Thursday, 9 February 2023

Bills

Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (14:47): I rise to make a contribution on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This bill will amend a number of other pieces of legislation: the Building Act 1993, the Architects Act 1991, the Surveying Act 2004 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The purpose of this legislation that we are debating today is to strengthen legislative protection of Melbourne’s green wedges, to streamline the endorsement process for a distinctive area and landscape, to support the implementation of a national automatic mutual recognition – which has the acronym AMR – scheme and to clarify the power of the Victorian Building Authority to issue restricted plumbing licences for private plumbing work.

I will mainly concentrate my contribution around the green wedge legislative change, but just quickly, the other aspects are really to allow, for example, a registered plumber to do work on their own home or a friend’s home so that they are not required to get in another plumber to provide the compliance certificate. Really this is about, often, legislation changing and defects arising due to different experiences of that legislation. This government of course is always there to ensure that legislation is the best and most effective it can be, and that often means making amendments to it where a particular unintended issue arises.

In terms of the national automatic mutual recognition scheme, this is a scheme whereby architects and other trades can get recognition in another state to practise. I suppose this was particularly of interest to me as my son is in his third year of architecture at RMIT. This program is about ensuring that we really act as one country, unlike what the Morrison government tried to do during the pandemic, to force all the states against each other. This is about making sure that we really are a federation and working in unison, making sure that if you live in one state, you can also practise and have your qualification recognised in another.

So just going back to, as I said, the green wedge, the electorate of Thomastown. While there is only a tiny amount of green wedge in the actual electorate, the City of Whittlesea – the local government area which the electorate of Thomastown is in – certainly has quite a considerable amount of green wedge, and of course this provides for protection of the natural environment as well as protecting biodiversity and endangered flora and fauna. I just thought I would step back and talk about where the green wedge came from. The concept of green wedges actually came out of Europe, when you had populations in built-up areas around the cities, and the idea was to build into or factor into the planning scheme areas of open space and green public space in order to ensure that there was a better quality of air with less pollution and to provide for the population an area where they could go of public space that also supported wellbeing and recreational activities. It was in the 1970s that we then adopted that concept, and I will quote the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, a very old institution no longer in that form, on what the green wedges were for:

Land use, resources, terrain, vegetation and habitat vary extensively throughout the non-urban areas. It is intended that the basic attributes and resources contained within the areas shall be preserved to a maximum degree, and that environment management policies shall be specifically oriented towards this objective.

So the idea is to protect areas alongside our urban areas, and the Andrews Labor government wants to protect and enhance Victoria’s best features with strong protections for things such as heritage buildings and new protections against overdevelopment across Melbourne, including in important landscapes in regional areas. So the government has streamlined the planning process, cutting red tape to ensure that there is the ability to increase Victoria’s house supply and create jobs. But this bill is also about delivering on our 2018 election commitment to strengthening legislative protection for Melbourne’s green wedges. While one might say ‘This was a 2018 election commitment’, the reason that we have now introduced it here in 2023 is that the bill lapsed and was unable to be fully passed prior to the caretaker period of the 2022 election.

There are 12 green wedge areas surrounding the metropolitan Melbourne area, and this legislation is to further protect, enhance and promote those areas. As I said, the Thomastown electorate is part of the Whittlesea wedge – only a small amount of it, but this Whittlesea wedge also supports the upper catchment areas of Plenty River, Darebin Creek and Merri Creek and the water storage catchments of Toorourrong and Yan Yean reservoirs, and we just want to make sure that of course those areas are protected.

One of the things that the Whittlesea council are required to do as part of legislation like this – and all councils in fact – to protect green wedges is to ensure that they have proper management plans and they have strict controls to prevent any overdevelopment of those areas. There have been some very innovative programs and initiatives in these areas. For example, the Whittlesea Community Connections organisation has developed a Whittlesea community farm and food collective within the green wedge catchment area, and this is a program of a not-for-profit organisation developing a farm, growing fruit and vegetables and having community members be part of that collective, if you like, in terms of growing fruit and vegetables for themselves and others and providing very important skills and qualifications that those people involved can use in other aspects of their life and perhaps use to gain employment opportunities.

I do not think the opposition is opposing this legislation, although I believe that there are some reasoned amendments. Whilst some of the proposal is accepted, they did raise two aspects of the legislation that they are questioning. I think one was the idea that, in terms of the mutual recognition aspects of the legislation, somehow or other individuals would have to pay greater or double registration fees. I think we can advise that that is not to be the case, because these additional fees are cost recovery fees rather than registration fees and ought to be absorbed within the scheme. The other one that I think was raised when I was here in the chamber when the Shadow Minister for Planning was talking on this legislation was the fact that you have to disclose criminal prosecutions as part of the registration process and that this somehow or other would mean that disclosure of those things would get onto the public record or prevent registration. Again, that is not the case. It would be confidential information, and in terms of the architects, it would go to the architects board, and they would then of course determine whether that particular prosecution or criminal offence has any bearing on the actual recognition of the registration in another state. For example, if it was a case of fraud, then that would more than likely have a bearing on whether that person could operate in the state of Victoria, but if it was an unrelated criminal offence, then it would not.

In terms of the concerns about local government and the impact on them having to do more, that is not the case. Really, all local governments ought to be providing proper management plans. We have to protect these very important areas, whether they are for producing food for the state or they are protecting local flora and fauna. It is incumbent on all of us, including local government, to have the strongest protections in planning and also to consult Indigenous people.

Ryan SMITH (Warrandyte) (14:57): I rise to speak on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Although the bill covers a number of aspects, I will be concentrating on the issues relating to the green wedge, the distinctive areas and landscapes as well as a matter that is raised in the second-reading speech which I would like to address as well.

I will take any opportunity to rise to recommit my view that the green wedge should be protected. Our opponents sometimes like to propagate the myth that we are not supportive of the environment here; in fact, the green wedge was born of Liberal ideals from former Premier Rupert Hamer when he was the Liberal Minister for Local Government. He created the idea that these areas should become the lungs of Melbourne and indeed should be protected. It is pleasing to know that since those conservation zones, now called green wedges, were put in place successive governments have indeed recognised their importance. Be it Liberal or Labor, both sides of the chamber have supported that ideal. It is an ideal that I am very proud of. It is an ideal that is certainly important to the people of the Warrandyte electorate, and I am very pleased that the government is in fact putting extra protections in to protect that green wedge area, because it is very important.

It has been mentioned that local government, as the legislation says, will have a responsibility to put management plans in place. From my quick research it seems to me that most councils are already doing that, so I am not sure how much more onerous it will be. From what I can see, certainly in Manningham, which looks after the Warrandyte green wedge, they have a pretty comprehensive management plan. I think Mornington Peninsula also have a pretty good one. I think local governments are doing a pretty good job in that regard anyway, although it is clear in the legislation that the government can in fact intervene at any time and take responsibility back from councils. I am not sure that would be a great idea. I think local government actually is doing a pretty good job in that regard.

I commend the government for actually putting this in place. Although I am not a fan of an overabundance of commissioners being appointed by the government, I do put forward the idea that maybe a green wedge commissioner would be appropriate – someone who could review any planning decisions that are made by this government or even successive governments over the course of time. I think that might be a good idea going forward.

Just to touch on the distinctive areas and landscapes, I do acknowledge that the government has recognised that the processes around defining a distinctive area and landscape have been quite cumbersome and onerous. I think it is good that the government has recognised that. Too often we come in here from our side of politics and say, ‘The government is putting more red tape in place, more regulation and more legislation’, but streamlining this whole process I think is a positive step. I am not sure, still, that we have got the process exactly right. Although I can understand why some of the local community groups and authorities are being taken out of the process, when we are talking about these plans that are in place, I think that perhaps we have got to be careful who we remove or who the government removes from that process. These statement of planning policies that pertain to the distinctive areas and landscapes are supposed to be 50-year plans, and it is important that the government gets input from everyone who is relevant, because those statements will be what we look to for a very long time, certainly in years to come. So I certainly, as I said, support the government’s view that they are streamlining this, but I also want to make sure that those who do want to get involved in the statement of planning policy actually have the ability to do it.

I have to say that we do have as Victorians just a fantastic state in terms of distinctive areas. The ones that have been designated as such, the Macedon Ranges, the Bellarine Peninsula and other areas, certainly are beautiful. As a former environment minister I have had the privilege of being able to visit so many of these fantastic areas right around the state and, for a short time – all too short, may I say – being the custodian of those. I think that it certainly gives you an even greater appreciation. Many Victorians do not get the opportunity to see such a wide selection that we are fortunate to as broadly as MPs. When you do have that role, you do get that extra opportunity to look at it, protect it, visit it and make sure that legislation and regulation continue to protect it.

I do want to go to the second reading, and I just want to highlight basically the first line of the second reading, which says:

The Victorian Government is committed to improving the efficiency, clarity and operation of the building and planning systems.

I commend that view going forward, because it is true that in the past there has not been a lot of efficiency and clarity in the operation of the building and planning system. Former planning minister Richard Wynne I have a lot of respect for – I think he is a great guy – but the feedback I had when I was shadow planning minister was that largely the planning system was very inefficient. The feedback that I had from various different groups around the state, residents and the like, was that the planning system was cumbersome, it was onerous and in fact the government indeed was not doing a lot of consultation in regard to some of the planning decisions that were being made.

In Ashburton the Markham estate is being developed for social and affordable housing. That has been a long process, and the community in that area has been very unhappy with the outcome and has been very unhappy with the communication, or lack thereof, that they have had with this government. In areas like Bass there is an inconsistency in quarrying versus environmental protection with regard to planning in that area. South Barwon’s Highton Village shopping centre – the council out there is looking to make some significant changes, and the government could step in but has chosen not to. In the seat of Clarinda there is a very active group out there who are very against the Australian Super plans for the Kingswood golf course, plans that would bring in a huge amount of population to an area that really just cannot sustain it in terms of infrastructure in that Dingley Village area. In Mildura there has been a lack of planning around the railway reserve and the riverfrontage. In Monbulk there are still residents who have not been able to rebuild following the storm. In Narre Warren North there are roadworks that have been really poorly planned. The residents have made it very clear that the planning around those roadworks has been very inadequate and they are actually going to cause a lot of problems. In Narre Warren South there are tip buffers that have to be addressed that the government is just refusing to address. I met with residents in Pascoe Vale, where the local Merri-bek council wants to remove open space in favour of residential areas, again an area that the government could step into. In St Albans there is the Development Victoria development there at Cairnlea estate, where in the seventh stage of that particular development they are now cutting down trees that the government actually planted in the first stage. Obviously residents there are very upset, and the member would know the residents are very upset in that area, ably led by Graeme Blore and his group of people. I have met with them and I have spoken to them, and you can see them online actually saying that they are very unhappy about it. Maybe the minister should get across the detail in that particular regard.

