09-22-2023, 01:55 PM
Getting slightly off topic here but I have to pull LP up on the misinformation he’s peddling about the way the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 works.
For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners. All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.
Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan. That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc. It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.
The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements. As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.
There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues.
The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen. Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?
For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners. All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.
Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan. That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc. It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.
The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements. As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.
There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues.
The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen. Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?” Oddball