Page 3290 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are some other issues that I would like to comment on. The Greens believe that there should be substantial compliance and enforcement powers on heritage, and penalties should be increased for damaging heritage significance. We think that conservation management plans should be required for all heritage places. However, I do note that there is a large variance in the plans, and there should be guidelines introduced as a disallowable instrument that outline the standard requirements for a conservation management plan. A conservation management plan is not necessarily the most appropriate tool for heritage precincts, and this is why guidelines as I have described would be preferable.
One area that was raised in the community submissions was the idea of introducing “viewscapes” as a criterion. Given the planned nature of Canberra, and the symmetry and views that Walter Burley Griffin tried so very hard to integrate, and succeeded in integrating, into the plan, it would be appreciated if the heritage unit could consider this for future reform.
In terms of the role of the minister in this legislation, the most significant issue that was proposed, the call-in power, has now been removed with the amendments tabled today. I welcome that. It is important that heritage values are considered by the Heritage Council in the absence of ministerial intervention, and any ministerial roles in this legislation preferably need to be kept to a minimum, and to areas where the minister does not play a decision-making role but, rather, plays an administrative role, such as requesting the council to reconsider any issue.
I would also like to raise a few issues that are not directly related to the bill before us today but are very relevant to the functioning of our heritage processes in the territory.
The Greens believe that the government needs to ensure that appropriate heritage sites, including 20th and 21st century sites, are identified and protected. In that context, we believe that there are a few fairly simple, if not arduous, processes that would help to reach this goal. The first would be increased community consultation in relation to identifying what is considered as appropriate heritage and what constitutes its adequate protection, including reasonable measures to ensure that publicly and privately owned or controlled heritage is able to be adequately conserved. Secondly, heritage values should be appropriately integrated into all urban planning policy to ensure that new development, particularly in existing suburbs, takes into account heritage values.
We also wholeheartedly support the concept of taking a more proactive approach to heritage in the ACT. This would ideally involve the Heritage Council establishing a long-term strategic program to identify the gaps in our heritage register. This would probably best be done by running a series of public consultation sessions, involving a range of architects and relevant historical experts as well as the general public, and then encouraging nominations that fall into the identified categories.
That way heritage can be recognised at early stages of planning and development, rather than being seen as an obstacle. I know that the property sector would also appreciate this idea, as it would mean that they would have certainty about a site. It would also give developers and architects the opportunity to work positively with a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video