I am writing in response to article (The Age, 13/3 first edition) headed, Body 'Failed' Sites. The article raises issues which give a misleading impression of the role of the Australian Heritage Commission.
Legal advice received by the commission confirms that it is not obliged to proceed to listing once a place is indentified as having heritage significance. Any suggestion that we acted unlawfully in not proceeding to list forest sites is therefore inaccurate.
The claim that the commission 'failed to protect sites now covered by the East Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement' (RFA) is similarly innaccurate. The commission worked intensively with all the negotiating parties on developing the RFA, with the aim of arriving at the best possible outcome for national estate conservation.
In its advice to the commission commented on all areas identified as having national estate values, whether or not these places were listed the time. The Commonwealth Gouemment considered this advice, and though a Memorandum of Understanding with the Australlian Heritage Commission, has agreed to seek the commission's advice on all national estate values by government.
The commission and the Victorian Government have been working on the joint regional identification and assessment of national estate values in the forested areas of East Gippsland.
It is my belief that, on balance, the decision to support the East Gippsland RFA was the best overall outcome for the conservation of national estate values in the region.
Finally, I would like to state firmly that the Australian Heritage Commission
is an independent body and was not subject to Government pressure on this
issue.