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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3552 ..

MS DUNDAS (5.19): I wish to clarify for members that I will be addressing the bill in principle, as well as the amendment, in recognition of the time before us. The Democrats are happy to support the Heritage Bill in principle. We recognise that the proposal put forward is better than the current system, but we also recognise that there are amendments that need to be made in relation to the government’s proposal to make it slightly more workable, slightly clearer, and to address some concerns already raised. We also support an adjournment occurring today so we can address the concerns raised in the last 48 hours in relation to consultation. If further issues arise we have at least a week to see if we can get some amendments to deal with those issues.

In relation to the bill in principle, it streamlines the process for nominating heritage places and objects, abandoning the parallel process we have at the moment. This will bring clarity for developers and property owners, as well as making sure our heritage, both indigenous and post-European invasion, is preserved and acknowledged. The new heritage system will give greater power to the heritage council, which will be made up of experts who have interests in all aspects of heritage. It will increase the level of meaningful public consultation and give a final right of appeal to decisions at the end of the process, rather than multiple appeals throughout the process. I think that is something we need to consider as a very worthy thing to look at.

Heritage in Australia is an interesting juxtaposition. For many years heritage was thought of as only concerning buildings and objects that have been around since 1788—and in most places we have become rather good at recognising and preserving our European history. However, we have recently come to understand that our heritage and culture extend much further back in time than just the last 214 years. Just as Australia’s treatment of indigenous people is shameful but a part of our history that we need to recognise, our lack of understanding about the history of indigenous people has meant that we have already lost many places and objects of heritage significance to indigenous people. I believe that Australia’s history and culture is all the poorer for that.

I believe this bill will go some way to rectifying the mistakes of the past by giving greater recognition to the importance of indigenous heritage. Aboriginal organisations must be consulted on the nomination of Aboriginal places and objects, and the heritage council must have a representative from the Aboriginal community, and experts on Aboriginal culture and archaeology, working with them. That being said, it is appropriate to note that we need consultation now on the bill as it stands, to ensure that the concerns of the indigenous community in relation to how the framework will operate are being addressed. It is important that consultation takes place.

Also as part of this bill our environmental heritage is not forgotten. The heritage council will have the ability to make recommendations to the Conservator of Flora and Fauna about trees of heritage significance. This will hopefully avoid the tragedy which occurred on Nettlefold Street, where the government stood by and watched as trees of genuine heritage significance were felled in order for a developer to start work on some yet unknown building but not proceed with it.

Places and objects found to have heritage significance will be placed on a heritage register. I am told that the register will be accessible online and interactive. In my discussions with the heritage unit they were quite excited about their ability to go online

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