Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3551 ..

consent; and any Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected having been consulted and given adequate opportunity to express their views.

While there has been substantial consultation, or opportunities for consultation, at the exposure draft stage the circle cannot be described as finished if one or more of the key groups is not sought out for a view on the bill we are debating today. I understand there has been a detailed discussion today, but to agree to a sufficient consultation period on the day of the debate seems unsatisfactory.

There also remain outstanding issues with regard to defined land, which comes under the orbit of the National Capital Authority. The National Capital Authority seems to approach heritage issues from a very national-centric perspective and seem inclined only to consult or work with national heritage organisations. I cannot imagine there is much room for change while the current federal government is in power. I suspect things might be more fluid if there were a change at the federal election. I would be fairly confident that the more connected approach to NCA and ACT planning, which the Labor Party favours, would be reflected in the heritage domain.

One of the features of this bill, which I trust can be replicated in the upcoming tree legislation, is the interoperability of the heritage register with ACTPLA’s lease management development processes. The heritage register already works as a notification system for ACTPLA leaseholders and would-be developers. This new scheme should ensure that the process is closer to seamless. The information on heritage listings or guidelines will be automatically provided, and also the requirements of the heritage council to deal with or provide advice on any proposed activity within a statutory timeframe, consistent with ACTPLA’s requirements. So the argument that this bill will become an impediment to the planning process is not supported by this version of the legislation.

I understand also that ACTPLA and heritage staff will undertake joint training sessions when this regime is introduced, to ensure comprehensive understanding of issues from both perspectives. We ought to recognise, however, that the bill is strongly bound to the DA processes, which is evidenced in the objects of the bill, in the Heritage Guidelines; part 10 (Land Development Applications); and in the consequential amendments, clause 231 in particular, which identifies the heritage matters which must be considered by ACTPLA or the minister where an application has been called in. With regard to timelines for the process, once a DA is lodged time lines are guaranteed by the land act.

If passed, this bill will introduce a new regime. At this stage, given the enormous backlog of heritage reports and nominations, I would have to agree that some change is necessary. In the interests of moving forward on heritage matters, I am prepared to accept some of the assurances by government that the processes as I have described them will deliver. I will support an adjournment in order for government to ensure that relevant Aboriginal groups have had a reasonable opportunity to understand and comment on the bill. I believe that some consultation at this end stage has occurred with everyone; however, I am still of the view that less of a rush now might be in order. I am not prepared to support the amendment from Mrs Dunne as I believe it is inaccurate with regard to the reference to law and is unnecessary. We will just adjourn to the next sitting day.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .