Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2021L01868:reg:2021:p12
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2021L01868
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 2021 (pt 12/55)
Character Range: 601483–604450

2008: Version 1.0

  Prior to the formal submission to the former Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, an exposure draft was prepared for informal public consultation in November 2006 in accordance with s. 341S(6) for Commonwealth Heritage places. The methodology and analysis of this process is outlined below. Comments from this process assisted in the development of the final draft.

  Upon submission of the final draft of the Heritage Management Plan, the formal statutory public comments process was undertaken in accordance with s.324S(6).

Consultation method:
      * Two Old Parliament House staff meetings were held.

      * Two volunteer meetings were held.

      * A consultation notice was sent to the DCITA executive and the Minister for the Arts and Sport.

      * Promotional activities were undertaken, including:

            + promotional flyers distributed in-house and to stakeholders, tenants and public incorporating information on the consultation and a comments section

            + advertisements in The Canberra Times on 4 November 2006 and The Australian on 11 November 2006

            + promotional banners in King's Hall

            + direct contact with associated organisations for posting information on their websites

            + posting on the Old Parliament House website with the details of the consultation phase, and a PDF of the Heritage Management Plan and National Nomination document for downloading, including a dedicated email address for responses.
      * Two public meetings were held: Saturday 11 and Wednesday 22 November 2006.

      * Direct contact was made with stakeholders: 49 general stakeholder and 77 key stakeholder contacts were made via letter initially. Key stakeholder letters were followed up by delivery of a hard copy and compact disc of the Heritage Management Plan, then contacted by phone to see whether they wished to meet personally with management to discuss the Heritage Management Plan.

      * A stall in King's Hall was set up and staffed seven days a week, 10 am – 12 pm and 2–3 pm daily.
    The public had access to hard and electronic copies of the Exposure Draft Heritage Management Plan, the interactive and comments slips.

        * A computer was made available in the volunteers lounge to facilitate their familiarity with, and responses to, the plan.

Responses
  Attendances at the public meetings were small, with five people at each session. In all, 17 written responses were received on the plan, 15 via the comments box situated in King's Hall and 2 via emails. One response was received via the dedicated email address accessed via the website. Several verbal comments were recorded either at meetings or by phone in follow-up discussions.

Summary of key comments
  There were no major issues or concerns revealed in the comments received, with the bulk relating to editorial detail. Some key comments suggested clearly outlining that