In the seat of Morwell the South East Traralgon Precinct Structure Plan and the Latrobe planning scheme amendment C134 have brought uncertainty for landholders, who are going to find themselves in a proposed expanded buffer. In Box Hill there has been a significant lack of transparency with regard to the amalgamation of Surrey Hills and Mont Albert station at the new Union station. Even in Hawthorn – I spent a lot of time in the Leader of the Opposition’s electorate talking to people about heritage issues out in those areas. It did not do me so much good, I guess. There is a whole range of issues that Victorians – Melburnians – are seeing with regard to planning, and if the government really wants to embrace them, there is a new minister. So I look forward to some focus on these issues. But if the Victorian government really is committed to improving the efficiency, clarity and operation of the building and planning system, then there is a whole range of issues right across metropolitan Melbourne seats as well as ones in regional areas that the government could address and needs to address.

While the election outcome is clear for all to see, and it was comprehensive, there are still disaffected groups of people who are finding it increasingly difficult to speak to their local member. Their local members did not support their advocacy over the previous four years. It would be incumbent on those local members to actually listen to their communities. I often say: Labor members are not here to apologise for the government’s actions in their electorates; they are in this role to bring their communities’ issues here to the Parliament and to the government and to make sure that they are dealt with. They can either explain to residents why the government will not do what they want or they can actually make the changes that people want. As I say, a really important part of the role that we do here is to make sure that there is sufficient and adequate advocacy for these issues. The government has dropped the ball on planning issues; it needs to pick it up. These words in the second-reading speech say that they will. I look forward to that happening.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (15:07): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, and I have to say it is great to be back on the floor of Parliament debating legislation again. It feels like just yesterday we were here. Five months since Parliament sat before the election, we are actually getting on and delivering with our legislative agenda. The bill we are debating today really does build upon our government’s commitment to strengthen and, really importantly, improve our planning system, continuing to strengthen protections in the building industry for Victorians. It is also about giving clarity on how the building and planning system works, which can be quite a complicated, interconnected system. Victorians have seen time and time again in this place that our government is committed to improving planning protections and our building sector, and I will talk a little bit about that later on in my contribution. This is a really important sector that plays an integral role in Victoria’s economy.

Last year the Victorian Building Authority approved nearly $100 billion in developments, of which 90 billion were our government’s Big Build projects, and I know that everyone on this side of the house is extremely proud of our government’s Big Build projects. Indeed last term we passed legislation that would increase the penalties for developers who would otherwise wear the cost of demolishing heritage buildings. We made a record number of changes to our building system to adapt to the lessons of the very, very tragic Grenfell Tower fire that happened overseas, involving combustible cladding, along with a number of reforms related to building regulations and oversight to the sector to make it more accountable.

Another achievement that this bill relates to is our Parliament establishing an automatic mutual recognition system to create a drivers licence system of qualification for certain workers, making it easy for Victorians to work interstate and vice versa. Whilst this bill I think is not as visionary as that, it continues the work of making these systems work as well as they can for all Victorians.

I want to take a bit of time and talk about the green wedge as part of this bill. A key part of what the bill does relate to is Victoria’s planning system, specifically building upon our government’s commitments to preserving green wedge land. Green wedge land is something that my community in the Laverton electorate, whether it falls within the Wyndham LGA, the Brimbank LGA or the Maribyrnong or Hobsons Bay LGAs – I know that constituents in both the inner west and outer west feel very strongly about green wedge land and protecting it. Our government’s commitment to preserving that green wedge land was a 2018 election commitment, and whilst that was indeed an election ago now, we continue to deliver on our promises. Our green wedge areas serve as important natural barriers around metropolitan areas, particularly in Melbourne’s north and west. Areas like Werribee South and the Western Plains, which are situated in my community of Wyndham, are home to a major agricultural area, which I call really a fruit bowl of metropolitan Melbourne. These areas provide major economic benefits of up to $5.79 billion in economic activity and support over 16,500 jobs. We have some of the world’s best wine destinations – Shadowfax winery – and parklands and wetlands along with some of our beautiful natural grassland reserves.

We actually have a segment of this grassland in Truganina, at Forsyth Park reserve, otherwise known as the Truganina South Nature Conservation Reserve. In the previous term of Parliament I got to know the people living in and around Forsyth Park reserve very, very well in relation to this grassland and some of the issues and challenges that they were facing as a community with having conservation land set aside and protected. It actually became infested with a weed – that weed has already been mentioned here today, I think by the member for South-West Coast – called serrated tussock. It was something that previously I did not know anything about, but thanks to the minister for the environment at the time, who jumped on the issue straightaway, we were able to secure some really great outcomes for the community and the neighbourhood that makes up Forsyth Park reserve. I will never forget seeing the photos and the video footage – I think video footage that made it to the media and certainly to my office – of what can only be described as some kind of really fine hair, and when you have millions and millions and millions of those weeds in the air and there is a high wind, they gather together and they form these huge barriers to people’s homes, barriers in their backyards, to the point where their dogs would almost suffocate when getting stuck inside them. I am talking about way up here. This stuff was phenomenal. You almost had to see it to believe it.

The minister looked at the footage and jumped on it straightaway. We found out that during COVID, being able to conduct some of the serious weed treatment that was happening on that conservation reserve to reduce the serrated tussock – which is not an easy job, and there is a plan of about five years to entirely eradicate it – was really difficult due to lockdown for two years, and the weed increased dramatically. We were able to jump on that very quickly and we were able to reduce it so residents were not having to fill up their bins with these types of weeds and their kids and animals were kept safe. It was truly a horrendous situation. I recently spoke to some of those residents and asked how it was going. There is a particular time of year when it is at its worst, and they said it was remarkably better, so I want to thank the then minister for the environment, who took very good care of my community.

The Forsyth Park that I am talking about was preserved amid the development of this part of Truganina. It is really important that areas like these continue to operate as natural boundaries around our city and protect the natural environment in these locations against suburban encroachment and of course overdevelopment. This bill helps achieve that by introducing a legislative requirement for local governments to go ahead and implement and review green wedge management plans. This will be informed by guidelines that the Minister for Planning will be able to issue, which will help set out the structure, the form and the content of these management plans. We do not want to see these areas receive inappropriate development, and this bill really importantly prevents just that.

Further to this, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 will also be amended to simplify the process for categorising areas as a distinctive area and landscape. We have already seen this under the current legislation. It has been used to designate areas like the Macedon Ranges, the Bellarine Peninsula, the Surf Coast and the Bass Coast out east. What we know from these processes is that they are lengthy and complex, with lots of work on preparation and consultation, not to mention the planning review process that leads up to the designation. Under the current legislative framework public entities such as water corporations are required to endorse the special planning permit for these designations. There is, however, no time frame for this endorsement process, so what this bill is going to do is streamline the process and make it a much more efficient procedure.

In the time I have got left I just want to talk about the second part of the bill, dealing with the further changes to our government’s mutual recognition scheme. This is something we implemented last year; I remember speaking on this. The mutual recognition scheme allows for Victorian workers to carry out their work in another state without having to obtain additional licensing, just like a drivers licence allows Victorians to drive in other states. This bill builds upon that scheme by entrenching consumer protections for services carried out in Victoria under this scheme. Interstate workers in Vic are also covered by the mutual recognition scheme. It is important that they are able to operate under the same obligations as Victorian workers. We cannot have a situation where a builder or a plumber does shoddy work – and I think we have all been in that situation – but because they are an interstate worker they are not covered by the protections that Victorians expect to apply in that situation. This is something that is very important that is in this bill.

This bill may be relatively small, but it makes a number of important changes to the regulation of our planning and building laws. These systems are really important when it comes to the development of our state, and we need to get it right. It can be really costly to fix these things. Victorians do not want to see overdevelopment in our green wedge space, and they do not want scenic destinations like the Surf Coast and Bass Coast to have their natural heritage lack the necessary protections.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:17): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. When I first saw that this bill was being earmarked to be debated very early on in this term I was actually quite excited because – this is something that many in this Parliament will be well aware of – it has been very close to my heart in terms of ensuring appropriate development, protection of green wedge areas and environmental protection. So it is very, very pleasing to see that we are talking about this. I do say though that, upon reading the details of this bill – and heritage protection is certainly where this bill does go to – it does fall short of actually delivering on some of the areas, particularly in overdevelopment protection in not just areas of the green wedge but areas across the state, particularly in my area in the electorate of Caulfield.

I was actually hoping that we would see some certainty, that we could ensure that councils could have that certainty, so we do not have the merry-go-round that we continue to have where planning decisions are flicked off to VCAT and it is a lucky dip in terms of what residents ultimately end up doing. I do draw to the house’s attention that during the election campaign we in fact had the former Minister for Planning attend my electorate in October and visit Ripponlea and at the same time meet with the Stop the Elsternwick Towers group, which have been very strong advocates about appropriate development and certainty in the area. Again, that was one of the reasons why I thought that maybe within this bill – looking at protections, looking at certainty and looking at specifically the area of heritage protections – we would see something in regard to this, and we do not.

I will just restate my position for the house and ask the government to certainly reconsider this, if not in this bill, in future bills – that is, to look at certainly impacts of unsustainable development in areas where there is what one would call overdevelopment, not just in my area but in Kew, Hawthorn or Burwood. We see it in a number of inner-city seats, where people have just been jammed in with disregard for what that does with the environmental impact, the traffic flows and the urban heat island effect. These are all really keen issues.

I know we talk a lot about the environment, and today we are talking about that certainly with the green wedge. It is something we are very, very proud of, that on our side of the house former Premier Hamer was a strong advocate for and championed very much the green wedge philosophy of protecting those lands and ensuring that the environmental element of this is in the forefront of those areas. So you will have no argument from me when we are talking about protection of the green wedge, but as I say, we have also got to get development right across the board. I am very happy to take the cause up for the Stop the Elsternwick Towers group, the Glen Eira group and also other groups that have been working in advocacy here to ensure we get some of this considered, as well as heritage homes – some 100-plus years old – that, without having that heritage protection, we are seeing at risk and bulldozed.

