, however fraught this history is, is part of a longer process leading to more substantial forms of recognition.
Gariwerd Native Title
In June 1990, a Victorian Labor Party Aboriginal Affairs policy committee recommended that Gariwerd be ‘handed over to Victorian Aboriginal communities and leased back to the state Government’. The committee argued that the state government ‘should go further in recognising Aboriginal ownership of the park’ and called upon the government ‘to strengthen its commitment to granting Victorian Aborigines land-rights and compensation for the unlawful dispossession and dispersal of their lands.’ The committee recommended that ownership of the park be transferred to the Indigenous community, and that the state Conservation and Environment Department would lease back the Grampians.33 A year later, in August 1991, the Victorian Labor government suggested it would introduce a bill granting Indigenous Victorians ‘the right to reclaim Crown land and national parks. National parks would be handed over subject to lease-back deals with the Government, such as at Uluru in the Northern Territory. The first such land claims would be made on the Grampians and Wilsons Promontory, both of which host significant Aboriginal sites.’34 Just a few months later, the government backed away from the commitment.35
These were some of the first formal government considerations of recognising the Traditional Owners of Gariwerd and legally acknowledging and guaranteeing something of their communal property rights. The legal mechanism for this would arrive with the 1992 Mabo High Court decision and the Native Title Act, which recognised that Aboriginal people have rights and interests to their land that come from their traditional laws and customs. Instead of returning the land, the Victorian government proceeded with its ill-fated renaming plan. When the park was renamed, one columnist described it as ‘a small, symbolic, and fine step along the path to reconciliation between black and white’ but said that the subsequent government’s reversal was ‘small-minded and arrogant’. Moving to land rights, the editorial continued:
With its judgment in the Mabo case, the High Court has demolished effectively the legal fiction that Australia was terra nullius – no one’s land – when Europeans arrived. In its own way, the renaming of the Grampians was a recognition that a people walked the land and worked it into their culture in a rich way that has tested the understanding of Europeans. They did not give up the land easily. They were dispossessed by force, or the threat of it, and that is the historical truth of it. Today, Aborigines in Victoria proudly call themselves Koories. It is their own word, and they seek their own place in their ancestors’ land. The struggle is difficult. But Aborigines have much to offer this society – different insights, different dimensions. They even seem willing to forgive the sins of the past. The renaming of the area the Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park was regarded by Koories as a reasonable compromise. To any right-thinking person, it was much more than that. Last week, the Government took a step backwards from reconciliation.36
A later editorial would note in 1992 how ‘Aborigines could reflect upon how little has changed and how … they are so often treated with indifference and hostility.’ Pointing to the decision to remove ‘Gariwerd’ from the name of the Grampians National Park as an example of this hostility, the writer argued that the ‘action was hardly the high-water mark in the reconciliation process but it doubtless appealed to those who live in thoughtless dread of the repercussions of the High Court’s Mabo decision and seek to deny Aborigines any recognition at all.’37
The land rights debate and Mabo High Court decision in 1992 had a marked influence not only on concerns around whether the Grampians National Park should include Indigenous names, and what consequences this would have, but also on the future direction of discussion about the park’s Indigenous heritage more broadly. When the decision to drop ‘Gariwerd’ was announced, one Aboriginal spokesperson said that it was ‘being treated as a hiccup compared with the implications of the Mabo case, that has given local Aboriginal groups renewed hope of making a land claim on the national park’.38 By the middle of 1996, a native title claim had been lodged by Gunditjmara Traditional Owners over parts of southwest Victoria, including some southern areas of the Grampians. This was amid a flurry of applications to the Native Title Tribunal by Aboriginal communities across Australia in the mid 1990s seeking to claim both Crown land and land within national parks and other conservation areas.39
Some native title claims in Victoria have succeeded to date. In December 2005, native title was determined to exist for the first time in Victoria for Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagulk Traditional Owners in parts of the Wimmera, north of Gariwerd. In March 2007, Gunditjmara people in the south-west of the state were also found to hold native title, and this area was extended in 2011 to include Eastern Maar claims; the areas claimed border the southern Gariwerd ranges but do not cover the park itself.40 In 2016, a coalition of Traditional Owners groups including the Barengi Gadjin Land Council, Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owner Aboriginal Corporation and Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation submitted a native title claim over Gariwerd and the Grampians National Park.41 Joint management negotiations between Traditional Owners and Parks Victoria commenced, and by the middle of 2018 Parks Victoria had developed a Cultural Heritage Management Plan for Gariwerd with Traditional Owners, hinting at the seriousness of the claim.
The final Gariwerd Native Title outcome remains unresolved as of writing (April 2019), but there are indications elsewhere of how native title and national parks can work in conjunction. In 2010, the Victorian government introduced the Traditional Owner Settlement Act, which provides for out-of-court settlement of native title – the Gariwerd claim was intended to be settled under this law. The first claim agreed to under this piece of legislation was for the Gunaikurnai people of Gippsland. Parts of this area included the Alpine National Park, Lakes National Park and the Tarra Bulga National Park, in addition to several other parks and reserves. The agreement provided for the transfer of these to Aboriginal title, and to be jointly managed with the state. As part of the agreement, the parks would still be managed according to the legislation under which they were originally reserved. The Traditional Owners could not sell or transfer the land, change its use or claim exclusive possession. The main purpose of Aboriginal title over these parks was to develop a joint management plan between parks authorities and the Gunaikurnai, a plan that will also be subject to public consultation and already existing laws and regulations. The intention of joint management was that it would ‘benefit both Gunaikurnai people and the wider community by recognising Aboriginal culture and knowledge, providing quality tourism experiences, improving public education and conserving, protecting and enhancing natural and cultural values.’ The government would still be responsible for day-to-day management, as well as fire and water catchment management.42
The finding of Gariwerd native title and the implementation of joint management for the national park may mark the beginning of a fuller awareness of the Indigenous history and heritage of the ranges. It might also bring recognition to the fact that Gariwerd remains an important place for Indigenous Australians today. Joint management with Parks Victoria may open the possibility for more widespread use of traditional biocultural and ecological knowledge in the use of the park’s natural resources and provide opportunities for further exploration of Gariwerd’s rich artistic and archaeological sites, as well as closer integration of the park’s heritage and environmental values. As the controversies of the 1980s and 1990s showed, and as ongoing struggles between competing values and interest groups continue to suggest, the return of Gariwerd to its Traditional Owners may also, unfortunately, signal the beginning of many more years of tension and conflict.
