Thursday, 9 March 2023

Heritage Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Sonya Kilkenny:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (10:09): It is a pleasure to rise and make a few short comments on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023, and I will keep my contribution relatively brief given the fact that we are not opposing this bill. It does seem a rather uncontroversial bill that will provide for online access to heritage documents and notices and Heritage Council hearings and allow for applications to exclude places and objects from the Victorian Heritage Register. That is one small element of this bill that I would like to make a few points on.

We are told in the second-reading speech that this is to appease government agencies that are running into problems that they encounter in undertaking major projects with a prospect of new nominations from third parties for heritage listing after the works on that project have already started. This can have some obvious implications with delays, and we all know in the construction industry that delays equal costs. So this bill will now allow agencies to apply to the executive director of Heritage Victoria to exclude a place or object from the Victorian Heritage Register. But what is important to mention here is that applications will be made where there is a thought or a possibility that a building or object may be heritage listed, or whether it remains unclear whether it should or should not be heritage listed and this will, I guess, fast-track a determination.

In making an application, it does not automatically exclude that place or object; it goes under assessment and the executive director will either be satisfied that it does not qualify for heritage listing and then obviously a development can continue because it does not meet the threshold for inclusion, but if it does have the potential for inclusion, it will then go under assessment and that assessment will be fast-tracked so that those who are undertaking major projects know what they are dealing with. Either way it will allow the significance of a place or object to be taken into account in the earlier planning stages of the project rather than bumping into issues later down the track.

The bill also outlines a number of other areas where changes are being made, and they relate to consents around archaeological sites and entering places or objects on the Victorian register. It allows things like minor permit amendments to be made without paying a fee and permit exemptions to be revoked if they do not reflect the best heritage practice and requires permits to be issued in 45 business days rather than 60 days. As our lead speaker the member for Croydon pointed out in his address, these are all steps that improve the system and make it more streamlined, and they are issues that we do not object to.

Whilst we are talking about heritage listings, there is one area that I would like perhaps to be considered in any future amendment bills and that relates to what can be done in relation to alterations that can be made to heritage-listed buildings. Some will argue that there is not a grey area, but it seems difficult for communities to get accurate information on what can and cannot be done in relation to altering a heritage building or object, and I want to cite one example. In the middle of Bairnsdale we have a long-disused water tower. Those who have visited Bairnsdale will have seen this magnificent structure right in the middle of town – as you are entering from Melbourne it is probably slightly more sited to that side. It was built in 1926 and was heritage listed as part of the Bairnsdale pumping station. Obviously that is located some distance away, but it was all tied up in the one heritage listing. The pumping station is historically significant as it is the most intact example in Victoria of an early municipal pumping station. There are two key phases in the development of the pumping station and they were designed by two of Victoria’s leading engineers at the time – a chap called John Grainger and a far better known chap called Sir John Monash who went on to have a very, very significant military career and is known by many as being our greatest soldier – so it seemed fit to be listed. The trouble is that the tower element in Main Street has become an extraordinary eyesore and the community for years has wanted to get it painted, have lights projected onto it or do something to make it a more attractive proposition for visitors to our town but obviously the confines of the heritage listing restrict what they can do. But the community has for some time had an extraordinarily difficult time trying to find out exactly what they can and cannot do.

That water tower – while we are talking about John Monash – was constructed by a chap by the name of Frank Loud, who was one of the first ashore at Gallipoli. He was originally from Queensland but came back, settled in Bairnsdale and built the first concrete structure in Bairnsdale, which was the Big Garage, a Holden dealership for many, many years after it was the Big Garage. So Frank Loud, who settled at Mount Taylor and built the Bairnsdale water tower, was in the first boat ashore at Gallipoli. I know a lot have made that claim, but there is very strong evidence to suggest he was.

There is another community group I think for the umpteenth time presently exploring what they can and cannot do with that water tower. As we drive around the community, we see other water towers painted; other silos have got magnificent art on them, and they obviously do not have that heritage listing attached. But I would hope that we can have a process in place that can perhaps better assist communities in assessing what can and cannot be done to these heritage-listed structures and finding that balance between preserving the historical significance and avoiding having an eyesore in the town. I will conclude my contribution with that point, in the hope that that can perhaps be progressed to offer a more detailed, quick and simple system to communities who are seeking that information.

Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (10:16): It is with some pleasure this morning that I rise to speak on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023. When I was looking through this particular bill and thinking about the contribution that I might make to debate on this bill as it proceeds through this chamber, I reflected on my time serving as a councillor with the City of Ballarat, way back in 1999. Of course those that are familiar with Ballarat might recognise that Ballarat has a significant amount of built heritage, and indeed most of the landscape of inner Ballarat has not changed since it was established back in the 1880s and 1890s, a time of extraordinary wealth in Ballarat, funded by the gold rush of the 1850s through to the early 1920s. That heritage in large part came under threat in the 1980s and 90s as developers sought out those inner-Ballarat properties and sought to in many ways trash the heritage that had been in place going right back to the gold rush.

The City of Ballarat, the councillors at the table, which included me, proceeded to work through the arrangements of the planning act, the heritage act and our planning scheme to make sure that we very clearly defined what those heritage structures were, which ones needed to be recognised and protected and which streetscapes needed that level of protection in the planning scheme. I would hope that as a consequence of the work of that council back then there is now in the context of Ballarat, a very historic town, a very clear understanding of what can be developed and under what circumstances, because the heritage arrangements and the planning scheme arrangements that were put in place back then made it clear – and to be frank, the work was done at a municipal level to define it, to protect it and to recognise it where appropriate.

I think, in reflecting on the Big Build and the massive volume of very significant builds that is happening right now in the state of Victoria as we deliver the Andrews Labor government’s Big Build agenda, what we do see is that people are looking to exploit the lack of work that in so many ways should have really been done by different local government bodies throughout Victoria to adequately define what heritage exists within their municipalities and what arrangements ought to be put in place. What we have seen, I think unfortunately, is people looking to exploit that lack of work that has been done, to slow down, and to stop in some instances, the delivery of the Big Build. This has profound real-world consequences for Victoria, because that Big Build agenda could be the development and building of social housing, and delaying the delivery of that social housing may see people who need homes, who cannot afford to find those homes through private sector arrangements, not being able to get the roofs over their heads that they so desperately need.

But it also could mean those that are stuck in Melbourne’s congestion not being able to access the infrastructure that the Andrews Labor government wants to build to decongest our city and make it easier for Melburnians and Victorians to move around our city. That has consequences for their family lives and it has consequences for the commerce of the state, because congestion ultimately has a profound impact on inflation and our economy and it has a profound impact on the way people move through our city. It often means people cannot enjoy a life outside of the car to the extent they would because they are spending so much time in the car.

It also has a profound effect on the capacity of central agencies to be able to predict the costs of building infrastructure, because delay very much does equal cost blowouts. I think these arrangements that we are seeking to put in place will mean that there will be much greater clarity around how the heritage acts can be used in making sure that that work is done early on so that those things can be recognised and dealt with appropriately early on as opposed to being used to hijack a project or to delay the delivery of a project, which does have terrible consequences.

I would also take the opportunity to say that with all of these things, getting that pendulum right between protecting the heritage of Victoria and recognising that we do need to put in place new economically enabling infrastructure to make our state work as best as we can, we need to make sure that these investments that we wish to make to make Melbourne work – particularly Melbourne – can be done in a way that is predictable and plannable. At the end of the day what I would certainly be saying to local governments around the state and to local communities around the state is do the work, protect your heritage, recognise it in planning schemes where appropriate. If you do that, that will assist the state when we deliver our Big Build to recognise that heritage rather than enabling these things to be used to hijack projects.

