Page 1341 - Week 04 - Thursday, 12 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
end the registration or to not end the registration. Section 49(2) provides that the council may only make a decision under section 49 if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the place or object no longer has heritage significance.
The consideration of whether a place or object no longer has heritage significance is relevant to a decision to end heritage registration. However, it is not relevant to a decision to not end heritage registration. The amendment to the Heritage Act removes the redundant requirement that the council must consider whether a place or object no longer has heritage significance when deciding to continue its registration.
The bill makes minor policy amendments to the Nature Conservation Act 2014 related to the consultation on draft native species conservation plans and draft controlled native species management plans. Section 119 of the Nature Conservation Act provides the consultation requirements for a draft native species conservation plan for stated land. Similarly, section 161 provides the consultation requirements for a draft controlled native species management plan.
The requirements of sections 119 and 161 are similar. For leased land the lessee of the affected land must be consulted, and for unleased land or public land the custodian of the affected land must be consulted. Section 161 has an additional qualification that consultation only needs to occur if a draft controlled native species management plan requires or permits a person to do or not do something.
In practice, draft native species conservation plans and draft controlled native species management plans are likely to cover the whole of the ACT, and the consultation requirements have proved to be onerous. If read literally, sections 119 and 161 could potentially require targeted consultation with every household in the ACT when developing a draft plan. The bill amends sections 119 and 161 to only require consultation with a lessee or custodian if a plan obligates them to undertake activities to either conserve or manage a native species, not merely permits them to undertake such activities.
It should be noted that the amendments in the bill only relate to targeted consultation with relevant parties. The existing requirements under sections 120 and 162 of the Nature Conservation Act to publicly consult on draft plans will continue, as will the requirement that draft plans are notified on the legislation register.
The bill also makes minor policy and technical amendments to section 331 of the Nature Conservation Act which authorise the Conservator of Flora and Fauna to issue a direction to an occupier of land about the protection or conservation of a native species, ecological community or their habitat. Section 331(3) currently provides that the conservator’s direction must be consistent with each of the following that applies to the species, community or habitat—that is, a conservation advice, an action plan, a native species conservation plan and a controlled native species management plan.
The requirement that the conservator’s direction must be consistent with the documents that I have just mentioned is unrealistic, as it implies a need to ensure uniformity with, or even replication of, all measures in a plan. I believe, however, that the conservator should not have the power to issue a direction that is in direct
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video