Page 1571 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
final stages. But it is the Heritage Council that makes that assessment, based on the heritage significance and nothing else. It is for others to decide the economic aspects of the legislation.
Another problem I will cover briefly relates to Aboriginal heritage. Members of the committees had some concern about the ability to identify representatives in this area. And the problem is greater in areas such as the ACT, where European settlement has long since destroyed the obvious evidence of its prehistory. So, my colleague Dr Kinloch and I considered that there was probably a need for some direct involvement, particularly in areas where comments from the custodians of heritage are important, particularly Aboriginal heritage. (Extension of time granted)
I am referring to restricted information and the establishment of a keeping place, which was one of the items identified by the Aboriginal group that appeared before us, and that is clearly provided for within the legislation. Dr Kinloch and I considered that the Government should establish an Aboriginal Heritage Council of three members - and I am referring to paragraph 12 of our additional comments in the report.
A related matter, of course, is the need for an Aboriginal person, rather than a non-Aboriginal person, to participate in the Heritage Council deliberations. I think it is not just a matter of having experience in Aboriginal heritage matters; it is also important that members of that council - or at least one member of that council - may even be a member of the Aboriginal community.
I think that is one aspect that the committees have agreed on. In view of the time, I think I will allow the comments that my colleague Dr Kinloch and I have made in relation to leases and land management - which are quite clearly identified in the additional comments - to speak for themselves. I do not think we have the time here this evening to go through that in any great detail. On this very important aspect of the legislation, I think it is important to remember that, on the whole, my colleague Dr Kinloch and I, and all members of the committees, agreed with the general thrust of the report as it is written.
However, both groups of members that were involved with the committees decided that it was appropriate for us to make some additional comments on certain matters, just to make sure that matters were quite clear where there were some differences of opinion in that area. I do not think that that is inappropriate; I think it is quite appropriate for that to take place - and that, in fact, is the way that the committees handled that issue.
In closing, let me express my disappointment in some respects that other members of the two committees decided not to participate. I think that is unfortunate. They will now see, by virtue of the report that they see before
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .