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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3553 ..

and I look forward to seeing this come to fruition. I understand it will be modelled on the excellent New South Wales heritage online database. It will be a vital tool to increase the understanding of heritage and heritage values; it will be useful for the industry and the general public, as well as schools and universities and people trying to access greater information about heritage in the ACT.

Without a doubt this proposal is better than the current system and I think that, with time to work through some of the issues that have arisen this week, we can address the issues. Some issues have already been addressed by an amendment circulated today but it appears that more issues need closer scrutiny. Hopefully that closer scrutiny can occur with an adjournment today.

I draw members’ attention to the amendments I have circulated. I thank the minister and the heritage unit for working through concerns of mine, concerns of other officers and concerns of other sectors. There are amendments being put forward that I would like members to consider as we take an adjournment and work through other issues. That will also give members more time to work through the amendments that have been circulated over the last few days. I understand that most of the amendments are simple changes to bring further clarity and transparency to the process of registering heritage places and objects so that we have written in words what we are trying to achieve through the diagrams and the processes we are establishing.

As I said, the Democrats will be supporting the bill in principle but we cannot support the motion put forward by Mrs Dunne. I understand her frustration and concerns but, considering the word of the minister and what I believe to be an agreement to an adjournment in this place after the in-principle stage, hopefully some of the issues Mrs Dunne has raised can be addressed in a constructive way over the next week

MRS CROSS (5.25): It is clear that the existing heritage legislation is well overdue for overhaul and streamlining. The changes that will be introduced by this bill will, among other things, bring about a quicker and better co-ordinated resolution of heritage nominations. This bill will put in place effective mechanisms to deal sensitively with these issues and a heritage council will exercise an appropriate degree of expertise in relation to that process. The key organisations in this field that want this bill have been closely involved in its development.

Those organisations are satisfied that this bill is sensible and practical and that it will help them to do their jobs better by replacing cumbersome legislation. I support the bill at its in-principle stage but I am concerned about the matters that were raised earlier by Mrs Dunne. I understand that debate on this bill will be adjourned to enable the government to assess the concerns that were raised earlier this evening by members. The consultation process that supposedly took place with indigenous people in our community must be more comprehensive and accurate. I have heard different accounts of the conversations that have taken place and I am concerned that there are inconsistencies.

I am pleased to see Don and Ruth Bell in the chamber this evening. It is good to have them here. However, I am concerned about the apparent inconsistencies that exist as a result of the consultations that were held between the government and members of the community. I am encouraged by what the minister said earlier. Next week the government will look at this issue and it will address any inconsistencies that might exist.

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