Wednesday, 29 November 2023

Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Steve Dimopoulos:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:51): I rise to speak on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. When one looks at a bill of this nature, a bill that effectively changes the status of pieces of land around Victoria, you could mistakenly think that these changes have little impact or are not particularly important. How wrong you would be. The status of land and the status of land around this state is important, and it is important because it characterises what can be done in terms of government land and, in terms of non-government land, what the users can do with it.

In this case this bill proposes to remove the permanent reservation on a number of sites in both metro and regional Victoria – to break that down, 10 sites which are for the intention of sale and in three cases aligning the legal status to their actual use. Just to explain a little further, on 10 pieces of land, from the advice provided by the government, a nearby user, owner or neighbour has expressed an interest in that piece of land, and so the proposal would be that the permanent reservation be lifted off those 10 sites so that there can be some conversation between the government and those interested parties in relation to sale. Now, that does not mean that there are not a lot of processes to go through before we get to the point of sale or the government reaches a point of sale. However, this bill allows those conversations to start. In three cases – I spoke about the alignment – there have been longstanding uses for those three pieces of land and the legal status currently overlaid, for want of a better term, on those pieces of land does not align with their actual use, which is also important. In those cases, which I will refer to in more detail, oftentimes the local council has approached the government and said that the alignment does not suit, and in one case for some 150 years the use and the overlay alignment have been different. So a request has been made to change the overlay on those sites.

These changes actually do matter, and we know that because there are so many pieces of land around this state. You could talk to every member in this place and they will have had an experience of an alignment of land not suiting potentially the use and a legal change that may be required or a community request for a changed use. I will talk about a number of instances of that. Although the department I am sure works hard to ensure that changes occur, I think it would be fair to say that most members have experienced an instance where they have made a representation to the government, to the department, to ensure that a piece of land is either aligned properly or such and that has not yet occurred. So I would say that although we are dealing with 13 pieces of land today in this bill, there are, I am sure, many members in this place who have more than that in their own electorates that are outstanding in relation to the government providing advice to requests for proper alignment of those pieces of land.

For background, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 specifically precludes the sale of Crown land unless the alignment is correct in terms of the reservation being lifted, so that is what we are proposing to do with this bill in relation to 10 pieces of land. I will mention each of them specifically for the record. Victoria Park Lake in Shepparton: this proposal relates to a permanent reservation at that site. The lake is permanently reserved for public park purposes which are managed by the local council, Greater Shepparton. The revocation aims to enable the purchase and refurbishment of a caravan park located on the southern end of the reserve by the council in an attempt to increase tourism. The sale could take some time to effect. As I said earlier, the potential sale is in its very initial interest stage rather than anything further than that.

The second site – I have the member for Eildon with me – is in the member’s electorate, a former potato research station at Toolangi. The revocation relates to a piece of land that was once a site for agricultural research purposes. I understand there are actually three parcels of land in what is being proposed in this bill. The research station was closed in 2008, and there has been interest expressed by one of the leaseholders in terms of part of that land.

It is worth noting in all of these instances, as potentially an advisory note to the department, that though there has been interest expressed potentially by a leaseholder or a neighbour or an interested party, there are other affected parties. There are other neighbours, there are other leaseholders surrounding these pieces of land, and no consultation has occurred with any of those people. I say that not in a way to reflect on the work of the department, because of course they have noted quite clearly that this bill has come from a place of interest being expressed by one party and have been quite open in saying that full consultation and negotiations have not proceeded further than that. It is worth noting that the department, should this bill pass, would want to ensure that it does consider the impact on surrounding parties and surrounding neighbours and that full consultation would occur to ensure that any potential sale does not disadvantage any of those parties, who in some cases may have been looking after all good neighbours for many, many decades. I think that is an important point to put on the record.

The third site relates to Merriman Creek in Seaspray, which is a small area of land on the banks of the creek which is currently permanently reserved for public purposes. I have been advised that due to a survey error part of a house is located on the permanently reserved waterfrontage, so this revocation aims to rectify that survey error, and potentially an adjoining landowner has interest in acquiring that land. It is worth noting that in terms of this piece – and there are a number of pieces that we will deal with today – that will require consultation with traditional owners, but I will speak to that a little later.

The fourth site relates to the port of Geelong. Part of a permanent reserve which was created in 1873 at that port is targeted for revocation. Changes in Corio Bay’s foreshore position have prompted the revocation, and the intention is to sell that piece of land to GeelongPort Pty Ltd, who have expressed interest.

The next site relates to borough chambers reserve in Clunes, which is, as many would know, leased to Wesley College. Wesley College is interested in the purchase of that piece of land relating to the borough chambers, and again this site would be subject to agreement with traditional owners.

Further, Stringers Creek in Walhalla – the revocation relates to certain land on the banks of Stringers Creek. As I understand it, there is an unsatisfactory arrangement for current owners of that land, so allowing the sale of the occupied land would correct that. The advice received from the department is that in that case the traditional owners are aware of this issue and a potential sale and have at this point made no objection to that. In terms of consultation with traditional owners, I understand that that is further along in this instance.

The next site relates to Alexandra Park. Following the completion of upgrades to the Swan Street bridge, a small section of the permanent reservation forming Alexandra Park was incorporated into the bridge structure. This is one of the instances where the revocation will align the legal status of the land to its current use. That is also the case with Melbourne City Baths. There is a small piece of land, as I understand it, on the corner of the baths which has been used as a road for over a century, as I am advised, and this bill will align that use to its actual use.

There are five former mechanics institute reserve sites – two in Gippsland South, one in Gippsland East, one in Narracan and one in the electorate of Lowan. So there are five sites where there was a former mechanics institute, which would have been a community use site, but in all cases none have functioned for many, many years, and the land is used for various purposes, including things like grazing. In all of the cases other than in Narracan, the trustees of the reserves are deceased, so there is no lineage at four of the sites. In one of the sites there is a trustee who has been spoken with and contacted in relation to this proposal, who has confirmed in writing that they have no objection to the bill.

I mentioned earlier that there are a number of sites – and touched on them as I noted them – and there are four in total that are impacted by traditional owner arrangements. Those sites are at Clunes, Walhalla, Mirboo and Seaspray. There would of course be processes in place that would need to ensure that, both at a legislative level in terms of the requirements that sit around that and otherwise, negotiation occurs with traditional owners in relation to any proposed sale of that land. As I noted each of the sites, I did mention in one case where consultation has occurred, but there would need to be a fuller negotiation and consultation in relation to those other sites. Those are the sites that are being dealt with in the bill.

As I noted earlier, there are many, many sites that I am sure we will hear about from members throughout the debate on this bill where land use may not align with current use. As this bill has been considered over recent weeks a number of members have spoken to me about many, many outstanding instances where they have made representations to the government in relation to the overlay of status in relation to land. I was speaking, for example, to the member for Polwarth about a piece of land in his electorate just behind the Lorne foreshore. In that instance he, the community, the site owner and the council have been making representations to the department for over a year, and none have actually received a response – not even an acknowledgement.

You have got instances where acknowledgements are not even being received from the department, and I am not in any way reflecting on the department’s good work, because I am sure they are dealing with a lot of requests in relation to land. But it is worth noting that in relation to the Lorne site, which is just behind the supermarket, at 10 Erskine Avenue, that land was purchased five years ago. Since that time the owners have been working through the status of a carriageway behind the supermarket to the site, currently a cottage home site, which is used for accommodation of course. What the site owners are hoping to do is build 15 more sites on the property, which is fantastic. I mean, we have a housing crisis in Victoria in terms of the need for more housing, and we have an instance where a site owner has gone to the government and said ‘We want to build 15 more sites to allow 15 more people or families a place to live, a roof over their head’. An issue has arisen in that the driveway, as it were, into the property itself has not got the correct legal status. The banks have said, ‘Well, we’re sorry, we can’t support you in your proposed developed until the legal status of that piece of land is corrected.’ So for over a year the owners but also council, in recognition of the important proposal, have contacted formally the department and said ‘We have someone here who wants to build more homes. We want to build 15 more homes. All we need is a correction to land use’. To not have received an acknowledgement after all of those representations from various authorities is deeply concerning.

I use this instance to illustrate what many members of this place speak to. They speak to representing constituents about legal status changes being required to land, and many have occasions where they have made representations and an acknowledgement has not even been received by the department yet. I do not think it is unreasonable where we are proposing to do things that actually make a big difference – in the case of the Lorne site, to build 15 new homes at a time that they are really needed – to assume that a department can work through issues in a year. I do not think it is unreasonable for an acknowledgment to be received and the process started to bring about any change, or if there is a concern around making that change, to stop it.

I was recently talking to a number of farmers who own a particular property. They had for some 100 years driven over a bridge onto their property. The bridge was washed away in recent flooding. Because that piece of land that had been used for some 100 years had not been aligned correctly, the department refused the rebuild of the bridge. The landowners were told to use what is technically allocated as the right-of-way access onto the property, which no longer exists – it is bush – but has been classified as the original right of way at best since early last century. So the only way the owners could actually get into their property was to drive through a busy utilised caravan park, which I do not think in any way benefits anybody. In that instance the home owners had been battling with the department for a very long time just to help them understand that a proper right of way and access existed and should be the point of access into the future.

I would say, with due courtesy, where there are instances of outstanding representation from the community or from members of Parliament, I would hope that we can perhaps look at the backlog. There has been some debate around planning reform and ensuring that decisions are not left on ministers’ desks. I would say in relation to land usage and whether applications or representations have been made in relation to those pieces of land – I have just spoken about two, so I am sure many members will raise those instances. Perhaps this is an opportunity for the government to consider those occasions where representations are made and clear off that backlog. Perhaps there could be an assessment as a result of today and the government could have a look at what is outstanding and work through any issues, because in the case of the Lorne site, we do not want to see someone who wants to build 15 homes for the local community not able to build them. I would leave that point.

I did talk about the importance of ensuring that the overlay is correct on pieces of land. I know in my community there is a current amendment to the planning scheme in relation to a rezoning of land which is very, very close to my heart, and that is Elsternwick Park North, which is now the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve. There is an application underway to change the status of that site. It is a very, very important site. There is a proposal to ensure that that site is protected as the nature reserve and wetland that it is. This is one of those issues that I have spoken about many times in this place and have been very passionate about since before I became a candidate to represent my community. This issue is one that I am very passionate about – ensuring that the rezoning of this piece of land protects it into the future. There are very few opportunities where you can have enormous pieces of land protected in the centre of Brighton, so close to the city, as a reserve and wetland.

When I first became the candidate, one thing that I was very concerned about was of course the flooding that occurs in Elwood. Brighton is an original seat in terms of this chamber – an 1856 seat – and over that time nothing has been done to mitigate flooding. Setting aside politics, you look at issues that happen in your community and you say, how do challenges not get solved over the best part of 175 years? How do they remain outstanding? I am sure that we all, as members in this place, have issues that drive us in terms of wanting to fix those challenges, and ensuring that flooding was mitigated in Elwood, in my community, was one of those challenges.

When we got wind that the golf course at Elsternwick Park North was not interested in proceeding with a new lease at that site, a number of us put our heads together and said ‘Well, why couldn’t we use that site as a reserve – a beautiful reserve – and also install wetlands on that site to catch water as it comes down towards the bay?’ That vision was led by a number of people. Jo Samuel-King, who is now a local councillor in Bayside, and Marcus Gwynne have been instrumental in that vision and in ensuring that we have seen that vision come to life. When the proposal first came to pass at that site, only about four locals supported that vision. I remember talking to each of the local councillors, who all thought we were mad. Only one local councillor had the vision to accept it as an important project for the local community.

Over time the council learned that the community was on board. It is one of those instances where you find a local project that is meritorious and the community gets on board before everyone else does in terms of representatives, I note, having had very engaging debates and such with local councillors and also the state government – I recall the member for Bentleigh being very outspoken in his opposition to the proposed project – that this project was one that the local community supported. To give them credit, the former federal Liberal government and the now federal Labor government have both committed funding to ensuring that project comes to pass in the way that it deserves. It is an incredible site; in fact CNN just identified it as one of the six most important conversions in the world. So it is an incredible site which is currently underway in terms of a land use change application. But to have an international media organisation list it as one of the six most significant conversions on the globe is an incredible testament to the local community for their support but also the visionaries who have seen this change come to pass and led that change. And it is not finished yet; we have a lot more to do at the park. There is a lot that we can do in terms of protecting endangered species, but I will not say too much on that. I think that there are more things that we can do on that site, so the reclassification of that piece of land is an important thing.

In terms of the bill, though, I have implied but not stated clearly that the coalition will not be opposing the bill. The sites listed in this bill – I can understand, based on the advice the government have provided, why they have taken the path that they have in terms of the revocation of these sites. Again, the coalition will not be opposing this bill.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (11:18): I rise to speak on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. From the outset I just want to acknowledge that as the member for Pascoe Vale, Coburg and Brunswick West, I do not have any parcels of land directly included in this bill. However, I do certainly have a number of case studies that are definitely related and contextual for those communities that are directly impacted, both historically and prospectively, that I will be touching on in due course.

In Victoria Crown land can be reserved either temporarily or permanently, and while temporarily reserved land may be revoked through an administrative process, permanent reservations may only be revoked by an act of Parliament. Acts which revoke permanent reservations are a normal part of government business, and Parliament has passed such acts in the past. This bill will therefore seek to facilitate new management arrangements, new future uses and new development of relevant areas of land. The bill seeks to achieve this by revoking permanent reservations at 13 locations across Victoria as well as six corresponding restricted Crown grants. Future uses across these sites may include re-reservation in some cases, continued use by existing occupiers and potential sale and development. In doing so it is very important to note that in Victoria the sale of Crown land is subject to a range of Victorian government legislative and policy requirements, including strategic Crown land assessment policy, the land transaction policy and the landholding policy and guidelines. Additionally, any sale must adhere to the obligations under the Native Title Act 1993 at the Commonwealth level and under relevant agreements made under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010.

The bill therefore seeks Crown land revocations, including Victoria Park Lake in Shepparton, which is in the member for Shepparton’s electorate. We actually had the great opportunity as part of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee earlier this year to travel to Shepparton for a public hearing on the road safety inquiry, and it is looking pretty marvellous up in Shepparton, particularly with the investment in the new art gallery and the like.

The former potato research station in Toolangi, in the member for Eildon’s electorate – with that research station having been closed or decommissioned as of 2008, this bill will help free up the future use of that land. Merriman Creek in Seaspray, in the member for Gippsland South’s electorate, I believe – the bill is to revoke a small area of land permanently reserved for the site for public purposes along the banks of the creek.

The bill will also revoke five redundant permanent reservations for mechanics institutes at four locations in eastern Victoria as well as in the west. I understand that the mechanics institutes have not functioned for many years and there are no buildings or structures on these reserves, with the land now used for a range of purposes, including pine plantations, grazing and as parts of surrounding state forests. The bill will revoke a redundant permanent reservation at the port of Geelong, and it will also revoke part of the permanent reservation of the of the borough chambers reserve in Clunes, which Wesley College, Melbourne, currently leases as a residential college.

A small area of Alexandra Park in Melbourne on the banks of the Yarra in South Yarra will be revoked via this bill to reflect the legal status of the land and its current use as part of the upgraded Swan Street bridge, which has played a big role in alleviating congestion through that corridor, as I am sure we can all appreciate. The bill will also revoke the permanent reservation for public baths and washhouses over a very small area of the Melbourne City Baths reserve. According to the City of Melbourne, the relevant area located on the corner of Swanston and Franklin streets has, since the time of the land’s reservation in 1878, never been used for the reserved purposes and only used as a road.

Finally and additionally, the bill will revoke the reservation over certain land permanently reserved for public purposes along the banks of Stringers Creek in Walhalla, in the member for Narracan’s electorate, I believe, and it relates to several dwellings along the creek. Through this bill the revocation of 13 permanent reservations and six restricted Crown grants will enable appropriate use for the relevant lands, providing certainty to communities and affected individuals.

Generally, Crown land is owned by the Commonwealth government or state government, with most Crown land in Victoria owned by the Victorian government. It has been set out previously by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning – the old DELWP – that about one-third of Victorian land is Crown land, with 8 million hectares in over 10,000 parcels of land. Of this land, approximately 50 per cent of Crown land in Victoria is national or state parks, 39 per cent is state forest, 4 per cent is unreserved or Australian government managed Crown land and 7 per cent, or 550,000 hectares, is Crown reserves. Crown reserves include many of our public schools, universities, TAFE colleges, public hospitals, mental health and other community services, cemeteries, municipal buildings and land, public roads, government railways, parks, community halls, recreation reserves and even racecourses.

Some of the earliest Crown reservations and land subdivisions in this state and colony’s history actually took place in my community, which I would like to touch on to provide some context again for those communities which are impacted by this bill. Shortly after the arrival of John Batman and John Pascoe Fawkner on the banks of the Yarra in 1835 to establish what is now Melbourne on the traditional lands of the Wurundjeri people, my area was first surveyed by Robert Hoddle, the person who granted Melbourne its distinctively ordered grid layout sometime around 1837 or 1838. Through this surveying a 327-acre reservation was established for a village to be served by two distinct local roads, Bell Street West and what would later be called Sydney Road. The Pentridge name would come later in 1840 when surveyor Henry Foot named the area for the birthplace of his wife, Pentridge in Dorset, England. We heard the member for Hastings earlier give a big shout-out to his wife, but I am not sure if he is yet to name a city after his wife, like Henry Foot did here in Coburg with Pentridge.

Ten years later in December in 1850, in response to a burgeoning crime rate driven by the Victorian gold rush, the Pentridge stockade was established, with an initial population of 16 prisoners who were transferred from the overflowing Melbourne Gaol in Russell Street. By 1850 there were 20 farms in the area and land was reserved for places of worship and other future community needs which still stand and are utilised for their original purposes to this day, including St Pauls parish and Coburg Primary School.

Bluestone quarries began opening during this early era, and the increasing number of prisoners at the newly conceived Her Majesty’s Pentridge were put to work breaking up the very stones that would later go towards building the very prison they were to be incarcerated in and towards the construction of Sydney Road. By the end of the 19th century Coburg was home to 41 quarries that had been reserved for such purposes, and one such former quarry would later become Coburg Lake, when the area now called lake reserve was purchased in 1912 and a weir constructed to form a man-made lake contained by basalt rock and outcroppings. The bluestone drawn out of these quarries, including from Coburg Lake, has very much remained ever present across the streets and the laneways of my community. It still stands just as resilient and tall through the walls of Pentridge prison to this very day and very much has played an important role in shaping the character, identity and culture of Melbourne’s northern suburbs. Coburg Lake, for example, continues to be enjoyed by many across the community on a daily basis thanks to its ongoing reservation for community benefit. For example, just last Sunday, on 26 November, the member for Broadmeadows and I attended the Alevi community’s 30th anniversary festival at Coburg Lake. Supported by the Victorian Labor government, the festival is a wonderful celebration of all things Alevi, including food, music and culture. I pay tribute to Minister Stitt and Minister Erdogan for having attended, and I pay tribute to the dedicated long-time volunteers of the entire Alevi community, including president of the Alevi Federation of Australia Suzan Saka, president of the Alevi Community Council Huseyin Duman, president of the Dandenong Alevi Cultural Centre Serda Daşoğlu and all the volunteers.

