Wednesday, 8 March 2023

Bills

Heritage Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Sonya Kilkenny:

That this bill be now read a second time.

David HODGETT (Croydon) (18:34): It is a pleasure to rise to make my contribution on behalf of this side of the house to the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023. I state at the outset that we are not opposing this bill. The bill will amend the Heritage Act 2017 to provide for exclusion determinations and to make other amendments to improve the operation of the act and for other purposes. These legislative amendments will create the following reforms in relation to notices, the publication and inspection of documents and hearings and that will provide for online access to heritage documents and notices and Heritage Council hearings, and I will come back to expand a bit on that.

The second purpose is to provide for exclusion determinations, and that will allow for applications to exclude places and objects from the Victorian Heritage Register. Finally, the purpose of the bill is to make other general amendments which will clarify and improve the operation of the Heritage Act.

In terms of the main provisions, the bill makes a number of amendments in relation to notices and publication and inspection of documents:

These amendments are intended to allow for the publication and inspection requirements of the Principal Act to be met in a more modern and flexible manner which would minimise the disruptions associated with social distancing measures, such as those imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That in our view is common sense if you look at what we have been through in the two years of the pandemic, where our practices moved on to dealing with things online or using modern technology to meet or get access to documents, and so this is really catching up. If anything, there are a few on our side of the house who were a bit surprised that here we are in 2023 and these measures were probably needed back in 2020–21, COVID years, so we are fully supportive of the intention to minimise the disruptions associated with social distancing measures and those imposed during COVID-19. That just makes sense, and I think – touch wood – if we ever had a pandemic again or circumstances where that was required, all these measures would allow common sense to prevail there. The explanatory memorandum says:

The Principal Act contains a number of notification and publication requirements, as well as requirements that certain documents, the Heritage Register and Heritage Inventory be made physically available for inspection. The amendments made by this Division provide for the Heritage Council and Executive Director to comply with these requirements via online publication provided the Heritage Council and Executive Director continue to facilitate inspections by persons upon request.

So, again, that just outlines that main provision there in terms of notices and publication and inspection of documents.

The bill also makes a number of amendments in relation to hearings conducted by the Heritage Council, and again the view formed by us was that this is supported – common sense. The memorandum says:

Part 12 of the Principal Act governs the conduct of Heritage Council hearings. Division 2 of Part 2 of the Bill makes a number of amendments to Part 12 to allow the Heritage Council to conduct hearings electronically. The purpose of these amendments is to provide the Heritage Council with greater flexibility in conducting proceedings and also minimise the disruptions associated with social distancing measures, such as those imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To hark back to the point I just made, conducting or having the ability to conduct online hearings is just common sense in this day and age. I mean, we are all members of Parliament. We are in the people business. I for one like a face-to-face meeting and like to engage with people in a face-to-face manner but recognise there are times when online meetings, or online hearings in this case, make sense, or provision to allow for them makes sense. We hope certainly that hearings will still be conducted in a face-to-face manner and allow that interaction in these important matters, but we do recognise that this bill does amend the act to allow greater flexibility in conducting those proceedings online and minimising the disruptions associated with, again, social distancing measures and those imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill provides for exclusion determinations. This allows applications to the executive director of Heritage Victoria to exclude a place or object from the Victorian Heritage Register. Applications are likely to be made where there is some possibility that a place or object has some heritage value or where this remains unclear. This is an important part of the bill. We explore this in great detail. The process will allow the significance of the heritage place or object to be established and considered in the planning stages of a project.

I will just turn briefly, if I can, to the minister’s second-reading speech, which clearly outlines the intent here:

Government agencies tasked with delivering major transport projects in Victoria have sought greater certainty on their obligations under the Heritage Act. Agencies have sought a way of establishing the heritage significance of any place or object affected by a major project early in the planning stages. Under current legislation, there is a significant risk that major transport projects will be disrupted or delayed by the receipt of a new nomination from a third party after works have started.

Again, referring to the minister’s second-reading speech:

The Bill will create greater certainty for these projects. This is achieved by allowing agencies to apply to the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria to exclude a place or object from the Victorian Heritage Register. Applications are likely to be made where there was some possibility that a place or object have some heritage value or where this remains unclear.

Of course when members first read that their antennas went up a bit or concerns were raised: how is this process going to operate, and what confidence can we continue to have that it will not be used for short cuts in projects? But upon exploring that and getting information from the minister’s office those concerns were dealt with. I have had a number of discussions with my colleagues, and I make the point that this does not change a process or take a short cut or put something behind closed doors. All it really does is frontload the process. There are only inclusions now in the act, and this gives exclusions, which allow for a proactive assessment. It frontloads all the planning. All the planning is done up-front, and that gives greater certainty to projects. Certainly people I spoke to in industry and industry representatives talked about this. In planning any project or with any project management, they cannot see why this is not done; it is a good idea. As I have argued, if we were in government we would also probably look at doing something like this rather than getting into those long-term projects and then part way along the process finding something that may or may not have heritage value and then be uncertain how that should be dealt with. If that can be identified at the start and at least dealt with, that gives greater certainty to the project or allows that matter to be dealt with first up.