I would say that, by the nature of these projects, from time to time heritage-significant sites will be discovered early on in a construction project. In fact, as part of the Big Build in Geelong, in renovating one of our train stations the contractors did discover some heritage that had otherwise been lost, buried under some asphalt. Some arrangements were put in place to recognise that heritage, and I look forward to some further work being done. It does happen from time to time. We need to make sure that we have got the pendulum struck right so that when that does happen we can assess that quickly and make an assessment as to whether that discovered heritage is worthy of protection even if it had previously escaped recognition.

This bill is important. It will enable us to deliver the infrastructure commitments that we took to the people of Victoria in 2014, 2018 and 2022. We need to get the balance right. I think these arrangements do get that balance right. It is still incumbent on local communities to recognise their heritage and make those applications through their planning scheme amendments and the like, and I would encourage communities to continue to do that work where they appreciate it. I am looking forward to this bill passing this place.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:27): I am delighted to rise and make a brief contribution on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023. We know that this bill is to 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 three main reforms: firstly, to provide for online access to heritage documents and notices and Heritage Council hearings; secondly, to allow for applications to exclude places and objects from the Victorian Heritage Register; and thirdly, to clarify and improve the operation of the Heritage Act. The bill is pretty straightforward and, as you have heard from previous speakers, we will not be opposing this bill. It 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 audiovisual links. Online access to heritage documents is a benefit, particularly to regional Victorians, who sometimes have a hard time accessing and sourcing the documents they need for their research. It is fair to say that in many instances the type of person who is doing the research on local heritage as a hobby tends to be older or retired, meaning it is harder for them to visit places in Melbourne or other major centres to view documents or hearings. This is in line with the recent trend towards having greater accessibility of various databases through online access. The bill also changes the notification and publication requirements for the said documents.

The work the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria do is vital in ensuring our history is preserved for future generations. By making it easier to host hearings via online forums we are allowing more Victorians to participate in the heritage process, which can reveal important stories of our past. Our history and our heritage are things we should cherish. They tell a story about the way things were, the daily struggles and challenges and the lifestyles that those before us led, and this is why preserving our heritage is so important, as is providing more Victorians with an opportunity to partake in the heritage process. More often than not the people with the greatest understanding and knowledge in the areas of heritage have lived their whole lives in towns such as Wangaratta, Bright or Cobram and know all the stories. They are the kinds of people who if you go to the local for a drink will be in the corner telling tales of yesteryear. They have an amazing knowledge of the area and their local community. These are the people we should be reaching out to and providing more access and input to when it comes to local heritage. By providing online avenues, more people with vast local knowledge will be able to contribute to the discussion, particularly in regional Victoria.

There is a great deal of history and heritage in my electorate, perhaps most notably in Glenrowan where the infamous Ned Kelly and the Kelly gang laid siege to the Ann Jones Inn. Whilst the inn is no longer there, the location is still preserved for future generations. There are also numerous buildings, bridges, locations and items throughout the Ovens Valley that hold heritage value, and as I said before, they tell the story of our towns and the history of the Ovens Valley. The benefit of a more accessible heritage process is not just to the experts and academics of the regions, but also the young students, those with a curious mind and a passion for local history. By feeding the fire of their passion we are able to bring up a new generation of young people with expertise in local history who can continue to pass on the stories of our great regional towns. They can continue to look after those precious heritage items and continue to protect the tapestry of our history in the towns from which they come.

History is precious and heritage is important. It forms our identity, it helps shape our beliefs as people and it delivers stronger local communities. We cannot change history, but we can preserve it for future generations to tell the story of how life used to be. By providing greater accessibility more people are encouraged to partake in the heritage process to understand their own personal history and how we got to where we are today. Regional Victoria has a rich history, yet the least access. There is so much more to be learned and shared about the small towns, the old buildings and the significant places that are all around. I know that by providing online hearings this rich history will be shared and all connections and history discovered. From churches to pubs, from homes to businesses, from parks to bridges, the history of our great regional towns should continue to tell the story of Victoria. They should be protected and the history around them should be easily accessible. Greater knowledge leads to greater understanding, and a greater understanding of our own history will allow us to build upon that great tapestry in the future. As I said at the beginning, we will not be opposing this bill.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (10:32): It is an honour to rise to speak on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023 and make a contribution in this place. It was very interesting listening to the member for Ovens Valley talk about our regional towns and the history that is in those towns, which is and always should be preserved. It takes my mind back. I was sitting here smiling because I was thinking of a recent trip that I took the family on, a camping trip. We were heading north to Sydney, and instead of stopping for a very early morning breakfast at McDonald’s we always stop at Euroa before we go on to cross the border. We stop at Euroa for a couple of reasons. It is an absolutely gorgeous town. It has a fantastic cafe that you can take dogs to and sit out the back, because my little beagle Ringo Starr loves chewing on the bacon out there. When we go for a little bit of a walk around the block to stretch our legs before going back to the car and the camper trailer, there is actually an old bank there that I realised this time on the recent trip going north was held up or robbed by Ned Kelly. It was wonderful to see. It was very unexpected for me, but I love the fact that it is in the middle of the town and I just happened to be stretching my legs and looking at a plaque on a wall in celebration of this – what would I say – romantic figure in Australia’s bushranger history and early colonial history, Ned Kelly.

So bills like the Heritage Amendment Bill here before this house are indeed very, very important. Like the Human Source Management Bill 2023 that we debated last sitting week, this bill acquits legislation that was introduced into Parliament last year before the last election. Nevertheless this bill is actually going to go ahead and build upon our government’s record of improving protections for heritage buildings. In the last term we moved to protect heritage buildings from being knocked down by developers who could wear the penalties for doing so. It was something very important to do, to ensure that our buildings important to Victoria’s history and indeed our nation’s history are protected, even from being demolished by builders that have enough money to go ahead and pay the penalty when they knock them down.

Just last month we passed the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which has since, I see, received royal assent, and which provides protection for special landscapes like our beautiful Macedon Ranges, which I know the member for Macedon talks so passionately about in this house. Again it is somewhere that I love to go with my family and take the kids and my little beagle Ringo Starr to explore some of the beautiful sites, scenery and walks in the Macedon Ranges – and indeed our incredible Surf Coast.

This bill builds upon those changes and makes several positive reforms to Victoria’s state heritage system. We know that heritage sites are so important to the communities they are part of. It is something that I find increasingly as I get older – I reflect on the importance of preserving these sites and continuing to look for ways in which we can do it better and improve upon the laws, policies and reforms that we have made in this house in previous bills in previous years and look at how we can do that better and offer more protection to sites that are increasingly becoming more and more important to local communities. It is why the Living Heritage program has gone ahead and invested over $60 million in funding to protect these sites since 2016, and that has supported nearly 200 conservation projects.

When I think of some of these heritage sites I am reminded of how significant locations exist in the Laverton electorate. The Laverton electorate might not have these sort of romantic figures like Ned Kelly from Australian history, but the greatest example that comes to mind would definitely be the old Massey Ferguson complex located just a few kilometres south of the Sunshine Marketplace. This was the original site of Hugh Victor McKay’s industrial complex, which gave rise to the Sunshine community in the early 1900s. For a bit of history in relation to that for members sitting here in the house today, the workers in McKay’s grain harvesting factories were housed close by, which formed the basis of the suburb of Sunshine.

For a little bit of Labor history, this industrial site was the basis for the Harvester decision in 1907, which introduced to Australia the concept of the minimum wage. Today this site is integrated into our Sunshine Marketplace, with part of the remaining factory housing our wonderful Visy Cares Hub. As many of my western suburbs colleagues would know, the Visy Cares Hub is home to a number of incredible and passionate youth support services, including Headspace, YouthNow and Westjustice. I was very lucky before the election to go ahead and do a tour and see these organisations and services in full flow. It is quite remarkable what they are doing there and the support they offer young people in my local community and indeed the western suburbs. I think I visited there with the member for Kororoit.

