Page 3292 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Before discussing the details of the bill, I would like to comment further on the legislative process to this point. The Heritage Act was reviewed by Mr Duncan Marshall in 2010. Mr Marshall’s report to the government contained 111 recommendations. The government considered these recommendations and presented its amendment bill in May 2013. The amendments contained in the government’s bill included call-in powers, despite the Marshall report explicitly recommending that “no call-in power or veto should be implemented in the case of registrations”. We are pleased that the amendments the government will be moving today remove those call-in powers, albeit with many people in the community, many key stakeholders, being unaware of these amendments.
After introducing the bill the government went very quiet. It is now 16 months since the bill was introduced and four years since the Marshall report was given to the government. Despite all of that time, the government still has not got the process right.
Finally, the government decided to bring the bill on for debate. I think the substantial delay is a good indication of the government’s disinterest in the heritage portfolio. Yes, the government are bringing in some good amendments, but surely it does not take 14 months to work these out, and surely it would have been better if they did not propose the inclusion of those components which the amendments are taking out in the first place. If the legislation required so much reworking that it needed 14 months to do it then perhaps the government should have consulted more widely before introducing the legislation.
The fact that this bill was collecting dust for so long is Minister Corbell’s legacy in the heritage portfolio. The process that has been put in place for this bill has simply been appalling.
With regard to the specifics of the bill, it removes appeal provisions for a decision not to provisionally register a place or object or a decision to extend or not extend consultation. This brings the appeal provisions in the ACT into line with other jurisdictions.
The bill also includes some technical amendments. It clarifies the objects of the act to provide greater certainty around the concept of natural heritage significance, cultural heritage significance and Aboriginal places and objects. The bill also makes it clear that heritage places or objects or Aboriginal places or objects should not be harmed unless it is not reasonably practicable to do otherwise. This allows economic factors to be considered.
The bill provides a comprehensive definition of an “interested person”. I note that there has been some concern about the fact that community councils and residents associations are not included in the definition. However, the fact that these groups can make a submission during the consultation and then be included as “interested persons” is probably appropriate.
The bill requires the Heritage Council to consult with the Flora and Fauna Committee when deciding to register or cancel the registration of a place or object. The bill also introduces the National Heritage Convention, or HERCON, criteria as the standard for heritage significance assessments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video