Can I say in regard to some of the other details within this bill I know that, with the consultation that the member for Croydon, the Shadow Minister for Planning, has done, there has been general support for this bill. The Australian Institute of Architects have raised the issue particularly around the annual fees and the risk of architects being levied with a second annual fee in addition to their annual registration renewal. We know costs of business continue to rise. We know that when you have got a business – and you are talking about building homes, building new homes, in many instances a first home for a family – and when you are building that new home, and there are additional costs that an architect would have to effectively pay, those costs ultimately will get passed on to that home owner. Cost of living is a huge issue – we talk about that all the time – and if businesses are charged that, then ultimately it is going to be the consumer that will have to pay it. So I do raise that issue particularly for the Australian Institute of Architects. I know there are some great architects in my electorate of Caulfield who do fantastic work. I am engaging one myself, David Roth, that is doing some great work at the moment for our own home, our dream home that we are ultimately looking at building. He is very keen; he does a lot of work in the environmental and sustainability part of all of this. But again I would just say we have got to get this stuff right.

Can I also say I support the amendment that the member for Croydon has submitted to the house, particularly around some of the green wedge protection. It is about ensuring that the councils effectively have some standardised wording around the management of the green wedge across the state to give clear guidance and certainty regarding issuing of permits and that there is not another layer of bureaucracy when it comes to landowners and businesses interacting with part of this planning scheme. Again I just talk about cost. If we make things easier, if we can streamline it, then that is certainly something that is helpful for everybody across the board. So I support the reasoned amendment that the member for Croydon has moved, and I hope that the government would get on board with that.

Can I also just raise the government’s hypocritical conduct with Heatherton Suburban Rail Loop stabling yards.

Tim Richardson interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I hear the member for Mordialloc interjecting.

Tim Richardson: Did you go down there?

David SOUTHWICK: Yes, I did. I did go down there, member for Mordialloc, and I do understand that the government are very happy to take what was and what has been promised. We have certainly seen council and we have certainly seen the City of Kingston have been strong advocates of this green wedge zone identified for public park – something that I have heard championed for a number of years. In fact even the former member for Sandringham Murray Thompson brought a delegation into the Parliament, and we looked at this with government and at the time with the Labor opposition, who were very, very supportive of the idea of protecting that land. They saw, particularly for many of those homes that were there, that because of the lack of open space and because of the ability to create these parklands this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was supported by both sides of Parliament to actually get done. It became a huge surprise –

Tim Richardson interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I constantly hear the interjections from the member for Mordialloc, and I suggest he goes down and actually meets with many of those residents that are absolutely distraught about the future of that area and have been raising so many concerns. There were thousands of people that attended a number of protests during the election campaign. Again, they moved the train yard. And this is not a group that was even objecting necessarily to the project; it was about the location of this stabling yard. We have heard that residents’ homes are again losing value, amenity and local livability. There has been a huge response from this local community group. Again, in August 2022 the acting Kingston mayor Jenna Davey-Burns said the site was a key part of the Kingston green wedge plan and that it was going to be hard for the council to accept and for our community in terms of these changes. This is really, really important. It is about protecting the green wedge. It is about creating that certainty. What the government has done is hypocritical because they have taken what was a green wedge area destined for parkland, destined for environmental protection, and effectively carved it up for a stabling yard – something that the residents certainly were not consulted on, certainly did not expect and have been already let down by the Andrews Labor government on. That is something that I am very, very concerned about in terms of the hypocrisy this government continues to show.

Overall, I think heritage protection and certainly green wedge protection is really, really important. We have got to protect and get certainty, we have got to get appropriate development and we have got to be listening to the many residents that have to grapple with these issues each and every day.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:27): Perfect timing. Goodness me, there is a bit of revisionist history from the member for Caulfield. I will be honest: I was a bit underdone for this bill, but I reckon just with a bit of rebuttal I will be able to cover this one off. To suggest that there is opposition to the Suburban Rail Loop is revisionist of what was put forward by the Victorian Labor government. The suggestion that they are different things – this is the lack of understanding in transport planning policy. Those legends are on that side because they do not invest in rolling stock and because they do not understand how to run a modern transport system – privatise, cut and the like – and they took away services all through my community back in the 1990s. They do not realise that you need train stabling yards to run the service, just like we had out at Kananook and just like we will have at the Delta site as well.

For the member for Caulfield to come in here and suggest that suddenly they are all for protecting open spaces and are against overdevelopment took me back to the roundtable discussion for Ventnor, where protected green wedge open space was pushed away on the whims of donors and supporters and then backflipped on straightaway. Those that rezoned Fishermans Bend for their mates then turn around and want to say that they protect open space – come on. On the hook, this legend – on the hook.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to bring the speaker back to the question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been a wideranging debate, from observation of both sides, and –

David Southwick: On a further point of order, Deputy Speaker, I understand it is a wideranging debate, but the member was seeking to cast aspersions on a member of Parliament, and therefore I ask you to bring him back to actually debating the bill and not attacking –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member to wait. I have not ruled on the first point of order yet, so maybe I should do that. On the first point of order, wideranging debate, the member was relevant to the bill, and I would ask him to return to it. Secondly, I do not believe I heard any personal reference. There is no point of order.

Tim RICHARDSON: Unless the member for Caulfield wants to declare whom he thinks I was referring to, but I think he has got a sense of that one.

The notion of protecting green wedges is well established in the City of Kingston under the Andrews Labor government. It was one of the first events that I attended with the former Minister for Planning Richard Wynne and the then member for Clarinda and former member for Clayton, Hong Lim. C143, the rezoning of land to green wedge A, was such a significant time. If those opposite really cared about Kingston, their Liberal-majority council in the City of Kingston would not have tried to put forward the equivalent of low-density housing in the Kingston green wedge under what they called the rural living experience in Kingston. When we did the numbers of the actual lots and plots – and I must admit I cannot do that as the member for Mordialloc; I am married to a town planner – we did the square metreage and we worked out, ‘Hang on a sec, this isn’t like Yarra Ranges or Mornington Peninsula or other beautiful parts of our community that have a rural living zone.’ When you did the numbers, it was low-density housing in our green wedge. We called out the con and we knocked it on its head. So that is the experience that we have seen through the Kingston green wedge.

When they talk about the Suburban Rail Loop and the stabling yards, the Delta site is one of a number of remediated sites throughout the City of Kingston. Of course our journey was of landfills, of tip locations of significant contaminated land. Some of those will take 15 to 20 years to remediate. But the member for Clarinda, the former member for Keysborough, the member for Bentleigh, me, the member for Carrum and the federal member for Isaacs, Mark Dreyfus have been dedicated to supporting Kingston’s vision for the chain of parks in green wedge. It is not just that site. As important as that discussion was and acknowledging the concerns of those directly impacted, the member for Caulfield talked about thousands. There are about 2500 people that live in Heatherton, and the people of Heatherton made their views very clear in endorsing the member for Clarinda. But those that were directly impacted should be cared for and supported, and they fronted up to the substantial environment effects process that was undertaken as part of the Suburban Rail Loop. Part of the focus was on the train stabling yard, so the buffer zones of over 100 metres and the environmental and planning outcomes that needed to happen. There is no doubt that there is an impact on those residents.

That is the challenge of some of these major infrastructure projects when you are working through the Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 program and when you are trying to set our state up for the future, when you are trying to manage growth in infill areas so people do not have to live so far from their area of community; they can work and play and interact and be educated and support their families in their local communities because they are not spending 2 hours on the road to get to their place of employment or work. Those are the fundamentals of Plan Melbourne. It should be bipartisan policy – it should not be at the ebb and flow of different planning ministers and outcomes – that we set a long-term ambition for our community, an agenda that creates that certainty into the future. That is what green wedges are all about.

With some of the significant development challenges that will come as part of the Suburban Rail Loop, more than ever the green wedges in the south-east are so very important. The Kingston green wedge is over 2000 hectares. Two-thirds of that is privately owned. We had a commitment in the 2018 election that is being fulfilled and worked through right now to deliver hundreds of hectares of open space, from Karkarook Park in the north all the way through to Braeside Park in the south-east. Of course Braeside Park was an absolute treasure during some of the restrictions we saw in 2020 and 2021. It is a great place of refuge for local residents and for native wildlife and birds and various species as well. If anyone is out in the south-east and ever wants to do a night tour of some of the pristine green wedge areas, the Friends of Braeside Park will give you a shout-out and look after you. More than 1 million visitors interact with this beautiful park of south-east Melbourne. The Andrews Labor government is protecting that because we understand the ecological and environmental values for the future, and it is important that we strengthen those protections.

Kingston’s green wedge management plan has been an evolving story and journey. The 1994 document outlined some of those ambitions and the phase-outs of our heavy polluting landfill facilities, the 2012 document updated that and now that has really been superseded by the vision and aspiration that has been put forward. It is a credit to a large part of council that their consistency in policy has been the same since I have been working with the federal member for Isaacs and then proudly servicing my community now into a third term.

There has been a good consistency of policy. It requires a long run-up, especially when you have got the complexities of land usage and you have got rehabilitation and sensitivities of land. We saw that where the Mordialloc Freeway cut through green wedge and open spaces as well, how sensitive some of the land is and how unstable some of that land is. So I am really proud of that part of the bill, that we have got so many diverse usages. Our transition to open space and parklands is in contrast to, and I think the member for Point Cook had a wonderful reference to, some of the amazing food outcomes for Victorians that come from his electorate and around there. Where I grew up out in Berwick and the outer south-east, Clyde and all the way to Koo Wee Rup was one of the most pristine areas for food and growth through there, with some of the best soil that you will find as well. So the importance of protecting land into the future is really critical going forward. The diversities across those nine areas are really important, and we need to acknowledge that going forward.

