Australian ICOMOS
Cultural Heritage Survey
SOE.ENVIRONMENT.GOV.AU
State of the Environment 2016—Heritage Theme Supplementary Material
Citation
DoEE (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy) (2017i).
Australia ICOMOS—cultural heritage survey, for State of the environment 2016: heritage,
DoEE, Canberra.
Publication information
© Commonwealth of Australia 2017
Australia state of the environment 2016: heritage is licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia for
use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence with the exception of the Coat
of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the
report and some content supplied by third parties. For licence conditions, see
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify and attribute content
supplied by third parties that is not licensed for use under Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International.
Cover image
Morphett's Enginehouse Museum, a restored Cornish enginehouse, Burra, South Australia
Photo by Richard Mackay
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
1
Australian ICOMOS
Cultural Heritage Survey
The Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) were invited to contribute to
the ‘heritage’ theme of the State of the Environment 2016 report (SoE 2016).
The aggregated responses to the survey are presented here. The most frequent response to each
question is shaded for visual interpretation.
121 responses were completed. 29 (24.17%) were from members whose work involves both
Indigenous and historic heritage, 86 (71.67%) involves only historic heritage and 5 (4.17%) whose
work involves only Indigenous heritage. Respondents identified themselves as either ‘an academic’ –
15 (12.71%),’ a consultant’ – 61 (51.69%), ‘a government officer’ – 26 (22.03%) or ‘an 'other' heritage
professional’ – 16 (13.56%). The text below is the introductory text provided to the respondents.
Overview
Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Minister for
Environment is required to table a report in Parliament every five years on the state of the
Australian environment. The SoE 2016 will build on data and information published in SoE 2011.
The SoE report assesses the current state of the Australian environment across a range of
disciplinary ‘themes’ (including heritage), explores how the environment changes over time and
reports on emerging and future environmental matters. It is a source of independent and credible
information and data at national and regional scales, and is compiled by independent experts.
Australia ICOMOS has been invited to contribute to the ‘heritage’ theme of the State of the
Environment 2016 report (SoE 2016).
The approach to preparing SoE 2016 will be similar to SoE 2011, but available resources are greatly
reduced.
The main SoE 2016 report will be a succinct volume, drawn from a series of supporting essays –
including one on heritage. These essays will contain assessment summaries which parallel those in
SoE 2011.
A major challenge in completing assessment summaries for heritage is the lack of empirical data.
Reliance is therefore placed on expert opinions expressed by peak bodies, such as Australia ICOMOS.
Interested ICOMOS members are also invited to identify significant issues, relevant case studies, or
useful data sources that may be incorporated within the SoE 2016 heritage theme essay.
The questions below are generally framed and focused at a ‘national’ level. It is recognised that this
does not facilitate consideration of the fine grain and major differences between jurisdictions or
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
2
local communities. Nevertheless, if you are able to accept the highly-general nature of the approach
and provide a response, the 5 to 10 minutes of your time will contribute directly to the ‘national/
findings of the 2016 State of the Environment Report.
The data that you provide in this survey will be provided to the Department of the Environment on
behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. This data may be used under the terms of a ‘Creative
Commons Attribution’ licence to support the work being done for the State of the Environment
Report 2016.
State and Trends of Australia's Cultural Heritage
How strongly do you agree with the following statements about the state and trend of cultural
heritage in the last five years?
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Blank
Significant progress has been made in
the collection of data relating to
statutory listing processes for cultural
heritage.
5
31
34
32
5
14
The number of listed cultural heritage
places has increased and there have
been more systematic, thematic
cultural heritage assessment projects.
3
49
21
29
6
13
The majority of Australia’s cultural
heritage places are in good condition
and retain integrity of their identified
values.
1
21
23
50
13
13
Statement
Pressures on Australia's Cultural Heritage
How do you perceive the level of impact of the following pressures on Australia’s cultural
heritage?
Very
High
Impact
High
Impact
Low
Impact
Very
Low
Impact
No
Impact
Blank
Rising temperatures
9
59
30
6
2
15
Changing rainfall
16
59
25
5
1
15
Rising sea level
16
60
21
7
1
16
Altered fire regimes
32
52
17
3
17
Extreme weather events
39
53
14
1
14
Community perceptions of value
33
49
19
2
18
Population shift
26
49
25
3
18
Resource extraction
44
39
18
3
17
Development
66
33
6
Tourism
13
57
32
Pressure
Climate Change
Population
Economic Growth
16
2
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
1
16
3
Are there other major pressures affecting cultural heritage in Australia or other comments:

Changing legislation; the cost to individual homeowners; government perceptions of value.

Poor legislation; Government inertia

Insufficient resources to conserve and present at the national level. Political, professional and
community complacency. Lowering standards of professional practice particularly to meet client
(e.g. developers, governments) requirements rather providing high level impartial professional
advice in accordance with accepted industry best practice. Lack of traditional skills. Lack of
resources to ensure that commonwealth department and agencies are compliant with legislative
requirements and manage heritage places in accordance with industry standards.

Lack of appreciation by government (and then hence the public) of the intrinsic value of heritage
items and places, i.e., those values that exist outside of the values that can be quantified or
understood as economically viable. This lack of appreciation is both wanton and short-sighted. It
shows a lack of civic leadership.

Lack of government interest as seen in most recent Indigenous Heritage legislation (especially in
WZ and QLD).

Lack of finance and government protection and awareness of need to protect heritage.

Reduction in government funding to the public service and reductions in funding for physical
heritage conservation and for conservation research and studies.

The will of local governments to conserve and protect local heritage places. Local Governments
struggle with development applications that may provide economic benefit to their communities
but impact on heritage places.

Neoliberal policy of self-centredness -not community good therefore it is always seen as
someone else's responsibility; widespread ignorance of our own history and heritage; history
seen as dull and/or can be done on line -therefore no need to save the real place.; government
policy has changed from good support to just doing what it legally must as with this SOE
reporting.

Lack of political will and effective dismantling of heritage legislation in some states

Lack of funding and resourcing for protection, management & monitoring of heritage places.
Complacency by government agencies at State & Federal levels

Lack of resources for conservation works; lack of political will to improve legislative regimes for
the preservation of heritage places; overall lack of understanding and large degree of disinterest
in the general public in our historical heritage; disparate protection regimes across States,
Territories and levels of government; poorly trained and qualified heritage practitioners;
unethical conduct
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
4

Neglect, lack of government funding to maintain & restore, reduction of government expertise
to assist with conservation & restoration.