Another example I would like to draw the house’s attention to, which also can provide some further context, relates to the utilisation of land in my community related to the Robinson Reserve and Reynard Street Neighbourhood House in West Coburg. Originally, the site was a long-time army barracks and drill hall, and the story of how the land was returned to the community is an illustration of how sometimes the good work of a nifty local councillor can help uncover some positive outcomes. This reserve of land was part of the original Crown portion 140 and owned by the original crown grantee John Pascoe Fawkner before changing ownership a number of times to the Metropolitan Permanent Building Society, who then sold it to the old Borough of Coburg in 1908. In 1912 the army accepted the then Coburg Borough Council’s offer of the land for a drill hall at a peppercorn rent of 1 shilling per year for 500 years – a 500-year lease on community land for an army drill hall. The hall was erected for £1500 for the 59th regiment. It was opened in 1914 by the then defence minister Senator Millen. Two years after the council agreed to the 500-year lease, which would be controversial by today’s standards by any means, the registrar of titles in the state of Victoria questioned the legality of such a lease and refused to sign it. An application was made to the High Court to compel the registrar of titles to register the lease, but the court dismissed the application.

However, in 1975 it was then Labor councillor Murray Gavin, whose son Paul Gavin volunteers for me to this very day and does an amazing job, continued to pursue the matter and discovered it was illegal for councils to lease land for longer than 10 years. So after what I can imagine were some very interesting and extensive conversations, the army was eventually asked to vacate the site. According to the Coburg Historical Society, the army originally wanted a local sporting body to take over the site, but the council decided the reserve should be returned to residents for community use. The reserve and the hall were later officially opened in 1988.

On 18 November I was very happy to represent the Minister for the Suburbs to officially unveil the latest chapter in the rich history of the site by opening up the revitalised Reynard Street Robinson Reserve park, play and recreational space. It was a $420,000 project made possible by a $178,000 Labor government contribution. As a former chair of the house who oversaw the strategic planning for the site to integrate the house back with the park, I was delighted to be there to officially open it and put it back to good community use. I commend the bill in that context.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (11:28): It is a pleasure to rise to talk on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. I repeat the statement from our lead speaker that we are not opposing this bill. I must give great credit to our lead speaker the Shadow Minister for Planning for being able to find 27 minutes to talk about on this bill. It is not the most riveting bill that I have come across in my time in the chamber. That was a fantastic effort by the member for Brighton to get through 27 minutes.

This bill revokes the permanent reservations at 13 locations across not only metropolitan Victoria but also regional Victoria. The primary purpose of these revocations is an intention to primarily sell the land but in some cases allot it to the existing uses in the surrounding area. Five of the areas are locations that are reserved for mechanics institutes, and I will get onto that a little bit later, but it is a very interesting scenario if you know the area in Gippsland East that had been reserved for a mechanics institute. In all cases they have not functioned for many years, and I would suggest in some of the locations perhaps they have not ever functioned at all – the land was just put aside. Therefore there are no buildings or structures on these reserves, and they are now used for a range of purposes, including as previous speakers have mentioned, for plantations or grazing or as part of a state forest.

The one area that is in my electorate is Haunted Stream in Gippsland East. It is a little place, and I am sure no-one in this chamber would know where it is. It is located in very dense bushland and has literally hundreds, in some cases, of kilometres of bush around it, and I was most surprised in reading this bill report to realise that there had been a reservation for a mechanics institute on the Haunted Stream. For those who are even remotely interested, it is between Bruthen and Ensay on the Great Alpine Road on the way to Omeo, and Haunted Stream cuts through the Great Alpine Road. But when this bill came up and I saw this, I did initially think it must have been a mistake that a mechanics institute area of land had been reserved in Haunted Stream, because the only township that I knew of was a little place called Stirling, now very, very long abandoned. My assumption was that it was possibly in the area of Stirling that this land was put aside, but there is literally nothing there now.

Why I am familiar with this area is that many years ago I caught my first trout in the Haunted Stream. I went up there with a mate of mine called Wayne – not the member for Narracan but a fellow called Wayne Tatnell – up through the bush in the Haunted Stream area. I can assure you it is extremely remote, best described perhaps as mountain goat country. We were walking through with our fishing rods getting tangled in everything and our Celtas and managing probably through good luck rather than ability to catch a few trout.

Wayne Farnham: How big was it?

Tim BULL: Look, it was probably 12 inches, mate. But it is a very, very picturesque area. It is a fantastic, remote area of bushland in East Gippsland and a very, very fire-prone area. I do not know how a mechanics institute would have gone on the Haunted Stream, had one ever been built, in relation to the fire risk there, because every two to three years it unfortunately gets burnt. But hopefully we are not headed there again this year.

Just back to the bill –

A member interjected.

Tim BULL: I can tell another fishing story if you would like, but I will get back onto the bill.

The Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 specifically precludes the sale of reserved Crown land, and therefore the revocation of these areas is an essential preliminary step towards any sale proposal, but I do note that in the area of Haunted Stream I am not sure there would be many buyers. But I believe it is to revert to the existing use of the land that is surrounding that area, which would more than likely, in my assumption, be state forest. Of course the sale of Crown land, which will be applicable to some of these other areas, is subject to a whole lot of legislative requirements, and that is obviously why we are in the chamber at the moment debating this bill, which will open up the possibility for that to happen.

There is a potential for some of these areas to have sensitive Indigenous sites. Now, from reading the bill report and the second-reading speech, my understanding is that that is potentially not applicable in the majority, if not all, of the areas that are included here. But I note that one of the other areas that was reserved for mechanics institute purposes, whether that be an institute or a library or a hall, was in the seat of Narracan. I am sure the member for Narracan will be speaking on this, and I will be interested to know if his area is just as remote as the one in Gippsland East. But the other ones are in Darlimurla, in Gippsland South; Mirboo, in Gippsland South; Narracan; and Wombelano, on the other side of the state in Lowan.

The fact that we are debating this bill now gives us little bit of a snapshot back in history when times were obviously very, very different. Towns like Stirling, back in the day when the gold rush was on, were thriving little communities. A couple of weeks ago I visited a little place called Bullumwaal, just north of Bairnsdale, which consists of a couple of townhouses now. There are no commercial shops open, just a few private residences. From reading the history of that place, there were 12 hotels there back in the day when the gold rush was on – 12 pubs and two footy teams, and Stirling would not have been a lot different to that. So when you consider, I guess, those times past and that gold rush era and period in our history, some of these areas where these townships do not exist now were very much thriving communities with a lot of trade and a lot of residences back in the day.

So it is interesting – when this bill throws up some of these locations, it gives you a bit of a snapshot of what the history of our area was like. But as we know, I do not believe there was any mechanics institute ever built at Haunted Stream. There may have been, but my brief google searching cannot find any trace of one ever being built, so I understand it was probably land that was simply put aside. But with the end of the gold rush period, which saw those locations on the Haunted Stream become a little line of important villages, it was something that never, ever eventuated and never came to be. I believe that other than the Narracan site, all the trustees for the reserves that were put aside are now deceased, but in the case of your one surviving trustee in Narracan the advice is that they have no objection to this proceeding.

In some of the other locations, beyond Haunted Stream, that are included in this bill, on the face of it perhaps a tenant or a neighbour has expressed some interest in purchasing the land. Importantly, the department advised our shadow minister in the bill briefing that there have been no sale negotiations that have been progressed on any of these sites. That probably technically cannot occur until this bill has passed. But hopefully this will open the way for some use for some of these areas of land into the future. As stated, a number of these sites are dependent, contingent, on negotiations with the Indigenous landholders of the area – in the case of Haunted Stream that will be the Gunnaikurnai of course – although I do not believe, according to the bill report, that there are major implications really for any of these sites.

In finishing up, I think this will probably be one of the very, very few times the Haunted Stream area will ever be mentioned in this Parliament for potentially some time into the future. But it is a great little area. All members of the chamber, if you are heading up to Omeo over the Christmas period, please keep an eye out for the Haunted Stream. There is a great bushwalking track that follows the stream up on the western side of the highway, and I would well recommend that to all members when they come and visit beautiful East Gippsland.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (11:38): It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise to speak on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. Indeed I am not quite sure how I am going to fit everything I have to say about this bill into the 10 minutes provided. I would like to acknowledge the contribution, though, of the member for Gippsland East, just previous to me. I more than intend actually to take up his offer of some bushwalking in Gippsland East. I will also point out the fact that, although I do not have any in my electorate, I am very fond of a good mechanics institute. In fact I remember a country football club that I played for that still had a mechanics institute in the town. We used to do the local ball every year there and different things. I have very fond memories. But I might perhaps get to the bill after that introduction.

Tim Bull: It’s been a wideranging debate.

Dylan WIGHT: It has been a wideranging debate. I am not quite sure why he would want to point of order me, but we will get our way through it.

At its core this bill seeks to authorise the revocation of some permanent reserves across the state – 13 strategically chosen sites in Victoria – in conjunction with the alteration of six restricted Crown grants. This legislative action is in alignment with the broader goals of optimising land use and responding to the evolving needs of the Victorian community and environment. I think the member for Gippsland East just used an example of arrangements that were perhaps made during the gold rush, as far back as that, and obviously things have changed significantly over the course of time since then. This bill just seeks to clean up and clarify some of those changes that have occurred.

The bill also proposes to repeal part 4 of the Land (Reservations and other Matters) Act 1999, paving the way for innovative land management strategies. This repeal is not just a procedural step but a significant move towards more adaptable and efficient land administration. A cornerstone of the bill is the facilitation of new land management arrangements. It will open avenues for these lands to be re-reserved for alternative purposes aligning with contemporary needs and priorities. Furthermore, it provides a framework for the development or sale of these lands subject to future requirements.

