June 5th 2009
SKINNER OPPOSES HERITAGE AMENDMENT BILL 2009
``My concern is that this bill is not about heritage – but it is about giving the Minister greater power to override heritage considerations in planning’’North Shore MP Jillian Skinner
North Shore MP Jillian Skinner said the Rees Government’s Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 which passed through State Parliament this week, was not designed to protect important historical sites and buildings and she feared that State Heritage listing processes and practices would be altered to take greater account of ``economic and non-heritage issues’’.
``There is a great risk that with this legislation these considerations will override heritage values,’’ Mrs Skinner told Parliament this week.
Mrs Skinner said the North Shore was represented by the most wonderful examples of the heritage of Australian white and Aboriginal settlement – including the early military heritage at Georges Heights and at HMAS Platypus and Balls Head.
``As a member of The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Consultative Committee, I share their concerns that we must protect the retention of all our heritage sites so that future generations can understand and appreciate what wonderful history we have on out doorsteps,’’ she said.
Mrs Skinner said under the proposed amendments the Heritage Minister would have increased powers.
``I cannot see why this is necessary as it will diminish the Heritage Council’s status. I am also very concerned that the amendments could return NSW to the pre-heritage legislation era where there was widespread conflict over heritage and many historically important sites were lost,’’ she said.
Mrs Skinner said heritage items were today and tomorrow’s links to the community.
``This is why the Coalition has pledged to appoint a Minister for Heritage to protect sites and provide greater certainty and transparency in decision-making which is the opposite of what is proposed in this legislation,’’ Mrs Skinner said.
The full transcript of Mrs Skinner’s speech to Parliament follows:
Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 (Proof)Heritage Amendment Bill 2009Extract from NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard and Papers Wednesday 3 June 2009 (Proof). |
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.52 p.m.]: As a member of the Coalition I oppose the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009. In doing so, I represent the strongly held views of members of my electorate, who rate heritage and preservation of historic buildings in high regard whenever I carry out a survey. In fact, I live in a house that has a National Trust recording. It is part of early Federation architecture and part of the precinct recognised by the National Trust. Over the years my husband and I have fought off developers, who wanted to purchase the house, pull it down and build high-rise development. That would have been a crime, yet that is exactly the kind of thing that might well happen under this legislation. Three or four houses around our home preserve a particular precinct that is very important to the heritage of this area, which is part of Thrupp's Estate, a very early settlement of the North Shore. It provides a distinct character to that part of northern Sydney, with very fine old buildings—difficult as they are to maintain and keep in order—but future generations will not forgive us if we jeopardise their future.
As the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Opposition members and the member for Port Macquarie have said, it is of concern that this bill is not about heritage but is about giving the Minister greater power to override heritage considerations in planning. In particular, I take note of the views of some organisations, such as the National Trust, which recently hosted a breakfast debate and raised concerns about the appointment of an historian to the Heritage Council. I shall read onto the record an email I received yesterday from a constituent, Emeritus Professor David Carment, who states:
I write to express my concerns about the proposed amendments to the New South Wales Heritage Act currently before parliament. I do so as one of your constituents and as a historian with particular interests and extensive experience in cultural heritage management and Australian regional history.
There are wonderful aspects to the heritage of Australian white settlement, Aboriginal heritage, early military heritage at Georges Heights, and at HMAS Platypus and Balls Head. Indeed, since its inception I have been a member of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Consultative Committee, which is worried about retention of the heritage nature of those sites so that future generations can understand and appreciate what went before. Professor Carment continues:
While I acknowledge that some changes to the legislation are necessary—
The Coalition agrees with the need for amendment to planning legislation but this is not it—
the following three aspects of the amendments worry me greatly.
1. There is no guarantee that the new Heritage Council will include a historian. Qualifications in history are absolutely vital in an understanding of heritage. While the thematic approach to listing outlined in the Bill is sensible, it is difficult to know how a Heritage Council that does not include qualified historians will assess the relevance of particular items to each theme.
2. State Heritage listing processes and practices are being altered to take greater account of 'economic and non-heritage issues'. There is a risk that these will override heritage values.
3. The Minister appears to have considerably increased powers. I am unable to see why these are necessary. They diminish the Heritage Council's status.
I fear that the amendments could return the state to the pre-heritage legislation era when there was widespread conflict over heritage and many historically important places were lost. The amendments also fail to recognise that heritage listing and associated conservation measures frequently enhance the cultural and economic values of such places.
Such is the case in my electorate of North Shore. I conclude by saying that I wrote to the professor and pointed out the Coalition's proposal to appoint a separate heritage Minister, which I believe is the way to go. I am disappointed that the Government has not picked up that policy proposal. The Leader of the Opposition announced a proposal some weeks ago to overhaul the operations of the Heritage Council to provide greater certainty and transparency in decision-making, quite the opposite to what is now proposed. As the Leader of the Opposition said at the time, this direction is vital to our natural, cultural and indigenous heritage and to conserving it for future generations.
Heritage items are today and tomorrow's links to our community. If the Government does not understand that, it should wander through countries with a long and proud heritage, countries that retain their heritage sites, in Europe, Asia or the Pacific Islands. Their people know what has happened in the past; they understand and appreciate their culture. They value their buildings and cultural activities and want to look at their cultural and heritage items. It is a very important initiative of the Coalition to appoint a Minister for heritage, to relocate the Heritage Office from the Planning portfolio to the Environment portfolio, and to give heritage a voice in Cabinet. I commend the Coalition's policy to the Minister. I have no compunction about voting against this measure; it is ridiculous.