Developers that seduce politicians in order to develop land that has heritage value. The
perception by politicians that development is their major source of income

Lack of resourcing to assess and list places of National heritage value.

Lack of community interest - people have been uncultured to believe that heritage is in 'OK'
hands while more important issues are economic development, job security, personal security
etc.

Withdrawal of NSW government from leadership or public discussion in heritage. Failure to
make key appointments in timely manner. Turning off the cover of the Heritage Act (1977) from
sites of development and major public buildings

Reduction in community support and engagement in cultural development and conservation, at
personal and all governmental levels

High cost of conservation works. Minimal grants available for locally significant items.

Lack of political support for cultural heritage.

A distinct lack of reasonable funding commitment levels for essential conservation works, for
traditional trades training, for monitoring of impacts on heritage places and for forward planning
strategies in both the private and public sectors.

Reduced funding, the prominence of developers on local councils and the watering down of
heritage legislation.

Lack of state government commitment. Heritage can be a 'driver of development' and is not the
'problem'. Anti-heritage combative approach of developers is the problem. City development
plans e.g. by NSW Government should allow for and respect heritage items, heritage
conservation areas, cultural landscapes and green space (as well as allowing for public transport
corridors) and plan for development in other areas

All seems covered above

1. Growing lack of appreciation of the importance of maintaining appropriate setting and
context around heritage items, whether it be a townscape context, cultural landscape context or
natural setting.
2. lack of appreciation of the importance of conserving interiors, combined with the inability to
police the retention of interiors as they are hidden from the public domain.
3. Lack of maintenance. This is often purposeful. Once a heritage item becomes physically
degraded, it is difficult to convince people of its value, and to invest time and money in restoring
the asset.
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
5

Weak support by the Federal and State governments - a lack of genuine, informed political
commitment to heritage awareness and conservation ; continual preferment and privilege of
development interests over heritage issues ; a lack of willingness to enforce and broker better
conservation outcomes. End of story.

The culture in government - insufficient support for cultural built heritage as a public good in
society

The general lack of funding for heritage projects in Western Australia, and the narrow focus of
what is considered heritage, is disappointing. The public perception of land development is that
it is such a powerful force that even when people consider a place very important for both
natural and cultural values, they often feel overwhelmed and appear apathetic when making
representations to authorities to re-think expenditure on infrastructure, mining and the
development of real estate. The Environmental Protection Authority lacks resources, the Office
of the Environmental Defender has had all of its funding withdrawn by the WA Government, and
we have no Land and Environment court or right of third party appeal. The WA Heritage Office
is small and has such a low public profile that most people are unaware that it exists, or if they
are aware, do not know how the Heritage Office can assist them with enquiries about cultural
heritage. In terms of indigenous heritage, for new heritage consultants it is not at all clear how
to obtain assistance in dealing with indigenous heritage especially with regard to shared sites.
The lack of education about heritage in Western Australia is awful, and yet people seem hungry
for information but do not know where to find it.

Declining political support and subsequent declining instead of increasing incentives to conserve
(invest in heritage capital). Declining expertise and lack of adequate education/training

Current economics whereby governments rely on private enterprise to achieve conservation.
There has been an observable reluctance to exercise intervention, particularly by means of
providing funding for conservation.

Politicisation of heritage; far too much politicisation in the present arena A neo-liberalist
approach to "development" Dumbing down of previous organisations (e.g. Australian Heritage
Commission to Aust. Heritage Council Consistent dumbing down of regulatory provisions for
cultural heritage. No interconnection between departments responsible for heritage and/or
planning (Tasmania) Many types of cultural heritage ignored... e.g. garden heritage, landscape
heritage (cultural landscapes) when developments are mooted Aboriginal heritage and
European cultural heritage not seen as a continuum of assessing landscape Becoming more and
more difficult to "list" places at either the National or the State level. This means that the
"responsibility" passes to local government which hasn't the resources especially in regional
areas. Emphasis has been on built form (architectural merit); we need a much broader
assessment, see above. A landscape approach, an area assessment of "place" (Burra Charter
Article 1). We have to move from a site by site appraisal of heritage.... Register of the National
Estate placed lines around whole village areas in Tasmania for example. It is going to depend on
the state and the rigour within local government planning schemes as to what is actually
statutorily protected.... there has to be national and state policy direction and potential changes
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
6
to the legislation as a consequence.

Lack of state and local level funding/incentives for property owners to conserve assets.

Yes our whole approach to valuing and managing. We still fail to focus on why places are
important tending to the what prior to identifying the useful meaning for the future generations.

In actual fact we do not know with any great surety what the impacts of climate change will
have on our heritage places. There is very good scientific assessments of what changes to the
present climate regimes will occur but the effects of these changes to individual heritage places
at the elementary fabric level is still largely an unknown. One impact level that is not
presented in the above section 4 on climate change is how the biological changes in flora and
fauna ecology and distribution will impact on our heritage places. Changes in habitat, range and
population distribution to biota will certainly happen to a greater extent in the future. These
changes will affect the biota as well as the built heritage (e.g. insect infestation). We can only
speculate at this time on how high the impacts will be where they will be or how to put in place
management programmes that will offer effective mitigation.

1. Revision of legislation and planning instruments to weaken heritage protection (generally or
under the guise of 'streamlining' and 'cutting red/green tape').
2. lack of staff in heritage agencies (and on Heritage Councils), particularly at high levels, with a
background in heritage (i.e., staff are unable to understand and undertake many aspects of
heritage management,
3. limited capacity to protect heritage due to limited resourcing (limited (highly inadequate)
staffing of government agencies with responsibility for heritage protection, and limited (highly
inadequate) resourcing for research into heritage - identification, assessment and development
of improved conservation mechanisms/processes.
4. lack of real political will and interest in heritage protection (lack of understanding of the
values and higher priority interests which take precedence.
5. Community lack of understanding of heritage and conservation risks/sensitivity - hence
limited general community support for heritage protection.