It is important to note that any potential sale process will be conducted in strict compliance with existing legislation, including adherence to the obligations under the Native Title Act 1993. The department has advised that this process is the first step in any process of re-reservation, development or sale. Relevant traditional owner groups have been advised of the proposals relating to the sites. No objections have been raised at this stage, and any further issues will be worked through if that point is reached.

There are a number of strategic sites that we are applying this legislation to across Victoria, as I said in my opening remarks. One of those is Victoria Park Lake in Shepparton, and I acknowledge the member for Shepparton, who is in the chamber at the moment. I believe that that site is a local caravan park, and the change and what we are doing here will make it easier for people to holiday, to go to that caravan park, and it will be good for tourism in the area. It is a significant move under the land revocation bill. A portion of the permanent reservation of Victoria Park Lake in Shepparton, encompassing almost 3.5 hectares, is set to be revoked.

Victoria Park Lake, a cherished public space, is currently reserved for public park use, with the Greater Shepparton City Council serving as the management committee of the reserve. Notably, the southern end of the reserve, which also includes land owned by the council, is home to a longstanding caravan park operated by the council for over six decades. Council has advised the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action that it wishes to purchase the Crown land portion of that caravan park, creating more capacity for holiday-goers in peak periods. This area has been identified by the council as a prime location for refurbishment, aiming to enhance its appeal and cater to the growing tourism demands in the Shepparton area.

The council has expressed its intention to acquire the Crown land segment of the caravan park, which necessitates the revocation of its current reservation status. To ensure its seamless transition, the bill proposes a temporary reservation of the land for public purposes under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 during the interim period, which is anticipated to last at least 12 months. Throughout this period the Greater Shepparton City Council will maintain its role as the land’s committee of management until any potential sale is finalised.

Another incredibly important site is the port of Geelong. The member for Lara and I were only speaking about this it must have been two weeks ago, in the last sitting week. We were sitting next to each other in the chamber, and we were talking about the port of Geelong situation. The port of Geelong plays a few critical roles in Victoria’s economy. If you were to travel down to Geelong now – or if you have done so in the last 12 months – you would notice two things with the port of Geelong. It is the new site for the Spirit of Tasmania, which has really opened up that port in a tourism sense and has really opened up the west of Melbourne, I would say, from my electorate in Tarneit all the way down through the Western District, through the Surf Coast and through Geelong. What we have now is a situation where if you are coming from Tasmania for a holiday, you are landing at the port of Geelong and driving your car off. Perhaps you are going on a holiday down the Surf Coast, you are going through Geelong, you are going through Torquay, you are going through those coastal communities, or indeed you are going to Melbourne and you are coming past my electorate, coming past Hoppers Crossing and coming past Tarneit. That decision to take the Spirit of Tasmania from Port Melbourne to the port of Geelong was something that was incredibly important for Victoria’s regional economy, and as I said, the port of Geelong plays an important role in that.

The port of Geelong has always played a role, as most ports do, in respect to economic activity and imports, but a significant role that it is also playing now is as part of Victoria’s energy transition. The port of Geelong has for some time now had significant renewable energy imports come through it. So when we talk about wind blades, most of which are coming from Europe into the port of Geelong and then out to construct wind farms in the Western District and sort of north through Horsham, through Ararat and that sort of area, the port of Geelong has played a significant role in that. It has also played a significant role in the importation – sometimes only from the Port of Portland, to be frank – of towers for those renewable energy projects. Opening up that port, expanding it and giving the port of Geelong now the capacity through acquiring this land to continue to expand that port is really important and will play a significant role in opening up regional Victoria’s economy and strengthening regional Victoria’s economy as well – don’t you reckon, member for Narracan? Is Walhalla in your electorate?

Wayne Farnham: Yes, it is.

Dylan WIGHT: Beautiful. There is some stuff here on Walhalla as well. I went to Walhalla about a year ago. I went on a lovely walk. It was beautiful.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (11:48): Today I rise to speak on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. The bill before the house is a bill for an act to provide for the revocation of certain permanent reservations of Crown land at 13 sites, to revoke related Crown grants and to re-reserve certain land and for other purposes. This bill allows conversations to start between the government and interested parties and the appropriate consultation.

I will start by referring to the land in my electorate. One of the main provisions of this bill is to revoke the permanent reservation of certain land at the Victoria Park Lake caravan park to provide for the temporary re-reservation of the land for public purposes. As a member of local government in the region for over six years, this has had a lot of conversations in regard to what the future of this site should look like, so it is very pleasing to see this come to the house today.

Clause 3 of the bill provides for the revocation of part of a permanent public park reservation at Shepparton in order to facilitate the future use, including the potential sale, of the land. The clause revokes one order in council that is set out in item 1 of schedule 1, providing for one permanent reservation insofar as it relates to Crown allotment 2024, township of Shepparton, parish of Shepparton. In addition, clause 4 of the bill sets out, subject to clauses 5 and 6, the consequences of the revocation under clause 3 of the bill. This clause will provide that the land is taken to be unalienated land of the Crown and that the appointment of any committee of management of that land, the appointment of any trustee of that land and any regulations made under section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 are also revoked to the extent they relate to that land.

Furthermore, clause 5 of the bill provides that on the revocation of the order in council referred to in item 1 of the schedule, being the land in respect of which the reservation is revoked by clause 3, that land is taken to be temporarily reserved for public purposes under section 4(1) of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. Clause 6 of the bill provides that on the revocation of the order in council referred to in item 1 of schedule 1, the Greater Shepparton City Council is taken to be the committee of management of that land appointed under section 14(2) of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. The reserving of the land temporarily for public purposes is to ensure that the Greater Shepparton City Council retains appropriate management control over the land following the revocation. Currently Victoria Park Lake is permanently reserved for the purpose of public land and the Greater Shepparton City Council is the reserve’s committee of management. At the southern end of the reserve at Victoria Lake on the land owned by Greater Shepparton City Council is the caravan park, which the council has operated for more than 60 years for the Shepparton community. Extensive growth, as you can imagine, has occurred during that time. In the minister’s second-reading speech he spoke about how the Greater Shepparton City Council has advised the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action that it wishes to purchase the Crown land portion of the caravan park in order for the park itself to be refurbished to cater for the increased tourism rates experienced across the Shepparton district.

This land is in a prime location at the gateway of the city next to the Shepparton Art Museum, one of our major tourist attractions, which sits on our beautiful lake precinct. There has been significant investment also into this lake precinct over the years, and as mentioned by the member for Brunswick, the Economy and Infrastructure Committee got to see this beautiful precinct on their visit recently – and I invite members in the chamber to come to my region. Over many years the caravan park on the land owned by council has deteriorated; the land was flood-affected and more than ever needs work to be done. Council in the past has looked at refurbishment and future opportunities for the caravan park area to be upgraded, to turn the current run-down site into a wonderful tourist attraction and destination. The current size of the land owned by council led to roadblocks and limitations to what could be achieved. Council being able to purchase this extra Crown land hopefully will create a significant opportunity to look at future opportunities for the site. This is a great example of Crown land sitting dormant that could be used for public space and activation and an extension of the current offering.

The cost of the land to council is still to be determined. However, any sale is likely to take place in at least 12 months after the permanent reserve is revoked, after which the bill would temporarily reserve the land for public purposes under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, and Greater Shepparton City Council will continue as the land’s committee of management pending any sale. Under clause 1 the other areas included in the bill to be revoked are permanent reservations of certain agricultural research land at Toolangi; the permanent reservation of certain land at Seaspray; permanent reservations and related Crown grants of certain mechanics institute land at Haunted Stream, to be dedicated as a reserved forest under the Forests Act 1958; at Narracan South, which I am looking forward to hearing the member for Narracan speak about, at Darlimurla, Mirboo and Wombelano, the permanent reservations of certain land; the port of Geelong; permanent reservations of certain borough chambers land at Clunes; and the permanent reservation and related Crown grant of certain land at Alexandra Park in Melbourne. It also revokes the permanent reservation related Crown grant of certain land at the Melbourne City Baths reserves and the permanent reservation of certain land at Walhalla. This bill is providing a range of opportunities and improvements at all of these locations.

Clause 2, the commencement provision, provides for the bill to come into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed or on 1 November 2024 if not proclaimed before this date. I commend the bill to the house.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (11:54): I rise to speak on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023 – a bit of alliteration there; well done to the adviser team and the drafters – and follow the member for Shepparton, whose community it has a direct connection with and obviously an impact on, so it was great to hear that contribution. This is a really interesting bill for where Victorians find their land reservations and for thinking about in each and every parcel and community the significance of Crown land reservations that are put aside for a range of different uses. It is worth reflecting on the more than 8 million hectares, an area of Victorian public land on which there are 1200 portions of public land reservations across 550,000 hectares, forming a range of different usages – road, rail, environmental outcomes, community, recreational, you name it. Those reservations are things that were envisaged, but as our state starts to grow and millions more Victorians come to live here in the years to come, these reservations and their future use and purposes are really critical to consider.

I want to make two interesting reflections and analogies on reserves that I have been familiar with having grown up in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne and then also servicing the Mordialloc electorate. There are two particular reserves that could not be more contrasting in their needs and that have been Crown land reservations. One is the Mordialloc Freeway reserve, or the Mornington Peninsula Freeway reservation, which was first conceived by the Hamer government. Maybe in the future – there is room for more Hamers in Victoria, that is for sure. The member for Box Hill Paul Hamer is in the chair, so I am not just talking to the ether or nowhere – but there is a lot of room for Hamers in the Parliament.

