Review of the Heritage Conservation Act

Introduction to the Review
Why review the Heritage Conservation Act?
What should be conserved?
Update
Links and downloads

Introduction to the Review

Ms Marion Scrymgour MLA

The Heritage Conservation Act 1991 remains an important part of the Territory’s legislative framework for conserving our cultural heritage. The Act establishes the Northern Territory Heritage Register, which has protected more than 150 Territory places, such as Chamber’s Pillar in Central Australia, Gregory’s Tree in the Victoria River District and Brown’s Mart in Darwin. In addition, the Act establishes a register of archaeological sites which now includes over 5700 Aboriginal and Macassan heritage places.

While the Heritage Conservation Act has conserved many important heritage places, the legislation is now out of date. Therefore, it is time to review the Heritage Conservation Act with the aim of developing a better system of heritage protection. This new Act will aim to meet the expectations of most Territorians.

Why Review the Heritage Conservation Act?

Gregory's Tree, Victoria River District

Although the Heritage Conservation Act is theoretically broad in scope, in practice it has proven unable to protect some important heritage places. Territory icons such as Hotel Darwin, the old Supreme Court building and some WWII sites have met with a bulldozer despite opposition from the community. Furthermore, the current Act limits Indigenous heritage to archaeological sites ‘pertaining to the past occupation by Aboriginal people’, despite the fact that Aboriginal history did not end with the coming of Europeans. It is a continuing story that large numbers of Indigenous people live in the major towns, have a history and have other stories to tell.

Few places that reflect a concern for the protection of natural heritage have been listed. In a landscape still supporting an ancient culture that emphasises the inseparability of place and people, the manner in which culture and the natural environment have shaped and continue to shape each other has not been captured in criteria for listing of heritage places.

The current Act has a number of fundamental problems. These include:

Costly and time consuming administrative processes;
The Act does not protect all significant aspects of the Northern Territory’s heritage;
There are limited avenues for appeal of a decision;
There can be confusion over some interpretations and terminology; and
Ministerial consent is required to perform routine maintenance on heritage places.
These are just some of the issues with the current Act that this review hopes to resolve.

What Should be Conserved?

Brown's Mart, Darwin
Northern Territory Heritage Register

Consultations undertaken as part of the Review have shown the need to conserve the following categories of place:
Indigenous heritage, including burial places, rock art sites, archaeological places and objects;
Sacred sites (protected under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act) and sacred objects;
‘Post contact’ Indigenous heritage places, significant to Indigenous people since Europeans arrived;
The relics and sites of World War II, which stand out as important reminders of the struggle to defend Australia during the 1940s;
The heritage of other cultures such as the Macassans, the Greek and Chinese community in the Northern Territory;
The Territory’s unique built heritage;
Areas and features of outstanding natural significance;
Relics of early exploration, mining and pastoralism.

Update

Chambers Pillar,
Central Australia

In May 2005 Cabinet endorsed the recommendations of the Heritage Advisory Council regarding the basic framework for a new Heritage Act.

Drafting Instructions have now been approved by Cabinet and drafting of a new Heritage Act is underway.

Managing NT Heritage

Review of the Heritage Conservation Act

Introduction to the Review

Why Review the Heritage Conservation Act?

What Should be Conserved?

Update

Links and Downloads