Page 1435 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The amendments I have just mentioned introduce a simple process for the council to extend the consultation period if they feel it is necessary. It is envisioned that the council would use this power where a consultation process is likely to generate major public interest and the standard four-week process is not considered long enough, or where a number of interested parties have been identified late in the process, and an extension is considered necessary to allow them the opportunity to comment.
The council is required to directly notify interested persons of decisions made under the Heritage Act relating to the making of heritage guidelines and registration decisions. This notice must include an invitation to make comments during the relevant public consultation period. The council can now extend the consultation period by giving public notice of the extension on an ACT government website and by directly contacting key stakeholders where that is feasible and notifying the extension notice on the ACT legislation register. In practice, the initial invitation to make comment will include a statement that the council has the power to extend the consultation period and that information on an extension can be found on the ACT government’s public notices website. This will ensure that the process is transparent and the public is made well aware of any extension to the consultation period.
Another important amendment to the Heritage Act is a necessary expansion of the Heritage Council’s ability to give a heritage direction. The amendment in clause 39 of the bill relates to the council’s ability to issue a heritage direction to do, or not do, something to conserve an object. As section 62 of the Heritage Act is currently drafted, a direction can only be given to the owner of an object. As heritage objects are often lent by the owner to another person or group, they are often in the custody or responsibility of someone other than the owner. The amendment will allow for a direction to be given to the custodian of the object, as well as the existing power to give a direction to the owner, to ensure that the person who has possession of the object is taking necessary measures to ensure the conservation of the heritage object. The amendment is consistent with how heritage directions for places can be issued, with a direction able to be given to the owner, or occupier, of the place.
The final amendment to the Heritage Act that I would like to discuss is the process for applying for an urgent provisional registration decision. Clauses 28 and 29 of the bill amend section 30 of the Heritage Act. These amendments introduce a requirement for the applicant to explain the circumstances that require an urgent provisional registration to be made. The council is then given discretion to accept or reject the application based on whether it determines that the application is urgent. The council must consider whether the place or object is likely to have heritage significance and whether there is a risk to that heritage significance if a decision is not made.
This amendment will allow the council to make urgent decisions as the need arises, and not to be forced to consider a non-urgent application if the need does not arise. This gives the council more control over its workload to be able to better plan its assessment process and set out its own priorities. An application for an urgent provisional registration decision that is rejected will be assessed in the normal course of events.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video