The Hamer government put aside the Mornington Peninsula northern extension freeway reserve, which went a lot further up towards the Monash, but gradually as communities developed and land reservations around green wedge land and market gardens through there changed, we saw the freeway retreat a bit to where it intersects now with the Dingley bypass and the Mordialloc Freeway. But for decades, the community questioned whether this was a necessary reservation. Debate went on – people thought this should be an environmental trail, a shared user path or should be incorporated into the green wedge – but I am proud to say that we delivered the Mordialloc Freeway. We used that reserve, and it took the Andrews Labor government to act on that reserve. I am so glad that we did not have a revocation, because it is that forward planning – that thinking around community use and benefit that was decades in the making – that happened under the Hamer government and was realised by the Andrews government some 40-plus years later.

Contrast that to out in the eastern suburbs and the Healesville freeway reserve. It is still named as such, but sections were taken offline 11 years ago to make that an environmental shared user path and a planted corridor. It is a spectacular addition to Victoria’s open space and the corridor through there. It is not envisaged for a freeway anymore, and it just shows that in two communities – in metropolitan Melbourne and on the fringes of our interface councils – that change could be so substantial. I think the section from Springvale Road to Boronia was a section that was taken offline previously. We need to adapt to those changes and those community uses, and that is where community consultation and long-term planning outcomes from our Department of Transport and Planning and our environmental departments are really critical to stress-testing that over time and working with our local government authorities to make sure that we are always in check with what we need for the future and the outcomes going forward. I wanted to provide that as a reflection because it shows how over time things can change and how different usages of what was envisaged to be road reserves can have such a different community story.

There is also a really important role, particularly when we talk about the parcels of land – some being as small as the baths that are mentioned in this bill, I think being 10 square metres, all the way up to thousands of hectares – that we are respectful and always engaging with traditional owners. When we think about our journey at the moment towards a treaty with First Nations people – a multipartisan-supported commitment in this Parliament – land usage is a really critical element for consideration. The consultation particularly that goes on with the Bunurong Land Council, out my way, but all traditional owner land groups and representatives is a really critical part of that consultation journey. I know that a lot of these parcels of land have gone through years if not decades of consideration, and as members have reflected, there are times where it has been advocacy over multiple terms of Parliament that has led to other outcomes as well. But we need to be respectful, consultative, caring, nurturing and supportive of traditional landowner groups and be informed in that process of consultation. I know that was a key reiteration in some of the considerations and work of this bill.

The member for Shepparton made a good point about the productive use or alternative uses of Crown land. It is something that I am really passionate about out in the south-eastern suburbs in my electorate as well. We had a Crown land allocation near the National Water Sports Centre – of course the National Water Sports Centre was one of the linchpins in the pitch for the Olympic Games that eventually went to Atlanta in 1996. This water body was allocated and reserved for the potential pitch for the Olympic Games and now is for public use.

But to the north near Cornish College was an allocation of land that was really redundant. For all the work that Parks Victoria and the department undertook, it was almost impossible to maintain on a regular basis. We had a number of call-outs and concerns during that time of people accessing this illegally. So it was offered to an organisation called the Melbourne Cable Park, a leasing arrangement that has been amazing in terms of the change of Crown land. It is still deemed in that space but provides a complimentary use in green wedge allocated Crown land, a recreational reserve with two massive lakes through there that allow waterskiing and an aqua fun park that has really opened up so much more usage. Tens of thousands of people enjoy this facility each and every year. But if not for that change and that consideration of land usage, we would not have had that process. We have had considerations in previous bills on the use of Crown land and its operation.

The other one that really sticks out to me is the helmeted honeyeaters allocation in Yellingbo. I give a shout-out to the member for Monbulk – what a majestic part of Victoria Yellingbo is. My nan is in Woori Yallock, and I know the member for Eildon has a connection to that part, and also the former Deputy Premier, the member for Monbulk James Merlino. He might have a couple of helmeted honeyeaters – I do not know, he is so passionate about them. They are obviously one of our emblems. It is a substantial environmental precinct through the reserve for the helmeted honeyeater, and that Yellingbo allocation is just an amazing use of Crown land. The reasons we have those reserves and their preservation are so very critical – it is part of our identity in Victoria. Just up the road through there where I grew up as a kid, we protect the Leadbeater’s possum as well. When we think about those reserves that stand in perpetuity and that we support under legislation, we have to be considerate of those usages, of how community connects and the environmental significance of those into the future. I know the member for Monbulk is very passionate about that space and that advocacy, and a number of members of Parliament have been part of that as well.

I want to reiterate and thank the department and the minister’s office for the journey to this point. They have got a great team of advisers and bureaucrats who do an outstanding job each and every day. The new minister has obviously hit the ground running, briefed up and ready to go. Land revocations are one of the many things that are on the go. I want to just reiterate the importance of the community consultation that has gone on and the engagement that has been had with members across the Parliament. The lived experience that they bring to this on behalf of their communities and the respect and important diligence and dignity that has been shown in the engagement with First Nations peoples on this bill will see further land revocations and considerations of reserves come through. But in this iteration, when you look through each of the individual circumstances, they make a lot of sense. Some are really postage-stamp small, all the way up to thousands-of-hectare allocations. It just shows the diversity and breadth across the more than 1200 public land reserves that we look after in Victoria across the 550,000 hectares.

On behalf of my community, with the examples we have demonstrated around the Mordialloc Freeway road reserve, the story around the Healesville Freeway reserve and the contrast there with the land usage and engagement, we are really appreciative of the bill coming before us. We wish it a speedy passage through the two houses.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (12:03): I am pleased to rise today on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023, being that it actually does affect my electorate. It has been an interesting contribution today. We had a beautiful history lesson from the member for Pascoe Vale. We had a fishing lesson from the member for Gippsland East. The member for Tarneit finally figured out there was something in my electorate today, which I was very proud of, and there was the member for Shepparton. But the member for Mordialloc is probably the one that stayed closest to the bill today, and I congratulate him on that. I also congratulate the shadow minister, who gave us an absolutely inspiring 27 minutes on this bill today, and that would have been a challenge. The member for Brighton did an absolutely fantastic job – inspiring, it was. I was riveted to my screen. I could not tear myself away.

We do not oppose this bill, because this bill is commonsense. I do appreciate the staff sending me through the actual maps of Walhalla. These are not props, but I can tell you there are about 36 different titles, if I am correct – somewhere around that figure – in Walhalla that have to be readjusted or sold off or whatever needs to be done. Obviously in this process we do have to consult with the Gunnai/Kurnai people, which I am sure will be pretty, I would say, cordial. Everyone will get along. It will be fine. This bill does fix some things. I can tell you some of the titles in Walhalla go back to 1889, when these titles were put in place. So it would be good to –

Tim Bull: The gold rush.

Wayne FARNHAM: Gold rush time. I hope people in this chamber go down to Walhalla, because it is a beautiful part of Victoria. I have talked about Walhalla many times in this chamber, and there is a reason for that, because it is one of the best places in Victoria.

Ros Spence: Get the steam train.

Wayne FARNHAM: Well, if we had a train line – from where? But speaking about the steam train – I am glad the Minister for Agriculture at the table brought that up – I actually took the Shadow Minister for Tourism, Sport and Events down there last week. The big man, me and him, went on the train from Thomson River into Walhalla. It was not a train; it was one of the maintenance carriages, and I will say the big man struggled to get in the carriage. He struggled to get in. He is a big lad. If you ever catch the train, it is quite a steep incline out of Walhalla – I think it is about 17 degrees – and with the shadow minister and I in this little maintenance carriage it might have been a bit too much for the incline. I will blame the shadow minister, because one of the fellows had to get out and push it up the hill, so the shadow minister or I need to do a bit of weight loss. It is a great part of the town.

Walhalla is an interesting place. I do not know if many people know this: Walhalla Cricket Club started in 1882, and in 1907 – I know the member for Gippsland East will love this – they had a cricket match at Walhalla. The cricket match was between Walhalla and the Melbourne Cricket Club. How about that? How long would it have taken the MCC to get to Walhalla back in those days? Unfortunately, the MCC declared at 7/233 and the Walhalla team only made 133 runs. Apparently they had a rematch in 2007, but I could not get the scores on that one. I am tipping the MCC probably won again. It takes you half an hour to walk up the hill in Walhalla to get to that cricket ground. Have you ever played there, member for Gippsland East?

Tim Bull: No.

Wayne FARNHAM: No? You are a cricketer. I thought you would have.

This is a commonsense bill, and we do not oppose it. I also have a mechanics institute in Narracan. I think the trustees are the only trustees that are not deceased, and they do not have a problem with this being in this bill either. It is a well-supported bill. As I said, it has been a pretty wideranging debate today.

This actually comes at a perfect time for Walhalla, because Walhalla, as I mentioned the other week, has been put up by UNESCO for heritage listing. This bill will tidy up those titles around there, and hopefully for the people who own properties around there, if it is adjacent to their title, this will pick that up. Obviously there are titles around roads as well. This will go a long way to tidying all this up. So if Walhalla does get recognised for World Heritage listing, it will be a lot easier to do other works there into the future to improve their tourism and their economy. Hopefully one day this government will listen to me and put sewerage on in Walhalla, because that is very, very important.

The other thing I think the government needs to start looking at is the correlation between Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action owned sporting grounds and local councils. This causes me no end of grief in my community, because unfortunately in these situations it gives both authorities a bit of an out. I am going to reference the Bunyip Football Club, which is a DEECA-owned ground, and there is a ground out the back, and that is owned by someone else.