Lack of European world heritage areas. Lack of financial support for Indigenous and mixed sites.
Lack of access to advocacy and resources by community groups or statutory bodies when in
dispute with heavily resources organizations with a development agenda that challenges a
considered good heritage outcome.

foreign ownership of land - OS buyers buy properties, demolish, and build mc mansions - laws
actually encourage foreign owners to demolish property loss of traditional tradesmen to
properly repair and maintain buildings lack of interest by the younger generation greed - and
high cost of land reduced assistance for cultural heritage maintenance

Loss of political support and a general ideological shift to favouring development over retention
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
7
of heritage

Lack of prioritisation in govt depts. to conservation due to under-budgeting. Serious
underselling of the stories that go with sites lost opportunities to capture hearts and minds of
locals and visitors

Declining professional and trade knowledge/skills in heritage conservation

Yes. The absence of regulatory coordination around mine closure planning may leave heritage
aspects poorly addressed. Most governments have a single agency responsible for 'mine
rehabilitation' with a dated perspective on what this means. Overseas in more progressive and
perhaps mature regulatory frameworks 'integrated mine closure planning' exists with examples
of successful transitioning from active mining to mining heritage places available to alternative
but compatible land uses. In Australia most regulatory frameworks cannot yet accept the
retention of heritage features (I'm referring to industrial archaeological features and buildings)
as governments have not thought beyond closure to who will manage these sites, how they will
be managed, how the current operational closure planning frameworks should be supporting
this long term view. i.e. cost calculator tools for estimating rehabilitation costs can still include
demolition of heritage listed features, because they do not know how to deal with this. The right
agencies and expertise need to be engaged in a shared regulatory manner - with crossfunctional integration within govt. Even modern closure guidelines see the default as returning
the land to natural ecosystems (WA mine closure guidelines 2015) and these are quite
progressive in terms of Australian approaches to mine closure. NSW (and other jurisdictions)
need to address the integration of mining heritage and in some cases indigenous heritage into
the closure concept. For the latter it is about indigenous healing (see Rum Jungle rehab
conceptual plan, 2013). Also heritage listed features on abandoned mines are poorly conserved
due to the carving up of responsibilities by govt and a high level of ignorance by those placed in
charge. i.e. QLD DNRM are ill-equipped to manage heritage values on abandoned mines. They
are also ill-equipped to manage environmental aspects. This is the responsibility of DEHP
however they are not always consulted effectively. So they need to step in and develop guidance
for abandoned mines. Otherwise the conservation and management of heritage will either fall
into the regulatory/responsibility cracks of governance or heritage values will be destroyed by
ignorant operators i.e. the shaft capping team in northern QLD. In the past at Charters Towers
and more recently at Herberton. Australia has a Strategic Framework for managing abandoned
mines in Australia
http://www.industry.gov.au/resource/Mining/Documents/StrategicFrameworkforManagingAba
ndonedMines.pdf however few if any jurisdictions in Australia are applying it in a strategic
manner with policies and programs mapped out and available online. The working group which
developed the framework ceased to meet after its release. Chapter 1 is about 'valuing
abandoned mines' - let’s call for an audit of Chapter 1 across Australia - ask the question 'How
are Australian governments valuing mining heritage as part of their management of abandoned
mines'. Then the question also needs to be asked for active mines AS THEY PLAN FOR CLOSURE.
This too is omitted. My Churchill Fellowship report included Cornish Mining to learn from
leading practices overseas. See
https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/UNGER_Corinne_2009.pdf . We need to
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
8
focus on these aspects until they are embedded in legislation, guidance and practice for mine
environmental/rehabilitation regulation (these two tasks are often divided up by agency and
where this occurs there exists the greatest potential for omission of any care or thought around
good practice management of mining heritage values). Most are professionals who have never
heard of the Burra Charter. They are simply not engaging with the right other people in govt
because they are not required to and don't understand the long term value of mining heritage.

Under-staffing and lack of appropriate expertise in government heritage agencies. Inconsistent
application of regulations and controls - large developers and government agencies flout
heritage regulations while households have regulations strictly applied.

Non-effective regulations and state governments' poor asset management

anti-heritage stances of all governments of all political colours at all levels (local, state, federal)

Uninformed and often low-quality technical work on buildings Absence of incentives to owners
of heritage properties to seek specialist advice and workmanship

The property development industry has persuaded politicians that conservation of the built
environment is a negative and anti-development and anti-jobs, when the reality is the reverse.
As a result, our heritage management today and quality of outcomes is tokenism at best.

Lack of funding to do actual work on the item rather than more reports about the item. Lack of
skills training particularly trades.

Lack of funding at all levels of Government for heritage assessments & advice is placing
pressures existing resources

Low priority given to heritage conservation by owners where it is not their 'core business' especially government agencies.

The generally widespread political disinterest in heritage significantly affects new listings and
maintenance

Lack of government interest and support. Lack of funds to support conservation.
Misunderstanding from developers that heritage is a constraint that reduces development
opportunity and therefore means loss of jobs so it should not be supported at any level.

The identified pressures are external and beyond direct control. Thus this frame of reference is
not suited to heritage. The work of heritage should drill down on 'community perceptions of
value', including policymaking communities, to re-set how heritage is framed in regard to
environmental and sustainable development parameters.

a disconnect between community appreciation and government understanding of the benefits
of heritage

Watering down of legislative protection and lack of incentives/assistance for owners to conserve
their heritage place
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
9

lack of political interest

Need to find additional resources. Scarcity of expertise in traditional skills.

Fairly widespread indifference

Lack of adequate financial support to undertake conservation works. An inadequate depth of
understanding of pressures of maintaining places in regional and remote areas by those
responsible at Government level for setting guidelines and management goals.

Changing cultural backgrounds of Australians

Inadequate cultural heritage legislation, most exemplified in the cases of Indigenous heritage in
WA (where sites are being re-registered) and NSW (where stand-alone legislation has failed to
materialise)

Funding for government owned heritage places is very limited and putting major pressure on
heritage places

Lack of public money and will to systematically identify and protect heritage. A generation ago
the governments were much more understanding and generous.

Cuts to resources especially funding of community based research projects and thematic studies.

A significant lack of resources and leadership at the federal level particularly when it comes to
non-indigenous heritage. When there is no consideration given to non-indigenous cultural
heritage in strategic planning documents it is time to ask what is going on?

Loss of knowledge bases for maintenance of heritage places, loss of materials for conservation
and repair, and considerable reduction in training programs and opportunities for next
generation maintenance and repair trades and professions

Reduction of government investment in resources for cultural heritage.

Declining government commitment to conservation Inflows of foreign capital and development
pressure Lack of depth and experience in cultural heritage across government Aging
population and succession in the heritage 'professional' Ethical standards and accreditation
Persistent focus on sites rather than landscape

Lack of heritage trade skills. Lack of system to ensure work to heritage places is carried using
best practice.

Lack of education/information from broader population.

Ignorant management, under staffing and lack of resourcing. Lack of historical knowledge and
ignorance of history both federal, state and local amongst the community.

