Tonguengroover read with interest comments by Michael Lynch (Tasmanian Heritage Council) and Allan Garcia (LGAT) reported in the Sunday Tasmanian newspaper (23 May 2010) regarding their concerns over the provision of resources required to service the proposed historic heritage reforms.
Tonguengroover, in an earlier contribution to TT (HERE), highlighted concerns over the lack of exposure of the proposed new Heritage Bill that will underpin this process.
Those concerns have heightened to fears following the comments of Mr Lynch and Mr Garcia.
LGAT’s comments on the proposed reforms – to their credit – have been posted online and, even in the absence of the source document, make for compelling reading:
From the available information several things are apparent:
(a) Extensive resources will be required to service the ‘reforms’. Without any firm commitment from the government, LGAT apparently wise to the notion of cost shifting – understandably – want provisions included that provide LGAs with the right to opt out of the process. How ironic if, as part of the ‘reform’ process, the new Bill contained provisions that effectively handed local government an exemption (adding further inequity to a process that quite unjustifiably exempts the forest industry from regulation under the Heritage Act, a situation which, judging by LGATs comments at least, seems set to continue).
(b) Two of the key stakeholders to whom the Bill has been exposed, the THC and LGAT, have expressed major concerns with the content of the Bill and its implications. LGAT’s response extending to some 18 pages.
(c) In a process that commenced 5 years ago, the government has proceeded to draft a Bill that is complicated, not properly aligned with LUPAA and riddled with inconsistencies. LGAT say it is unworkable.
Tonguengroover is left bewildered as to how any of the above can be construed as ‘reform’.
How does it make the system better? How does it abolish or cure poor process?
Seriously, and this is the crux of the matter, how does it actually improve the recognition and protection of historic heritage values in Tasmania?
Will it deliver efficiency? Does it streamline conflicting processes?
Perhaps most tellingly, after five years of publicly funded toil, what in reality does it offer that is substantially better than the current Act and its associated processes?