Luba Grigorovitch: We did, yes.

Sarah CONNOLLY: Yes, that’s the building. Of course I cannot talk about Sunshine and heritage without mentioning the John Darling flour mills in Albion, just a few kilometres north. I know that is a site that so many locals absolutely love and appreciate. They would love to see the heritage of those flour mills retained whilst also activating what could be, and I very much hope will be, an incredible precinct, a busy precinct in and around our brand new Albion station – that $80 million rebuild that we announced just before the election. We will go ahead and rebuild that station from the ground up with $80 million.

These sites are really important to so many locals for a lot of different reasons, and I think it is increasingly so important that our laws go ahead and reflect that. It is reflecting community expectations. The bill seeks to do just that whilst also tackling a number of issues that have arisen over the last couple years in relation to the heritage system. The changes in the bill were subject to extensive consultation and have the support of heritage bodies, non-government organisations and government agencies. One of the first major changes that this bill introduces relates to the way in which the government delivers infrastructure projects and their obligations under the Heritage Act 2017. It is an important change, but we know that under the current rules third parties can nominate to have a site listed as a heritage site in the middle of a major transport project, causing major disruption and delay, not to mention the associated cost.

Now, we know that there are times when major projects have massive implications for vast, vast areas of land and that this sometimes intersects with notable heritage-listed sites, but what is most important here is that we cannot have these issues arise in the middle of a construction period once everything else is underway. As it stands there is no ability for agencies responsible for delivering these major projects to confirm the heritage significance of a place or object during the actual planning stages of a project. So it is really important that agencies have a way of establishing the heritage significance of a site really early on and prior to a project commencing. The bill achieves this by allowing those agencies to go ahead and apply to Heritage Victoria’s executive director for a place or object to be excluded from the Victorian Heritage Register. It should be noted, though, that this does not mean that protections for heritage locations are being watered down in any way.

In the time I have remaining I take the opportunity to encourage members to go ahead and explore places, particularly around regional Victoria, that have such an incredible history that is really quite significant here to Victoria but also to our nation’s history. There are so many towns that I have been lucky enough to have taken my children to visit, and as a family that was not born and bred here in Victoria, time and time again it absolutely astounds me at how beautiful some of these towns and these sites are. I can think of so many incredible occasions and holidays and trips and drives through particular towns that we have had that are steeped in history.

Steve McGhie interjected.

Sarah CONNOLLY: Well, there are plenty more to go. That is right, member for Melton. So this long weekend I would encourage members to go out and explore those sites.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (10:42): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

I move that the debate be adjourned to discuss the important matter of the letter from the former commissioner for IBAC to the Speaker of this chamber and to the President of the other chamber. These are urgent matters. We have the former head of Victoria’s anti-corruption commission accusing this government of corruption, corruption by trying to subvert the processes of this Parliament, corruption by trying to interfere with the work of the independent auditor who was appointed to look into the work of IBAC – a government that is being faced with allegations potentially of criminal conduct, asking members of the auditing committee and IBAC to produce and release documents that would ordinarily be subject to secrecy and subject to confidentiality.

What the former commissioner for Victoria’s IBAC is actually alleging is that members of the government opposite were trying to suborn a breach of the IBAC legislation, a breach of the secrecy and confidentiality provision. What does this government think it is? A gang? What – it is going to heavy people? It is going to shake them down? This is disgraceful. And what makes it more disgraceful is that when asked about it this morning, what did the Premier do? The Premier just dismissed it like a childish brat. He dismissed it and said he had not seen the letter. Well, I do not believe that for a second. Maybe he can sell us a bridge in Sydney, but he knows about that letter, he knows what it said, he knows everything that has come through to the government. He has been –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, the subject of the debate and the point that the Leader of the Opposition has raised is quite narrow. It is an argument to adjourn the debate on a very, very important bill, our Heritage Amendment Bill 2023, and I ask you to bring him back to addressing the issue that he has raised. This is not an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to rant and rave and seek to make political points on a day when we have very important business to get through.

Members interjecting.

John PESUTTO: Well, well, well, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, is this on the point of order?

John PESUTTO: No, I take the –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, I will rule on the point of order. This is a procedural debate, and I ask that you stick to the procedure. Thank you.

John PESUTTO: The minister opposite is actually right. There is important business to transact in this house, important business related to the reputation of our state as a place that has a government that acts with principle, a government that acts with ethics, a government that acts with standards and principles. That is why it is important to shift procedures and move urgently to a discussion on the importance of these issues.

Let us just look at why that is important. Someone so esteemed, indeed so esteemed that the government opposite appointed Robert Redlich as the Commissioner for IBAC, is making serious allegations of serious wrongdoing and potentially criminal conduct. That is why it is important.

Mary-Anne Thomas: Again on a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is making a range of unsubstantiated allegations. Once again, this is a procedural matter, and what we are seeing here is a performance from the Leader of the Opposition designed to shore up support from his backbench.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition to continue. Please remain on the procedural motion.

John PESUTTO: Absolutely, Deputy Speaker. And again, the minister, as always, is correct. This is an important issue. It is important because allegations are being made by a very esteemed jurist and Victorian, Robert Redlich, who is accusing the Andrews Labor government of being corrupt. That is what he is alleging. And not just corrupt – he is alleging that potentially criminal behaviour has been engaged in. What could be more important than that?

Mary-Anne Thomas: Once again on a point of order, Deputy Speaker, in relation to relevance –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a procedural debate, and we must keep close to the issue. I appreciate you are raising an issue of adjournment –

John PESUTTO: On the point of order, if that is okay, Deputy Speaker, I was simply making the point that it is important to change the program that we are discussing here in the house –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Members interjecting.

John PESUTTO: I will get to my point of order in a short moment. The minister made some very valid –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired. The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat. His time has expired.

A member: You can’t shut someone down on a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: His time has expired.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, the leader is to come back to the debate. The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just ruled on the point of order.

John Pesutto: My contribution to the point of order was to justify such an important step in changing the program we are transacting here in this chamber. In order to achieve that it is necessary to describe in some detail why the matter is urgent, and corruption is urgent. Criminal wrongdoing is urgent. A dismissive attitude towards matters of corruption is important. That is why it is important for Victorians to see that their government is concerned with them and not themselves.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will remain in his seat. There is no point of order because the member’s time has expired.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Medical Research) (10:49): I rise today to oppose this motion to adjourn the debate on a government business program that has been determined already by the Parliament. We have a number of speakers from both sides of the house who have indicated their readiness and willingness to talk on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023, and indeed we have a further bill to discuss today. I oppose the motion that is being put by the Leader of the Opposition.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:49): Heritage is important but corruption is more important. Legislation is important but integrity is more important. That is why this debate needs to be adjourned now, because we have more important things that this house needs to deal with. This house needs to deal with the fact that the former Commissioner for IBAC has accused this government of corruption. And all of these patsies on the committee, all these little cat’s paws in the Premier’s office –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Malvern is making a series of assertions based on conjecture, based on nothing that is before the house, so therefore –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mary-Anne Thomas: It is on relevance, and I ask that you rule him out of order on the basis that he is not being relevant.

Michael O’BRIEN: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, firstly the embarrassment of the government is quite clear from the way that the Leader of the House keeps trying to jump up and interrupt every single speaker on this side and curtail our time for debate. What are they hiding? We know they gagged the IBAC Commissioner; they are now trying to gag the opposition as well. That is why. I am speaking about the reason that this business of the house needs to be adjourned immediately, because we have more important things to deal with, and I am happy to continue in that vein.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, there is no point of order.