Perceived economic penalties of owning heritage property.
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
10
Management Effectiveness for Australia's Cultural Heritage
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Blank
Australia’s cultural heritage is well understood
and appropriately recognised.
22
16
53
14
16
Adequate resources are available for the
survey, identification and assessment of
Australia’s cultural heritage places.
7
9
45
44
16
34
20
42
6
16
15
30
49
11
16
19
15
49
21
17
20
19
48
14
17
17
16
47
25
16
31
28
40
1
16
Statement
Strongly
Agree
Identification
Management
Management needs and processes are well
understood by those responsible for
managing Australia’s cultural heritage places.
3
Appropriate management plans or other
mechanisms are in place for the management
of Australia’s heritage places.
Protection
Australia’s cultural heritage receives adequate
protection through existing statutory controls.
Decisions regarding cultural heritage places
are well-informed by an understanding of
heritage values and the principles of the Burra
Charter.
3
Leadership
There are appropriate governance structures
in place to co-ordinate and manage cultural
heritage in Australia.
Celebration
Cultural heritage places in Australia are
accessible, well-presented and contribute to
the community’s sense of place.
5
Significant issues that should be considered:

1. The methods for identifying significant heritage early in a project. By the time a major project
is provided with SEARS, it is understood that it will go ahead, regardless of the impacts to the
environment and energy is put into "mitigating" impacts rather than avoiding them. It seems
that heritage items are protected until a fee is paid and a permit is approved for the item's
destruction.
2. At a local level, impact assessment is not logical. By the time consultants win a project, they
are considered to be investigating, understanding and making recommendations on behalf of
the client. Objectivity often needs to be disguised and even if the consultant thinks the item is
very significant, there is a great deal of pressure to work with the client and "mitigate" impacts
by recording etc.
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
11
3. Demolition by neglect. I understand the answers to 13 and 14 aren't exactly "state of the
environment" responses. I don't know how to address broader questions without a long, long
think about it. I suppose the broadest response I can give is that we have piecemeal planning
laws that are changing regularly and will continue to change as the eastern seaboard starts
running out of space due to population increases, land degradation and water shortages (El Nino
is upon us again). We need to start thinking about landscape based models for heritage and
growth.

Government Inertia; lack of commitment on behalf of Government; poor regulation and an
abrogation of responsibility by Government. Poorly trained practitioners.

Insufficient resources to conserve and present at the national level, particularly funding.
Political, professional and community complacency. Lowering standards of professional
practice particularly to meet client (e.g. developers, governments) requirements rather
providing high level impartial professional advice in accordance with accepted industry best
practice. Lack of resources to ensure that Commonwealth departments and agencies are
compliant with legislative requirements and manage heritage places in accordance with industry
standards. Also insufficient experienced and qualified people with relevant agencies to manage
heritage portfolios. Increase commitment from relevant agencies is required to conserve,
manage and present their portfolios. Lack of traditional skills and training programs.

The complete lack of a national coordinated and resourced approach to the protection,
recognition and conservation of Australia's rock art.

Lack of government support for heritage - identification, management, protection and public
education.

Need for more community input, need for finance's to protect places and pay for more staf to
work in heritage organisations and as consultants.

Appropriate mechanisms should be in place throughout Australia to ensure sympathetic and
appropriate development adjacent to and incorporating heritage places. Appropriate funding is
required for heritage places (not just those nationally or world listed).New models for funding
could be explored (including a heritage lottery and The Spitalfields Trust model).

Despite heritage strategy which is poor in broad outcomes, there is little vision for heritage as an
essential part of our environment; either conserved, adapted or celebrated. Failure to inspire
yet it is an inspiring continent with an entangled culture

Serious reduction of trade skills and mentoring in the building industry since the effective
dismantling of TAFE building courses and reduction of skilled government workforces.
Diminished political will and downgraded legislative processes to protect heritage places.

Disparate legislation; lack of leadership in government sector to move CH practice into the 21st
century; lack of opportunities for new graduates; lack of public interest and understanding in
cultural heritage values; strong economic pressures on quality of work - i.e. in tough times the
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
12
outcome tends to be work of a lower quality

In Queensland, the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 does not trigger the Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage Act 2003, and developers are receiving DA approvals without understanding (and
blatantly avoiding) how the Duty of Care guidelines work or engaging with the registered
Aboriginal Party/CH Body for that area. The onus is currently on the Aboriginal Party/ CH body
to chase up developers and their lawyers with very few 'wins' and little assistance from DATSIP.
This is expensive, difficult and ridiculous - the onus must be on those potentially impacting
cultural heritage, not those trying to safeguard their own heritage! This loophole must be closed
and the Duty of Care Guidelines must be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

The ACT Government is thwarting the listing of Canberra so that it can develop prime heritage
areas. The WA Government will not recognise the significance of Burrup peninsula and allow a
World Heritage nomination

There is a lack of understanding between the National to State to Local Governing bodies on
their roles and responsibilities.

Community apathy Lack of real support for heritage conservation Failing heritage management
system - too much emphasis on up-front processes (including high cost) with adequate attention
to achieving high quality outcomes Lack of monitoring, enforcement and little incentive to
achieve good outcomes (other than economic return) Lack of investment in future of heritage
(no training, sponsorship of best practice, or incentives for young people to become involved)

reduction in number of areas in which NSW heritage Act applies

In NSW LGA amalgamation will be a significant impact on cultural resource management
commitment and co-ordination. The lack of heritage leadership at a national and state level (e.g.
NSW) is already having long term adverse impacts on heritage management and conservation in
Australia. Inadequate decision making processes and erosion of quality standards of care will
gradually diminish the heritage resources already recognised and leave those heritage places yet
to be well recognised and protected- such as post-war modern heritage- without adequate
identification, management and protection .

Lack of adequately trained cultural heritage professionals particularly outside the capital cities.

Cost of consultants work in regional Australia if these consultants must come from city centres.
Therefore good advice limited.

Poor management of existing heritage sites numerous attempts to "get around" heritage listing
and curtail the identification of newly identified places.

“
 lack of political will or vision (of any major party and at any levels) to support 'heritage;
 heritage viewed as an barrier to (unfettered) 'development' (at any cost or societal loss);
 exceedingly narrow and short-termism, combined with a purely fiscal only agenda
underpinning 'open for business';
 nil connection of the multiplier effects of heritage to what makes a 'liveable city', a 'global
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
13




city' or as one of THE pull factors to attract residency of young entrepreneurs and 21stC startups;
in NSW sole focus on 'NSW' i.e. Newcastle (& Hunter for mining), Sydney (only around the
Opera House) and Wollongong' with nil to rest of the state;
in NSW at the very core is the Cabinet agenda and overriding NSW State Strategy in which
there is nil about 'cultural (other than narrow identified as racing cars and football), and this
cascading down into e.g. regional plans;
deliberate gutting of corporate knowledge, any proven expertise and staving of resources in
all levels of government for heritage and inter-related disciplines;
defining and funding 'culture' as only as being the performing arts;”

The re-emergence of ‘facadism’ as a "conservation" tool. Land values making the retention of
some heritage buildings unviable.

