Geological Society of Australia
Victorian Division Geological Heritage Subcommittee
The Heritage Subcommittee, Geological Society of Australia Inc
(Victoria) submission to the Australian Heritage Strategy Project
June 2012
This submission strongly supports the major submission from the Geological Society of
Australia Inc (GSA) and agrees with the main points of that submission. That submission
defines geoheritage and geodiversity clearly and there is little value in repeating the points
made by the National Standing Committee Convenor, Margaret Brocx.
Similarly a succinct discussion of the history of geoheritage from the 1970s onwards is
discussed in that submission. However it is important to note that the understanding of the
geological heritage of Australia by many conservationists and heritage policy workers has
decreased over the past 50 years with a similar lack of understanding and interest in the
general community. Many people assume that heritage is cultural e.g. buildings,
archaeological sites, rather than natural. Although the government policies and legislation
acknowledge natural heritage as being significant this is overwhelmingly expressed in
terms of biodiversity and biological heritage.
The biological heritage of Australia is unique in the world but our abiotic ie geological
heritage is equally unusual and significant. There is a general assumption by many people
working (both paid and volunteer) in the heritage area that the biological component of is
more vulnerable than the geological component, and although extinction is forever so is
damage to geological sites. Once these are destroyed or obscured by inappropriate
planting or buildings, they are destroyed or damaged forever. For example the type site of
one of the world's oldest plants, the fossil Baragwanathia longifolia, at Yea, Victoria was
quarried and spread on the local roads as the local municipality was not aware of the site's
significance. An equivalent destruction of biota usually results in a major local conservation
campaign. If Baragwanathia were still living the reaction from the general and heritage
community would have been significant. This site is now seriously compromised.
This problem shows itself in the essays provided for this strategy. These essays are all
very interesting but of the 9 essays, 3 are about cultural heritage and 6 about both cultural
and natural heritage. However in all the natural heritage components the proportion
devoted to geological/abiotic natural heritage is very small compared to the biological
component. This is an ingrained problem in policy development in the heritage area; the
people involved are learned and enthusiastic about heritage but the lack of focus on nonbiological natural heritage is resulting in a lot of damage to important sites.
Geology and geomorphology (landforms) are an important part of Australia’s natural
heritage. Their importance, though increasingly recognised in scientific circles, is underrecognised in the general heritage policy development and discussions. The community
stands to benefit from appropriate and adequate acknowledgement of the Australian
geoheritage.
It is therefore important that this consultation results in an understanding of geoheritage
values and how these relate to our understanding and appreciation of our Australian
heritage.
Dr Susan White, Heritage Subcommittee Convenor, GSA (Vic)
14 June 2012