Page 2098 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government’s consultation for them, but here we are, consulting with community groups and trying to make a change that will make this change better for the community.
From the people that I spoke to about these changes, I received a number of emails, including from the Inner South Canberra Community Council, the National Trust, the National Trust again, and a number of different organisations. That is what I have here. And there are emails from representatives of other community councils as well. They all said they were unaware of the proposed changes. This is what consultation looks like, Madam Deputy Speaker: a range of emails from a range of different organisations.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope that is not a prop, Ms Lawder.
MS LAWDER: No, no. I can table them, if you like. They are here for my own reference.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Great.
MS LAWDER: This is how we could avoid unintended consequences of proposed amendments while still respecting the changes that the government believes are necessary. It is a way to think through the possible things that could go wrong. Let me quote one of these:
The proposed amendments have generated much anxiety, with significant time and effort expended by the National Trust, community councils and other community organisations considering the proposed amendment and its implications.
This letter goes on to say:
We need more proactive engagement of key stakeholders by the ACT government when such legislative amendments are proposed.
So it is not just me saying that this is necessary. I am trying to put forward the views of a number of different community groups in relation to the changes proposed by the minister in this PBELAB, which are intended to deal with minor, technical and policy changes but which in some cases have unintended consequences.
I will speak now about some of the amendments that I will be moving later. Let me go to the Heritage Act. Section 34 of the Heritage Act deals with notice of a decision about registration. The government’s proposed change will remove the requirement for an assessment to the heritage significance criteria. The explanatory statement says:
There are some circumstances where an assessment is not undertaken because a decision not to provisionally register a place or object is made on another basis.
The explanatory statement then gives as an example a situation where “a place has natural heritage significance only and is more appropriately protected under the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video