Protection of heritage conservation areas has dwindled under the NSW government and
additional measures need to be taken to strengthen control of these Areas identified as being
significant.

Developers expect to be able to achieve the numerical standards established by local
environmental plans (HEIGHT AND FSR) which are often blanket controls across an area.
Properties that are heritage listed and heritage conservation areas should have appropriate
height and FSR controls. Alternatively height and FSR controls should be removed from heritage
items and heritage conservation areas and appropriate development assessed on a case by case
basis. Heritage places are not protected form overshadowing by large scale development on
sites in the vicinity, yet overshadowing can have a detrimental impact upon the heritage item.

Reluctance to pursue and enforce genuine conservation outcomes in the face of development
interests - i.e., identifying and securing good conservation outcomes that are win-win, not
win(development) lose (heritage conservation). Poor support for Modern period heritage

Little recognition by senior bureaucrats and politicians of the ongoing need to provide training
for professionals and the trades about technical aspects of heritage conservation.

Failure to promote cultural built heritage in society Lack of incentives for conserving heritage
buildings Lack of poly innovation for the management of cultural built heritage especially in the
context of development.

See earlier comments about problems to do with appreciation and value of heritage in Western
Australia. There are opportunities to improve interpretation and the quality of visitor
experiences in many places. Investing funds in places which members of the public feel have
intrinsic value is important. Also, strategic investment in cultural heritage would provide income
from tourism, but this would require a step change in thinking about tourism generally in
Western Australia.

The lack of political support and incentives

Lack of funding for the conservation of heritage places at local, state and national levels.
Penalties and incentives are insufficient to achieve conservation where owners are
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
14
disinterested. Insufficient staff, and insufficient expertise among those remaining staff, to
manage historic heritage at state level.

The listing process is too property boundary based in general. Precincts provide much better
protection. the linkage of thematic and cultural studies in a multi disciplinary manner has not
developed because of lack of government support at all levels.

One of the major issues that will impact on the conservation of our heritage places is the
downgrading of EPBC referral decisions to the State and Territory government agencies and
ministers. Although supported within government agencies and within corporate development
business as a way of cutting through the 'Red Tape' on conservation decisions. This policy
weakens the very purpose of the EPBC Act with a Federal Government agency acting as a
decision maker with regard to the conservation and heritage issues and places the judgements
by State and Territory agencies towards an economic rather than heritage decision making
process.

1. Weakening of protective statutory provisions throughout Australia: Some examples are - 1.
Changes to the operation of the EPBC Act –
a) The one stop shop approach for the EPBC Act - as it is currently occurring this process has
insufficient checks and balances to ensure significant heritage is protected from development;
b) other changes such as the current proposed amendment to restrict who can appeal against a
development to those with a 'direct interest'. These changes in my view (and those of many
others are about facilitating development, not just a streamlined process (there are other better
ways to cut so called 'green tape'). There have over the last c.5-9 years been a number of
reviews and proposed revisions of State Aboriginal heritage legislation - few of these have
improved protection for Aboriginal heritage, and in Tasmania the proposed new legislation was
so unpopular (with all stakeholders except government) that it was dropped.
2. Amendments to planning schemes and other planning provisions (e.g., Tasmania is moving to
a single planning template and the process of development has been done behind closed doors
by a committee with no heritage expertise; and approval on an unfinished document rushed
through parliament.
3. Lack of resources for heritage identification and assessment - most government $$$ today are
focussed on the management and promotion of sites of listed heritage sites. This assumes that
we have complete and representative listings. This is very much not the case anywhere in
Australia at the National and State level and rarely the case at the local level. Resources are
therefore desperately needed for better heritage identification and assessment (note - no
funding for this has been available at the national level (and limited funds only at the State level)
since the demise of the NEGP. Heritage desperately needs a new NEGP type funding. All the
above potentially will have a negative impact on heritage; and developing poor approaches then
arguing for better approaches all has enormous resource implications - so wasteful!

WHL listings. Better communication between key heritage stakeholders. Generational change
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
15
in key organisations

Fund raising for community-held assets Tax credits for conservation work to privately owned
assets Activating historic places on crown land in Victoria Funding for works to historic places
on public land

under resourcing of cultural heritage, and lack of appreciation and priority for heritage
conservation in the broader community others mentioned above

1) Widespread legalised loss of small-scale Aboriginal relics and cultural heritage through
permits in the face of development pressure.
2) As mentioned previously, a general loss of political support for cultural heritage in favour of
development, especially by the Liberal Governments in power at state and federal levels (and
previous corrupt Labor Govt in NSW). This is usually expressed surreptitiously though, because
heritage is fairly popular with the public, through bureaucratic changes such as dismantling well
functioning offices and removing effective bureaucrats and replacing them with idiots. Or
replacing outcome-based administration with process-focused administration. Or replacing
well-functioning processes with nightmare processes (for example a petty cash process that
requires a 10 page booklet, literally, and several hours of buggerising around with non-intuitive
programs to get your money back, meaning that you either don't spend the money in the first
place or don't bother to ask for it back – imagine this kind of change replicated across every
facet of an office’s functioning). This results in the loss of more effective bureaucrats and their
replacement with people who don't know and/ or don't care.
3) A widespread loss of reference to the Burra Charter as a central agreed set of heritage
principles for the industry. Not sure why. Maybe we have become too complacent about its
success.
4) The loss of the RNE in favour of three levels of heritage listing and management, which has
given politicians vastly increased power to shut down heritage issues and allow one level of
government to destroy heritage without interference from another.