The final point I would like to make on the bill is on the important section around distinctive areas and landscapes. I think this is really important. If you reflect back on one of the contributions, the member for Bellarine did an absolute ripper of a speech and gave a great perspective of her community. That is one of those distinctive areas that needs protection and support – which include the Macedon Ranges, the Bass Coast, the Surf Coast and the Bellarine Peninsula – with a statement of planning policy and that 50-year plan for protecting the unique features that so many people come to love and appreciate. When you see the images, you know that you are looking at Victoria. When people come through Tullamarine airport looking for some of the most amazing destinations, they know where they are going. Victorians and people interstate also want to connect with those communities. We have seen some of those areas take in so much more population as well. That requires management of those expectations, it requires the support of those communities and those that love, live in and cherish those areas and that we support them into the future.

So I love some of these planning outcomes, creating that certainty and those protections and making sure there is a shorter time frame required for endorsement – within 28 days – a streamlined process for endorsement by those responsible entities, so that we have that certainty ongoing as well. On this side we protect green wedges and open spaces. We are investing in our environmental outcomes. We will not be lectured by those opposite, who have turned their backs time and time again on these areas. That is why the Andrews Labor government was resoundingly endorsed in those communities.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:37): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which is largely about the issues with respect to registration and automatic recognition of building practitioners, namely architects and various others –

A member: Plumbers.

Danny O’BRIEN: plumbers, and green wedges. I must say, particularly after listening to the last two opposition speakers, the member for Mornington and the member for Caulfield, I feel a bit like a city MP getting up to speak on a timber or a water irrigation bill, because it is not really my area of expertise or interest.

Ryan Smith: What!

Danny O’BRIEN: Yes, it is a surprise, member for Warrandyte, as I normally know a fair bit about everything of course, but no, not on this one. But genuinely there are some important issues at play in this. As I alluded to, I do not pretend to understand some of the planning and political issues that go with green wedges, although I did take issue a little bit with the member for Mordialloc’s description of pristine green wedges in his patch. I mean, I spent a bit of time in the electorate of Mordialloc, during the election campaign actually, and ‘pristine’ is not a word I would use. As someone who has got Wilsons Promontory National Park in their electorate, I can talk about pristine, but I think I know what he means.

When it comes to food production but also the so-called lungs of Melbourne, that is where our green wedges are so critically important for the state. It is a difficult problem, so I am not surprised that there is debate, that there are political concerns and that there is argy-bargy on both the planning and the issues with respect to maintaining our green wedges. We see it at the other end, I guess, in regional Victoria, including in Gippsland of late, the areas that are not green wedges that have recently been built on, and I know the member for Bass is going to be following on from me, and she will have seen it in particularly her former electorate but also in the current boundaries of Bass, where that massive growth through the south-east has pushed out many of the food producers in that area.

I do not celebrate it necessarily, but Gippsland South has been a beneficiary of that, with people like the Schreurs family moving large parts of their celery production to Middle Tarwin in my electorate. When I say I do not celebrate it, I certainly welcome the Schreurs and any other farms and businesses that wish to come to Gippsland South. But my concern is that sometimes we are seeing good farmland, particularly good horticultural land, going under more houses in the south-east, in the west, in the north and in other parts of the city as well. It is an issue that comes to me regularly. Again, in a planning context, for every one person that comes to me and says, ‘Why can’t I get a permit to build a house on this 30-acre property that I’ve got?’ there is someone else who comes to me and says, ‘Why are we letting people build more houses on good farmland?’ That occurs in rural areas of the state, like mine, but also a particular concern is in some of that very fertile land that the member for Mordialloc was referring to: in a wedge from Mordialloc through Koo Wee Rup and then again down into South Gippsland. It is important that we do protect those green wedges – that we make sure that both the lungs of Melbourne and the food bowls of Melbourne are looked after – because they are not making any more of it, as the saying goes, and we need to make sure that we protect that, although of course I do think of that quote sometimes and see what the Chinese are doing in the South China Sea. They are literally making more land. But we do not have the luxury of that here in Victoria, and although we are the food bowl of the nation and certainly the nation’s biggest food and fibre producer, and certainly one of its most important exporters as well, we do not have arable land ad infinitum.

I actually had a conversation this morning with some people looking at biomass and discussing issues with respect to forestry and plantation forestry. It is an issue that is not as simple as some would make out. I note the Greens were meant to be speaking on this bill right now, but they are a no-show, Your Honour. They forever say, in terms of timber production, ‘We should just go to plantations.’ It is not as simple as that because we already use much of our land for food production, and of course you still need half-decent land with half-decent rainfall to put in plantations. So you have got to be able to find the land, it has got to be affordable and it has got to be the right type of land, and that is why this is a difficult proposition: to manage the conflicting land uses that we seek for both our green wedges here in Melbourne and planning more broadly.

I note the legislation makes some amendments to the Building Act 1993 in relation to automatic mutual recognition of building practitioners, building employees and plumbers who are registered or licensed in other jurisdictions. This is an ongoing process of mutual recognition across the state and territory boundaries and something that I have spoken about in this place before. I have welcomed the fact that we do that as a nation. Yes, we have our autonomy as individual states, but when it comes to these sorts of cross-border recognition issues, I am very strongly in favour of making sure that as best as possible and as long as we can do things safely we recognise each other’s capacities at state level – that we do make sure that it is easier for people to come across borders and continue to work in their particular professions.

I mentioned plumbers, and it has been a pleasure this week to have the member for Morwell deliver his inaugural speech. He probably should be speaking on this particular bill, with some more authority than I have, but he has had a big week. He has had his inaugural speech. He has had a members statement and a question in question time today. The member for Morwell would know more about this legislation probably than I would, but he has had a big week and we will let him off.

There are also elements of the legislation with respect to architects, and this is where the member for Croydon has raised his concern and moved the reasoned amendment that he has already circulated, which basically say the government should go back to the drawing board and address the concerns that have been raised with us by the Australian Institute of Architects. That relates to potential second fees having to be paid, and they are seeking clarity on the range of criminal sanctions that would be considered in assessing registration applications. I support that.

This bill is in fact similar to a bill that was before us in the last Parliament but lapsed. In the time since then, while this one has been amended and some of the more contentious parts taken out of it, there are still those concerns that have been raised. Likewise, the colleagues who spoke before me have raised concerns about the green wedge aspects of it, in particular in relation to landfill and dumping of soil and the like. Again, I support the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Croydon for the government to go back and consult with those green wedge groups that were mentioned and the Australian Institute of Architects to address some of the concerns that they have with respect to this legislation.

I will leave it there. I think there are some good things in this legislation and some appropriate attempts to ensure that our green wedges are looked after and that we do improve recognition across state boundaries, but I do support the reasoned amendment as moved by the member for Croydon.

Jordan CRUGNALE (Bass) (15:46): I also rise to speak on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. As many in the chamber would know, my electorate of Bass changed quite significantly with the redistribution prior to the last election. While we now have just under 50,000 voters from a previous 76,000, our council representation remains the same, although a tad of a shrink for Cardinia rejigging Casey, with Clyde North swapped for the beautiful coastal villages around Western Port and the entire Bass Coast as is.

Our 1357 square kilometres still takes in our growing suburbs in outer Melbourne. This is where this legislation becomes so important, because it is a key piece that deals with green wedges – a legacy of the late Liberal visionary Mr Hamer – farmland and open space to act as the city’s green lungs, and ‘green lungs’ have been referred to quite a number of times thus far. It was an enduring reform which sits alongside Mr Hamer’s abolition of capital punishment. Melbourne has 12 green wedges covering the areas just outside Melbourne’s urban growth boundary, and these wedges are critical for our food production, contributing just under $6 billion to our economy and also supporting around 16,000 jobs. They also provide, as I said, that open space, that green space and that visual break moving from interface council areas to the peri-urban ones.

If anyone watched Magda Szubanski’s Big National Health Check on our wonderful ABC last year – and I did get to it post election in that limbo period of two weeks – something she said when she met with the Australian Urban Observatory resonated. It was the importance of our postcode in determining our health outcomes: up to 50 per cent. Contrary to what we may think, the inner city has more open space than the outer suburbs, and it was stated that some Melbourne outer suburbs have no formal open space at all. But this legislation will protect our green wedges from inappropriate development and overdevelopment, enshrining the open space in legislation, as we committed to in 2018.

Councils are to prepare green wedge management plans in accordance with the Minister for Planning’s directions, identifying a vision, objectives and actions for sustainable development while providing improved guidance to councils on the structure, form and content of the plans. Whilst most outer-metro councils have prepared plans for their green wedge area, it has never actually been mandated, and there has been no consistent format or requirement to update the plans at regular intervals. This legislation redresses these issues and ensures that all green wedge values are encompassed in each plan, and it strengthens this through the legislative protections.

This proposal was first canvassed in late 2020 with the release of the Planning for Melbourne’s Green Wedges and Agricultural Land discussion paper, and it was widely supported by both government and community – all part of Plan Melbourne, all part of ensuring that Melbourne can grow but grow sustainably and with the open spaces that are so needed. As I mentioned, 12 green wedges are being nominated in areas bordering the urban growth boundary. The Western Port – Warn Marin in Boon Wurrung – green wedge takes in the southern mostly rural part of the City of Casey and includes a mix of land uses, such as very rich agricultural land, cultural heritage sites, parks, biodiversity, conservation areas, Ramsar wetlands, horse and greyhound training land, townships and rural lifestyle lots. There are always pressures given that it is between the urban growth boundary and Western Port, and I want to acknowledge the City of Casey for the immense body of work to get to their 2019 management plan, which was quite a comprehensive 76 pages, structured around theme-based and precinct-based strategic directions.

Due for review in 2023, well before the 10-year requirement, there are six guiding principles outlined in the plan, including the requirement that sites of environmental significance – including our Ramsar wetlands and the habitat of noted fauna such as the southern brown bandicoot and the growling grass frog – will be protected and enhanced, and their contribution to the biodiversity of the Western Port green wedge will be recognised in decision-making. The wedge is also home to other nationally significant indigenous species, including the swamp skink and the common long-necked turtle.

One action in the plan will be to conduct further research to also clearly identify cultural heritage values of our First Nations people. A large portion of Warn Marin – or Western Port – coast is designated Ramsar wetland, as I have said, and this will be preserved. The coastal villages of Blind Bight, Warneet and Cannons Creek and the township of Tooradin now included in the Bass electorate will play an important role in the green wedge, both in terms of livability and their tourism potential as well. The bill lists as examples of benefits tourism and recreation linked to natural environments, cultural heritage and agriculture.

