Aboriginal cultural sites, whilst important, should not stand in the way of progress. After the Hindmarsh Bridge debacle I tend to be a bit cynical about what constitutes a sacred site or one with cultural significance. I read that the Aboriginal Land Council in the Hunter region wanted to claim the entrance to Newcastle harbour as a traditional fishing site and, surprise, surprise, any vessel passing over that site had to pay a fee. As the Aboriginal history was never written down but passed from generation to generation by word of mouth there will always be the chance of misinformation being passed down.

What a misleading headline. He is not wasting $660 million, the government is building a new road which, in all proability, is a proper expenditure of public monies. However the destruction of a particular tree which may have cultural value to indigenous people is something different. Let us discuss the tree not an unfounded allegation of 'waste' of public money, this allegation diminishes your argument about the tree.

Spin is everything in politics and Aboriginal advocates are no better or worse than others in this regard.  Yes we should protect Aboriginal sacred sites when they are clearly identified but also build the infrastructure society needs to move forward.  On the question of cost overruns, when doesn't a government project overrun original estimates?  The NBN is a classic example.

I always suspected this site had a LNP leaning.

Fact guys, facts.

We may be old but we are wise!

The official indigenous owners were involved in the decisions on which trees could be removed. While it is a pity to see such a beautiful tree be cut down the facts showed override prejudice.

The issue is not about the rights or wrongs of spending $600 million on a road, it is about the destruction of the Djab Wurrung heritage site.  I don't see this as much different from the Rio Tinto destruction of the Juukan Gorge aboriginal site.  The public outrage led to this statement from Rio Tinto:

"We deeply regret the events at Juukan Gorge and have unreservedly apologised to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people. The destruction of the rockshelters should not have happened, and we are absolutely committed to listening, learning and changing."

Are we sure the Djab Wurrung heritage site is not just as important to the these local people, or to the state, as the Juukan Gorge was to theirs?  Are we really confident the Victorian Government has properly assessed all the aboriginal sites in its state and agreed which need protecting with its aboriginal people?

Could not the site have been bypassed by this road?  So what if that would cost another $10 million - is a $610 million project suddenly uneconomic if it costs $610 million?  Was the issue raised in the Environmental and Social assessment of the project?

I'm not arguing whether the destruction of this site was right or wrong.  But in the whole of Australia governments have not gone anywhere near enough in assessing aboriginal issues and needs.

The Rio Tinto CEO stepped down as a result of the Juukan Gorge issue.  Will anyone in government step down over this issue - no - it's just a few trees ...

I think some people are getting the wrong end of the stick here, last year the Andrews government reached an agreement with the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation (the registered Indigenous organisation for the area) to proceed, by altering the plan so that 15 culturally significant trees would be spared. From what has been reported the tree cut down on Monday was not one of those protected under the agreement.

How about in Tas where the aboriginal people lost their language so now they have made a new one using snippets from early white man history. They have made up dozens of names & want to change many of the names of places that have been used for 200years. Already there are many original names used such as Waddamana, Tungatina, Mathinna,Ringarooma etc etc. A bridge named after John Batman was not built by indigenous people but they want to change its name!

There have been continuing objections to the Andrews government's destruction of this tree.

The article today under Conversation expresses the concern of many people:

https://theconversation.com/an-open-letter-from-1-200-australian-academics-on-the-djab-wurrung-trees-149147?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20November%204%202020%20-%201775817224&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20November%204%202020%20-%201775817224+CID_171b9d8ad92bf2f16739850a739e4cb3&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=An%20open%20letter%20from%201200%20Australian%20academics%20on%20the%20Djab%20Wurrung%20trees

It is all about RESPECT  and there is not enough of it -- what with Rio Tinto etc. and the cutting down of this scared tree --just show some respect FGS!

Seems the Governments are all about the money  -- same as the Koala habitats and many places where they are breeding but they are allowing many trees to be knocked down for a blasted quarry -- which is a downright disgrace.

The disrespect and land CARE is not even considered, no matter how many people are pleading for tthings not to happen.

In a statement, Major Road Projects Victoria referred to the tree that was cut down as a “fiddleback tree”, rather than the directions tree, saying it had not been identified as culturally significant by the registered Aboriginal party [the Eastern Maar], and had been assessed by arborists to be unlikely to pre-date European settlement. They said another tree at the northern end of the site was in fact a directions tree and would not be cut down.

The area is sacred to the Indigenous community here, home to birthing trees thought to be more than 800 years old. But it also runs alongside a notoriously dangerous stretch of highway, the main road connecting Melbourne and Adelaide, which the Victorian government is trying to fix (I understand) by rerouting it through the tree site. More than a dozen sacred trees have already been spared in a deal struck with some Djab Wurrung traditional owners formally negotiating with the Victorian government.

This is all very sad and my heart cries for any ancient tree that’s cut down..however.. sometimes an action is necessary in order to save human lives.

The issue here is not whether the $660 million road development should have been undertaken.  It was done for multiple reasons, only one of which was saving lives.  The project states "There have been more than 100 crashes and 11 fatalities on the Western Highway between Ballarat and Stawell in recent years".  Let's say 2 lives per year over 5 years - during which on average 250 lives were lost each year in Victoria.  There are many primarily economic reasons to make the road.

The issue is whether the state government has properly established a system for recognising aboriginal traditional areas of significance.  A 2013 ABC News article stated:

"VicRoads signed the lucrative land deal with the now-defunct Martang Registered Aboriginal Party, which formally approved the highway project in 2013. ... In return for conserving the site from development, Martang was promised annual royalties amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars over ten years."

Since then after Federal government intervention in 2018, Major Roads Victoria states:

"... we refined the road design, so these two trees could be retained. Further design refinements will allow for a total of 16 trees which are of interest to some members of the Aboriginal community to be retained."

What a pity they couldn't have made it 17 trees.