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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3776 ..

not registered places and objects in the bill that has been presented by Mr Wood, but there are no transitional provisions to enable existing reports to be transferred to it, even though that was asked for and discussed at great length. Last week the government had 22 amendments to this legislation and this week it has a grand total of 39 amendments.

One of the pivotal amendments to this legislation had to be moved by the opposition. For reasons that I do not understand this government would not move this amendment. The government asked us to accept that a 13-year backlog of reported and unregistered places would somehow miraculously be processed in six months—between the passage and implementation of this bill. With all the best will in the world we have not been able to solve this problem in the past 13 years, so why would we suddenly be able to do it in the next six months? Roughly 2,500 sites and objects in the ACT would cease to exist if they were not processed between now and the commencement of this legislation.

I, and the staff of other members, have asked the government to address this issue. Quite frankly, I was not satisfied when I was told, “Do not worry. Trust us, we are from the government. We are here to help you and we will sort it out in the next six months.” This transitional provision, which creates certainty for reported but, as yet, unregistered Aboriginal places and objects in the ACT, has the strong endorsement of the indigenous community. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Arts and Heritage, and Acting Minister for Health) (8.47): The government does not oppose the amendment and there is no reason why the provision should not be included in the bill. However, the government still asserts that it is not necessary. The explanations given to a number of people remain valid. This provision is not necessary but it will not do any harm if we include it in the bill. Mrs Dunne was not satisfied with the government’s argument but that does not mean that it is invalid. The government will agree to the inclusion of this provision.

MS DUNDAS (8.47): I support this amendment, which I believe will speed up the process of dealing with Aboriginal places and objects as we move from the old heritage provisions to the new provisions in this bill. I think it is a commendable amendment.

MS TUCKER (8.48): As other members have said, this amendment will ensure that when the bill is enacted the 2,500 known but unregistered Aboriginal places or objects are included in the interim register. The government is prepared to argue that staff will list all those places and objects over the next six months but this amendment will ensure that they all have status. Because the legislation was poorly drafted those 2,500 reported or known objects and places could have fallen off the list. That has done more than anything else to engender distrust in relation to this bill. However, this amendment appears to address that problem. I asked questions about this issue in the last Assembly, so I am not surprised that Mrs Dunne is sceptical about the government’s commitment to dealing with this backlog. She knows from experience that that will not happen.

Proposed new clause 129A agreed to.

Schedule 1.

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