We also in the Bass electorate have the Bass Coast distinctive area landscape – along with Macedon, Surf Coast and Bellarine – which is also contained in this bill, with changes to streamline that process. So we are currently going through our statement of planning policy (SPP) process in partnership with our traditional owners and local council. It was a 2018 election commitment; the following year we formally declared the Bass Coast a distinctive area and landscape within the Planning and Environment Act. It was at Kilcunda, with our much-loved former Minister Wynne, and so began the journey to protect this iconic region from overdevelopment by strengthening the planning scheme and developing a 50-year vision of wetlands, the Bunurong marine and coastal park, surfing reserves, penguins, inlets, rivers, health, farming land, small towns and more. Long-term settlement boundaries and balanced growth are protecting our cultural, rural and environmental values. We want to make sure that this beautiful part of Victoria continues to be a great place to live, work and visit and ensure we make the right decision to preserve what we value here – or there, because I am not there at the moment.

Phase 1 – there were three phases, and we are in this process – was understanding the community’s values, what they value most about the Bass Coast and setting the vision for the future, and then phase 2 sought feedback on the 50-year vision and policy directions, and phase 3 of the public consultation saw the draft statement of planning policy and proposed landscape planning controls released. Written submissions were requested, and they very much flooded in. A former minister, now in the other place, referred it to the expert standing committee in October last year, and such is the wont of the Bass Coast community – both resident and visitor – to do this well, we heard an ad there on the ground, local knowledge. We have 745 local submissions and 42 group submissions now before the expert standing committee. As I said, we are in that process and the end result really needs to be a reflection of community views and landscape values. Public hearings will now take place, and we expect the final SPP to be decided by the Governor in Council later this year. Once approved it will be operational – it will kind of happen very quickly – and provide the highest level of planning protections for the declared area.

I really want to take this opportunity to thank the community for their very active participation in this process. The lack of set time frames for public entities to obtain endorsement has led to delays in finalising SPPs across the ones that I mentioned earlier, and this bill streamlines the process requiring endorsement within 28 days and removes barriers to finalising it.

Both these amendments relate to the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and I thank the Minister for Planning for continuing the important work done by those before her and working collaboratively with the Minister for Environment in the other place in conjunction with our Minister for Climate Action in this place. Our Minister for Local Government will also be involved, all with the goal of making Victoria a better place to live. So there are four ministers, four women – four of the 14 women in our current Labor cabinet – working on this.

There are other parts of the legislation that time clearly does not allow for, but in summary the bill amends the Building Act 1993, the Architects Act 1991, the Surveying Act 2004 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to strengthen our legislative protection of Melbourne’s green wedges, streamline the endorsement process for a distinctive area and landscape, support the implementation of automatic mutual recognition in Victoria and clarify the power to issue restricted plumbing work licences for private plumbing work. And in my 8 seconds left, I commend this bill to the house.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (15:56): It is my pleasure to rise to contribute to debate on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 and to restate my commitment to issues of enormous relevance and importance to those people down in my electorate of Nepean. While the bill covers issues relating to the building sector, my focus will be on provisions relating to the green wedge and to distinctive area landscapes. Of course the importance of the natural environment down on the Mornington Peninsula cannot be overstated, and I am sure many members of the house can agree with me that when there are environmental issues being spoken about or debated in this chamber, it is disappointing not to see any members of the Greens speaking.

As I met with the residents during the campaign period, it was made abundantly clear that my community has a deep-seated belief that we live – and obviously I am biased on this point as well – in the best part of Victoria; that is for sure. It is our natural environment that draws people to live in Nepean and why so many come down to spend their holiday periods there. It must be protected, and I am committed to ensuring that. While ever I remain in this place, it will always remain front of mind. Of course the green wedge is an important Liberal legacy, and one that I am pleased to say in this place all governments have embraced since it was introduced by Sir Rupert Hamer as part of a then Liberal government in the 1970s. I am committed to its preservation. The unfounded comments by my predecessor during the campaign, the accusation that I or my party would ignore the will of the community in regard to these areas, were wrong then, are wrong now and will be wrong so long as I serve in this place.

The Mornington Peninsula Shire is already ahead of the game in terms of establishing protections for these areas, and I thank them for that important work. Back in April 2019 the shire released a comprehensive green wedge management plan. The 150-page document details a snapshot of the green wedge as well as issues around appropriate dwellings, tourism and agriculture as well as recreation. Importantly, there is a stated action plan, with a broader plan which holds the shire accountable and gives the community a clear understanding of what to expect from the shire moving forward. Moving on to protections or provisions regarding the distinctive areas and landscapes, I broadly support the government’s approach to streamlining the processes around this policy, but what I would say is that in recognising the Macedon Ranges, the Bass Coast, the Bellarine and the Surf Coast as areas under the policy, the government made an important omission, and that is the Mornington Peninsula and Arthurs Seat. While there is a localised planning statement for the Mornington Peninsula, the first of its kind and introduced by the Liberals in 2014, the additional recognition and protection to safeguard my electorate should be afforded to such an ecologically irreplaceable region. Had those protections been in place, my community would not have had to go through the stress and worry of fighting off a quarry expansion up on Arthurs Seat and also, nearly 10 years ago, thankfully because of the work of the member of Warrandyte, fighting off a big tip going onto that quarry site. Thankfully that proposition was overturned by a Liberal government at the time, so I thank them for their work on that.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many groups that have worked on keeping this area protected, particularly the Peninsula Preservation Group and the Save Arthurs Seat campaign, and especially the work of Mark Fancett with both those groups. Mark and his team have done a fantastic job highlighting the absurdity of destroying an iconic part of not just Victoria, not just the peninsula, but the world – the native wildlife, the fauna and everything that goes with that area – just to put a quarry on the site. Their work eventually led to that proposition being withdrawn. I had the pleasure of meeting Mark and his group at his home in Red Hill during the election campaign. They have put up a fight to allow that native vegetation. What will happen if we do finally lose the quarry, which many in the community would love to see, is the creation of clear movement paths for the natural fauna through that green wedge. Adequate and extra protections would make these sorts of proposals, like the quarry expansion or tip, dead on arrival in the future, and I am sure my community would welcome that.

Again, for me this is just an important opportunity to restate my commitment to the preservation and protection of Nepean’s natural environment and also to publicly thank those amazing volunteers who have committed themselves to that campaign. I support the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Croydon, and that is all from me.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (16:01): I am delighted to rise today to speak on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This is another important bill that delivers on the government’s 2018 election commitment to strengthen the protection of Melbourne’s green wedges. Clarinda has a strong and proud history of protecting and expanding our green space, particularly the Kingston green wedge. We have some amazing community groups in the area, such as the Defenders of the South East Green Wedge, a group of passionate advocates for maintaining and strengthening the existing green wedge protection provisions. There are also some strong advocates in the City of Kingston itself. My good friend Cr Steve Staikos has shown absolute dedication to our parks, our environment and our green open space, and it has been a privilege working together with these groups of individuals to make the sandbelt chain of parks become a reality. For many years residents have lived with historic landfill sites in the City of Kingston, and together we have worked towards a vision of transforming land into a series of linked parks. It is an ambitious vision – some 355 hectares of parkland that offers a wide range of recreational facilities and open space within our green wedge, creating a network, or chain, of parks – but it is one that the Andrews Labor government proudly committed to in 2018. It was an amazing commitment – 355 hectares from Warrigal Road in Moorabbin to Braeside Park near Dingley Village, with walking and biking trails and an adventure play area for our local kids. It is an amazing commitment that we are delivering, as the member before me already alluded to.

An update: last year we acquired 83 of the remaining 118 hectares. These parcels were acquired in Heatherton, Clarinda and Clayton South and will be protected from development. Once rehabilitated, the parcels will form a connected chain of parks, with trails and open space through the Clarinda district and into the neighbouring districts. There are only 35 hectares of land that still need to be acquired, which will be delivered as replacement land for the Delta site acquired by the Suburban Rail Loop, as specified in last year’s environment effects statement. So this is an amazing result for the community – hundreds of hectares of connected parkland for families to enjoy and explore. Bike trails and walking trails – so even more opportunities to get active together.

Also related is the recent commitment to the Kingston fields, and that is a $1 million commitment towards the master plan for a sporting precinct in Kingston, delivering new sports and recreation facilities that the whole community can be proud of. Sport is the lifeblood for so many, bringing families together and neighbourhoods together, and in Clarinda we have delivered better courts and grounds, new scoreboards, lighting upgrades and changing facilities for clubs across the electorate, and now we have another exciting vision for Kingston fields.

There is a lot happening here locally. We are protecting and creating open spaces and delivering on our election commitments, and this bill is another example of that – one that delivers on the government’s 2018 election commitment to strengthen the protection of Melbourne’s green wedges. The relevant changes will provide greater protection for metropolitan green wedge lands by introducing objectives for green wedge land and a requirement for councils to prepare and review green wedge management plans. The bill will also provide the mechanism through which this election commitment can be implemented.

As I mentioned, Kingston council and in particular the former mayor Cr Steve Staikos have been great advocates for green wedge protection and expanding open space in the Kingston green wedge, which forms a major part of the south-east green wedge. The Kingston green wedge is an amazing piece of land – over 2000 hectares, which essentially runs through the electorate of Clarinda from Karkarook Park in the northern part to Braeside Park in the southern part. It is home to agricultural and horticultural areas, open spaces, natural habitats for plants and animals, and recreation opportunities. Karkarook Park alone is an amazing open space and an amazing community asset, and I am proud that the government has invested in this amazing park through the urban parks active wellbeing program. Recycled plastic picnic tables have been installed, and there is a great deal of work being undertaken at the Dragonfly picnic area, which includes upgrades to barbecues and barbecue shelters, upgrades to the playground, repairs on the Dragonfly tower boardwalk, upgrades to the public toilet interior, replacement of trail seating and repairs to the boat ramp boardwalk and the drainage along the lake path.

It is an amazing community asset, and I would encourage anyone in the area to go and check it out. In fact we had the Minister for Outdoor Recreation out to the park last year for the rainbow trout fish stocking at Karkarook Lake itself in Clarinda. So this is another fantastic government initiative, and the stocked lake is a great opportunity to get kids off screens for a few hours, spending quality time together with friends and family. It is just another example of the many amazing activities that are possible in our green wedge.

