Unnamed Heritage Agreement
The law should be amended to create a regulatory system for heritage advisors. The regulation would include a formal registration system, a binding code of conduct, a formal appeal procedure and the application of sanctions. This would protect traditional homeowners and the public from bad practices. It would also benefit sponsors and heritage advisors by providing them with stronger relationships with traditional owners and better results in wealth management. S 148 of the Act describes the functions of an RAP. These legislative functions mainly concern the technical aspects of the management of cultural heritage, such as the pcce. B, heritage authorities and heritage agreements. The only provisions of 148 relating to the broader responsibilities of an RAP are: while the Australian Constitution does not allow the Australian government to establish protected areas in southern Australia, its contractual obligations and constitutional responsibilities allow it to develop a policy for protected areas and to conclude agreements on protected areas. Examples include the designation of areas of international importance under the Wetlands Convention (including the Ramsar Convention) and the establishment of agreements for indigenous conservation areas. [Citation required] S 143 (1) (b) of the Act states that one of the secretary`s duties is the creation and maintenance of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Registry. This means that the powers to register Aboriginal heritage are the responsibility of VA staff and not of traditional owners. The views of Registry staff on what is appropriate for registration can often conflict with those of traditional owners and heritage advisors, meaning that what appears in the registry is not always representative of the views of traditional owners. (ii) gave written consent to the authorized officer or to demerde the aborigine to enter the country or premises without the occupier being present.
In addition, ADRs should be given the power to become Victorian name authorities by waterways located in their registration area. This would allow PDRs to have control over waterways that fall within the scope of the law and can be defined as an area in which cultural heritage is sensitive. This would also address a problem related to Proposition 1: guaranteeing all the protections of waterways currently not mentioned under the law could be problematic, as they cannot always be identified in a specific and coherent way. The current legal framework needs to be expanded to encourage increased state engagement and consultations with Council authorities on cultural heritage issues, both materially and immaterially.