Page 379 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 18 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
With respect to the other thing that the legislation will do, currently the Heritage Council can only act after something has been destroyed. As Ms Cheyne went through in detail, the Heritage Council will now be able to act when it believes there is an eminent threat to a heritage item or place. Again, this is a very good thing. It is better to stop the problem rather than try to tidy up afterwards.
The bill that Mr Gentleman has introduced will fix these limitations. The Greens are very pleased that these issues are being addressed. We discussed the scar tree at some length in estimates last year, because that seemed to be the only venue in which to discuss it. I am very pleased that, as a result of those discussions, there will be changes to the legislation. As I said, the Greens will support it.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.33): Before I begin I would like to apologise to the Assembly for the small communication breakdown; the member responsible has been taken ill and has had to leave the building at very short notice. I apologise for the disruption.
The existing Heritage Act caters for serious and intentional damage of heritage, but it does not respond to or deter unintentional or less severe actions against heritage sites. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen and expand the enforcement mechanisms in place so that less serious cases are adequately responded to and heritage is properly protected.
Before embarking on an examination of the current bill, it may be informative to reflect on what we mean by heritage and why this bill is so important. Borrowing from an essay by Susan Tonkin, who worked in many heritage roles, I would like to touch on the Australian understanding of heritage. In the broadest sense it is everything that our predecessors bequeathed, which may include landscapes, structures, objects and traditions. Humans have understood the concept of heritage ever since we developed artefacts and language. People also discriminate between things which are worth inheriting and passing on and things which they prefer to forget.
It has been obvious that while Australians generally define heritage very broadly and understand it to include a wide range of objects, places and experiences, they feel uncertain as to the validity of their views about heritage values. Perhaps this is especially so for those of us who live in Canberra, with its ancient Indigenous heritage and its much briefer European history. For Canberrans, our understanding of local heritage and local heritage value is evolving and maturing. The presentation of this bill today is another step along the path of identifying and protecting our ancient and more modern heritage.
The bill amends section 62 of the Heritage Act, taking away the word “serious” so that heritage directions can be issued for more minor violations of the Heritage Act. The bill also empowers the Heritage Council to pursue repair damage directions. This means the individual can be made to repair the damage they created. If they do not carry out the repair, the offender can be charged with an offence, unless they have a reasonable excuse, receive a heritage order from the Supreme Court—a provision in a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video