WE ARE writing in response to last week’s editorial ‘Is this how we want San Remo to be?’
The context of the editorial was the current call-out to the community to publicly comment on the Bass Coast Shire Council’s ‘Draft San Remo Structure Plan’. The editorial included, in full, the proposed vision for San Remo for the next 20 years.
There was a sense of discomfort in the editorial about the use of Aboriginal language for place names, and what was seen as a disproportionate focus on Bunurong ‘bio-cultural values’, and Traditional Custodians’ agency in shaping the future and contributing to the care of Country.
You shared your view that ‘the two most important things about San Remo are its people and the absolute privilege of having a town so magnificently sited on the coast’. You suggested that front and centre in the vision for the next 20 years should be ‘practical ways to improve the lifestyle of its residents and the amenity for visitors, while also enhancing and protecting the town’s greatest asset, its close relationship with the coast’.
In our understanding, these ideas are not incommensurate and are indeed closely linked. What we have been taught by First Nations people is that everything is interconnected. Looking after community, our visitors and the environment itself, are all part of what caring for Country means. Embedded in the Welcome to Country ceremony offered by Bunurong/Boonwurrung Traditional
Custodians is the request to look after the children and to take care of the Country.
Here in Bass Coast, we know that we live in a precious place, and we value the sense of community that we have here. In our region and in the world more broadly, we are seeing the social and environmental consequences of what happens when we are out of balance with each other and with our environment.
We have experienced bushfires recently and we are feeling the impact of rising sea levels and coastal erosion on a number of our beaches, with more to come. Population growth is bringing its own challenges of continuing to feel connected with each other and with the natural world, of which we are all a part.
You state that the Bunurong people will need to do a better job of educating the community about their heritage and you question why these issues should receive such a high profile in the 20-year plan. In our view, First Nations people who have lived in Australia for 2400 generations have a lot to teach us about how to live sustainably on Country and in community.
This knowledge is being generously offered and is deeply relevant for today and for the years to come. You place the responsibility for educating the community on the Bunurong people, but learning is a two-way street, and we all have a responsibility to listen and learn.
The closing words of your editorial stress the importance of ‘the present day and the future needs of a growing community’. In the face of all that is uncertain in our future, we have an opportunity through this envisioning process for San Remo to come together as a community, to listen respectfully to each other and to think about the generations to come, so that we may live and thrive together in this beautiful place.
Marg Lynn, Bass Coast South Gippsland Reconciliation Group
Editor: You are going to have to go back and read last week’s editorial again. It does NOT say: “You state that the Bunurong people will need to do a better job of educating the community about their heritage.”
This is a serious misrepresentation. The comment piece says it is the responsibility of “the planners” to explain why they have presented the draft vision for San Remo in the way they have, as follow:
“If the planners want the community’s support for having “Bunurong bio-cultural values interwoven into the daily life of residents and visitors” and to “transfer relevant decision-making powers to the Bunurong people” within the next 20 years, they’ll need to do a better job of educating the community about our Bunurong heritage and why these issues should receive the high profile they do in a plan that’s supposed to be about the present-day and future needs of a growing community.”
Notwithstanding the fact that the Victorian Government has been on a path to treaty for more than eight years, has passed two Acts of Parliament on the issue and embedded its First Nations’ goals in all policy, planning and decision-making, the point we were attempting to make is that they haven’t brought the general community along with them.
Most people are entirely unaware of documents like the new Plan for Victoria, for example, released in February 2025, and the role it ascribes to Traditional Owners in government planning over the next 25 years or that negotiations for Victoria’s first statewide treaty have progressed as far as they have, recently at a key meeting on Gunditjmara country in the state’s west.
Last Friday, the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, Natalie Hutchins, said that the government is rolling out an engagement program to inform local government, community and business leaders about the treaty process, including information sessions across Victoria.
Hopefully it will lead to a better understanding of where we are at and where we are going.
