Ms BURNET (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I support the comments of the member for Bass, Ms Rosol, but I make a couple of points from a local government perspective, having spent many years in local government making planning decisions on heritage properties. Most of the bill before the House is very appropriate. It looks at further protections of heritage stock and the things that will be referred to the Tasmanian Heritage Council.
I make a point about the works that are done on terrace houses. I know I have had various situations in local government where the heritage terrace houses were protected by heritage considerations, but work done on neighbouring properties with party walls were not undertaken, and there was a lack of wanting to do those works to improve the quality of that terrace by neighbours.
There was discussion before about unauthorised works. Looking at the penalties for that is welcome because you find quite often with any sort of building stock that there is works that that are not undertaken in good time.
There were concerns raised by various councils. I look to the submission made by the City of Hobart about section 3, which was amended interpretation, (a) substituting new definition of building. The proposed definition of building is different to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act. The Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 is an act under the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). The RMPS having the 1995 act aligned with the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act has been an ongoing priority and it was considered to be an appropriate amendment.
There were references and this was in the council chambers, as an example, section 3 amended interpretation (c), new definition of heritage object. I go to the City of Hobart’s response to the submission:
While the introduction of this new term is not an issue, it needs to be considered in relation to what the Tasmanian Heritage Council refers to as movable cultural heritage. This practice note requires revision in light of this amendment and a consistent approach. It is proposed that the definition excludes any objects owned by a local council to ensure that items of heritage significance, for example, moving or repairing chairs and updating honour rolls, are not prevented from carrying out usual operations.
I would like to hear from the minister that that is reflected in the changes.
I go to the clarity on clause 7 and 8, which is section 19 and 20. It has been raised before, but the decrease in the time to register historical places, as Ms Rosol has said, may make it more consistent but it is reducing the time for the general public to make a submission. Whilst most of the changes to this bill may be appropriate, there are those things that do not satisfy the concerns of the Greens.