Again, we have to be very clear here. It is not short-circuiting and it is not prohibiting proper due process to take place; it is really just allowing those to be identified earlier on and dealt with. On a major project, for example, we could say, ‘Well, we know that’s got heritage value. We need to deal with it in a certain way. We’re unclear of this and we’re uncertain of that. Let’s look at getting it assessed and finding out if it should be included and kicking off that process or if it should be excluded.’ So it is all about frontloading and it is all about allowing applications for exclusion, and we are comfortable on this side of the house with the safeguards that are built in.

I will refer members of this place to the explanatory memorandum. I think the part 3 ‘Exclusion determinations’ are dealt with from clause 19 onwards, and if you read through a number of clauses after that, right up to clauses 20, 21, 22 and onwards, you will see the sort of process that is involved, right up to and including clause 24. The process involved gives us some confidence, as I said, with the concerns that were raised about that process. Again I thank the minister’s office for clarification on how that works and for giving us that confidence and allowing us to ask questions about how that will operate, what the process will be and how it will work. I think that deals with the applications for exclusion, where that sits in the bill and our assessment of that.

Finally, the bill makes a number of other general amendments. In my time it was not my intention to go through all of those, but they are dealt with in the bill and certainly in the explanatory memorandum. On page 26, part 4, ‘General amendments’, talks about a number of other general amendments there. I will not use my time to go into detail on those. They are fairly straightforward and did not cause us any grief or concern there.

There was, however, one area of concern which was raised in relation to clause 100, and that is on page 33 of the explanatory memorandum, or page 90 of the bill. The point that was raised with me was that clause 100 substitutes a new subsection (4) into section 201 of the principal act. This amendment empowers an inspector or authorised person to enter an unoccupied residence if either the owner of the residence has given written consent to the entry or in the absence of written consent after two days clear notice has been given to the owner of the residence. Subsection (4) as amended also continues to provide for entry into occupied residences with the consent of the occupier.

So again, this just raised the antenna for us to say, ‘Well, how does this operate, and what is fair in these circumstances?’ The advice at the bill briefing we were given was that the only person who can authorise entry is the occupant, but this deals with unoccupied residences. Examples were given to us where you might have a situation where an inspector has to get in very quickly and have a look at a place that needs early assessment. So therefore it is really a balance between what is fair notice to the owner or the person responsible for an occupied residence and what is practical in terms of being able to get in there for early, quick assessments. So we just reassured ourselves about the process – how that would work, whether two days is enough and in what sort of circumstances.

Talking to people in industry about how this practically operates, I am confident as the lead speaker on this bill that that process will work well, but I understand the concerns that were raised, because what if a person is absent, in hospital or away? In any of those sorts of examples, is it fair and would two days be adequate time? With many of these things it is a leap of faith, of confidence, that this will be used in the proper way, and we trust and hope that it will. But again, it was something worth exploring at the bill briefing on behalf of stakeholders and on behalf of my colleagues just to assess that ‘two days’. But we understand the argument there – if you need to get in and assess a place fairly quickly, there needs to be provision for that. I think from memory, or if my notes serve me correctly, it is not a common way of accessing an unoccupied residence. Normally the process operates quite well to allow an inspector to get in. Nevertheless, I did want to put that concern about clause 100 on record and just talk about the absence of written consent after those two days clear notice so that people are aware that we did raise that.

As always, I did just want to spend a little bit of time putting on record my thanks to the people involved in the bill briefing. When you get bills that come into this place, as a shadow minister you are often left with a short period of time. When a bill is introduced on the Tuesday of a sitting week and second-read on the Wednesday, you have virtually got a fortnight before the bill might come on for debate to get feedback from your colleagues, to seek feedback from stakeholders, to have a bill briefing, to form a view and to run through party processes, and that can be a very tight time frame. Certainly the minister’s office is working us pretty hard. I think we have got another bill in this week, so this is the third in three or so weeks. But we did manage to run that process well. We went out to a number of important stakeholders who were engaged by email, phone and other invitation to make comment on the bill. No concerns were raised by any of the stakeholders. In fact I think we had shadow cabinet on Monday and one of the stakeholders did email me after and basically put on record that they had no concerns and they were consulted, so it was good to see that process worked well.

The other point I want to make is that I have held a number of shadow portfolios over my time in this place and I have always enjoyed a good working relationship with ministers and ministerial office staff, but I do want to put on record my appreciation for the way that Aidan Wright has conducted himself. He has been nothing short of professional. He gives timely information –

James Newbury interjected.

David HODGETT: Well, I think credit where credit is due, Manager of Opposition Business. The Minister for Planning was in here at the table before, and I thought I might be damaging his career by saying that we are getting great assistance from the minister’s office. The minister, if she is listening, may well run back and say, ‘Stop being so helpful. Make it hard for these buggers.’

A member: Offering him a job, are you?

