State Heritage Convention

"Saving the Nation's Heritage in its Centenary Year"
Susan Marsden, National Conservation Manager, Australian Council of National Trusts

In a year devoted to celebrating the centenary of nationhood and the founding of the Commonwealth, we've seen no discussion in any media about what we've kept of that heritage and what we're rapidly losing. There is huge public anxiety about sales of Commonwealth 'assets' (including federation heritage places) and, partly in response, there is a present Senate Inquiry into the disposal of Defence-owned heritage property (see below).

Nor has there been any media discussion of the sweeping new Commonwealth heritage legislation that was introduced just before Christmas. The new legislation has immense implications for how the majority of Australians will encounter and appreciate 'tangible history' until well into the 21st century.

New Commonwealth heritage legislation

After a very long process of review of Commonwealth heritage responsibilities (the 'National Heritage Strategy'), the new heritage legislation gives effect to the national strategy, and also provides a very belated response to the government's 1996 Schofield report (Committee of Review - Commonwealth owned heritage properties). The relevant Bills are: Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000; Australian Heritage Council Bill 2000; and Australian Heritage Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000.

These bills will replace the Australian Heritage Commission Act of 1975 and establish a new (and less independent) Australian Heritage Council, and also make amendments to the new Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) by inserting various heritage provisions. The main heritage amendments to the EPBC Act will involve provisions to establish a new National List and a list of heritage places on Commonwealth land, both of which will involve more stringent Commonwealth controls over actions that may affect these places than has been afforded by the Register of the National Estate (RNE).

The new lists will replace the 13,000 item RNE that has been compiled collectively by National Trusts, heritage agencies, councils and individuals over the past 25 years. But there is no explanation in the draft legislation of how 'left off' RNE places will be protected nor how places will be chosen for the new lists. Nor (unlike the old AHC Act) is there any reference to whether the Commonwealth will fund these heritage places, let alone maintain its 25-year funding support for the myriad conservation efforts of other governments and groups such as the National Trust. (The government's present Cultural Heritage Projects Program already offers much less funding support than the National Estate Grants Program that it replaced.)

The bills have been referred to the Senate Environment References Committee for consideration and report by 28 March 2001. For further information, including the Bills, see: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/news/news.html.

The ACNT submission has gone to the Senate Committee. Major concerns that the ACNT has emphasised are:

flaws in the proposed National Heritage List and the need to extend the future use of the RNE;
support for a Commonwealth Heritage List, notwithstanding serious flaws in the process;
the need to increase the powers and responsibilities of the Australian Heritage Council;
a requirement for public consultation and ongoing support for community education and involvement, including by way of an advisory Forum;
the need for Commonwealth funding to support heritage conservation generally;
the need for more explicit or appropriate heritage terminology, including in the Act's title.

The submissions received by the Senate Committee (including the ACNT's) are on the web at: www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/hert2000/Sublist.htm. Only 21 have been received, making National Trust efforts even more crucial in the democratic process of getting parliament to improve these Bills.

Disposal of Defence Properties

Another Senate Inquiry is currently investigating the process of disposal of Australian Defence Organisation (ADO) properties throughout the nation, which includes the vexed issue of how well the heritage values of many of these properties are being cared for in the process. Many community groups, including the National Trust and the Pt Cook Airfield Preservation Action Group (Victoria) have voiced concern about how well properties are cared for before disposal as well as their use after sale or lease. (The issue has arisen again in relation to the sale of Defence property at Middle Head on Sydney Harbour.)

There are hundreds of important ADO sites that include not only major buildings and structures such as drill halls and barracks but also significant natural areas such as coastal dunes that have been 'protected' from urban or agricultural development while defence in hands over the past century or more.

The recent ACNT submission is now a public document and is placed with the other submissions on the website at: www.aph.gov.au/senate_fadt.
In summary the ACNT recommended that:

many ADO properties have significant heritage values which should be properly assessed before disposal;
measures should be taken to protect the identified heritage values before redevelopment, in particular, listing on national and state/territory heritage registers to ensure continued protection after disposal;
quality community consultation processes and involvement of government and non-government heritage organisations in the planning of a proposal from the outset is paramount;
the nation's most significant defence heritage and other significant places in ADO ownership should be retained for posterity in Commonwealth ownership and nominated for the proposed National Heritage List;
when planning to dispose of a defence site of significant heritage value, the ADO should give preference to owners/leaseholders who will protect and maintain the site's heritage values;
the conservation cost should be built into the sale price and be the subject of an agreement;
proper maintenance and basic conservation measures should be core business: many ADO property managers are not conserving heritage properties and allowing them to deteriorate;
ADO property managers should enter into partnerships with government or non-government heritage organisations with regard to identification, conservation, funding, and disposal.