(Recommendation 3.1 - All levels of government should put in place measures for collecting, maintaining and disseminating relevant data series on the conservation of Australia's historic heritage places.) This was said in 1974 in Australia's first National Heritage Act.
Historic Parks & Gardens
page 246 Historic sites (including gardens and parks)
An unreasonable cost appeal would, most likely, have little application for historic sites without buildings, gardens and parks, as they are generally zoned for parklands, and/or not privately owned.
There is no understanding at all by DEH here or in Canberra, of the World Heritage Significance of The Adelaide Park Lands under WHC Guidelines Cultural Landscapes 77(i) (ii) or the 2 National Heritage Listing criteria (f) & (h) already identified in 1998. The public nomination, (not Adelaide City Council), of October 2004, accepted for assessment by the AHC was unknown to the Commissioners.
page 64
In South Australia the issuing of an emergency protection order must be confirmed by the Environment, Resources and Development Court within four days.
The ERDC know even less about SA's heritage than DEH.
The EPBC Act gives the Minister a whole 10 days to conduct an emergency assessment, which is totally inadequate.
The Adelaide Park Lands have been nominated for State Heritage Listing 7 times over the last 17 years and have been on the RNE, not assessed, since 1985!
An indicative nomination from the public for The Adelaide Park Lands & Colonel Light's Plan has been accepted by the AHC in October 2004. This public nomination is backed up by a 115mb primary source research archive. The nomination assessment has been extended to March 2007.
RNE
(Recommendation 7.1 - The Australian Government should remove all historic heritage places from the Register of National Estate and transfer the information to a national heritage database. The database would need to be regularly updated and maintained, including the deletion of inappropriate entries.)
'deletion of inappropriate entries' - what are they? (anything the government wants to get rid of or has already destroyed?), and, who decides?
The RNE database to be transferred to another database (a duplicated waste of time and energy), and regularly updated and maintained - (who by? and hasn't happened for 13 years in SA already)
page 159
first paragraph - retained
fourth paragraph - now little policy for retention
(Recommendation 7.2 - State and Territory governments should remove any references to the Register of the National Estate from their planning and heritage legislation and regulations, after ensuring that any places that meet the criteria have been recorded on the appropriate (State or local) heritage registers.)
This is contradicted on so many other pages I can't list them.
Local Government
(SA Development Act 1993)
In SA we have had a completely toothless Heritage Act since 1993 which has been subverted by a clause in the Development Act 1993. We have no consistency across Local Government.
After 13 years there should not be any places that have not been assessed as meeting the State Heritage Council/Authority criteria. The failure of the SA Heritage Act 1993 has not been presented to the Commission or to the public.
page 388 South Australia
The Development Act 1993 allows local councils to designate places of local heritage significance in Development Plans... ('allows' is just another marshmallow)
...Once a place is subject to the Development Act, controls are placed on the 'development' of the place.
page 97 second paragraph
...no Australian State requires at the local level a statutory listing of a place's heritage significance...
page 109
...If a local council wishes to designate a place as having local heritage significance, it must follow the usual procedure for amending a Development Plan and, prior to public release, inform and invite submissions from the owner of the property. ...
The operative word here is 'if' - now it is 'mandatory', the whole thing hand-balled to incompetent under-resourced Local Government.
last sentence - It is these councils which would benefit from rigorous, clear and concise State-consistent heritage guidance.
Back to the future!
Page 388 (SA)
Last paragraph -
Under the Heritage (Heritage Directions) Amendment Bill 2005 and Development (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2005, local government authorities would be required to undertake mandatory heritage surveys, five yearly reviews and prepare Heritage Plans with their Heritage Surveys (with mandatory requirements for including identified places in the plans for confirmation or rejection after public consultation).
Back to square one (1974) again! The consultants never-ending gravy train, or should that be Tram?
PAR's - Plan Amendment Reports - a continuous cycle of planning to fail every 3 years. A never ending plague of planners (all with 'tertiary qualifications' of course), spewing forth their convoluted jargon and dreaming up new hoops for the community to jump through. Could all of these so-called town planners please provide us with a list of towns that they have actually planned and what practical experience they have had in heritage research or management?
During the course of this PC enquiry from May 2005, the State Government of SA has rammed through a New Directions Heritage Act (passed 2005) which encompasses the pre-determined planning bureaucracy takeover of our heritage as espoused in this report. This Planning SA Act ratifies the takeover of public land in clause 34 of the Local Government (Implementation) Act 1999 and the removal of third party appeals.
Public Consultation is a farce
page 101
-- the principle of subsidiarity requires that local heritage conservation reflects the willingness to conserve of that community.
I rest my case. Please read the public submissions to understand what a completely dopey idea this is in the real world.
page 105 third paragraph
Where the relevant local council has decided that a place should not be listed, even though it may have some heritage values, it would appear questionable practice to allow heritage proponents to undermine that decision through judicial appeals (see, for example, Cross 1999).
Judicial appeals - a lawyers gravy train.
page 47 The Minister decides whether to list
This makes all other considerations; laws, criteria, significance, public consultation, INVALID.
Why bother pretending we live in a representative constitutional democracy.
Ditto Major Projects, Major Developments legislation, Major Events.
No mention in this report of Proactive ideas - there are none.
No mention of 'Deeds of Agreements' by developers with State and Local Government.
No mention of completely unworkable Trees Legislation or River Torrens cess pit.
DR Submission 413 Victorian Government
"In summary. The Victorian Government does not intend to enact the statutory or regulatory changes necessary to implement any of the recommendations contained within the Productivity Commission Draft Report."
This information is copyright (K. Crilly - 26-10-2006), and should be acknowledged to this website. Please email for permission to reproduce in any publication.
| 
