One was about a Deakin home originally designed by pioneering modernist architect Harry Seidler, which will be struck from the ACT heritage register after the owner appealed the building's inclusion.

The house, completed in 1955 but modified significantly in the intervening years, does not satisfy any heritage significance criteria, much to the relief of the current owner, who would otherwise have been severely restricted by a listing.

It was also the end result of an inordinately long period on the heritage nomination list - some 18 years - before any moves to formally register the house.

During that time, should the owner have wanted to sell the house, he would presumably have been hamstrung by a prospective heritage listing on the property.

And if he had moved to tear the place down in the interim and start afresh, who knows what might have happened?

The other news story involved the cutting down of two Aboriginal scarred trees in Wanniassa two years ago, with no apparent repercussions.

The trees were both heritage listed; Ngunnawal elder Wally Bell said the loss of the trees represented a loss of 25,000 years of Indigenous culture.

One was cut down by an ACT government contractor, then mulched before the incident was reported to the ACT Heritage Council.

It is not known how the other tree came to be cut down or by whom. Its removal was reported by "a member of the community" six months after the fact.

The incident came up at an ACT government estimates committee hearing, in which ACT heritage director Fiona Moore admitted that there was little action the government could take to punish those responsible.

She also pointed out that the incident highlighted the lack of enforcement provisions in the ACT Heritage Act.

"At present the range of options are very black and white ... either education or prosecution," she said.

It's hard to know what to make of these two starkly different examples of how the issue of heritage is dealt with in the ACT, other than that some clarification is needed.

Who decides what should be protected and why? And what should the penalties be for those who damage or destroy listed items?

The situation of the scarred trees is in stark contrast, for example, to the $1.3 million fine imposed on the Melbourne developers who illegally demolished the 160-year-old Corkman Pub in Carlton.

Further, there needs to be a more transparent process of assessment of notification of a heritage listing, particularly in Canberra where heritage is less easily defined than in older cities.

A house designed by an eminent architect may well be worth protecting, but not if it has been changed almost beyond recognition by succeeding generations. An Indigenous artefact is most definitely worth protecting, to the extent that those who damage or destroy should be held accountable.

As the city grows older, and layers of heritage start grow stronger, there should be systems in place to enforce heritage protection laws, and impose fines on those who fail to observe them.

As Mr Bell pointed out, there also needs to be a change in mindset when it comes to the value of heritage-listed places and things. And if this requires changes to the way the laws operate in Canberra, so be it.