>
>What climberman I think is saying is that any thing that any indidgenous
>"thing" unless it was created for commercial purpose.
>
>Surfandclimb puts forward my query. How am I meant to know the pile a
>of shells is left by aboriganal or ethnic parties?
That was what I was saying. Well, it's what the law was saying, anyway.
wws and surfandclimb... the onus on the Developer (that's with a capital 'D') is to undertake due diligence with regards to such things. Some piles of shells can be hard, some are obvious as to their origin. If you were undertaking a Development, you would have a legitimate reason to search. As alluded to earlier, advertising something (even by 'protecting' it), is often a great way to get it vandalised. Often the best way to protect something is simply to leave it undisturbed.
rod - I am but a humble Proponent of development, rather than a law-maker.
rocksinmyhead - yeah, an exposure bill is draft law, out for comment. The amendments are slight w.r.t aboriginal heritage, but with a big potential impact for proponents. For the average punter nnot much should change.
If you find something, report it. They may already have it, and if not, hey, you've contributed something new to the world.
neil - there sort of are, and there sort of aren't people whose jobs it it to go and record stuff. There'd be one or two specialists in NSW whose job is finding new stuff. Maybe none. Researchers might do it (ie, academics) but Parks have their hands full managing what is there, and what is being developed, without going up and looking for more, particularly in areas where they are reserved by other means (Parks, reserves, etc) and development is prohibited. |