Leiboff, Dr Marett (38 KB PDF)

sale publicity, including catalogue entries, media commentary and the like, as part oftheir application. The usual penalties for providing misleading information under theCriminal Code Act (Cth) would apply; and in the ‘google age’ it is now very easy totrack this kind of information, thus deterring false declarations.8. Expert Examiners8.1 Five year review and trainingA five yearly review would give the National Cultural Heritage Committee (‘theCommittee’) scope to remove from the register expert examiners who have not, forexample, undergone cultural significance assessment training. As my research hasshown, 19 the existence of an ‘outrider’ assessment can lead to applications forreview. 20Such training should be compulsory, to ensure that assessors are undertakingassessment using the methods established by the legislation. While meant to beadvisory only, applicants clearly see value in an ‘agreeable’ assessment, using this asleverage for seeking a review. These outrider assessments are used as evidence inany review process. I would suggest that the legislation be amended to excludeassessments that do not conform to the tests set out in the legislation, meaning thatthe Committee and Minister would not have to include any reference to them in thedecision to refuse an export permit. Of course, validly assessed reportsrecommending the export permit be granted would not be excluded. Irrespective, anapplicant should not be refused a copy of any discarded reports, but it would alert theAAT to the reasons why the assessment had not been used to assess the culturalsignificance of the object in the first place.10. Enforcement Issues10.1 EPBC ActThese proposals appear to be sensible, but would need to be worked in and aroundthe existing enforcement regime. Any changes made, however, would have toconform to Australia’s obligations under the 1970 UNESCO Convention.10.2 AAT ReviewAt present, no delegations of any substance are accommodated under the Act, as onlythe Minister is able to decide whether objects will be refused export permits. Thiswould potentially remove any grounds of review to an applicant, as only reviews on the19 Leiboff n 17 above20 Leiboff above n 136Dr Marett LeiboffSubmission to the Review of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Legislation