I have been trying to get this ground resurfaced, because in winter you are 8 inches deep in mud. The argument that I keep getting from council and DEECA is, well, the council do not want to do anything because they do not own the facility – and a lot of councils do not want to own the facilities because then the burden is on them – and DEECA do not want to do anything because they do not want to invest in it for whatever reason. I am not quite sure. I have been trying to get a meeting with DEECA on this particular issue, because we need to get a correlation between these two parties to get improvements to these reservations that are DEECA owned.

I know the Bunyip Football Club has been advocating for a long time now to get resurfacing done, but it is not the only one in my electorate where I have this problem. I have quite a few grounds that are DEECA reserves where councils have put the buildings on them, and councils sometimes are reluctant to put the buildings on them because they do not own the land. So I would love to see the government get together with local councils and sort out this issue, because it is becoming an issue in my electorate. At the Bunyip ground, for example, they had a women’s football team, but unfortunately because the facilities are in such a poor state they moved on to better facilities. We all know AFLW is very, very popular at the moment. I was at their awards the other night actually, and good on the Richmond girl, Conti, for winning the best and fairest. It was a good win for Richmond this year. I was there with her – well, there; I was at the awards. It was a great night.

I think my contribution has about wound up, but I just would like to say to the department: please consider the correlation we have between these reserves – the DEECA reserves and council – so we can get that sorted out so maybe I can get someone to take responsibility to upgrade those facilities. Thank you, and I will leave it there.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (12:12): I rise today to speak on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. I should say that I am pleased that the member for Narracan had a great time at the AFLW awards during the week – and a good effort on that. This bill is a fairly dry bill. I did not hear the lead speaker from the opposition, but obviously he dragged it out over 27 minutes. He could not complete the 30 but got it to 27, and someone said if he had spoken to it a bit more quickly, then he might have done it in 15 minutes. But anyway, here we go. I want to acknowledge the work of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, who did quite a substantial amount of consultation with the relevant traditional owner groups and clearly the Department of Transport and Planning, and I want to acknowledge the great work of the Minister for Environment and his staff in hitting the ground running with this bill.

Approximately one-third of Victoria is Crown land, and about 7 per cent of this land, or 550,000 hectares – and I think the member for Mordialloc raised the issue of 550,000 hectares – of this Crown land is Crown land reserves. A Crown land reserve is land that is set aside for public use purposes, such as educational or recreational activity, and places like public schools, TAFE colleges, universities, public hospitals and clearly public parks and recreational reserves – such as have been alluded to in previous contributions – like local football grounds. Of course we know how important our educational and recreational facilities are to this state and to this country. I am pleased to be part of a government that is delivering on educational facilities right across the state. I know in my electorate, since I have been in office over the last five years, the number of new schools that have been built and opened to keep up with the growth of our population within the Melton electorate is just amazing.

This bill will repeal permanent reservations at 13 locations throughout Victoria as well as repeal restricted Crown grants at six sites. Additionally, the bill will abolish part 4 of the Land (Reservations and other Matters) Act 1999, which is associated with these reservations.

This is really quite a narrow bill; it is quite technical. It is only 41 pages. Nine of the 11 parts in the bill are outlining the revocation of the specific reservations. The legislation is designed to enable new management frameworks for future utilisation of these parcels of land and the development of the specified land areas. Prospective land uses could include ongoing use by the current occupants – potential sale and development – or may involve re-reservation in certain instances.

I would just like to remind everyone that the sale of Crown land in Victoria is subject to various legislative and policy requirements set by the Victorian government and that any sale process must adhere to obligations outlined in the Native Title Act 1993 and relevant agreements established under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010. The cancellation of the enduring reservations will allow the sites to be redesignated for alternative purposes, supporting suitable management plans or facilitating the sale of the land for future utilisation and development. Additionally, it will help regularise the land use by current occupants, allowing them to get on with their businesses and organisations with some level of stability and surety for their future.

Ten out of the 13 revocation proposals outlined in this bill pertain to the potential sale of Crown land if this bill is passed. In three instances this involves associated restricted Crown grants. In the three revocations proposed in the bill, the sale of the land is expressly not contemplated. Government departments have been proposing the sale of certain sites for several years. In the case of Walhalla, which has been mentioned in many contributions, the proposal involves revoking specific parts of the reserve to potentially sell them to current occupiers and to the people who are already using that site. The progress of these revocations is based on this basis. I went to Walhalla many, many years ago. It is quite an amazing place. I would love to travel back there, but I just have not had time in recent years. But I do remember it well, and we did spend some great time there. It is quite an interesting place to travel to.

I am going to raise the issue of mechanics institutes. I just want to let the house know the important role that the mechanics institute played in the Melton electorate, or the Melton community. The Melton Mechanics Institute was opened in 1868 – I was not around then, but some might think I was. The purpose of it was providing working people with a means to acquire knowledge in diverse subjects by means of a comprehensive library and an organised series of lectures. While it might have become more of a social function centre than a library, it was ensuring that educational opportunities were available to everyone who wanted them, which is still the cornerstone of this government’s identity. I have got to say that Melton now has a fantastic new library that is probably three or four years old or maybe a bit older, five years old, but it is an amazing library that the whole community uses. It is great to go in there and see the diversity of those utilising that library now, and it is money well spent within the local community to provide those types of facilities and services for our local community.

I also want to mention TAFE and TAFE facilities. The good thing about TAFE is, firstly, this government is providing free TAFE courses. I think it is in excess of 70 free TAFE courses, so it allows people to go on and get that higher education or do some course that will assist them with future employment, and I think that is fantastic. We know how TAFE plays a really important role in our communities right across Victoria and across the country, and it is great to see that it has been announced that Melton will have a new TAFE facility operational by no later than 2028. The provision of TAFE education within Melton has now been awarded to Bendigo Kangan Institute. I am meeting with them within the next week to talk about what they intend to do in regard to the TAFE provision in Melton. We look forward to having a good working relationship with them and then delivering TAFE for the Melton community. We will start with 600 positions for construction training, which is important, as we know, with all the infrastructure build that is going on around the state. We know how important it is to continue to provide that level of training for people in the construction industry – and that is across the construction industry, not dedicated to one thing, like carpentry or whatever; it is right across. We need them because we have got the Big Build and other big plans for housing and infrastructure going ahead over the next few years.

In Melton we have got around about 30 schools in the electorate, and it is still growing. Each year we are building more schools, like Binap Primary School, which is in Brookfield. I was out there a few weeks ago with the principal Jean Bentley. That opens up next year, from the start of 2024. Then we have got another school coming in 2025 at Weir Views, and we are hopeful that a new secondary school will be built for the start of the 2026 school year. So there is a lot happening out in our area.

As I said, a lot of this Crown land has been utilised, as I alluded to earlier, for recreational and educational facilities, and this government is delivering on educational facilities for all of our communities. This is a really important bill, and I commend it to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (12:22): Every now and again we have bills come before us such as the one before us, the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. I have spoken on bills like this previously, and in fact some of the areas and bits of land that are included in this I have spoken about previously as well. As I said, from time to time these bills come up. The bill here revokes the permanent reservations of 13 locations across metropolitan and regional Victoria. The primary purpose for 10 of the revocations is the potential intention to sell the land. That tells me two things. It tells me first of all that the government is broke and is looking for every zack it can get and to sell off every asset that it can find. To do so, in certain instances changes need to be made, because the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 precludes the sale of Crown land that is reserved. Therefore the revocation of the reservation is essential to taking the next step. We have got 13 different locations that are identified here where, before anything can happen, before sales can take place, the reservations need to be removed. There are different reasons for the removal in different instances in each of those locations, but mostly it is around preparing for sale.

For the sale of Crown land in Victoria there are a range of legislative and policy requirements, and I want to just list what they are first of all. The Victorian government strategic Crown land assessment policy needs to be considered, the Victorian Government Land Transactions Policy needs to be considered and the Victorian Government Landholding Policy and Guidelines need to be considered. So there is quite a bit that they have to assess going forward to get to the end game here, and strategic Crown land assessments must be undertaken to confirm that the land is surplus and is able to be sold. I have seen some instances of land that has been completely landlocked and only able to be sold to one particular buyer, because it only has that one boundary. Sometimes the government and the valuer-general put pretty crazy prices on these. I think of land in Yarra Glen which was landlocked. It was a small section of land and the only person who could access that land if they purchased it was the neighbour, but the government put a price on it as though it was a vineyard that was going to bring in millions of dollars. That did not make a lot of sense. Finally, after years, that hurdle was jumped and the land was sold.

Now, sometimes with the revocation of these reservations, they need to consider the Native Title Act 1993, because there may be obligations. So in a few instances there is some work to be done with the traditional owners to get their agreement.

As I have mentioned, there is land all across Victoria, and the one I am going to concentrate on most is the former potato research station in Toolangi. This area is well known to me. It has been the home of potato research for 85 years – dedicated research into potatoes. Initially it was the government potato research centre, and in the last 29 years it has been leased to AuSPICA, which is the Australian Seed Potato Industry Certification Authority. Last night they had their 29th AGM, so they are coming up to 30 years having leased that land which was the potato research station. The land, as I understand it, is in three parcels, and the government has told us that the neighbours are looking at potentially buying it – I am not sure which neighbours. Some of it, if you look at maps, is surrounded by dense forest, but two of these areas are grazing land and one, of 52 acres, is leased to AuSPICA. I am not sure which is the one that is interested in the purchase. One of the nurseries could be interested. I am not 100 per cent sure, but the government tells us that somebody has been interested. I advise caution with preparation of land for sale, because sometimes it might seem easier, but I understand that for one of these parcels, the assets on the land and the water licence have been handed over to a third party, so it is not so easy to disentangle that and to work out how they are going to do that. It is certainly something that they must consider. The three parcels are known as Cones, Blue Range and Mick’s.

