Page 376 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 18 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Registration is the first step in recognising the importance of a heritage place or object and its contribution to the ACT’s story. However, we need to go beyond recognition and statutory planning processes and ensure that authorised officers and the Heritage Council have adequate tools to respond to compliance issues as they arise. The responsibility is made all the more pressing as it reflects a common concern that has arisen in our consultations with the Canberra community. Members of the Canberra community have told us that they want more effective and flexible ways to deal with breaches of the Heritage Act and damage to heritage places and objects.
A number of new offences will be created within the act to place greater enforcement procedures on those who harm heritage places and objects and those who do not comply with approvals or permits. This is a significant move in relation to individuals’ understanding of what is appropriate and what is not. Should that be disrespected or a heritage place be damaged, I fully support the consequences in relation to the number of new offences that will deal with greater enforcement procedures.
This bill introduces a new provision to allow the council to issue a “repair damage” direction if a person causes unauthorised damage to a heritage place or object, including an Aboriginal place or object. New section 67C creates an offence, with a maximum penalty of $500 penalty units, for failing to comply with a repair damage direction issued under new section 67A. However, section 67C(2) provides that an offence has not been committed if the person does have a reasonable excuse.
Section 69 of the act presently allows the Supreme Court to issue a heritage order if the respondent has contravened, is contravening, or is likely to contravene a defined offence provision, and an order is necessary to avoid material harm to the heritage significance of the place. Section 69(3) outlines defined offence provisions about which a heritage order may be issued by the Supreme Court, such as publishing restricted information without approval, contravening a heritage direction, diminishing the heritage significance of a place or object, damaging an Aboriginal place or object, or contravening an information discovery order. For consistency, section 69(3) is amended to include the contravention of a repair damage direction as a defined offence wherein a heritage order may be issued by the Supreme Court.
Section 116 presently outlines the criminal liability of executive officers and outlines the circumstances whereby an executive officer of a corporation commits a relevant offence. Section 116(6) defines the relevant offence provisions, such as contravention of a heritage direction, diminishing the heritage significance of a place or object, and damaging an Aboriginal place or object. For consistency, this clause is amended to include a contravention of a repair damage direction as a relevant offence.
This is a regulatory bill, and owners, occupiers, or a person undertaking work on a heritage place or object under a development approval under the Planning and Development Act 2007 or Heritage Council advice or approvals under the Heritage Act should be aware of their responsibilities and obligations in relation to the approval or the permit. Compliance with the provisions of the bill is important to ensure the protection of the ACT’s heritage assets for current and future generations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video