Treasury’s definitions of assets, capitalisation of conservation vs. maintenance, there are more
hoops to get capital money, but conservation does not always fit within definition

As previously mentioned, declining professional and trade knowledge/skills in heritage
conservation

Good practice mining heritage management must be integrated into the closure planning
process with clear leadership on post-mining ownership and management where significant
heritage values exist. It is not appropriate to leave the responsibility for such with one single
agency, particularly when that agency has a focus on 'rehabilitation' i.e. removal of
infrastructure as part of its regulatory framework and financial rehabilitation bond policy. Bond
policies need to address alternative and beneficial land uses. Governments need to accept that
one day mines will close and they need to be preparing early to take possession of such sites to
ensure ongoing access and conservation of heritage values. The second significant issue raised
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
16
earlier was that of heritage management of abandoned mines. Some jurisdictions don't have
one single agency responsible for abandoned mines i.e. Victoria, so it is not clear how heritage
values are managed there - who is responsible? In those jurisdictions where there are
abandoned mine management groups within government, how do they integrate mining
heritage values into their programs when few if any have a heritage conservation background? If
they do not invite input from the appropriate expertise from within govt (often env and heritage
agencies) then this issue can be completed overlooked and harm can come to heritage values.

Government agencies flouting the heritage regulations and not recognising the full range of
heritage values.

The Budget announcement a year ago to reduce the Tasmanian Heritage Register by 30%, the
so-called Integrity Project. And the very poor/lack of assessment of values, and the lack of
transparency.

State governments change of perceptions towards their assets for economic reasons

Gaps between local, state and federal knowledge, legislation and standards of practice - this
affects many of my choices of 'disagree' in previous questions. Likewise, the gap between
experienced heritage managers including public servants and utterly inexperienced...

Continuing disconnect in potential positive relationships between heritage and tourism within
the Australian Heritage Community

Lack of adequate funding for conservation and management of heritage places at both federal
and state levels. State governments have a large backlog of heritage places that are not
conserved.

The need to better advocate the benefits of more positive management and resourcing of
professional heritage conservation of the built environment, to counter the negative
associations of conservation of heritage buildings/sites commonly held today by politicians and
the business community when new development is concerned. Heritage has too long dropped
off the political radar.

Funding and need to continue education/encouraging community engagement with policy
processes.

Lack of skills training. Poor actual outcomes as a way of gauging funding success, very much
turning into a industry of heritage law as way of avoiding obligations rather what is good
outcomes for the community.

The value of local government heritage advisory services needs to be further communicated and
celebrated so that Government funding is reinstated (certainly in Victoria). Some level of
financial quantification needs to be carried out so that the financial as well as cultural heritage
benefits to communities are realised.

The extensive Macassan visits to the north coast of Australia over the past several centuries and
their impact on Indigenous art, culture and language are seriously under appreciated. Much of
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
17
the material remains of these visits is poorly identified and researched. Many are under
significant threat from sea level rising.

funding and support for heritage more resources for heritage management promotion of the
positive aspects of heritage more research into energy, sustainability and heritage

Weak government over-catering to some industry clusters: Mining, coal, gas, urban
development. Poor leadership, abandonment/gutting of planning and heritage controls. Focus
on speed of processing, cf reaching sound decisions, reluctance to really consult the public on
change, cutting funding and resources to the heritage sector.

WA Indigenous heritage legislation

Lack of recognition of movable cultural heritage as heritage. Lack of use of the term and
conceptualisation of 'natural heritage'. Co-option of the term heritage to mean only place-based
heritage. The above tendencies have led to fatal divisions in heritage which in part explain the
lack of progress for heritage in a number of areas, despite good earlier thinking and
documentation. Supporting vast amounts of taxpayer revenue on periodic attempts to quantify
environment and heritage and then not properly monitoring those results. Jettisoning careful
earlier thinking and documentation in favour of scientific fads at each 5 year SoE reporting
deadline, especially when these are flashy. In 2011 this included 'resilience' and the dashboard
presentation. The lack of time depth in SoE reporting. Heritage is about time. Emasculating
local people through the use of the DPSIR scientific framing. Heritage is about people.

Decimation of funding for studies, amendments, grants, advisors in Victoria. rate capping - "core
business" focus in local government (Victoria)

watering down of legislative protection

Religious cultural heritage

Inherent tension between presentation and conservation - balancing revenue-raising ventures
such as increased tourism/events/leases with the needs of other stakeholders including local
communities and the need to protect and conserve listed values. Getting sensitive works done
by appropriately experienced and skilled tradespeople in a cost-constrained environment where
value for money is valued more highly than getting the job done appropriately to conserve and
present heritage values.

Limited support for significant places considered of State or Local significance in particular. An
increasing need to undertake work as part of the tourism industry. Unfamiliarity of conditions
relating to remote and tropical heritage management. Lack of leadership by agencies owning
heritage places. Dominance by developer groups in determining reasonable protection
measures a consequence of which they fall well short of a reasonable standard.

Too little heritage expertise within Local Government

1. Inadequate political will to recognise and manage heritage items
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
18
2. Overemphasis on 'sites' over 'landscapes' (cultural of urban)
3. Loss of significant heritage places/landscapes of high social value
4. Lack of integration of nature-cultures (Indigenous and historic) in heritage practice

Indigenous heritage protection in Western Australia is a real concern. The legislation and its
administration is failing to protect many Aboriginal places. Over a thousand sites have been
deregistered over the last 2-3 years with no consultation. The decision making process through
the ACMC is also not transparent.

Indigenous heritage is inadequately recognised and protected particularly from economic
juggernauts. The Burrup Peninsula [Mugajuga] WA contains Australia's largest and oldest
agglomeration of petroglyphs - some approx. 25,000 years in age. It should be on the World
Heritage register [Malcolm Turnbull has been quoted as suggesting it as a worthy
candidate].There are no measures either legislative or physical [fences] etc protecting this area
from destruction.

High density development in cities without adequate planning provisions or design. Lack of
programs for Indigenous heritage identification, interpretation and community training and
ranger positions.

The identification and expansion of residential development in greenfield sites, and the push to
develop higher densities of development in existing town centres is placing cultural heritage
landscapes and heritage items at risk. In some cases, assessment has been inadequate to
determine if these are of local, state or national significance.

Cultural heritage landscapes are poorly known, understood, or conserved and managed.

Cultural heritage issues are not considered on an equal footing with economic issues. There is a
poor understanding of the economic values of heritage. Heritage matters are not adequately
considered at the outset of the planning process and heritage legislation is often overridden by
planning law to facilitate development.

Need for formal recognition of heritage skills at both consultant and contractor level. Need for
continuing professional development programs for both consultants and contractors. Need for
quality measures or standards and a system to ensure work to heritage places meets those
standards. Need for a quality framework

Politics, Development pressures, Lack of financial resources, Tokenism

Lack of resourcing and funding.
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
19
Relevant case studies:

1. Windsor Bridge replacement project

2. Most consultants' reports (not through unethical practices but because this is how the process
works)
3. Box Hill Inn
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/rock_art_cultural.
html This publication outlines many of the issues that exist not only in Australia but in the
southern hemisphere

There are too many examples of government neglect to nominate!