I want to talk just about the potato research and agriculture and my concerns about what is going to happen to this land long term. I hope they can work with the current tenants to come up with a good solution. Agriculture is pretty well a $20 billion industry in Victoria, and it is exceptionally important. There are 150,000 jobs in primary and secondary production, but one of the things that is really important here is agricultural research. We have had massive cuts in the department of agriculture, which is very concerning, because at the moment there is one horticultural pathologist in the state, and with the exodus of staff, 135 years of post-harvest technology brain has been lost. This is very concerning, because at the moment we have industries that rely on work with the department of agriculture, such as the seed potato industry, which works on disease and pests. The more that you decimate the department of agriculture, the less of this work that can be done and the less that some of the private organisations that are doing this are supported. It worries me greatly – the extent of expertise that has been lost.

AuSPICA deal withs seed potatoes, and they are the potato tubers that are used for planting. They are onsold as certified and disease-free. Also nearby we have strawberry runners, which are a similar sort of thing. They provide strawberry runners for, I think, something like 70 per cent of strawberries. Fifty per cent of Australian potatoes start life in Toolangi through AuSPICA. They work at suppressing disease, and they have got some expertise. Kay Spierings has been chair of the board for some time, and potato pathologist Dr Nigel Crump is the general manager. I have met with them many times. They are continuing their work with collaboration around food security, food nutrition and the genetic resource centre, and they really aim to build up a potato bank to supply the Oceania region.

Some recent successes – in the last four or five years or so they have had access to the Indonesian market, and 5000 tonnes of potatoes have been exported to Indonesia. They are looking to open up further markets through Japan in crisps – chips – but the crisp ones, not the hot potatoes. These markets are looking for commercial and seed potatoes. They are doing some amazing work in Vanuatu with the building of food security, and they are solving some birth defects and anaemia in women particularly, because potatoes are a source of zinc and iron. It was most telling of how important it is to support this industry going into the future that during the cyclone emergency one of their country leaders actually stopped to meet with the representatives from AuSPICA to make sure that they did not lose the flow of the important work that is being done.

So when we have got these parcels of land in Toolangi having their reservation being removed so that they can be sold, I really hope that they can work out a way to maintain the seed potato industry up there, because not only has it got that long history but also this work is extremely valuable. We know if we are purchasing potatoes to grow in our gardens, for example, or tomatoes or whatever it is, we want them certified as disease-free. We want to know that they are going to give a good crop and a good harvest so that we do not get dudded. If you have got disease or pests in them, they can spread and you can lose an entire crop, so it is important that this expertise continues to be supported. The potato research industry really does underpin so much in agriculture, and that research just needs to be supported. I fear very much for the industry with that great loss of expertise and what it means.

What might happen at Toolangi is a little bit unsure at the moment – who the buyers will be, what will happen in that area – but the government needs to make sure that it continues to invest in the agriculture sector and in particular in seed potatoes. We all love our spuds. We eat chips hot and cold, mashed potatoes, roast potatoes – that industry needs to be supported.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:32): There is a lot to love about a potato, I agree. We all love a potato. Well, I do not speak for everyone – most people love a potato. Anyway, how did I get there? I am going to speak to this particular bill, which one might say has some more administrative aspects when we are looking at revocation of portions of land, but by the same token of course land is extremely precious, and I think that the use is certainly an issue when you are looking at all elements. Whether it is public or private land, we are all very conscious of making sure that land is used optimally, particularly in the public domain, and hence it is necessary to have these kinds of formal processes to ensure transparency in the way that land is transacted and hence this parliamentary process, literally, to ensure that the broader public is aware of these changes in terms of revoking certain areas of land across the state.

Also it really is a trigger, I should say, to make sure that the broader public are alert should there be anything that was not apparent at the point of drafting the bill, although there has been relevant consultation on matters. I will note a further point that the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action have advised that in many of these cases the community has been asking for years for the revocation of these sites, and they have not undergone a formal consultation process for this reason. Therefore you can see why there is a relative amount of unity, I should say, across the chamber, because actually this is reflecting – and I make a broader statement without attuning to the individual portions of land that we are speaking about today – that there has been support and advocacy for the changes which are coming forward in certain regards. So that is a good thing too. That certainly reduces some contention, because we know that when we are talking about land it can inspire very strong opinions. I know that when I was a councillor a few years ago, planning matters absolutely provoked some pretty strident opinions and emotions, and it makes sense because it is your area. It is good because it reflects people actually caring about the area where they live and the way the land is used. Hence that is reinforcing why we need these particular protocols to be followed in terms of the way revocations and the like are transacted, to be sure that the broader community have the opportunity should they wish to be abreast of the particular changes that are being brought about.

I note advocacy for some of the relevant changes that are being brought about, such as with Victoria Park Lake, Shepparton. In particular, land situated at the southern end of the reserve, as well as the land owned by the council, is a caravan park which the council has owned for more than 60 years. The council has advised the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action that it wishes to purchase the Crown land portion of the caravan park so it can be refurbished to cater for increased tourism in the Shepparton area. That would seem to be a very reasonable thing to do, and obviously there is broad agreement with regard to this particular revocation. Because any sale is likely to take at least 12 months after the permanent reserve is revoked, the bill will temporarily reserve the land for public purposes under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the council will continue as the land’s committee of management, pending any sale.

You would note I was talking about a potential sale there, noting that this bill of itself is not effecting any sale of land – and I think that is another important nuance – but it is, rather, making sure that the particular process of revocation is fulfilled appropriately. It is anticipated that there is potential for the sale of land. It is highly probable that a sale of land may follow, but then that will be a trigger for further processes to be undertaken should those particular contingencies prevail.

Accordingly, in that regard I do not wish to overstate what this bill is doing but rather wish to say that it is an important step in the process of transparency and being very precise about particular changes in terms of the land usage, noting that further steps in the process are likely – or not unlikely, perhaps – to follow. But as you can see, I am being quite cautious in my language because I do not want to extend the ramifications of the bill beyond that which it is seeking to serve here in this debate today.

There are a couple of the revocations that are closer to the area of my electorate. With regard to Alexandra Park, Melbourne, the bill will revoke the reservation over a small area of Alexandra Park on the banks of the Yarra River in South Yarra which is permanently reserved for public recreation purposes and also the associated restricted Crown grant issued to the former Board of Land and Works and the City of Melbourne for the purposes of the reservation, to the extent that it applies to the area of the reservation being revoked. This will allow the legal status of the land to reflect its current use as part of the Swan Street Bridge.

We can see there, I think it is fair to say, not a particularly controversial change being effected by the revocation, because that bridge is being used very heavily, with good reason. I should say there were upgrades to the Swan Street Bridge to alleviate congestion and increase pedestrian and cycling capacity. I am emphasising that point because I know there is an increasing trend of people wanting to use low-carbon transport mechanisms, and hence making these kinds of changes is a really important way of fostering further multimodal transport options and getting people fitter as well – it is terrific if you can ride your bike or walk. Anyway, I went on a tangent there, but it is an important one because it suggests why upgrades were undertaken – as well as improving road safety, and we know that that is absolutely paramount. I can say, having crossed the Swan Street Bridge hundreds and hundreds of times myself going to and from various parts of our beautiful city, there is a fair whack of traffic along there. So mechanisms to encourage different ways of transport around the city, not only the car, are a good thing, and the changes that were made to improve road safety also get the tick because obviously we want to keep Victorians as safe as possible on the roads.

Those upgrades were completed in September 2018. It seems like just yesterday – how time flies. The works resulted in a very small section of the permanent reservation forming Alexandra Park being incorporated into the structure of the Swan Street Bridge. Following revocation of the relevant area of the permanent reservation, the subject land will be proclaimed as a government road through a separate administrative process. You can see that I have emphasised those elements because I am distinguishing what this bill will deliver versus what further processes will deliver to effect those anticipated further changes.

Another very important issue has been addressed in the chamber already, but I wish to reiterate it because of the importance with regard to the history of our country – our traditional owners’ 60,000-plus years of tremendous history, both cultural and on so many levels. The department has advised that consulting with traditional owners is the first step in any process of re-reservation, development or sale. I do want to emphasise that because that should be, quite rightly, an important element and an important first step before you proceed to these kinds of changes in land use. Relevant traditional owner groups have been informed of the proposals relating to the sites. No objections have been raised at this stage, with the caveat that any further issues will be worked through if that point is reached. Coming back to the issue, as the first step in any process of re-reservation, development or sale, relevant traditional owner groups are certainly consulted, as is right and proper to do. Hence the first consultation has been undertaken, and should further contingencies prevail, which seems probable, then further consultation will need to take place as well.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:42): I am pleased to rise to say a few words on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. Showing my great interest in this piece of legislation, I will begin by, I think, castigating others for praising the member for Brighton for going for 27 minutes on this bill. I do not think he deserves any praise whatsoever. I am saying that tongue in cheek of course, for Hansard’s purposes, but really –

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: That is why I had to add the irony in ‘for Hansard’s purposes’. Well done to the member for Brighton, but there probably are some speakers who have given him some praise to pad out their 10 minutes. I will not do that.

I am very pleased to see this legislation come forward for a couple of reasons. One is the reference to Merriman Creek at Seaspray, which has been an issue that I have been dealing with with constituents for some time this year. It is literally a situation where the surveying was done incorrectly – I do not think by government surveyors; I think it might have actually been by a private surveyor – and a house was built, as it happens, right on Merriman Creek in a beautiful spot at Seaspray in the beautiful electorate of Gippsland South. In fact I have canoed past the house in question on Merriman Creek; it is a lovely spot. But yes, the house, I believe, was built across what is Crown land reserve. As I said, my office in particular has been liaising with the department and the government to try and address this issue for a number of months this year, and so I was very pleasantly surprised when this legislation was introduced a few weeks ago to see it on the list.

