Page 1615 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 8 May 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
controlled native species management plan and a native species conservation plan. The concern was that this requirement implied that the conservator’s decision must have uniformity with all measures in the plan, which is too restrictive, and possibly impossible in some cases. This amendment changes the requirement to say that the conservator’s decision must not be inconsistent with one of the listed documents. I agree that this is appropriate.
I will briefly mention one of the minor changes to the Planning and Development Regulation. The bill is replacing a direct reference to CHC affordable housing, which is Canberra’s main community housing provider, with a reference to the community housing providers that are registered through the Community Housing Providers National Law. This is a sensible change.
CHC is no longer the only registered community housing provider operating in the ACT. For example, Argyle Community Housing Ltd operates here and runs Ainslie Village on behalf of the ACT government. Interstate there are also a large number of registered community housing providers. There are over 140 registered in New South Wales alone. Some of these may come to the ACT at some point in the future, so the legislation should be flexible to allow for this.
In conclusion, we will be supporting the bill. It is a useful tidy-up of existing legislation, and is consistent with the Greens’ social, environment and economic principles.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (5.08): I rise to speak very briefly specifically on the part of the PABELAB that refers to the Heritage Act. It makes changes to section 49 of the Heritage Act. Currently, when the Heritage Council is making a decision on a proposal to cancel the heritage registration of a place or object, the council is required to examine the heritage significance of the place or object. If the council is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the place or object no longer has heritage significance, the council may cancel the registration. It is removing a redundant requirement in the current status of the Heritage Act. It simplifies the heritage process for the Heritage Act, so we are, of course, supportive of this amendment.
I do wonder how this change will affect the long backlog that the Heritage Council are currently facing and have been facing for quite some time. Perhaps in the next PABELAB the government will continue to consider amendments to provide simplified heritage processes. Heritage protection is important in our community, but we cannot continue to have the situation that this government has allowed for heritage applications to sit before the Heritage Council for years and years. I look forward to next month’s budget and seeing this heritage minister finally putting the resources in place to reduce the backlog, to give the Heritage Council the resources they need to ensure that we have a productive, easy-to-use and proactive heritage service.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management and Minister for Urban Renewal) (5.10), in reply: I thank members for their input and support of this bill. The Planning, Building and Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 is an omnibus bill that amends several pieces of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video