David HODGETT: Well, who knows how he votes? He could be a professional staff member, and I am not imputing that at all.

Aidan, who I know is here in the chamber at the moment, always conducts himself very professionally and gives timely bill briefings and timely follow-up information, and I just want to place on record my thanks, because it does help me as a shadow to allow smooth processing of the way we want to conduct our assessment and scrutiny of bills. There will be times when we support – when we do not oppose – and when we oppose bills, and we respect that relationship, but it is good to have questions put and answered. For example, we run through party processes, and we had a follow-up question from one of my colleagues. It actually asked about the minister’s powers to be able to intervene in respect of registration management review of heritage permits. Again, I was able to put that through Aidan in the minister’s office and got a thorough response both outlining the minister’s powers and the process with heritage registrations and permit reviews, and I was able to feed that back to colleagues. When you get this information it either alleviates fears or concerns or reinforces them and allows us to form a firm position on the bill. In this case the amendments to the Heritage Act clarify the minister’s call-in powers in respect to permit reviews by ensuring the minister takes into account the same matters considered by the executive director when determining a permit review and that the same parties that can be heard and make submissions at an ordinary Heritage Council permit review hearing also have these rights when the minister is making the decision. So again, I am very thankful for that information and the opportunity to have multiple dealings with the minister’s office.

Just to finish that off, I thank Aidan Wright but I also thank Amanda Bacon from Heritage Victoria and, I think, if my notes serve me correctly from the bill briefing, Nick Mann and Steven Avery, also from Heritage Vic, who again provided a thorough bill briefing, good information and answers to our questions.

James Newbury: I have got a lot of outstanding constituency correspondence. Can I send it to Aidan?

David HODGETT: Send it through. We can work Aidan pretty hard. He has got plenty of time on his hands. We can do that.

In conclusion, we did go through that stakeholder consultation. There were no concerns raised, so we formed a view that the bill is straightforward and makes a number of practical improvements. The bill modernises the legislation and increases public visibility of Heritage Act processes by allowing online access to key documents and notices via the Heritage Victoria or Heritage Council websites. Public access to Heritage Council hearings will also be enhanced with a process for hearings to be held using audio or video links, and furthermore I am satisfied with the exclusion determinations, the process of how that will work and the built-in safeguards. As such, we have taken the position of not opposing this bill, and I look forward to having the opportunity for many members on our side of the house to make contributions on this bill over the coming day.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (18:54): I very much enjoyed the Shadow Minister for Planning’s contribution and maybe was hoping he could keep on going there for a few minutes, but I very much enjoyed the –

A member interjected.

Katie HALL: To be fair to the shadow minister at the table, I thought his acknowledgement of Aidan was excellent, and I am very pleased that they are not opposing this sensible bill.

We have got a few minutes for some Footscray history chat, which I know you are all probably looking forward to. This bill seeks to ensure that the historic beauty of our state, where appropriate, is preserved and celebrated. The bill makes several changes to primary functions within the existing legislation. As the shadow minister outlined, this bill responds to a number of issues that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic and improves access to heritage processes. It allows for notices and documents held by the Heritage Council and the executive director to be available for inspection in person as well as online.

But given I only have a few minutes, I might get straight to the Footscray history chat, because one of my favourite things to do is to talk about all of the beautiful heritage sites we have in Melbourne’s inner west and how important it is to preserve that history. My electorate of Footscray has very rich First Nations, Victorian and industrial heritage. We have, sadly and inevitably, over time lost a number of significant buildings. I can think of a few pubs that we have lost to apartment blocks over the years. You just have to walk down Barkly Street and look above the awnings to see some of Melbourne’s best Victorian architecture and places that certainly deserve protection, although I would note that this bill does deal with state significant sites. It is very important to have a proactive council that works on their heritage overlays.

As I mentioned, Footscray in the second half of the 19th century was the industrial powerhouse of Australia. During the war and Great Depression era we provided the engine room of Australia’s war efforts. Some of those significant buildings, I am pleased to report, are still intact, including the gunpowder storage facility of Jacks Magazine, which was built in 1878. If you have the opportunity during Open House Melbourne to go and check out Jacks Magazine, it is absolutely worth doing. Another favourite part of Footscray’s heritage I have is the beautiful old grand theatres that were built during the boom era in Footscray and in the early 20th century. Many of those are still intact. They perhaps need a little bit of love, but it is great that they are still there.

We have places like Footscray Park, which has one of the oldest and most substantial Edwardian gardens in Australia. That was paid for and fundraised for by the people of Footscray, who wanted to have a park of similar significance to other suburbs of Melbourne along the Maribyrnong River, which was home to many of the industrial sites and factories, mostly abattoirs, near the Kensington meatworks. A bit of Footscray history chat to round out our Wednesday evening, but I am really pleased that this bill builds on our work in heritage.

One of the things that I was most excited about in the election campaign was the announcement that we would make sure our live music venues are protected with new overlays.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt business now. The member may continue their contribution when the matter is before the house next.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.