Page 3093 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Le Couteur and others have touched on the backlog within the Heritage Council with regard to heritage assessments. My understanding is that a considerable cause of that backlog is because at some point in time, I think a few years ago, it was extremely easy to nominate certain sites for heritage assessment. Because of that, there really is insufficient information for a number of those applications.
This government need to make it very clear whether those applications on the table at the moment for heritage listings are actually going to stand, whether they are actually going to cull some of those applications or at least contact the people that submitted them and say whether they require more information so that they will actually be assessed in full. But that is a decision this government have to make. I think it is a decision this government have been putting off for a while. I hope, now that we do have a new minister, that this minister will make that tough decision and will lighten the load of the council.
Finally, I want to put on the record my thanks to the heritage unit for the great work they do in putting on the heritage festival in particular. The heritage few weeks is a fantastic time in Canberra and it is a great opportunity to showcase the heritage we do have. I think it is important to remember that heritage does not necessarily mean locking up and leaving sites and that it is possible to actually remove some heritage listed buildings, as long as we appropriately preserve the heritage value of that site. And it is not necessarily by keeping the actual building; it could be through oral history, photographs or any other medium.
It is important to note that we have to have a robust heritage policy which is realistic and one that does truly capture the heritage value rather than simply locking up sites and leaving them. If we do choose to keep the sites, we have to make sure they are protected properly and that they are enforced by compliance officers such that the value is ensured for future generations.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (9.42): I would like to speak about a few things in this area. I would like to start by paying tribute to Neil Savery. Neil is someone who I often disagree with on policy and certain directions, but I have always respected him. I have always respected the work that he has done. I have respected his contribution to the ACT community and to planning in the ACT. I know that he is well regarded around the nation for the role that he plays. So I would just like to put on record my appreciation for the significant contribution that he has made over a number of years in that very important role.
It is probably worth, on that note, talking about some of the changes in planning. The Hawke review certainly identified that there are serious structural issues with planning. I am not sure that they have got all of the fix right, I have to say. I think that the role of ACTPLA and the role of the chief planner now is an area where they have got it wrong.
Effectively, the role is being relegated, in that it will be a delegated position. Whilst the head of the directorate will now technically be the chief planner, of course, the head of the directorate is not a planner and that is not their chief role. I think that is, in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video