Page 3171 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 20 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The earliest of those investigations was concluded in November 2017 and the other in December 2018. As of estimates 2019, the minister was still looking at a toolkit for how to avoid this happening again as we move forward. This is not good enough.
I note that the minister has told the Canberra Times that he intends to introduce tougher penalties for breaking heritage protection laws and make it easier for the government to enforce those laws. This is a direct result of a recommendation from the estimates committee, recommendation 132:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government expedite efforts to remove any judicial, legislative, or other loopholes to the enforcement of offenses arising from damage caused to heritage protected places, items, or objects.
To quote the minister, these new laws will:
… cut red tape and give the Heritage Council more flexibility in dealing with problems, allowing quicker, more appropriate outcomes.
I am glad the minister has come to the party on this matter. But his legislation has not yet been drafted. At the moment, this is nothing more than hot air, and words are wind, Madam Speaker. Apparently, the minister intends to give a statement on these matters to the Assembly. I look forward to it.
On heritage processing times, let us talk about the elephant in the room: the backlog of nominations of places or things nominated to be listed on the heritage register. For years, the Select Committee on Estimates has recommended that the minister implement an accountability indicator, with a target of nominations processed. The committee made the recommendation again this year. The government have again disagreed with this recommendation. They say:
… it does not accord with the criteria for effective, accurate and appropriate accountability indicators.
They say it is “at the discretion of the independent Heritage Council and is also subject to resource diversion based on the number of appeals”. They cite the Heritage Act 2004 and note that the act does not provide statutory time frames between nomination and a provisional registration decision.
Be that as it may, this is a hands-off, head-in-the-sand approach. Resourcing falls directly within the purview of government. Indeed, the government quite recently provided additional resourcing in the heritage space, which will be focused on development applications. The ACT does not provide a statutory time frame; this is true. But when has that ever precluded anyone from setting standards on processing or response times. You do not need statutory time frames to have standards. Moreover, if this government had the political will, it would be completely within their scope to amend the act.
I disagree with the government’s assessment on the appropriateness of the accountability indicator, as does the estimates committee. That is a debate we will no
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video