The City of Kingston has seen great success in its green wedge management plan. The original green wedge management plan was adopted by the Kingston City Council in 2012. It is an impressive document that identifies the values and features of the green wedge, the preferred land uses, environmental and natural resources that should be protected and the needs of the local community. It is a 20-year master plan and one that has held the council and the community in great stead over the past two decades. Of course a lot has changed over the last 20 years, and the plan is now being refreshed. It has been through consultation, evaluations and review throughout 2021–22. The draft of the new plan is available on the Kingston website for anyone interested, and I commend the council for their forward thinking and their commitment to our green wedge space.

Again, the bill requires local governments to prepare a green wedge management plan in accordance with the Minister for Planning’s direction – a proposal which was first canvassed in late 2020 with the release of the Planning for Melbourne’s Green Wedges and Agricultural Land discussion paper. Importantly, this proposal was widely supported by local governments and the local community. As part of the preparation of the green wedge management plan, local government will be required to consult with a range of government and non-government stakeholders, including traditional owners. So, as I mentioned, we have seen great success with our green wedge management plans locally, so I am very happy to see these changes here today, and I am happy to support them.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (16:10): I also rise to address the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. In doing so I commend to those reading Hansard and those listening at home – poor people – the contribution of the member for Croydon, my colleague the Shadow Minister for Planning, which he made earlier today.

I want to draw particular attention to a portion of this bill, because as we have heard from other speakers, the bill is about providing greater protections for metropolitan green wedge land by introducing objectives for green wedge land and a requirement for councils to prepare and review green wedge management plans. I think this is a wonderful opportunity to make the point, as the member for Nepean made quite eloquently in his contribution – his first contribution to a bill in this place, actually, earlier – that it was in fact the Hamer government of the 1970s that established the green wedge in this state – visionary policy by a measure. The green wedge itself has often been referred to as the lungs of Melbourne. It is something that we on this side, and I trust those on the other side, wish to do everything we possibly can to defend and protect.

I also note the member for Clarinda’s contribution just made. I have great personal regard and respect for the member for Clarinda. It is an electorate that is on the border of the Sandringham district. We see each other at many a function, often council instigated. But there was something that the member for Clarinda failed to mention in his contribution, and that is the effective adulteration of the green wedge under plans by the current government as a result of placing train stabling yards, in relation to their Suburban Rail Loop project, within the district of Clarinda, within the Kingston green wedge. This is an important point to make, because on the one hand the government is proposing legislation in this place that provides greater protection for the metropolitan green wedge, and yet through their actions, when it comes specifically to the member for Clarinda’s seat and the Kingston green wedge, there are plans by this government to concrete a large part of the green wedge.

We do not think that is a good idea – we have never thought it was a good idea – and I am grateful to the City of Kingston, actually, for taking significant leadership in articulating not only to government but also to the community why this is a terrible idea. In fact I have a media release of 30 September 2022 from the Kingston council that reads:

The Victorian Government has failed to deliver the Sandbelt Open Space – Chain of Parks despite promising $25 million at the election four years ago.

Kingston Council calls on Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio to take urgent action to live up to that promise before the 2022 November election now less than two months away.

Kingston Mayor Steve Staikos –

not to be confused with the member for Bentleigh –

said Council and the community were delighted when the Andrews –

Labor –

government promised $25 million to purchase the remaining land for the long-awaited Chain of Parks on 5 November 2018.

…

‘Sadly –

Cr Staikos goes on to say –

four years have passed, and we are yet to see what was promised to our community …

So it is one thing to say that we value the green wedge, that we want to develop the green wedge in an appropriate way – with a chain of parks, multi-use sporting facilities, multi-use ovals, but keeping the green characteristics of the Kingston green wedge intact – versus what the Labor government currently has planned, and that is rail stabling yards at the Kingston green wedge in Heatherton. Again, the Kingston council have been great advocates for the preservation of this green wedge for green purposes. I have worked with Kingston council on this, and I commend them for their strong advocacy.

I have a further note in front of me: a letter sent in fact to the Premier by the then mayor, Cr Staikos, dated 24 February 2021. The mayor in his correspondence to the Premier on this occasion outlined a number of requests – legitimate requests – which I support. He asked, on behalf of the City of Kingston, for the decision to effectively, as I have said before, adulterate the Kingston green wedge to be revisited in partnership with council and the community. And that is the point – if you speak to community members within the Kingston community, whether they are in Heatherton or just out, if you speak to sporting clubs within the Kingston community or just out and if you speak to environmental groups in the Kingston community or just outside, they will tell you time and time again that the green wedge must be preserved. But the government has not heard that news. The government has not heard that advocacy. They may have listened, but they certainly have not heard, and now we are in a position where the Kingston council is doing what the government, in my view, should have done, and that is engage comprehensively with their community to understand what their community needs and what their community is asking for in relation to the Kingston green wedge. The Kingston council themselves, again to reiterate, are asking for the government to revisit the decision they have made to, again, adulterate the Kingston green wedge in Heatherton.

We have a problem in this state, and the problem is that we are not making any more land. So the decisions that we make in relation to the land that we have are lasting decisions and, by one measure, irreversible decisions. The land that we have is precious land, and the land in the Kingston green wedge is no different. I have sporting clubs in my own electoral district who come to me, time and time again, and say, ‘We would love to put on more sporting teams, but there aren’t enough grounds in order to cater for new sporting teams.’ The effect of that of course is that there are young people within our communities who do not have the opportunity to participate in team sport because there are not the ovals and the facilities available for that sport to be undertaken. The vision of the Liberals and Nationals, now at two elections, both at the 2018 and the 2022 election, was for the Kingston green wedge to be developed appropriately, with multi-use sporting facilities, and yet the opposing view is that that green wedge be used in a completely different way by the Andrews Labor government.

I want to further commend the Kingston council, because the Kingston council did not just do what the Andrews Labor government should have done, and that is consult with their community before making a decision on the future of the Kingston green wedge, specifically in Heatherton; the Kingston council actually went to quite a lot of trouble to put together a proposal, which I understand they have given to the government, for a better use of that land. Kingston council are quite realistic. They know that if the government want to put train stabling yards for the Suburban Rail Loop in Heatherton, within the Kingston green wedge, they can do that tomorrow. They know that; they understand that. If they are to do that, how can a terrible proposal be made a less terrible proposal? That is what Kingston has actually gone comprehensively about doing – working with a number of consulting groups to put together a proposal, which I understand has been given to government for their consideration, but no response has been received on that proposal. At the moment the plans for that area are effective concreting as far as the eye can see. You can imagine train after train after train lined up against each other – one train and the next train et cetera; lots of concrete, lots of wires. From what I have seen, the Kingston proposal is to in fact green the top of it, which would have an environmental benefit of course because the heat would not be absorbed into the concrete. The area would be greened. There would be less visual pollution as well.

I mention all these things because I still think there is an opportunity. The government says it wants to better protect the green wedge. Well, in the Kingston green wedge at Heatherton there is an opportunity for them to revise their decision.

Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (16:20): I am pleased to rise today in support of the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. As someone who has grown up in, lives in and represents an inner-urban area that has changed dramatically over the last three decades, I know my community take an acute interest in building and planning matters. Densification has had a real impact on our suburbs. Currently over 67,000 people reside in Northcote across an area making up just 21 square kilometres, and while the footprint has not changed, the population has increased by about 10,000 people over the last decade. As we have grown and welcomed new families, it has also put pressure on services, public infrastructure and, critically, open space.

It is safe to say that we are pretty proactive and protective of our inner-north patch. We will push back on inappropriate development and we will fight fiercely for our unique natural assets, like the three waterways and parklands which border our suburbs. Indeed this is something that I have had to do right here in this place, calling on Yarra council to do the right thing and work with the state government to protect the Yarra riverfront from degradation at a site down in Alphington. Disappointingly, the Greens council, including the Greens member for Richmond during her time as a councillor on Yarra, have refused to work collaboratively with the state on this issue. The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action has a standing offer to turn the site over to Crown land with council as committee of management. This would put it in public ownership and protect it into the future, but true to form, the Greens are all words and no action. Well, actually, today it looks like they are not even words, because they have not been here. Where are they? It is a bill on protecting our green wedges and they have not even rocked up. The riverfront down in Alphington remains at risk, and I do wonder whether the member for Richmond will now use her position in this place to finally put her virtue signalling into action and lobby her Greens friends on council to come to the table and protect the Yarra River. I raise this issue because that sense of protectiveness does not stop at our electoral borders. It extends right across our state, and that is why this bill is of great interest to my community.

The bill will not only provide critical improvements to how the building and planning systems in Victoria work but will also deliver on the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to strengthening legislation protections for Melbourne’s green wedges. Melbourne is surrounded by a ring of 12 green wedges that provide a precious barrier between the bustling city and the landscapes beyond. These are not just pretty sites but play a vital role in supporting our economy, feeding our growing city, supporting approximately 16,500 jobs and, critically, preserving biodiversity habitat. From world-renowned wine regions to precious wetlands and protected habitats, these wedges serve as critical preserves of biodiversity and give balance to our outer-urban ecosystems. In a way they are the vital valves of our city. They regulate hydrology, purify air and water and nurture life. Melbourne’s green wedges also play a pivotal role in mitigating the impacts of urbanisation, like heat island effects, soil erosion and stormwater run-off, while providing essential functions like carbon sequestration and air purification that benefit both the environment and our health. They are critical to maintaining the character and quality of life in Melbourne, including our famously tasty drinking water, and it is imperative that they have strong protections against overdevelopment.

Northcote is of course not within a green wedge, but we are nestled between two important waterways, the Merri Creek and the Darebin Creek, which highlights the interconnectivity of our ecosystems and the need for upstream protection which ensures downstream benefits and a resilient urban environment. This is something I have spoken about at length with our local environmental groups, including with passionate advocates like Nick Williams from the Friends of Merri Creek and Graeme Hamilton of the Darebin Creek Management Committee. Our waterways are continuous living, breathing, flowing ecosystems that should be seen as such in our regulations and our legislation. That is why it meant so much to me and my community when the Andrews Labor government announced that we will be introducing vital planning controls to permanently safeguard our creeks from inappropriate development.

