Carlsa J. Carter
21st February 2006

Heritage Inquiry
Productivity Commission
PO Box 80
BELCONNEN  ACT  2616

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places Draft Report

I wish to express my dismay with the Key Recommendation 8.1 that:
“Privately owned properties should be included on a national, State, Territory, or local government statutory heritage list only after a negotiated heritage agreement has been entered into and should remain listed while an agreement is in force.”

It is very perplexing, given our experience here in South Australia, particularly in the City of Adelaide, and the lack of coherent and factually based argument provided in the document, to understand how the Commission has arrived at this extraordinary position. 

The consequences arising out of the adoption of such an extreme regime change to the process of heritage conservation is of utmost concern. Objective heritage assessment criteria and statutory listing have developed over the last generation following widespread loss of Australia’s built heritage in the 1960s and 1970s.This finding proposes to turn back the clock, subsume community interest to private interest and in the process embed local government in a mire of conservation agreement negotiations. It proposes the commitment of public funds without any security for the future preservation of a heritage property whatsoever. 

Comparisons with the Conservation of Natural Heritage
The Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places Draft Report (the Draft) in section 8.3 argues for “Purchasing public-good heritage characteristics” (p.176) and quite rightly stresses the need for public funding of heritage conservation that cannot be achieved through private funding alone. 

It draws on experience in the field of natural heritage conservation and in particular the Land for Wildlife and Trust for Nature (Victoria) described in Box 8.2, to support the argument for voluntary agreements. These are very limited examples that:

a) do not apply in South Australia where under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 all native vegetation is protected from clearance and a voluntarily negotiated and covenanted Heritage Agreement over native vegetation merely overlays a higher level of protection than the Act itself, and 
b) the heritage sites described in the example are protected in perpetuity through a covenant on the title. This is contrary to what is proposed in the Draft where heritage listing would lapse on the property’s change of ownership or the lodgement of a development application. Accordingly this is not a valid comparison. 

Comparison with the protection afforded by the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cmth) is again not valid because heritage protection is more thorough than that proposed under a regime founded on voluntary listing. Under this Act endangered species and vegetation communities are protected on private land by law and not by voluntary agreements. The Draft admits that this Act “provides greater protection for our natural heritage values” and this is protection through regulation.

Nature conservation is recognised as contributing to boarder environmental outcomes such as soil and water conservation, lowering salinity and improving farm productivity and not just the conservation of flora and fauna. There are other broader district and regional  imperatives for farmers to voluntarily conserve bushland than just the residual flora and fauna and amenity values contained in the heritage site itself. Again the comparison with voluntary listing for individual heritage properties is invalid.
Property Rights
The Commission has canvassed many views in regard to property rights and provides a selection of opinions in Box 7.3. While there is merit in their conclusion in Draft Finding 7.7 that property owners need more incentives and that a “better balance is needed” (p175) instead exploring funding and administrative opportunities to remedy this minority position they opt for a single simplistic model to apply to all heritage listed properties. There is a case, as the Draft discusses to, for fair compensation. This could be achieved through matched for conservation works and for the provision of tax and rate rebate incentives.  The Commission has surprisingly allowed property rights dominate its recommendations despite affirmations in their Draft in a similar vein to those below. 

 “Places of cultural significance enrich people’s lives, often providing a deep and inspirational sense of connection to community and landscape, to the past and to lived experiences.  They are historical records that are important as tangible expressions of Australian identity and experience.  Places of cultural significance reflect the diversity of our communities, telling us about who we are and the past that has formed us and the Australian landscape.  They are irreplaceable and precious.”

“The Illustrated Burra Charter” 2004, ICOMOS.

Consequences of Voluntary Heritage Listing
Some of the consequences of adopting Key Recommendation 8.1 are that:

1. Negotiations