Michael O’BRIEN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. So when we talk about the things that matter in this house, yes, legislation is important, yes, heritage is important, but we are talking about the need to debate whether this government is run by people of good integrity or whether it is run like a banana republic, because that is the import of the letter from former commissioner Redlich: that government members actually sought to do a political hit job on the anti-corruption commission. Why? As payback for the fact that IBAC was investigating actions of this Andrews Labor government. That is far more important. With great respect to heritage, it is far more important that we debate that now. It is far more important that we get answers. It is far important that we hear from former commissioner Redlich. It is far more important that we hear from the independent auditors, who were allegedly told to find dirt on IBAC. Who does this? Who goes out and says to an independent auditor, ‘We want you to find dirt on our anti-corruption watchdog’?

The trouble is this government does not want a watchdog, it wants a lapdog. That is what they want. It is why they stacked the Integrity and Oversight Committee, that is why they put in cat’s paws as chairmen of it all the way along and that the connecting room between the Premier’s office and the chairman’s office is –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the honourable member has been here long enough to know that reflections on members of this place are inappropriate. I ask you to warn the member.

Michael O’BRIEN: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think the allegations that have been put in writing to the Speaker of this house by, at the time, the Commissioner of IBAC are serious matters, and if the honourable minister is concerned that they should be tested, I would agree with him. Let us hear from commissioner Redlich. Let us get him before the house because I agree these are serious matters. In fact the minister’s concerns about this issue indicate why this debate should be adjourned right now – so we can move to more pressing matters.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, imputations against members are disorderly. Continue the debate on the procedural motion.

Michael O’BRIEN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Corruption is more important, with great respect, than heritage legislation, because when we have a corrupt government it means that people do not get their needs met. It means that hospital waiting lists blow out, it means that potholes do not get filled, it means we have a justice system which is crumbling, because the eyes of the government are off the ball. They are more interested in themselves than the people. That is the absolutely most important thing. Governments are elected to govern for the people, for Victorians, not for themselves, and whether it is the actions of the Assistant Treasurer, which have been examined by this house over a number of weeks, or whether it is this question here which has been alluded to by the former IBAC Commissioner, we have a government that is not in it for Victorians. They are in it for themselves. We need to explore this now. That is why we need to suspend this debate and move to an immediate discussion about this outrageous behaviour of Labor MPs seeking to bully and do a political hit job on our independent anti-corruption commission.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (10:55): I rise to speak against the motion. We are debating in this house – quite frankly, it is wonderful to see these people turn up to work for a change. Look at them.

Members interjecting.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is not an opportunity for the member to get up and sledge the opposition. These are very important matters – very important matters – being debated today about corruption in this state, and I would ask you to draw the member back to the tight debate and the question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will rule on the point of order. The member for Narre Warren South to stick to the procedural motion at hand.

Gary MAAS: Thank you for your counsel, Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak against the motion. We are debating a very important bill on heritage in this state. If we are sticking to the procedural motion, not every party in this house has had the opportunity to contribute to that debate. So on this procedural motion, I say that every party in this house should have the opportunity to be heard before any debate is suspended.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (10:56): Nothing could be more important than this house actually having oversight of executive government and decisions of an executive government and actually examining whether executive government is corrupt or not. I think the letter from the former commissioner clearly puts concerns out there that the current government, the Andrews government, has used their influence to try to subvert the functioning of IBAC by actually writing back to an independent auditor to say that a report needs to be changed. I think that is just blatant corruption in this state. And that is why this motion is so important. Yes, heritage is important, but those who are saying it is more important than corruption are defending the indefensible. This is about making sure that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition is successful and we can debate this particular issue because – I use the example quite often – it is like a boiling frog; it is creep, it is creep, it is creep. There is corruption coming into this state – soft corruption, hard corruption, not bags of money necessarily, but a nod and a wink.

John Pesutto: Not always.

Peter WALSH: Not always. And nepotism. It is about: I will cover your back, you cover my back, no-one else will know, and we will get ahead in life because we have mates in high places. This is about lifting the lid on the stench of corruption in this state, and that is what we are talking about. I think we all owe former Commissioner Redlich a vote of thanks for actually writing this letter and having the courage to write this letter. What I find offensive is the action since he has written that letter. That was sent to the Speaker and to the President with the very clear intention, as of my reading in the letter in the Herald Sun today, that it be made available to all incoming MPs. It is not about covering it up. It is not about holding it tight. It was written to the Presiding Officers of both houses so that it could actually be sent to all MPs, so that all incoming MPs would know his concerns about what has been going on in his five-year tenure of running IBAC in this state.

IBAC has been starved of money, it has had its powers is reduced and it cannot do the job that it was originally set up to do by us when we were in government. And it is about bringing back the opportunity for IBAC to actually lift that lid on the stench of corruption in this state and make sure that Victorians know what is really going on. As others have said, corruption means waste of money, means the kids do not get schools built, roads do not get fixed, we do not have the things that we need in this state because there is so much money being spent outside the system in the graft and corruption that goes on in this state. So I would urge those on the other side of the house to actually support the Leader of the Opposition in his motion. If those on the other side of the house actually truly believe in the Westminster system of Parliament, truly believe in democracy and the rule of Parliament over the executive government, they would actually support the Leader of the Opposition’s motion. When we bring this to a vote, if those on the other side actually vote against the Leader of the Opposition’s motion, they will be voting for a continued cover up.

Gary Maas: Give me a break.

Peter WALSH: The member may interject and say ‘Give me a break’. If the member does not actually understand the differences, he has been part of the system now for too long and knows it is all about cover-up, and we need this letter to be made public to actually have a true examination of it. Let us move the debate to talk about what the Leader of the Opposition thinks is important for this state and support his motion. It is just so important that this motion is passed, because if this motion is not passed and is defeated by the government, it will show that the government supports the cover-up, supports the –

Members interjecting.

Peter WALSH: We hear faint ahs, from the other side, of indignation. If you have got nothing to hide, why are you frightened of this motion? I urge those on the other side to go to the Herald Sun website, get a copy of the letter, read the letter and see what their government has been accused of. I urge everyone to support the Leader of the Opposition’s motion.

Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:01): A brief contribution to this debate on a procedural motion. This is just a stunt by those opposite: bring the media in, interrupt the business of this house –

John Pesutto: On a point of order, Speaker –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wendouree! On a point of order?

John Pesutto: Speaker, I was waiting for the house to quieten down.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much toing and froing across the chamber from both sides of the house.

John Pesutto: Speaker, my point of order is that my motion is quite narrow. It relates to the urgency that attaches to former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich and the letter he has sent to you and the President in the other place. I would ask that you draw the minister back to the motion I have moved and for him not to cast aspersions on those of us opposite but to deal –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Can you be succinct with your point of order, Leader of the Opposition?

John Pesutto: with the merits of my motion.

The SPEAKER: On the point of order, there is no point of order. It is a question of debate.

Colin BROOKS: I tell you what, the member for Bulleen would have done a much better job of this. The member for Bulleen would have been all over this.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! It must be Thursday.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the former Speaker should know a lot better than to behave like that in the chamber, and I would ask him to reflect on his behaviour.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Housing will speak to the motion before the house.

Colin BROOKS: Thank you, Speaker. In replying to the debate put forward by those opposite in this motion, it is very, very hard to cop some of the lessons over the table we got just then from the Leader of the Nationals on integrity and nepotism and the Westminster system. I remind the Leader of the Nationals about the Office of Living It Up – cronyism, jobs for mates –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Nationals will come to order.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a direct breach of the conventions of this place. What the minister is doing is outrageous, and I would ask you to bring him back to the tight procedural debate which he has not yet spoken to. We are 3 minutes into his contribution. He has not yet spoken to it, and I would ask you to bring him back to the debate.

The SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to come back to the motion before the house.

Colin BROOKS: Thank you, Speaker. I do not support the motion.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (11:05): I rise to speak briefly in support of the motion. While heritage legislation is not unimportant, the Greens are going to waive their right to speak on this bill, because this matter is just so much more pressing. It was very clear –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Tim READ: The outgoing IBAC Commissioner was very clear in his expectation that the letter in question would be made available to all members, and therefore we think that this is an urgent matter. We assume that the subject matter of the letter touches upon the membership of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which has a government majority and a government chair. It simply does not make sense – it cannot be justified, and you could not explain this with a straight face in any other jurisdiction – for a government-dominated committee to be responsible for oversight of the government. The natural history of government IOC members to then go on to become part of – often as ministers – the government that the committee is trying to hold accountable also does not make sense. In fact for all I know, some of them, if we think about it over the longer term, will probably have to go off due to an ‘IBAC’ injury. I feel as though it is critical that we debate the question of the non-receipt of this letter from the outgoing IBAC Commissioner. I feel as though that is more important than the certainly somewhat important heritage legislation, and therefore the Greens support this motion.

Assembly divided on John Pesutto’s motion:

Ayes (32): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, Ryan Smith, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson

Noes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, 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, Pauline Richards, 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

Motion defeated.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:14): As I rise to speak on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023, it is appalling that we have to return to this after seeing a gagged debate on probably the most important thing that we could be talking about in this house: corruption. Corruption issues which the Premier himself did not even front today to vote on. That is absolutely disgraceful and appalling. I cannot think of anything that we should be debating more right now in terms of integrity issues and corruption issues in the state. Never mind, we will move on and discuss the heritage bill, which we are now returning to. There are a number of things that are missing in this bill that are very, very important in terms of ensuring we strengthen heritage protections. It is interesting that during that last debate to adjourn off the heritage bill a number of people were talking about the importance of this particular bill. Well, let us differentiate between the importance of heritage and the importance of the actual bill, because yes, while heritage is important, a lot of the stuff that we have got in this bill is quite procedural, whereas what we were about to talk about was something that was crucial to each and every person’s role in this Parliament, and that is integrity issues – corruption issues. Really there is no more important thing that we should be talking about, and Victorians who are listening in at the moment would probably want us to be ensuring that we talk about that as a priority rather than the heritage –

Gary Maas: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, the member for Caulfield is 2 minutes into his debate and he is speaking about a previous procedural motion. I would ask you to bring him back to debating the actual bill at hand.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I was pointing out that the content of this heritage bill is by and large procedural changes to heritage and therefore I was giving the context in terms of that and other things that we are generally dealing with.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): Member for Caulfield, I ask you to come back and talk on the bill.

David SOUTHWICK: Thank you very much. As I was referring to in terms of this particular heritage bill, there are a lot of missed opportunities in terms of what should have been included in this particular heritage bill. Again it goes to the core of what this government does when it comes to cover-ups. I want to specifically refer to issues around heritage and cover-ups when it comes to issues around Caulfield Racecourse, which is a racecourse where the Minister for Planning overruled controls on a development and literally through the light of day allowed a number of significant trees to be cut down and forced the local community, including the Glen Eira Historical Society, to act to ensure they got interim heritage protection on the racecourse and now further protections on that racecourse. What this shows is that this government will go to any lengths to actually intervene on things that effectively are contrary to what the public want. We have seen that just in the last discussion we have just had around corruption and we are seeing it with heritage. It shows that this is a government that is just not fit to govern because they effectively –

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I do ask that you direct the member to come back to the bill before him.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a heritage amendment bill, and my point of order was specifically around the lack of heritage protection at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the failure of a previous planning minister to act.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): On the point of order is not to just repeat your argument. Do you have anything else to say on the point of order?

David SOUTHWICK: That I am in fact being relevant, because it is about heritage protection. This is a heritage bill, and I am talking about heritage protection and a failure of a previous minister to act, so I am being relevant.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): I uphold the point of order. Can you get back to talking on the bill.

David SOUTHWICK: That is bizarre, but I will continue. This is a heritage amendment bill, and the heritage amendment bill has not specifically covered some very, very important parts in terms of that heritage when it comes to how we protect and how we execute heritage within the state.

This comes to the core of ensuring that councils, that the Victorian public, are able to protect very significant areas – whether it be pieces of land, as it is in my particular instance, as I am referring to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. We also have other significant areas in Elsternwick as well. We need to ensure we have that protection, and that is fundamental to that. We have not seen that upheld, certainly when it comes to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, where we have seen a number of heritage trees destroyed at the racecourse as part of redevelopment. Now a heritage order has been made to include the racecourse in the Victorian Heritage Register. After considering the executive director’s recommendations and submission and conducting a hearing into the submissions, the Heritage Council of Victoria determined that the complete racecourse would be covered. This was done not by the government but by the Heritage Council of Victoria and the community. It was because of the failure of the government, the failure of the previous planning minister, to actually act and to do something to protect something that is very significant within our community. It is a significant piece of land, when you are looking at the racecourse itself, and it has not been protected. Buildings have not been protected and trees, including a Lone Pine tree, have not been protected – and in fact that tree was being cut down. And there is the appalling nature by which, as it was reported in January 2022, this was all done over Christmas – where a planning execution was done by the previous planning minister without proper consultation, without proper knowledge and certainly overruling, effectively, the will of what was intended in terms of the community.

You will not find a better example of where the community sentiment and very old buildings and trees have not been protected because of the government’s failure to act not only in terms of not having the legislative cover but also in terms of where you have got a former planning minister exerting their authority and signing off on something without having those proper controls in place, effectively destroying the heritage nature and composition of our community. We cannot continually have it left to the community to have to step up when the government has failed. The government continues to do things when it suits itself, but it certainly does not do the right thing when it comes to protecting the community.

Barbara Hoad and the Glen Eira Historical Society did step up. Barbara Hoad and the Glen Eira Historical Society should be commended for the work that they did in terms of managing this process, and many of the community around the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve also stepped up during that very crucial time – and the minister failed in terms of their action. The minister for the environment also failed, because this is a significant piece of land; we have got a Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust that was created by an act of Parliament. It was put before the Parliament here to protect these various buildings, to protect the actual racecourse reserve, and there was a failure.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I do ask that you bring the member back to the bill before us. This is a heritage amendment bill that is looking at exclusion applications and at making heritage council hearings more accessible to the public via online applications and the publication of material online. It is a very discrete bill, and I do suggest that the member for Caulfield is really straying into territory not covered by this bill.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this particular bill is very much about heritage protection. This is heritage protection when it comes to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, and that is what I am standing up for.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (11:25): It gives me great pleasure to rise to make a contribution to this very important bill, the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023. It would be slightly remiss of me not to make a couple of comments after the apparent rewriting of history by the member for Caulfield. The truth is that we actually know what the opposition’s record is when it comes to planning. For those of us who drive through Fishermans Bend –

David Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would ask you to bring the member back to the particular bill. As the Minister for Planning, who is at the table, has said, it is a very narrow bill –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): There is no point of order. I do not know what the time is, but I think we are about 2 seconds into the speech.

David Southwick: Acting Speaker, I think I am –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): I have ruled on the point of order.

David Southwick: I have not said my point of order, Acting Speaker. I have not had the opportunity to.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): Is there anything other than saying ‘Bring him back to the bill’?

David Southwick: I ask you to bring the member back to the bill. It is not an opportunity to attack the opposition but to talk specifically on –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): I did rule on that aspect of the point of order. The member for Narre Warren South, if you could continue speaking on the bill.

