Page 920 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 22 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that. Long nomination lists are a common feature of heritage systems in all jurisdictions in Australia and internationally.
In the ACT any member of the community can nominate a place or object to the register. The long nomination list reflects strong community interest in heritage matters. As part of the recent amendments to the Heritage Act a number of models in use by other jurisdictions were explored in relation to nomination management. Essentially, two models of nomination management exist.
One model includes imposing a statutory time frame for the assessment of nominations and an annual limit of nominations accepted onto the heritage register. The other model is the status quo whereby anyone may nominate a place, there is no annual limit of nominations accepted onto the heritage register, there are no statutory time frames for assessment and, as such, nominations do not lapse.
The first model mentioned—the statutory time frames and annual limit imposed model—is a similar system to that used by the commonwealth and some other jurisdictions. Such nominations must be accepted for priority assessment under the act and can be considered for such acceptance in two consecutive years. After this time, if not accepted, nominations lapse. While this gives the appearance of a shorter nomination list, it is essentially a nomination management technique.
The government did not adopt this approach as it does not improve heritage outcomes and might actually have adverse consequences. A decision by the government not to place annual limits or statutory time frames on nominations, and as such have a longer nomination list, generally improved heritage conservation outcomes. While there is still the required assessment, nominated places and objects are protected under the act.
Provisions of both heritage and planning legislation establish a process where development proposals affecting nominated heritage places are referred to the Heritage Council for conservation advice. The Planning and Land Authority must often consider the Heritage Council’s advice in determining whether or not to approve a development application.
Paragraph (b) of my amendment requests the Heritage Council, where appropriate, to prioritise nominations that have been waiting for assessment for an extended period of time. Every year, the independent Heritage Council determines an annual priority list of nominated places and objects to be assessed. At its first meeting this year, held on 9 February, the Heritage Council decided on its annual priority list for the year.
The government recognises that there are a number of nominations that are yet to be assessed but considers that the approach suggested by Ms Lawder—that being to prioritise assessment because of age of nomination—should not drive the Heritage Council’s assessment process as it does not facilitate best practice heritage conservation outcomes for at-risk heritage places. Rather, the Heritage Council’s priority afforded to the assessment of places and objects on the nomination list is guided by a strategic approach.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video