Under the new Heritage legislation nominations are invited for places to gain National Heritage status. Following evaluation by the Heritage Council, its advice is given to the minister. During the first week that the Act came into force, February 2004, I nominated the north-eastern peninsula of Recherche Bay. This was the main area of contact between the French and the Tasmanians, the collecting ground for flora, the location of the vegetable garden and scene of the geomagnetic observations. It also was the area likely to be destroyed. While the entire harbour has heritage values and merits listing, greater research was necessary at that time before a convincing nomination could be made.

I now realise that my nomination should have been elaborated to make a better case. However, as I had prepared a paper in June 2003 for the National Cultural Heritage Forum, which was discussed at length in the presence of the then Minister, Dr David Kemp, and contributed to a staff seminar at the Department of Environment and Heritage, I assumed that the data and significance were well understood in the Department. Further, I published two articles canvassing the subject in the Canberra Times.^[1] The Environment and Heritage Legislative Amendment Act 2003 provides that the minister may ‘ask the person who nominated the place to provide additional information’ [324E(4)]. I was never asked.

Subsequently the minister received at least two requests for the immediate emergency listing of the place in view of the announced plan to harvest timber across the peninsula. The minister must have received considerable expert opinion during the lengthy 20 months between my nomination and the announcement in October 2005 that the place was granted National Heritage List status. To my knowledge this included letters from the Presidents of the prestigious Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Several other Academy Fellows and scientists presented pleas, as did the Chair of the Australian Council of National Trusts and the Director of Research, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. The Ambassador of France, His Excellency Patrick Hénault, actively pursued matters relating to the presence of the d’Entrecasteaux expedition, even personally visiting Recherche Bay and facilitating a visit to the site by Hélène Richard from the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and author of a valuable book on the d’Entrecasteaux expedition. Accompanying her was Jean-Christophe Galipaud, an archaeologist working on the La Pérouse wreck site on Vanikoro Island. He returned in 2006 and conducted excavations, but these are so far unreported.

The Chair of the Australian Council of National Trusts, Simon Molesworth, was active in attempts to convince the Commonwealth government to buy the land. His Council ranked Recherche Bay amongst the top ten historic sites in the nation. ‘Let’s not tinker around the edges,’ he stressed, ‘This site is as significant as the Mayflower and the landing [site] of the First Fleet.’^[2] Dr Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe, a senior CSIRO biologist, published an article in the Australian Academy of Science Newsletter under the title ‘a site of great significance’.^[3]

Unfortunately politicians of all the main parties tend to scorn interventions by Senator Bob Brown and sneer at Greens Party expectations. Despite the vitriol poured by the Tasmanian timber interests and so readily marketed by the media, Brown and the Tasmanian Greens merit praise for their stand. These were not politically mischievous schemes to harm the timber industry and its employees. Tasmania is a political jungle where the critics do not see the valuable historical wood for the commercially exploitive trees. It is testimony to their sincerity that Bob Brown self-funded a fine photographic essay and booklet on Recherche Bay,^[4] while future Senator Christine Milne engaged in research in Paris on gardener Delahaye. Few of their parliamentary critics genuinely invest as much in heritage and environmental concerns. It is fitting that Dick Smith, whose environmental interests are well known, should accept the validity of Bob Brown’s approach and agree to assist to funding the purchase of the land.

At the local level in Tasmania, the debate over the Bay’s future engendered deep community concern — this was not the plot of a few Greens. Senator Eric Abetz, Federal Forestry and Conservation Minister, should feel ashamed of his outburst upon learning that this small timbered area would be preserved: ‘Recherche Bay has no biodiversity worth conserving,’^[5] is a statement based upon ignorance and bias. The Register of the National Estate contains sufficient evidence to refute Abetz, particularly if the Southport Conservation Area is included, through which the timber access road winds for about three kilometres. Consider, also, the rally beside this track which scars the environment. In April 2005, almost 1,000 people assembled there on a Sunday morning to vote literally with their feet and to express their outrage.

Such popular support had been spearheaded by citizens living in the Huon region (some of whom feared threats to vandalise their homes). Calling itself the Recherche Bay Protection Group, it sponsored a meeting in Southport as early as November 2002.^[6] This meeting of 70 people assembled some weeks before the discovery of the supposed garden received interstate media attention.

John Mulvaney addressing the protest rally near Recherche Bay, April 2005. Photograph by Tom Baxter.

One of the discoverers of this site, Bruce Poulson, in 2004 published a well-researched and illustrated history of Recherche Bay. He demonstrated that this was a genuinely significant place in Aboriginal and European Australian history. That commercial logging interests persisted in their plans to harvest timber suggests that issues of cultural heritage are not a priority.

A group of local enthusiasts produced a play centred around Louise Gerardin. Another group of local female musicians showed imagination and verve by forming The Recherche Baybes group. They dressed in French period costumes and sang witty refrains such as the following words dedicated to gardener Delahaye. They attracted widespread interest.^[7] The point is that there was deep grass roots concern within the Tasmanian community which government ignored at its peril.

The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act (NOI) 2003 stated that ‘a place may be included in the National Heritage List only if the minister is satisfied that the place has one or more National Heritage values’ (324C, 2). However, only one National Heritage value is required to meet the criteria (324D, 1). The Australian Heritage Council is obliged to assess and convey its advice to the minister within twelve months of his request (324G, 2).

Under this Act, provision exists for emergency declaration should a place be in imminent risk of destruction. Through 2004, when timber harvesting appeared probable, the place was at risk. Concerned groups applied to have the area declared under the emergency legislation. It is stressed that it was the risk to the place, and not its heritage values, which required a ministerial decision.

Minister Ian Campbell’s decision not to include the north-east peninsula under the Act’s emergency provision was announced on 28 January 2005. It mentions that the Heritage Council had advised him on 22 October 2004 (par. 25) that the ‘place might have one or more National Heritage values’.^[8] In fact, a reading of his report indicates that seven values met possibly five of the criteria in the Council’s opinion. Even so, one year elapsed before it was listed as a National Heritage place in October 2005, making the time elapsed since nomination 20 months. For supporters like myself it proved a fraught time, but another four months elapsed before the place was secured from timber harvesting and so preserved for future Australians.

In light of the evidence surveyed in the early chapters of this book it is appropriate to examine the reasons given by the minister in January 2005 for rejecting the listing under emergency provisions. Under section 324D of the Act the criteria for listing are as follows:

The minister’s decision was conveyed in a detailed 23-page document.^[9] Firstly, consider the criteria accepted by the minister:

Consequently, in January 2005, the north-eastern peninsula was seen to probably possess National Heritage values under criteria (a), (b), (f), (g) and (h). Only one criterion under the Act is required for listing. However, the minister refused listing under the Emergency provision. A summary of his reasons would include the following: the major encounters with the Aborigines occurred outside the boundary of the private land; the 100 metre buffer zone protected the known features; the Forest Practices Code ensured adequate identification and protection should new evidence be uncovered during timber harvesting.

I turn now to discuss those features in the nomination which the minister rejected:

The point of all this discussion is that a reassessment in the light of the evidence provided in this book would confirm all those criteria accepted as probable by the minister, but add further to that list. It was placed on the National Heritage List on 7 October 2005, essentially following those elements that were discussed and accepted in the minister’s rejection of the previous discussion. Surveying remained unrewarded. It met criteria (a), (c), (f), (g) and (h), criterion (c) replacing (b) of the emergency provision. Tasmania’s Recherche Bay is a place to cherish for all Australians.