Page 3293 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill allows the Heritage Council to access property owners’ details so that they can be consulted. Some privacy concerns have been raised in relation to this provision, but I believe it is important that proper consultation can take place before a place or object is registered.
Finally, I would like to turn to the matter of call-in powers. The original bill contained call-in powers for the minister. The opposition would not have supported this extension of the minister’s powers. We have previously raised concerns about the way in which call-in powers have been used by the minister—in particular, Minister Corbell. When this legislation was first presented to the Assembly I had amendments drafted which would remove the call-in powers. I am pleased that the government have decided to remove these powers of their own accord.
I am not the only person to be concerned about the call-in powers. The National Trust have also raised significant concerns about the proposal to give the minister the power to override Heritage Council decisions. In a submission about the bill, they said:
The case has not been made for call-in powers of such nature and scope in the heritage legislation. Regrettably the proposals as framed throw unwarranted doubt on the ability of the independent, expert, Government appointed members to carry out their current statutory functions to advise on and determine heritage matters requiring objective and balanced judgement.
As the National Trust pointed out, giving the minister call-in powers would have been a negative step and would undermine the work of the Heritage Council. Once again, I would caution the government that increasing the minister’s powers in matters which are not their expertise is very dangerous. The opposition is pleased that the government have chosen to remove these powers.
In conclusion, the opposition will be supporting the amended bill but we are extremely disappointed with the process. We are pleased that the Heritage Act has finally been reviewed. We hope that the changes will improve the way heritage assessments work and reduce unnecessary delays in the process.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Capital Metro) (5.29), in reply: I thank members for their support of the bill. I note the criticisms from the opposition but I also note that, despite those criticisms, they support the bill, and that is a good thing. On behalf of Minister Gentleman, I thank members for their support of this legislation.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video