I am surprised in some respects because it is far from the only one of these sorts of situations that I have had to deal with. It may be a technical issue, I suspect, but I have had at least two others in the South Gippsland shire in the last couple of years where homes or property boundaries have been mistakenly gazetted or drawn up across Crown land boundaries. It was particularly the case in a property in Foster a couple of years ago, where literally again the same situation happened where the house had been built on what was actually Crown land.

Generally speaking there is a practical acceptance of these mistakes and they do not cause a big issue, particularly when the house or the property stays within one family or with one owner. The problem of course comes when you start to look to sell the properties and, naturally, prospective buyers want to see things like titles and the like and raise questions about them. It is amazing that these things can happen, although I am reminded of one of these similar issues, which was raised with me at a little place called Outtrim, just south of Korumburra, a couple of years ago. If anyone has been through that area, Outtrim in particular is a very steep and very hilly area. It used to be the site of a coalmine back at about the turn of the previous century. There remain some land title issues. I was shown the original title drawings that had been drawn up by whatever it was back in around the 1890s, 1900s – presumably it was the lands department. They had drawn up plans and titles for the town of Outtrim. They had clearly been done in Melbourne at a time before there was easy travel to South Gippsland and certainly a time before there was Google Maps, because the person in question had drawn up these house blocks and literally just gone ‘Well, there’s the town, there’s the main street – we will draw up a number of literally quarter-acre blocks side by side with a road down the middle and more quarter-acre blocks on the other side’. The problem was that when they had drawn it up, they clearly had not been to the location, because it was an absolutely precipitous hillside. There is no way in the world, even with today’s technology, that you would be building houses and roads and streets on that particular hillside. Thankfully, we have probably come a bit further than that these days. It was amusing to some degree but also still a problem for the then landowner, because they had an issue that had resulted from that planning 120-odd years ago.

I am pleased to see the Seaspray situation being sorted out. The family I have been dealing with there I am sure will be happy. Subject to the negotiations with the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation, I hope that will be sorted out. I have not spoken to GLaWAC about it, but I would hope that there would be no particular issue. The land in question is of course of no value to anyone else; it will only suit the house and the property involved.

There are two others in the list of changes in this legislation that also relate to Gippsland South. That is at Darlimurla and Mirboo, where the former mechanics institute sites are being effectively handed over. These I think will also come into the Gunaikurnai area, should they be sold. But these are not areas of particular interest, perhaps other than to neighbours that might be interested in buying or indeed looking at opportunities on those small sites. I highlight that both of them are in beautiful South Gippsland: Darlimurla, just out of Mirboo North, and Mirboo just out of Mirboo North, to the south. I use this opportunity to highlight that a number of people say to me from time to time, ‘Why is there a Mirboo North but no Mirboo?’ Well, there actually is. It is often misunderstood, Mirboo. There is even a Mirboo East, for those who are interested. Mirboo is a beautiful spot on the Tarwin River east branch. It is just a gorgeous part of the world, and I am sure that if this land is ultimately put up for sale, it will be snapped up, because it is a gorgeous part of the world: beautiful rolling green hills, lovely trees and good farming country.

I would just like to comment briefly on the issue of traditional owner involvement in this. As I said, I hoped that the Seaspray circumstance would be straightforward, but it is far from straightforward when it comes to selling Crown land. My understanding of it, certainly from my experience with GLaWAC, is that where native title exists there obviously needs to be a consultation with traditional owners, and the process, I believe, is that an Indigenous land use agreement needs to be arranged. What it boils down to, I understand, is that if Crown land is to be sold in an area of native title, then the traditional owners need to be not only consulted but compensated. My understanding in dealing with a couple of different pieces of land that are not related directly to this bill is that those negotiations have been bogged down.

What I am referring to in particular is the former Sale police station. The new police station was opened in Sale in 2015, thanks to the great work of my predecessor Peter Ryan and the former Liberal–Nationals government. But since 2015 the old Sale police station, which sits very close to the centre of town and right on Lake Guthridge in the middle of Sale, has sat there as an eyesore. It has not been used. It has become a mecca for vandalism, for antisocial behaviour and indeed for rough sleeping. The irony is at one stage allegedly some people who had done a series of burglaries took their ill-gotten gains back to the old Sale police station to store them. The irony of that is not lost on anyone. A couple of months ago Victoria Police did in fact properly secure the building and have fully boarded it up now so people cannot get access; the last time I checked no-one was getting access. But that is still a site that has been sitting there now for eight years, and nothing has happened with it.

It is, as I said, prime real estate. I raised this issue in Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings last week, and the department indicated that negotiations with GLaWAC were ‘ongoing’. That is not really what I am hearing from my sources at the Gippsland end. They have not heard much recently and are wondering what is happening. So I encourage the government to address that situation, and I am surprised it actually has not had more publicity across the state, because it will be slowing down the process of Crown land sales in many areas. Of course the Gunnai/Kurnai are very keen to finalise these arrangements as well. I hope that the Sale police station issue can be resolved.

I am pleased to see the Seaspray situation is resolved and that both Darlimurla and Mirboo will also proceed to a sale process. I look forward to this legislation therefore passing through this chamber and the Parliament in general.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (12:52): I always seem to have the opportunity to follow on from the member for Gippsland East. I always quite enjoy listening –

Danny O’Brien: South.

Josh BULL: South. My apologies.

Emma Kealy: You should have worked it out by now.

Josh BULL: Yes, I should know that by now. I am just riveted by the contribution, that is all, member. He did tell a very funny story last night with his Christmas hat on that I enjoyed, and hopefully he will be able to give me a tap on the shoulder for a good speech in Strangers.

Can I take the opportunity to say that I am pleased to contribute to debate on the Land (Revocation of Reservations) Bill 2023. This bill is all about adding flexibility, adding opportunity to the way that land within our state and our agencies, councils and local communities is managed. Through contributions that have been made this afternoon and conversations within our local communities we know and understand that when it comes to opportunities that exist with and conversations about particular parcels of land within our local communities it is about striking the balance. It is about striking the balance between creating jobs, delivering economic activity and of course protection and enhancement of our environment. We know that it is a critical balance, and what is important is to be able to find that balance, because we are indeed a growing state. As it stands today, we are growing by about 1 million people per decade. This Allan Labor government has, since we have had the opportunity to govern in this state, delivered in education, delivered in health and delivered in transport to create a state that gives each and every Victorian the very best opportunities in life, right from free kinder through to free TAFE, all the way through to opportunities that exist within local communities to be their very best. What we want to see is the opportunity for communities to have those options, and the management of land contained within the provisions of this legislation simply provide for greater flexibility.

By 2050 Melbourne will be the size that London is today – more jobs, more opportunities – but what we know is that places additional pressure on our environmental resources. It places additional pressure in growth corridors, like where I am from in the northern suburbs. It creates additional pressure. Of course we welcome new communities right across our state. We welcome new opportunities and the jobs that come with our new communities, but what we need to do and what I am very proud to be able to say that we have done in the nine years that we have been in office in this state is to deliver on a whole range of services within this space. This bill goes to the management of land and the provision that is contained within the legislation around Crown land.

This government does have a strong record when it comes to our environment, whether that is the Victorian renewable energy target, whether that is bringing back the SEC or whether that is massive investments in solar and wind and battery and so much more. But we know that we are not talking about these investments simply from the prism of commentary, like some – our friends in the Greens political party. We are not talking about these things simply from afar by posting a graphic on Facebook or Twitter or wherever it might go. We are delivering real jobs through these investments. What is important about this legislation is that it does have the opportunity to, in quite a local sense, do some important work around the management of land within this state. We know, Deputy Speaker – and you know so well – that dealing with those challenges that come from land management and growth but also making sure that we are providing for those environmental management supports and the initiatives and the policies that are contained within some of the programs that I mentioned earlier are incredibly important.

The purpose of this bill is to revoke permanent Crown land reservations at 13 locations across metropolitan and regional Victoria, together with six restricted Crown grants, as well as repealing part 4 of the Land (Reservations and other Matters) Act 1999. Some reservations and restricted Crown grants will be fully revoked whereas others will be revoked in part. Revoking the permanent reservations and Crown grants will facilitate new management arrangements and future use and development of the land, including the potential future sale of some land parcels. What is important is that the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action must undertake an assessment of each Crown land parcel to determine if the land is surplus before it can be made available for a potential sale. The assessment identifies the land’s environmental heritage and recreational use as well as the status of traditional owner or native title rights to determine if the land can be declared as surplus or retained within the portfolio.

The bill also repeals part 4 of the Land (Reservations and other Matters) Act 1999, which relates to the revocation of reservations of land at Walhalla. This will be redundant following revocation to be made through the bill and further matters. What we know and understand is that we need to ensure that there is some flexibility within the way that these parcels of land are managed through having those important conversations with local communities, because we know as members of this house that local communities are strongly engaged, are heavily engaged, with parcels of land within their local community. When you are out and about talking to residents within each and every one of our electorates, we know that there is a high level of interest. No matter the electorate that you represent, no matter where you are, we know that there is a strong level of interest from our local community when it comes to supporting and working with flexible options that may be presented for land use and management within our local communities.

Members interjecting.

Josh BULL: I will ignore the humour from the other side. What we know is that making sure that we are striking that critical balance between population growth, between the delivery of services and between managing our transport network and around providing education, around listening to local communities and around getting on and making those important decisions, each and every day, is exactly what this government stands for.

I am conscious that we are just about on the clock for lunch. I do not know if I can go for 27 minutes, but I reckon I have got a few more minutes in me yet, but I think the house will well and truly walk out. It is about flexibility and it is about providing the very best opportunity we can, and I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.