Ms ROSOL (Bass) – Honourable Speaker, I will speak briefly on this bill. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995, intended to ensure the legislation remains aligned with the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. We agree with much of the bill on principle and intend to support it. However, we do request some clarity from the minister on some aspects of the bill.
Clauses 7 and 8 of the bill amend sections 19 and 20 of the act, reducing the time period from 60 days to 30 days within which someone may make objections or submissions in relation to the Tasmanian Heritage Council’s intention to enter a place into the Tasmanian Heritage Register. It is noted that this clause is intended to improve administrative processing times and we understand that this may better align with planning timelines, but we are concerned that this may impact the community’s ability to participate in the registration process.
Unlike a planning submission, a person who wants to object to a listing on the Tasmanian Heritage Register, for example, needs to demonstrate that the place does not satisfy any of the registration criteria on which the entry is intended to be based. This may require the community to undertake their own research and investigations into the history of a place. It seems unnecessary to reduce the community’s time frame to make a submission when clause 9 of the bill amends section 21 of the act to increase the time in which a decision on permanent entry must be made by the Heritage Council from 120 days to 180 days after making a provisional entry.
These amendments will mean that a member of the public only has a month to prepare a submission or objection to a listing while the Heritage Council will have six months to decide. It seems unnecessary to reduce the community’s timeline while extending the council’s. This was a view that was raised by stakeholders in submissions to the draft bill, including from the Planning Institute of Tasmania. I am asking if the minister provide any clarity as to why this decision was made?
We would appreciate some clarity regarding clause 12, which inserts section 32A into the act. The proposed section would enable a works application to be considered even though some or all of the heritage works to which the application relates have been carried out before the application is made. We understand that this section is intended to align the act with the local government planning system, however, there are some key differences between heritage places and other places that require consideration when considering the impacts of unapproved works.
There is a risk that this provision may encourage individuals to undertake heritage works without approval intentionally, knowing they have the ability to apply for a retrospective permit and that the works they undertake may not be able to be unmade or otherwise rectified. This issue was also raised in a submission to the draft bill that does not appear to have been rectified in the bill before us today.
If a person builds a shed in their yard without planning approval and then applies for a retrospective approval, in many councils they are required to pay an additional fee as a penalty for undertaking illegal works. If the person is then told to take their shed down, they can do so without adverse impact, but there are many types of work that may irreversibly impact the heritage significance of a place. Has the minister considered including any mechanisms to deter individuals from undertaking unapproved works?
The clause notes state that any completed works that are subsequently not approved are likely to be required to be unmade. Can the minister confirm that section 73 and section 74 of the principal act, which enables the minister to make an order to repair, damage or prohibit works on a heritage place, will apply to retrospective approvals that are denied?