Gary MAAS: Thank you. By way of contrast, when we look at the opposition and their record, as I was alluding to, let us just take Fishermans Bend as an example. We all remember that pockets of land – very large pockets of land – were actually mysteriously bought by several, well, friends of the Liberal Party, really. And then later –

David Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, as the Acting Speaker ruled a number of times in terms of being relevant to specific heritage matters on the previous contribution, I ask you to do the same on this particular contribution by the member. His contribution has nothing to do with the specific heritage matters that we are talking about today. I ask you to bring him back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): Member for Narre Warren South, if you could come back to speaking on the bill.

Gary MAAS: Thank you for your guidance, Acting Speaker. I could speak about this all day, and by the looks of the clock that may well be. I will come back by way of comparison to speak to the opposition’s record, but as this is an important bill, I would like to make the point that there are several operational improvements that are being made to the Heritage Act 2017, and it is great to see that the opposition is supporting this bill. Key changes relate to the processes for issuing heritage permits, consents for archaeological sites, and entering places and objects into the Victorian register.

The amendments themselves will improve heritage outcomes and make it easier for people to engage with heritage in Victoria. By way of example, the amendments remove the requirement for the executive director to obtain consent from the Heritage Council before serving a written notice to show cause on an owner. This will allow action to be taken more quickly when there is evidence a property is at risk from neglect. The bill will enable minor permit amendments without requiring the applicant to pay a fee so that works or activities proposed by the application are less harmful to a registered place or object or deliver improved heritage outcomes. The amendments will increase certainty for owners – for example, by notifying them of decisions sooner and within set time frames – and the amendments will make it easier for communities and stakeholders to participate in heritage processes. Having online access – and amendments are being made to allow for this – will make it easier for community members to ensure that their views are heard. Changes in the bill will also prevent notification permits and other key documents over the Christmas period, when members of the community are less likely to be able to engage, and additional time has also been given through the bill for responsible authorities and councils to make submissions in the permit process. The bill builds on our record of protecting heritage sites across Victoria.

The point has to be made how extraordinary it is that the great protectors of heritage sites, the very vocal ones in this house, just recently, not more than 15 minutes ago, said they have forfeited their right – the Greens political party have forfeited their right – to speak on this bill, which I find absolutely extraordinary. There is some kind of really, really strange Liberal-Greens alliance which is going on in this place. When it comes to heritage it is only the red team, it is only Labor, who will protect heritage and get that fine balance right with further development in this great state.

If you look at our Living Heritage program, we have provided some $60 million in funding to protect Victoria’s significant heritage places since 2016. Earlier I was listening to the member for Laverton, and whilst we might look at the economic benefits of these sorts of programs, which are improving buildings across the state, it is actually the sentimental value that goes with all of that as well – the memories that all of us have that are preserved within us from spectacular places where we have been across this great state. The funding of that has supported some 185 conservation projects across Victoria, with over 130 completed already.

Special to me, and I am sure to you, Acting Speaker Halfpenny, is the Victorian Trades Hall over on Lygon Street, probably one of the better buildings in this great state, preserving workers heritage and all their achievements, including the 8-hour day, which is a phenomenon around the world but actually started here in Victoria. To make sure that there is funding that has been made available to go to that place is just extraordinary, and for anyone who has not been there lately, do yourself a favour and get down there, because it is looking really tremendous. And we must thank the conservative government at the time, who did actually put them down in that place. They were supposed to occupy a really, really small patch of land just down the road from Parliament, but the conservative government at the time said, ‘No, no, no. You go over there. You go down to Lygon Street’, where the building now has just a magnificent view over the whole of the City of Melbourne – a really fantastic thing and some great foresight by the conservative government at the time.

There is money which has gone towards the conservation works at the Queen Victoria Women’s Centre, the Ballaarat Mechanics Institute and the Hamilton Botanic Gardens too. We have also strengthened protections for buildings with local heritage protections following the illegal demolition of the Corkman hotel. Indeed at this point I will also note that during the last election campaign – some 12, 13, 14 weeks ago that ended now – this government made a commitment to developing a new planning overlay that will protect the use of live music venues for specific cultural purposes. It is only this government, it is only Labor, that will keep building on the cultural capital that these heritage-type places have to ensure that further cultural progress, be it through live music, through dance, through plays – whatever – will continue in this great state.

The bill itself will improve the operation of the Heritage Act and will keep building on our government’s record in planning for Victoria and managing the growth of our state while ensuring that Victoria’s best features are protected and enhanced. As I was alluding to earlier, we do know the record of those who are opposite, whether it is Ventnor, whether it is Fishermans Bend or whether it is those great skyscrapers that we see in the sky.

A member interjected.

Gary MAAS: Very touchy.

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member has been going for quite some time, and I gave him quite a lot of leeway, I would think, before I got to my feet to speak, on everything. It is not an opportunity to attack the opposition, and I ask you to bring him back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): I do not uphold that point of order. The member for Narre Warren South has been speaking on the bill for the majority. There has been leeway given to the opposition.

Gary MAAS: Thank you, Acting Speaker. Even at a local government level in my community, the City of Casey, we have seen so many inappropriate developments occur. We now see three- and four-bedroom houses on really small blocks of land, which has created the big squeeze in that outer south-eastern corridor. And they have not learned their lesson – it was only a few years ago they were promising to fast-track some 300,000 homes in the already under pressure outer suburbs. When it comes to planning, Victorians just cannot trust the coalition, and when I speak of the coalition I am speaking of a new coalition, the green–blue alliance that we have.

The bill will improve the operation of the Heritage Act. In metro Melbourne we are guided by a planning blueprint, Plan Melbourne 2017–2050. That plan supports jobs, it supports housing, it supports transport and it supports building upon Melbourne’s legacy of distinctiveness, livability and sustainability. You know what? Skyscrapers shooting out of the sky in South Melbourne do not fit. They just do not fit within that picture. Our nine regional partnerships are ensuring that local communities are front and centre in planning for the future of the regions. We have protected and enhanced Victoria’s best features, with stronger protections for heritage buildings and new protections against overdevelopment across Melbourne, including important landscapes in Surf Coast, Bellarine, Bass Coast and Macedon Ranges. We are also streamlining the planning process by cutting unnecessary red tape, increasing Victoria’s housing supply and creating thousands of jobs.

I note that the Minister for Planning is at the table. I would like to thank her and her predecessors for the hard work that has gone into putting this reasonably non-contentious bill before the Parliament, and I wholly commend the bill to the house.

Bill TILLEY (Benambra) (11:37): I rise to make a contribution on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023. As a number of other speakers have said, it is a fairly straightforward bill. It is practical, but of particular relevance to me as the current sitting member for Benambra and my constituents is the addition of exclusion determinations. Pulling that apart a little bit, I will get to the point, but as we go through the history –

A member: Get to the point, Bill.

Bill TILLEY: Yeah, good on you. See you, mate. As I understand it, applications are likely to be made where there is some possibility that a place or object has some heritage value or where that remains unclear. As we have heard in this place, the process will allow the significance of the heritage place or object to be established or considered in the planning stages of a project, and I am glad to see that the Minister for Planning is at the table. I thank her for the other matters that we are working on, and hopefully we will come to some resolve on that in the near future. But this is an important part as it relates to our local communities.

The important question really is: what is heritage? Taking you back to what the member for Laverton and the member for Narre over there – I am not sure whether he is Narre South or –

Gary Maas: South.

Bill TILLEY: south, thank you; Narre South. They were talking about romanticism and talking about a thing, Ned Kelly. Let me remind you that heritage has to recognise that Ned Kelly was a police murderer, a horse thief and a cattle duffer. He is not something bloody romantic. No wonder he was hung by the neck in the Melbourne Gaol, and similarly the other romantic figures. We have got to recognise heritage for exactly what it is and tell the truth, warts and all. Recently we were talking about brumbies, for example – there is real turn of foot and we are seeing some real mongrels. They have got to be controlled. The brumbies have to be controlled, but there is heritage value. They were instrumental during World War I with our mounted infantry. They were equine soldiers that were rounded up, trained and sent off with the mounted infantry, and they never came back, apart from one. We need to recognise the heritage value in things as well. The thing is that this Labor government would sooner shoot the bloody things off the skids of a rotary wing aircraft rather than recognise the heritage value of brumbies.