This is something that local advocates have been calling for. It will ensure our creeks remain thriving wildlife corridors for generations to come. Not only that, it is backed by a $10 million Green Links fund to support revegetation along Victoria’s creeks, waters and riverways. I mention this because I firmly believe that we must do more to protect our state’s habitat and biodiversity, and that is exactly what this bill will do. I think it is important to emphasise that the protection of our green wedges is not just crucial for the urban fringe but for the entire state. The bill introduces a legislative requirement for local councils to prepare and review green wedge management plans. The bill will empower the minister to ensure important directives to councils in relation to the preparation and content of these plans, adding another degree of oversight and accountability in protecting Melbourne’s green wedges against inappropriate development decisions by councils.

We all know that across our fair state there are also distinct regions of breathtaking environmental, cultural and economic significance – places like the Macedon Ranges, the Surf Coast and, as Acting Speaker Crugnale knows, the Bass Coast and the Bellarine Peninsula. The newly appointed member for Bellarine articulated this quite beautifully yesterday in her inaugural speech in relation to her local community and its importance. These distinctive areas and landscapes hold a special status and now require a statement of planning policy, or SPP, which is a 50-year plan to safeguard the unique qualities of these areas while balancing housing, tourism and infrastructure. SPPs have already come into effect for the Macedon Ranges, while other distinctive areas, including the Bellarine and Bass Coast, are going through the development of those as we speak. What we have learned through the experience so far, however, is that the process can become unnecessarily slow because there is no time frame specified to obtain the requisite endorsements for these SPPs. This bill changes that and streamlines the process, requiring endorsement from responsible entities within a time frame of 28 days.

The bill also makes some changes and supports the implementation of automatic mutual recognition in Victoria such that building practitioners, licensed plumbers, land surveyors and architects working under AMR are protected by the appropriate insurance required by Victorian laws and making registration details of practitioners working under AMR available to the public. This bill ensures that we are moving towards meaningful changes to our legislation to improve our planning and building systems. It provides purposeful protections for Melbourne’s green wedges, distinctive areas and landscapes. It also promotes greater consumer protection.

As we debate this bill in the next couple of minutes and consider the impact of population growth on our state, the need to support jobs, housing and transport, the imperative to protect Melbourne’s legacy of livability, sustainability and cultural heritage significance, I am reminded of an incredibly moving documentary which I watched last year. It is called The Lost City of Melbourne, and it was produced and directed by Gus Berger, who is the owner and operator of our very awesome independent cinema, Thornbury Picture House, in the electorate of Northcote. Back in September last year I had the honour of joining Gus and speaking at one of the first screenings of this outstanding film. Gus uses rare footage and photography to weave a truly captivating history of Marvellous Melbourne and the property boom of the 1850s onwards, which saw Melbourne propelled onto the world stage to become an epicentre of film culture, theatres, restaurants and hotels. It also covers the tragic demise of some of our significant architecture from that period. Many old theatres and picture houses were destroyed in a wave of modernisation that saw grand structures like the Padua Theatre on Sydney Road in Brunswick demolished. I learned so much about our city watching this film. It was a stark reminder of how much evolves over time, how taste, circumstances and economics can lead to irreversible decisions and the responsibility we have to preserve and protect our city and our state for future generations. I am thankful that we still have establishments like the Princess Theatre on Spring Street and the Regent Theatre on Collins, and closer to home in my electorate the wonderful Westgarth theatre. I have run out of time, but I would like to commend this bill to the house and thank the minister.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (16:30): It too gives me pleasure to rise to make a contribution this Thursday afternoon to the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. It is good also to be back on my feet in the 60th Parliament and debating bills, with the obvious subtle changes that are about the place, including seeing you in the chair, Acting Speaker Crugnale, and good to see so many new members across that side of the house and this side of the house as well.

In terms of the background of this bill, the purpose of the proposed bill is to deliver several legislative changes which were first proposed in the Building, Planning and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Administration and Other Matters) Bill 2022. That came before the 59th Parliament I think around about August of last year, but it did lapse as the 59th Parliament came to an end. The amendments acquit this government’s election commitment to improve the clarity and operation of the building and planning systems. The bill itself will amend the Building Act 1993, the Architects Act 1991, the Surveying Act 2004 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and it has four key purposes: to strengthen legislative protection of Melbourne’s green wedges, to streamline the endorsement process for a distinctive area and landscape, to support the implementation of automatic mutual recognition in Victoria and to clarify the power to issue restricted plumbing work licences for private plumbing work.

It does support the implementation of automatic mutual recognition in this state by ensuring that building practitioners, licensed plumbers, land surveyors and architects working under the AMR scheme are covered by insurance required under Victorian laws and making the registration details of practitioners working under AMR available to the public. The changes in the bill will also minimise the risk of plumbers undertaking unlawful plumbing work on their own or a family member’s home by providing certainty regarding the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) and its continuing ability to issue restricted plumbing licences for private plumbing work. The bill also introduces amendments that give effect to the government’s commitment to providing better protection for Melbourne’s metropolitan green wedge land by requiring councils to develop and review green wedge management plans and to increase protection of areas declared as distinctive areas and landscapes.

In terms of the green wedge areas, what are those green wedge areas? Well, as we all know, surrounding our Melbourne metropolis and in those peri-urban areas which my constituency is also in there are 12 green wedge areas designated in order to protect, enhance and promote non-urban values and non-urban uses that support our city and the environment, and these areas make a considerable contribution to the sustainability, the prosperity, the health and the wellbeing of Victorians. They support primary production, contain areas of biodiversity conservation and infrastructure and include a wealth of water resources, extractive resources and other natural resources.

The member for Northcote, before me, spoke about the fantastic water that we enjoy in Melbourne and in Victoria, and indeed if you speak to any master brewer in this state – yes, I am making the leap from building and planning to brewing, on a Thursday afternoon at 4:30, to make the point that because Melbourne has one of the best water supplies, any master brewer will tell you that one of the best reasons we have great beer in this state is because of the water supply, water of course being a key ingredient in the beer products that we make here. It is indeed why we have such a terrific microbrewery industry in this state; it is because of that very, very clear water. So if you like beer, you will obviously support this bill.

Green wedges also contribute to energy generation, transmission and storage and are important for tourism and recreation linked to natural environments, cultural heritage and agricultural activities. The 12 green wedge areas are well noted, but I would like to put on the record that the southern ranges and Western Port green wedge areas fall within the City of Casey, where my electorate of Narre Warren South sits.

When it comes to putting a bill of this complexity to the Parliament, stakeholder impacts are obviously very important, as is what stakeholders have to say. The bill is actually expected to produce benefits for the planning and building sectors and the community more broadly. Anticipated stakeholder benefits are as follows. In terms of the restricted plumbing licences aspect of the bill, the plumbing industry has for the past 20 years recognised restricted plumbing licences as a path to authorising some practitioners to undertake lawful plumbing work on their homes and the homes of their relatives, but the bill will clarify elements of the legislative framework to provide the industry and the VBA with more legal certainty and ensure that the VBA maintains the ability to continue issuing these licences. As aforementioned about the automatic mutual recognition, the Victorian building and plumbing practitioners and industry bodies are supportive of the amendments. The amendments ensure practitioners working under AMR in Victoria meet certain consumer protection requirements, such as having the relevant insurance coverage and having their details listed in a publicly available register of practitioners, which apply to Victorian practitioners. If the bill is not passed, practitioners working under AMR may not be held to that same level of accountability as Victorian practitioners, with the potential to adversely impact consumers and unfairly disadvantage Victorian practitioners who go and do the right thing.

In terms of distinctive areas and landscapes, the bill will streamline the process to gain the endorsement of responsible public entities with regard to statements of planning policy for declared distinctive areas and landscapes, ensuring the protection of these valuable parts of Victoria. A statement of planning policy includes a long-term vision of at least 50 years, policy objectives and strategies to achieve that vision, a strategic framework plan for guiding the future use and development of land in the declared areas and the protection of landscape, environmental, cultural and other values within the area.

Finally in terms of green wedges, the bill requires local governments to prepare green wedge management plans in accordance with the Minister for Planning’s directions. Many councils have indeed already done that or well and truly have them on the way, as this proposal was first canvassed in late 2020 with the release of the Planning for Melbourne’s Green Wedges and Agricultural Land discussion paper, and the proposal was widely supported by local government and the community. As part of the preparation of green wedge management plans, local government will be required to consult with a range of government and non-government stakeholders, including the traditional owners of the land as well.

In summary, this bill does strengthen the legislative protection of Melbourne’s green wedges. It streamlines the endorsement process for distinctive areas and landscape. It supports the implementation of automatic mutual recognition in Victoria. Finally, it clarifies the power to issue restricted plumbing work licences for private plumbing work. It is the product of some very long and difficult work by the Department of Transport and Planning and a very hardworking ministerial office. It is a good bill, and it should pass this house. I indeed commend the bill to the house.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (16:40): It is a delight to get back on my feet for the first time in the 60th Parliament in a contribution on a bill that is very interesting and very important to me. I am very pleased to see that the Minister for Planning has reintroduced this bill because of a commitment that we made back at the 2018 election in relation to protecting the green wedges, and I do want to spend a bit of time on the green wedge legislation and the history of the green wedges, because it is a really fascinating history of Melbourne.

The bill will make a number of other important amendments, which include supporting the implementation of automatic mutual recognition in Victoria and clarifying the power to issue restricted plumbing work licences for private plumbing work.

Getting back to the green wedges, I had time to contemplate this over summer, reading one of my favourite texts, which is Great Cities and Their Traffic. I know a few people, a few members –

Ben Carroll interjected.

Paul HAMER: It is very well-worn. You are welcome to borrow it, Minister. It is showing its age after 50 years, but it has some very interesting concepts.

A member interjected.

Paul HAMER: Melbourne is definitely in it. The author, who was neither an urban planner nor an engineer, is an economist, but he wrote extensively on transport and looked at how various cities had developed and how they were developing. It was a very interesting point in time in the 1970s, looking at how the cities of that time were developed. It is interesting, because that was not that long after the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works at the time had put out their own urban strategy which, really for the first time, had actually talked about these green wedges and talked about the lungs of Melbourne, which have survived largely intact to this day.

