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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3758 ..

but not passed, in August 2001. It was acknowledged that there was a great deal more to do with that legislation.

On the election of the Stanhope government, we took the 2001 bill and rewrote it. We took greater notice of public submissions and the views of a wide range of community and industry groups. This resulted in the Heritage Bill 2002 exposure draft. Rather than bringing it straight to the Assembly, we embarked on a consultative voyage of considerable proportions. We started with a series of public meetings, seven in all, and advertised in the Canberra Times. Those meetings were widely attended by community and industry groups, individuals and government agencies.

In addition, six briefings were held for Aboriginal organisations, including representatives of the House-Williams group, the Ngunnawal Aboriginal Corporation and the Bell group, as well as members of the interim Namadgi Advisory Board and the Aboriginal parties to the agreement between the ACT and the ACT native title claims groups. We also received 17 written submissions from key conservation and industry groups, as well as individuals.

Having conducted this extensive consultation, the government acknowledged that the exposure draft needed further work. Once the revised model was completed in mid-2003, we decided it would not be sporting to fail to offer another round of consultation on the revised legislation. From August to November 2003, consultation was undertaken across a very wide spectrum of interests. These included members of the Assembly and their staff, government agencies, heritage groups, property and development groups, and relevant Aboriginal groups, as well as an advertised public meeting, with invitations being sent to anyone who had been involved up to that point.

The Heritage Bill was tabled in the Assembly on 14 May 2004. We thought that we would finally see the end in sight; but, just to make sure, we met again, before coming back into the Assembly, let me emphasise, with the Property Council, the Aboriginal members of the interim Namadgi Advisory Board, and the Aboriginal parties to the agreement between the ACT and ACT native title claims groups. We received a thanks and get on with it letter from the National Trust.

In the past week, as a result of the Assembly requirement, we consulted again with those same groups, and I have met and other officers have met with Don and Ruth Bell. In a meeting that I had with seven, eight or nine people from the architects and property development, we again went through it and, I think, probably reinforced what was said before. We reinforced it and it was understood. They were picking up on a few points, but it was acknowledged that we had been down that path before. So there has been an extensive process. An elaborately consultative process began a long time ago.

I think I can say, as far as one can, that it is a generally agreed bill. Of all the organisations and people involved, I will not say that every one of those people agrees with every one of about 140 clauses. But the key thing is that there has been no significant change to the bill. I have added greater clarification to the amendments that were on the table a week or more ago, a couple of weeks ago, to be more specific so that these groups can be absolutely confident that the bill is going to do what they would like it to do. I am confident that what you have been told before—that this bill is broadly agreed to—is accurate. It is broadly agreed to. I find no significant dissension, I find no

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