Getting to the point – and I am sorry I probably got off it a little bit, but these laws apply to those places on the heritage register and heritage inventory. But the question is: what happens to smaller communities and regional communities around Victoria? Once again, as the member for Laverton said, travel regional Victoria – come and see the real history. Now, this is where I am going to get myself in trouble. In Beechworth, the north-east of Victoria, they are real – not like the movie set in Ballarat we keep propping up all the time. I got in some trouble about that some years ago, and there is heritage value there, but the real stuff is in and around north-east Victoria. I look forward to the commentary that will come back to me over that.

Significantly, small communities need things, and I will talk a little bit about the turf club in Wodonga and some of the issues that have been raised concerning that, and they should be concerns of this government and the minister. The blanket protection goes with little guidance or direction. The Gordon White Grandstand at the Wodonga racecourse is the point that I want to get to. This building was condemned more than a year ago. Red tape – and there is tape right around the bloody thing – prevents patrons from even stepping on the first riser of the stairs to the grandstand. Wodonga turf club is a shared area with a number of community organisations, and this grandstand is significantly dangerous. But there are plans – good plans – for the future for that precinct. So you cannot use it. The suspended slab and the supporting posts in the timber frame are rotting. The main timber beam in the roof is twisted and out of shape. The building is skewed, perhaps caused by moisture in an embankment build-up on the grandstand.

I want to include in this contribution for the record that there is a town planning report by Habitat Planning investigating potential fixes. Found at page 12 of that report is a raft of issues:

The structural assessments have investigated potential options for repair of the structure. It recommends removing the soil from the front of the Grandstand and constructing a retaining wall to allow drainage away from the structure. An assessment of potential moisture damage to this section of the structure can only be made after the soil has been removed and stabilised. The damage to the structure from moisture ingress may be irreparable.

If, after the rotting timber has been replaced, the cracked concrete slab is topped, the earthworks and the retaining walk constructed and any potential moisture damage is assessed, the report also recommends further brick and/or steel reinforcement and buttressing to halt any further skewing. This involves significant works in and around the structure to achieve.

It has also been noted that further works will be needed within the structure to meet disability discrimination act compliance measures and that these will require physical intervention to the structure.

While the report outlines how the Grandstand might be repaired, there are expected to be ongoing maintenance and repairs required to the ageing building which will not likely be cost effective.

There have been three grandstands that have burnt down or fallen over. This one was constructed in 1926. This is the third iteration. It is heritage for heritage’s sake. Getting to the point here, it is that there is next to bloody no heritage in this, but they are using it in the planning stages to block future community benefits. This is an absolute case in point. It is an Edwardian style replacing a grandstand built near the finishing line at Wodonga. There was an earlier grandstand from the 19th century, but it was built in 1926. There have been so many add-ons. There have been volunteer efforts to try and cover all this over. The thing is, what has happened in Wodonga with this is the turf club wants to enhance the precinct, enhance the experience and create a convention space in Wodonga which we do not have. All our groups, everything from the arts –

Katie Hall: You have got a beautiful arts centre.

Bill TILLEY: You are going to have to speak up. I have got my hearing aids turned down. But anyway, we will catch up later.

But the point I am making is that council officers who have opposed this want to commit the Wodonga council to spending $1.5 million just to put lipstick on this pig with no guarantee of enhancing it or saving it – the bloody thing might still fall over – but hiding it under heritage is certainly wrong. They have not brought it before the council. The council has not even considered it. The turf club can take it to VCAT and try and fight this out, but these community groups –

Members interjecting.

Bill TILLEY: Yes, go on. I hope you have been taking notes on this.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I really appreciate the member’s local advocacy and passion for his community, but I would ask that he come back to the bill. The matters he has raised are matters that are probably more for his local council than of state significance and part of this bill. We appreciate all of the commentary here, but I would ask that the member be brought back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): I ask the member to come back to the bill.

Bill TILLEY: I am coming back to the bill. The point in the bill is what exactly defines heritage, and that is the point I have been making through this contribution. And yes, I appreciate it, so expect a significant amount of mail coming from Benambra, Minister. I will be looking for your further guidance on those matters as well.

I would argue that this is all a good start, but obfuscating in council offices, creating problems that should not be there and wasting ratepayers money is the wrong way to go about heritage. The council overlays should not be misused, as I believe they are in this case. I would argue that this bill is a start, but we need to look at these localised issues and a better way to assess heritage values and the merit of heritage overlays and how they are managed.

Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Minister for Planning, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (11:47): I would like to move that the debate be now adjourned.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Bronwyn Halfpenny): You have already spoken on the bill, therefore you cannot move the adjournment of the debate.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (11:47): I also rise to speak in support of the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023, which, as we have heard, seeks to amend the Heritage Act 2017.

The Heritage Act 2017 established the heritage register, which provides protections for historic places and objects of state-level cultural heritage significance in Victoria. It also established the Heritage Council of Victoria, the independent statutory body which decides which places or objects are added to the register and provides advice to the Minister for Planning. Further it established the Heritage Inventory, a list of all known historical archaeological or potential historical sites in Victoria.

The intent of the bill before us today is to improve and streamline the operation of the Heritage Act and respond to issues that arose particularly during the pandemic. In 2020, when restrictions prevented public movement, Heritage Victoria and the heritage council could not make documents available for the public to view in person at their offices, which is a current requirement of the Heritage Act. The bill 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. These changes will allow publication and document inspection requirements to be met in a more modern and more flexible manner, which will minimise the potential disruptions that we saw during the COVID pandemic.

The amendments will also allow the heritage council to conduct its hearings online by audio or audiovisual link, which will help boost engagement and ease participation. The bill will also prevent notification for permits and other key documents over the Christmas period when community members may be less able to be engaged. The changes will fundamentally modernise existing processes, enhance public access to statutory documents and make it easier for people to engage with the important heritage processes in Victoria.

The Box Hill district has a rich history, with many overlapping stories that make it the unique place that it is today. The Indigenous and traditional owners’ relationship with the land extends back 40,000 years. Subsequent early European settlement predates the gold rush, and many of the buildings date from the 1800s. The Box Hill area also gave rise to the Box Hill artists’ camp, which many people would know better as the Heidelberg School, but before they went to Heidelberg they actually were at Box Hill, down in Box Hill South along the banks of Gardiners Creek. Given that it was International Women’s Day yesterday I wanted to salute one of the women of the Box Hill artists’ camp. Many people have heard of Roberts and McCubbin and Streeton, but fewer have heard of Jane Sutherland, who was a member of the Box Hill artists’ camp. As was the practice in the day, she could not actually stay and overnight at the camp. She had to take the train each day to participate in the camp because no women were allowed.

There are many buildings and artefacts that continue to be part of the fabric of Box Hill and stem from a rich multicultural, commercial, faith, pastoral and wartime history. We have also got the living heritage. The Box Hill district includes the fabulous Wattle Park, and within Wattle Park one of the descendants of the original Lone Pine tree stands. A pine cone that had been taken from the Lone Pine tree at Gallipoli was, for want of a better word, maybe smuggled or pilfered back from the fields of Gallipoli.

A member: Acquired?

Paul HAMER: Acquired. It was propagated from that. From that cone, four Lone Pine trees were propagated, of which I believe only two survive, one down in the Warrnambool Botanic Gardens and one at Wattle Park in Burwood. All of the other Lone Pine trees that are available for sale or are at other war memorials across the country stem from one of those four pine trees.

