Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . PDF . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1993 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 19 May 1993) . . Page.. 1635 ..


Debate resumed from 1 April 1993, on motion by Mr Wood:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR KAINE (4.47): Madam Speaker, clearly the Labor Party has had a fit of the sensibles today. This is twice in a row that I have had to say that the Liberal Party supports the Bill. Again, there are three issues involved in this amendment Bill. The first is that it regularises, if you like, leases that have been let since the Land Act was put into place where those leases are the result of an estate that was in being before the Land Act was put in place, with a consequence that the individual leases were granted under the City Area Leases Act of 1936. That Act is now defunct, so bringing those leases under the Land (Planning and Environment) (Consequential Provisions) Act regularises those leases, and it is a sensible thing to do.

The Bill also covers cases where land has been relinquished to the ACT Government by the Commonwealth since the Land Act came into effect. Such leases will now, as a result of this amendment, be taken to have been granted under the Land Act of 1991 - again, a sensible rationalisation of the situation. Thirdly, section 29 is amended to extend the period under which possible heritage places are protected while they are under consideration by the Heritage Council. The original Act prescribed a transition period of one year, during which period heritage sites were protected while the Heritage Council considered whether or not they should be included in the heritage register. That one year is just about up, and there are some sites the Heritage Council has not yet finished considering. This amendment extends the period for a further six months - again, a sensible provision. The Liberal Party supports the Bill.

MS SZUTY (4.49): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment particularly on clause 6 of the Bill, the heritage places section. I note, as Mr Kaine has, that the timeframe for the development of a heritage register will be extended from 12 months to 18 months. When I was reading the Minister's presentation speech, I noted that the interim Heritage Places Register would commence on 15 July 1992. Under the current provisions of the Act, that period is due to expire on 15 July 1993. I totally support the extension from 12 months to 18 months of the Heritage Places Register development process. However, I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that he would need to gazette this Bill before 15 July 1993 for that provision to have effect.

MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.50), in reply: Madam Speaker, I note that. I point out that the Heritage Council is being very thorough in its review of the places it will nominate. It has taken a great deal of time. I want to commend them for their work. I do not want any suggestion that it has not gone well. It is not a reflection on the earnestness of that council.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . PDF . . . . Search