The whole idea of SOE was to repeat the case studies already undertaken every 5 years to see
change in condition, pressures etc. If you do not do this then there is no long term veracity in
the data.

A basic comparison of legislative systems shows the vast difference in practice between
jurisdictions in this country

Lake Burley Griffin and its lakeshore landscape has no heritage listing. The NHL of Burrup
Peninsula has not stopped industrial development that is polluting the environment and
destroying the art features and their setting.

I've had personal experiences sitting on both sides of the fence - clients to at wish to protect and
those that wish to demolish or other reduce significance and primarily at the state and local
levels there is not a sensible approach that give the best outcome for heritage places. Often
there is too much emotive language used and confusion from the State Heritage Office - I can
sight example recently related to repainting of existing painted heritage places where we're told
you can't paint yet grants recently handed out to Albany properties of the same era that are
allowed to repaint!!!!

Case Study of former CME Building at Wilson Street Eveleigh NSW - NSW Government owned vacant for more than a decade, neglected, vandalised and falling into ruin despite heritage
listing and provisions of Heritage Act. Case Study of Kensington Street (Central Park Sydney) - 36
historic buildings almost lost through lack of interest/protection but with Greens support,
incorporated into successful new development. Quality and sustainability of conservation work
is derisory but the success of retention and re-use is very high.

Australian Museum, Barrangaroo, Darling Harbour,

In SA, surveys of post-war heritage have been undertaken

Gulgong Hospital was a listed significant local item in Mid western Regional council - owned by
the government and demolished by them - because they saw this heritage as too expensive to
maintain - sets very poor example

North Parramatta, Parramatta Park
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
20

* Georgetown Malaysia - using 'heritage' as an anchor and pull factor to attract start-up business
and as a liveable place for young professionals

There is no protection to limit overshadowing of important items such as Hyde Park Barracks
and the Mint.

Recent loss of significant 20th Century buildings - all types and particularly houses (e.g., recent
loss of Hamilton House, Bayview, Sydney, designed by Peter Muller).

Old Farm Strawberry Hill, the first European farm in Albany, Western Australia. Very little
money has been invested in the site since the 1970s, and even when Albany received funding for
the ANZAC celebrations it was overlooked as a significant site requiring investment for visitor
experiences for local people, interstate and overseas visitors.

Fremantle Prison (one of 11 convict establishment sites on WH) and lack of commonwealth gov
support for inclusion of the Arts Centre (former asylum) in the WH nomination and listing,
political manoeuvres to reduce the recommended West End Conservation Area of Fremantle for
inclusion on State, potentially National Heritage Registers

Maddington Park', Western Australia, where a developer was able to take advantage of
legislative weaknesses to avoid obligations to conserve a place of exceptionally high value and to
let it be destroyed by vandalism. 'Woodbine', East Rockingham, Western Australia, where land
owners who are probably speculative developers have left a place to rot in spite of high level of
community interest (including that of local government, who funded the preparation of a CMP)
in having the place conserved. This place is slowly ending up like most of the area's colonial
heritage, an unsalvageable ruin.

20 years worth of consultancy work in Tasmania in respect of cultural landscape.

Hobart, Battery Point, North Hobart, Sullivans Cove and Launceston's central townscape
conservation. Anglesea Barracks, Queenstown, Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Penghana and
Sticht Office and collection.

See 13. above. Also - the Draft 2014 Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management
Plan - this is an example of an unacceptable approach to (cultural and natural) heritage
management due to a range of issues I identify above - in essence development pressure and
political interference in management (the 1999 Plan (current plan) which was broadly accepted
and was a model plan that won prizes has largely been ignored, as also the process that was
used to deliver the 1999 plan).

Mt Buffalo Chalet, Victoria - inadequate funds for conservation; no viable plan to reopen,
activate, nor encourage appropriate commercial use

Broken Hill might be good to discuss again, after National Listing - e.g. has there been any
positive impact from this recognition, and if not, why not??

In what? Lennox Bridge Parramatta. The NSW Heritage Council approval to knock two holes in
this convict built bridge for not one but two bicycle paths is a sign of the heritage system falling
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
21
down on the job.

Mt Buffalo Vic, Chalet redevelopment documentation. Former Lithgow Blast furnace
conservation repairs documentation. 2104/5 Castlemaine Town Hall Conservation Works.

Department of Resources and Energy has lead agency role for NSW for rehabilitation planning
and their MOP guidance includes the concept of industrial and other uses of a mine site,
however a whole of govt approach to mine closure planning is required to address post-closure
ownership and management arrangements. Institutional controls are also required. Other
governments overseas can provide guidance. In the first instance I feel it would be very useful if
the Department of Planning reviewed the MOP guidelines from the perspective of 'how well do
these guidelines align with the Burra Charter'? Also, how well does the reality of applying these
guidelines ensure good conservation of heritage values? Perhaps an audit through a 'heritage'
lens.

KAVHA Norfolk Island which has been severely impacted during the recent governance changes
with scant regard for local values by decision makers without heritage management skills or
understanding.

The Tasmanian Heritage Register 'Integrity Project' - see previous question.

Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Site, Mining sites in WA, Parramatta North
redevelopment, Bridge Street stone buildings

Decline of heritage expertise in federal govt and in Victorian govt and agencies.

Re-use of historic buildings for tourism accommodation. QT Hotel in Sydney

Adaptation (into a dwelling), restoration, reconstruction and repair of the former Newtown &
Chilwell Fire Station, Newtown, Geelong, Victoria. The tower has been beautifully restored,
introduced paintwork removed (to reveal the original 1880s polychrome brick) and the original
arched openings reconstructed, based on heritage advice and historic photographic evidence.
Reconstruction of the front facade of the former Brown Brothers' store, Mercer Street, Geelong.
This 1850s imported prefabricated iron structure again reveals its original unique character and
appearance.

any relevant case study that promotes heritage in a positive way and demonstrates that heritage
is a positive should be identified and promoted.

Coal seam gas / fracking v Hunter Valley equestrian/viticultural court battles. Bulga v coal
mining. Warkworth Coal v Wambo. WestConnex and Melbourne East-West (abandoned for
now), Airport upgrades regardless of surrounding planning/impacts, World Heritage v Tarkine
and Tas. Wilderness buffer zone logging/multi-use, hunting in national parks, fishing in marine
reserves/abandoning them, Surat Basin mining/Abbott Point gas 'hub', NW WA port
infrastructure v Burrup Peninsula Aboriginal art/landscape, Parramatta Road (Sydney),
Metropolitan Planning Authority (Sydney) over-riding local/regional plans and controls.
Parramatta Park WHArea v (now 5) commercial towers, all exceeding height controls and
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
22
disregarding/misrepresenting the intention of the 'Views Study'...