There are also a number of sites within the Box Hill district that have state-level cultural heritage significance and have been placed on the Victorian Heritage Register, and they include the Box Hill brickworks, Wattle Park – as I mention, with its link to the Gallipoli campaign – the Blackburn War Memorial, Blackburn Lake and the Box Hill Cemetery Columbarium and the Myer Memorial, Box Hill Cemetery being the resting place of Sidney Myer.

History can be an elusive creature. It does not make itself readily known, and it must be pursued and identified and interpreted by those who know how to look. We are indebted – indeed we all are indebted across the state – to active and dedicated local historical societies. In Box Hill we have got two very active local historical societies, the Box Hill Historical Society and the Surrey Hills Historical Society. I just want to call out and acknowledge the activities of a number of individuals in those historical societies. In the Box Hill Historical Society are Helen Harris OAM and Gary Presland, and Sue Barnett is from the Surrey Hills Historical Society. This is where the importance of having access to information and that additional provision of that information online and not having to go and explore it in person is going to be so important. It is so important to particularly some of these volunteer organisations that naturally have less resources but have the ability and the availability of materials provided through the Heritage Council.

I do want to relay one particular story. I utilise the resources of the Box Hill Historical Society very, very frequently. As some members of the house might know, every year I put forward an award at our local schools for recognition of STEM achievement. I wanted to name it after a local pioneer in STEM. It was very difficult to find a name. I did find a single name that I came upon in a Wikipedia article. I am not really one to trust Wikipedia necessarily on all the facts and figures, so I went to the historical society and the historical society were able to provide me all of the information, right down to when the individual had moved into the area, the house that she had moved into, even down to the rates notices from every single year dating back to 1954, from the time that she had moved into the electorate. They are an amazing resource, our historical societies, and certainly the provisions in this bill allowing better access to information are going to be of terrific benefit to those organisations.

There is also an important element in this bill which seeks to provide for exclusive determinations. Under this bill exclusion applications will be allowed to provide government agencies tasked with delivering major projects greater certainty of their obligations under the Heritage Act. Under current legislation there does remain a risk that some major projects might be disrupted or delayed just following the receipt of a new nomination or new information. The process in this bill will allow for an early identification of potential heritage impacts so that a determination can be made one way or the other as to whether it is likely to be impacted by heritage or conversely may not be impacted by heritage and then the project can proceed as planned.

Safeguards are built into this process to ensure that heritage is appropriately protected by assessing the applications for exclusion against the same threshold as the applications for inclusion. I think these amendments do strike the right balance between preserving that which cannot be replaced in the form of cultural heritage but also safeguarding the delivery of major projects. I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (11:57): I rise to speak on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2023 and I am pleased to do so. As someone who has been involved in the plumbing trade I know only too well issues that can occur. I actually thanked the member for Croydon when he delivered his opening speech, and I think he covered all bases about the amendments that are going into the Heritage Act 2017. He did a great job there. I feel we do not have to continue to talk about these issues because he so eloquently put them to everyone who was here. As he said, we do not oppose the amendments.

For anyone who has had to access information on heritage matters – that is, builders or developers, or just even the general public – the system, I found when we had to do it, is very, very complex. A lot of the time for people from the regions it meant a trip down to Melbourne to actually talk face to face. It was very, very slow to get any action that we needed, and there was the frustration of it all, especially with cost blowouts. Every time a heritage issue was brought up we virtually had to stop work and get that issue dealt with, so it was very, very frustrating and time consuming. Also when you were relying on trades and other workers you would tell them all to go home until we got the issue sorted, and it could have been weeks or months before we got them back.

All care is taken, and I notice with the amendments that with big infrastructure – that is, roads and so forth – we can front end-end all the heritage matters that we presume are going to come up during the development. I think that is a great idea. It will make the progress of these big infrastructure projects run much more smoothly. But sometimes there are some little bits and pieces that pop up, which I will touch on shortly.

The amendment allowing actually fast-tracking the issues which may arise makes it a lot better. The online ability to get on the computer face to face with the heritage committee is going to save time and effort, so it is a win-win for everybody that way. There were a few concerns about being able to access buildings and so forth, but I think they are covered off. The new amendments take that into account, and I think that as long as people do not try to abuse these areas it is going to be better for the heritage issue for the amendments to come through.

As I said, in my time working as a plumber issues would pop up all the time. It is not just big infrastructure that we actually get to use this on, but as I said, there would be long delays as we waited for responses. With these amendments we can deliver an efficient, practical and effective heritage system with much-needed and quicker online response pathways. This will be greatly welcomed by everybody. One of the issues I had when I first started as a plumber was when we were working in a school many, many years ago doing some renovations. The school was not heritage listed, but as we were working doing the renovations on the kitchens and toilets and rooms and so forth we came across some honour rolls, these big stone honour rolls that were on the wall. Now, we could tell that if these things were not heritage listed they needed to be, so the job was shut down for a time. I think it was about a month or so before we got back on board while it was checked out: ‘Are these rolls actually heritage listed?’ And yes they were. To be able to go nowadays on your phone and check the register online and make sure this is right and true is just going to make so much difference with time constraints and everything like that; we can just flow and get it all done. So the online part is going to be a big, big winner in my opinion.

Most people when hearing of something being heritage listed think of a building or a structure or a landmark. These structures are truly amazing, obviously, but smaller issues and hidden items are the ones that need to have that really, really quick response. Believe it or not, we once stopped for a tree – not a pretty tree, by the way; it was an azarole hawthorn tree, a heritage-listed tree, but we had to stop work. Now, I love all things Hawthorn, especially the ones that run around in the brown and gold –

Danny O’Brien: No.

Martin CAMERON: Yes, Danny. We actually love those.

The problem had to be sorted out. It did take months and months and months to sort this issue out, but you know with these services and not having to come to Melbourne to front committees and stuff like that, being able to access it all online is just going to make it so much more appealing for everybody. With the proposed amendments to the procedure to identify a problem, it is going to be swift, it is going to be more cost-effective and it is definitely going to be more time-effective.

Not far from where I live is a place called Walhalla, probably about 40 minutes from Traralgon, and it is a magnificent place to visit and stay. Most of this place is heritage listed, and if you go up there you can get a feeling for days gone by. Now, out of these buildings shops now operate and accommodation, and it just goes to show that in protecting our heritage-listed buildings we can also purpose them for the current-day needs of our travellers and visitors to go up to these places and enjoy these facilities but also do it in a caring way where we are actually protecting the heritage-listed value of these buildings.

As I walked to work today – and let me say it is a very different walk to what I normally have had in the past – a lot of people were looking down on the footpath, looking where they were going. I tend to look up and look at the structures and the beautiful heritage that we have around here in the Melbourne CBD. There was a lot of construction on buildings that was going on today, and I just wonder back in the day how many delays would have been incurred as they were doing their works – their digging and stuff like that – not only because of what they found on sites but also because of what they were trying to protect on heritage-listing buildings that surround these sites. To be able to have access to these amendments I am sure is going to be of great benefit and value to the developers, and I can only talk about the positive things that I see with making these amendments available.

Also we have spoken about regional Victoria and all the great heritage-listed buildings that we have around the place. No matter where you are coming from into any regional areas, come and visit us and have a bit of a look and see. But for people – workers and developers – in these regional areas, as I said before, not having to come to Melbourne to get clarification and wait and wait and wait, to be able to continue on with the job, to be able to fast-track an answer and get some direction and clarification of what is right and what is wrong and what we can and cannot do, I think is a great idea. As I said, we are not opposing the amendments made by this bill.

Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Suburban Development) (12:06): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.