Endnotes
1.‘Mystery cave in Grampians’ (1929) The Herald, 11 March, p. 1.
2.‘Aboriginal cave paintings’ (1935) The Australasian, 27 April, p. 53.
3.Day L, Gillett C (2019) Grampians National Park becomes battleground as rock climbers banned to protect Aboriginal art. ABC News, 29 April, online.
4.Gissibl B, Hohler S, Kupper P (Eds) (2012) Civilizing Nature: National Parks in Global Historical Perspective. Berghahn, New York.
5.Banivanua-Mar T (2009) Carving wilderness: Queensland’s national parks and the unsettling of emptied lands, 1890–1901. In Making Settler Colonial Space: Perspectives on Race, Place, and Identity. (Eds P Edmonds and T Banivanua-Mar) pp. 73–94. Palgrave, London.
6.Broome R (2010) Aboriginal Australians: A History since 1788. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 326–342.
7.The Standard [Warrnambool] (1989) 27 March, p. 1.
8.An outing at the foot of the Grampians (1886) The Australasian, July 17, p. 11.
9.Clark ID, Harradine LL (1990) A Submission to the Victorian Place Names Committee: The Restoration of Jardwadjali and Djab Wurrung Names for Rock Art Sites and Landscape Features in and around the Grampians National Park. Koorie Tourism Unit, Melbourne.
10.Clark and Harradine (1990), p. 5.
11.The Standard (1989) 30 March, p. 5.
12.The Standard (1989) 28 March, p. 3.
13.The Age (1989) 20 March 20, p. 12.
14.See Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands – Tourism Unit, Gariwerd (Grampians) Koorie Name Restoration 1989–1991, VPRS 14565/P0005, Unit 1, Public Record Office of Victoria, Melbourne.
15.Hamilton Spectator (1990) 13 May, p. 1.
16.VPRS 14565/P0005, Unit 1, Public Record Office of Victoria, Melbourne.
17.Victorian Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, Vol. 394, May 1989, p. 1601.
18.Wimmera Mail-Times (1991) 16 October, p. 921.
19.Victorian Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, Vol. 405, October–November 1991, p. 921.
20.Victorian Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, Vol. 405, October–November 1991, p. 921.
21.Victorian Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, Vol. 405, October–November 1991, p. 1015.
22.Victorian Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, Vol. 405, October–November 1991, p. 1015.
23.Victorian Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, Vol. 404, August–October 1991, p. 633.
24.Wettenhall G (2006) Gariwerd: Reflecting on the Grampians. EM Press, Ballarat, p. 16.
25.The Age (1992) 3 December, p. 12.
26.The Age (1992) 13 December, p. 16.
27.The Age (1992) 16 December, p. 12.
28.The Age (1992) 6 December, p. 8.
29.Sietsma M (2019) A short history of FOGG. Friends of Grampians Gariwerd, <http://friendsofgrampiansgariwerd.org.au/home/a-short-history-of-fogg/>.
30.Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy (2006) National Heritage Places – Grampians National Park (Gariwerd). National Heritage List, <http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/grampians>; Victorian National Parks Association (2019) Grampians National Park (Gariwerd). Victorian National Parks Association, <https://vnpa.org.au/parks/grampians-national-park/>; Parks Victoria (2019) Grampians National Park. Parks Victoria, <http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/grampians-national-park>.
31.Porter L (2016) Unlearning the Colonial Cultures of Planning. Routledge, London, pp. 91–92.
32.Victorian Parliament Environment and Natural Resources Committee (2014) Transcript – Halls Gap, 18 March 2014. Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism in Victoria, <https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/Ecotourism/Transcripts/Grampians/Brambuk_National_Park_and_Cultural_Centre.pdf>.
33.Canberra Times (1990) 13 June, p. 2.
34.The Age (1991) 25 August, p. 7.
35.The Age (1992) 19 January, p. 9.
36.The Age (1992) 3 December, p. 13.
37.The Age (1992) 13 December, p. 16.
38.The Age (1992) 2 December, p. 3.
39.Broome R (2010), pp. 351–352.
40.Victorian Government (2019) History of native title claims in Victoria. Your Rights: Native Title. Department of Justice and Community Safety, Melbourne, <https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/your-rights/native-title/history-of-native-title-claims-in-victoria>
41.Willingham R (2016) ‘Traditional owners make native title claim on land in Grampians National Park’. The Age, 30 May (online).
42.Victorian Government (2019) Gunaikurnai Native Title Agreement. Your Rights: Native Title. Department of Justice and Community Safety, Melbourne, <https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/your-rights/native-title/history-of-native-title-claims-in-victoria>.