But I do actually want to take you even further back to a part of Melbourne’s history, to the 1929 metropolitan plan; I think it was called the Plan for General Development. It was put out by the Metropolitan Town Planning Commission back in 1929. It included some beautiful maps, and I am sure at the time they were hand coloured and hand drawn. The level of detail is just amazing. You can see on those maps the starting point for the green wedges – and looking out at the parkland that surrounds the city and then spreading out its tentacles along the creek valleys, along the river valleys. Even though Melbourne’s metropolitan suburban area certainly did not cover most of my electorate in Box Hill – the city of Box Hill had only just become a city council; it had separated from I think it was the shire of Nunawading before that time – that was about the edge of the metropolitan area at the time, but you could see the starting points, the buds, of the green wedge along the Yarra Valley, along the valley of the Koonung Creek, along the valley of Gardiners Creek, or Kooyongkoot Creek. I want to read into the record just some quotes from the commission’s report. It says:

It would be possible and desirable in the planning of a new city to set aside an amount of park lands equal to any maximum standard or ratio considered necessary. This area might be supplied by large wedges radiating from the centre, or by a series of large and small parks, or by the planning of belts of open country on the outskirts of the areas reserved for city and suburban development.

Then it goes on a couple of paragraphs later:

Melbourne has, however, certain natural physical features suitable for the formation of a system of park lands which could hardly be excelled. If full advantage is taken of these natural conditions, and the system outlined is developed systematically, this City will be in the forefront, by comparison, with cities of equal or greater size.

This was written, as I say, in 1929, so almost 100 years ago, and I think we have to be grateful to those who were involved in urban planning at that time for recognising the importance of setting down green wedges and the access to green space that is provided to people in the community, particularly as those communities expanded along the radial rail lines. It makes an interesting comment about the decision – whether there should be green wedges or whether there should be a green belt, which was quite a point of debate in late Victorian times, certainly in England and other European countries – about what was the best way for city folk, people living in the city, to be able to have that pleasure of contact with the natural environment. There were some strong proponents for the green belt system, which effectively put a collar on the urban growth but meant that people who were in the inner city were not actually that close and that proximate to their urban environment. Proponents of the green wedge in those academic discussions certainly pushed for a concept that allowed the maximum number of people to have ready access and proximate access to green space and natural bushland, and I think we can all be very thankful that we now live in a city where the concept of those green wedges has now over many decades been part of the psyche of Melbourne. Even in Box Hill we are obviously not in a green wedge zone, but we do live in proximity to the green wedge in Manningham, so the bushland around Warrandyte and Donvale, and of course it is only a train ride away down to the beautiful Dandenong Ranges.

Going back to just the history of the green wedge implementation, obviously, as I was mentioning earlier, in the 1970s this solidified around certain distinct regions and protecting regions because of their environmental value, particularly around places like the Yarra Valley and the Dandenongs and down through the Mornington Peninsula. This had been reinforced through the 1980s and 90s through various Melbourne planning documents, but it was really only in the document Melbourne 2030, a seminal document that was introduced by the Bracks government, that green wedges were formally recognised and were finally enshrined into law and enshrined into our legislation and an urban growth boundary was established – so still allowing those growth corridors along those radial infrastructure routes, but enshrining for all time those green wedges for everyone to enjoy. Now we come to this point in time where we are putting in place those green wedge management plans which will give councils in local government areas that do have green wedge that extra guidance that they may need to make sure that the green wedges continue to be protected and continue to be that natural outlet that so many people in Melbourne have come to love and enjoy.

Just very briefly I want to also touch on the mutual recognition provisions in the legislation. The legislation will ensure that practitioners have the insurance required under Victorian building laws and make the registration details of practitioners working under the automatic mutual recognition available to the public – another step forward in making sure that we are a federated system and it works very well for everyone.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (16:50): Acting Speaker Crugnale, it is great to see you in the chair – congratulations. I rise today to also contribute to the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for Planning and her staff for the introduction of these very important reforms to this house that update and improve the clarity, operation and efficiency of our vital building and planning systems. We continue to deliver and improve upon the government’s 2018 election commitments, strengthening protections and recommitting to our green spaces around the city. Planning made a significant contribution to the Victorian economy in 2022, with $3.6 billion worth of projects recommended through the development facilitation program, which streamlines the assessment and determination of projects, injects investment into the Victorian economy and keeps people in jobs. There were approvals of over 1000 homes as part of the Big Housing Build program, $90 billion worth of Big Build project approvals, $5.6 billion in construction activity approvals and of course we powered nearly a million additional homes through our renewable energy permits.

By amending the Building Act 1993, the Architects Act 1991, the Surveying Act 2004 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987, we are creating the following reforms: we are strengthening the legislative protection of Melbourne’s green wedges, we are streamlining the endorsement processes for a distinctive area and landscape, we are supporting the implementation of automatic mutual recognition in Victoria and we are clarifying the power to issue restricted plumbing work licences for private plumbing work. We remain committed to improving the efficiency, clarity and operation of the building and planning systems.

I have got one beef with building and planning, and it is actually with developers. I am sure we have all experienced it in our own electorates, and that is where developers are selling land off, promising the world to the buyers of the land and promising infrastructure builds that they never will commit to – and they do not have to commit to because they are either state or federal infrastructure builds. So they promise these things, they sell the land off and people buy into these developments; five years or 10 years later, they still have not got that infrastructure that they have been promised by these developers. I think it is about time that local councils and we start to go harder on these developers so that when they sell this land off they need to stick to those commitments that they are promising. You cannot promise a railway station. You cannot promise overpasses on the freeways – you cannot do those sorts of infrastructure builds without consultation with other levels of government. Developers have been getting away with it for years, and it is a damned disgrace. It is leaving people in places where they thought they were buying into a great community and a great development and having all that infrastructure, and they do not. So it is not good enough, as far as I am concerned.

I also want to take the opportunity to talk about the immense pride that the Melton residents have in their green and open spaces that surround our electorate. Melton is a very open space. As a kid growing up in the western suburbs, you could almost see Melton from Braybrook. Now you cannot; all you see is rooftops. But we still have a lot of space – open space and green space – around that Melton electorate.

Melbourne’s 12 green wedges cover the areas that sit just outside Melbourne’s urban growth boundary and provide an essential break between the intensive urban development along the growth corridors, and it is one of the major reasons that people are moving into my electorate. As a city fringe locality – I think it is 30 to 31 kilometres from the city centre – we are incredibly lucky to have deliberately considered protection of these green wedge spaces, which vary in environmental diversity even just among the three that Melton sits across and is surrounded by – the Western Plains south green wedge, the Western Plains north green wedge and, further north, the Sunbury green wedge. We are enshrining protections for Melton and Melbourne’s cherished green wedges in the legislation, which is of course welcome news for many, including the ‘friends of’ groups across the state and, in particular, in my electorate.

Green wedges contain a mix of agriculture and low-density activities like the major infrastructure that supports urban areas, which includes the Melbourne and Moorabbin airports, the eastern water treatment facility and the western water treatment facility down in Werribee, which my good friend the member for Werribee represents. It is home to major quarries used in building industries, and roughly one-third of the total green wedge area is public land, including national parks, other parks and reserves. Melton has open basalt plains, cultural heritage sites, vital water catchments and biodiversity conservation sites, like our stunning Victorian volcanic plains. The Victorian volcanic plains is Victoria’s only biodiversity hotspot and is one of only 15 in Australia, making it an area of national and global biological significance, and it supports many species of native plants and animals that are protected under Commonwealth and our state laws. Over 150 years of agriculture, grazing and urban development has radically transformed the Melton landscape. As little as 1 per cent of the former extensive grasslands and grassy woodlands of the Victorian volcanic plains survive.

These features of our green wedges contribute immensely to making Melton such a dynamic and enticing place to live and to work, and the contribution that green wedge land makes to our economy is substantial. The land is critical to our economy and Melbourne’s food production, contributing around $5.79 billion in economic activity and supporting roughly 16,500 jobs across a range of industry sectors. We are home to some of the world’s best wine destinations, parks and wetlands, and as the population grows in Melbourne our green wedges ensure that the character and landscape of communities along the urban growth boundary are going to be protected. We are protecting Melbourne’s green wedges against inappropriate development. By passing this legislation we are committing to protecting Melbourne’s green wedges for current and future generations.

The bill details the government’s objectives for green wedge land and also creates a requirement for preparation and review of green wedge management by the local councils. It also gives the ability for the Minister for Planning to issue instruction as to what the council management plans need to include. That provides structure, guidance, form and consistency across the board. The process as it exists is difficult, and for a document as important as a strategic plan that will guide the future use and development of the land in a declared area for the next 50 years, it is important that we make it easier and quicker to get endorsement and declaration. Streamlining the endorsement process removes the barriers to finalising the statement of planning policy.

Victoria is home to such a large number of unique and sensitive landscapes and distinctive places that are highly valued for their environmental, social, cultural and economic assets. We know these areas are vital to the functioning of our urban areas, providing people with clean air, drinking water, food, resources and recreational opportunities. These areas are under increasing pressure for development because of their attractiveness, accessibility and proximity to our cities and because of environmental factors like the impacts of climate change.

I will quickly go to the automatic mutual recognition. The Commonwealth’s Mutual Recognition Act 1992 was amended in 2021 to introduce an automatic mutual recognition scheme to be adopted by all states and territories. It makes it easier for hardworking registered licensed workers to work across state and territory borders but be qualified and licensed in Victoria. A drivers licence-type model for occupational licensing will be adopted as part of the automatic mutual recognition scheme and is intended to enable a person to use the occupational licence issued by their home state to carry out the same activities it authorises in other participating Australian jurisdictions. This brings Victoria into line with the rest of the country, and in the case of Queensland well ahead.

This is an important bill, and as I said before, my only disappointment with building and planning in the state is allowing developers to get away with the promises that they put forward and never deliver on in regard to infrastructure build, and that should not be allowed. I think we need to put more pressure on the developers in regard to what they offer and what they end up delivering. Local councils need to hold them to account and we need to hold them to account. This is an important amendment bill. I do commend the bill to the house.

The SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The house is considering the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. The minister has moved that the bill be now read a second time. The member for Croydon has moved a reasoned amendment to this motion. He has proposed to omit all the words after ‘That’ and replace them with the words that have been circulated. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Those supporting the reasoned amendment by the member for Croydon should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (57): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (21): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Chris Crewther, Sam Groth, David Hodgett, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ryan Smith, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The question is:

That this bill be now read a second time and a third time.

Question agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.