Pilbara/ Burrup Peninsula

Australia State of the Environment Report 2011 is the textbook example of how not to
understand and present heritage.

Social and economic benefits of heritage to Ballarat (available on Trove). VEAC draft report
historic places on public land

Perth and Geraldton Cathedrals Petersham cemetery

Centennial Parklands (Sydney) Sydney Harbour sites (ex Defence) North Head (Sydney)
Historic buildings - Historic Houses Trust - Vaucluse House (Sydney) Rippon Lea (Melbourne)

Green Hill Fort Thursday Is - neglected by its owners TSRA since major funding in Centenary of
Federation. It is probably the least adapted late 19th century fort in Australia but is falling into
serious need of major work again primarily because no maintenance has been undertaken.
Hou Wang Temple, Atherton, Qld is the last regional Chinese temple in Australia and NZ of over
100. It was nominated to the National heritage register several years ago. Feedback is still
awaited. The Palmer Gold field receives minimal conservation attention despite being probably
Queensland's richest goldfield Grassy Hill, Cooktown - site from which Cook determined a
route out of the Endeavour River has been grossly modified by inappropriate 'development'. No
action was taken against the offending parties. National Trusts are responsible for many
significant sites across the nation but primarily rely on limited public support. Governments seek
to have heritage places become self-sustaining which is totally impractical particularly in areas of
low population. Even Stonehenge UK receives government funding. If highly significant places
like that need and receive aid then surely some consideration should be given to supporting
smaller sites of significance in Australia. It need not be a massive handout but considered aid
programmes are needed to protect iconic sites away from SE Australia.

1. NSW and the process of Indigenous law reform
2. Most State/Territory and local government heritage lists
3. The Rocks, Sydney
4. Generally across the Australian protected area system (e.g., Blue Mountains Greater World
Heritage Area)

Urban intensification in inner city Brisbane (neg) Ipswich city council (positive)

The new Appletree Grove residential estate, next to the Historic Conservation Area of West
Wallsend and the new residential estate, next to Catherine Hill Bay (Lake Macquarie City
Council). In both cases local communities and council were over-ruled in efforts to conserve
cultural and natural heritage by State government processes. In both cases the impact of the
new proposals on the cultural heritage was not adequately assessed or given due consideration.
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
23

Gold Coast Landscape Character and Heritage Study 2014 to 2015 -a regional study with new
methodology. http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/gold-coast-landscape-character-study23473.html ('heritage' was removed from the official name as a politically driven step -concern
that the public would be 'against' it - just from the name!)

Burrup WA, Colonial sandstone buildings NSW, The Rocks and Millers Point NSW.

Millers Point North Parramatta government lands

Barangaroo where archaeological heritage buried, Sydney harbour heritage compromised,
‘Disneyfication’ of shore line, and housing in Millers Point freehold not leasehold sale.

Burrup Peninsula, Western Australia needs to be protected from mining industries.
Other useful data sources: - Open-Ended Response:











Griffith University, Paul Tacon Western Australia University, Jo McDonald
Heritage In Danger reports
When trying to sources information through the State Heritage Office there library doesn't keep
copies of documents they've cited in their publications which makes it very difficult to gain
better understanding especially when some of the source information is either not longer
available or overseas publishers!!!
Number of specialist trades people retired over past decade v number of young/new entrants in
corresponding period
The lack of detail in many SHI data listings on the web site is indicative of the lack of money for
expertise on the ground.
Some interviews with people at the coal face eg National Trust
The WA Heritage Office contains much valuable information which can be found in heritage
assessments and conservation plans. However these are barely available to the general public,
and the website is not user friendly.
Huge: see ICOMOS on Historic Urban Landscapes, Historic agricultural landscapes. Cultural
landscapes work including Australian work etc. English work on Historic Landscape
Characterisation
From the works inspired by Kay Daniels - Down Wapping, Hudspeth & Scripps various reports
and publications, Clark J This Southern Outpost, Rushton A & Vincent R In Booby's Footsteps ( a
web site due for going online in March 2016).
1. Although not about cultural heritage, the Places You Love Alliance provides an extremely good
summary of issues with natural environmental protection, many of which are shared issues with
cultural heritage. 2. Maybe a review of submissions by national and any state professional
heritage groups to see what issues have been of concern?
http://www.industry.gov.au/resource/Mining/Pages/AbandonedMines.aspx How is Australia
applying this Framework across Australian jurisdictions to heritage conservation on abandoned
mines? Australia has a Mine Closure Strategic Framework however it is no longer on the
Australian government webpage;
http://www.sernageomin.cl/pdf/mineria/cierrefaena/DocumentosRelacionados/StrategicFramework-Mine-Closure.pdf and as you will see from the date this would benefit from
updating. Perhaps AICOMOS could lobby for at the least, a mine closure planning guideline
specifically addressing heritage values. In this way it could provide a 'road map' to good sources
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
24








of information and also consultants with the appropriate skills (note that I am an environmental
consultant so what I've learned about heritage has come from managing a heritage listed site
(Mount Morgan) my research - Churchill Fellowship - as well as engaging with heritage experts
(indigenous and industrial archaeology, conservation architecture and interpretation planning
consultants) through my work on active and abandoned mines. I would be happy to contribute
my knowledge to this process.
ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter, 1999 UNESCO/UNWTO 2015 Siem Reap
Declaration on Tourism and Culture - Building new Partnership Models
energy and heritage has a large information base. disability access and heritage needs more
promotion of good outcomes.
AI National Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes and Cultural Routes reports; ISCCultural Landscape national report - Australia.
UWA's Centre for Rock Art Research and Management
The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate regarding its recommendation
to include cultural property in the Australian definition of the National Estate. International
heritage obligations.
Ballarat imagine results
Dortch, J. & T. Sapienza (in press) have GIS data analysis on the deregistration of sites in WA.
The article is due to be published in the JAACAI journal in the new year, otherwise you can
contact Joe Dortch at UWA for more details.
Tasmanian Heritage Register - being reduced in number by a dubious process (not in accord with
the Burra Charter) to achieve cost-savings in management and 'remove red-tape' supposedly
blocking development.
Australia ■ State of the Environment 2016 Supplementary information
25