Thursday, 23 February 2023

Bills

Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:42): I rise to conclude my contribution on the Building and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I know I only have 4 minutes on the clock, but I just want to conclude this so we can have a nice break and get off to an early lunch, perhaps, and then start our next business when we return. In summary, as I said, the focus of my contribution was really on the amendments to the plumbing licensing scheme. The Victorian Building Authority issues restricted plumbing licences that limit the holder to undertaking the work on the plumber’s own home or that of a family member for no monetary fee or other consideration. This will allow registered plumbers or those who are otherwise eligible for registration to undertake work that requires a compliance certificate on the family home without needing to be a fully licensed plumber. This practice has been going on for at least 20 years, and the bill clarifies the VBA’s ability to issue restricted plumbing licences, which will provide greater certainty for plumbers, and that can only be a good thing. I will conclude my remarks there, and I commend this bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 12:43 pm until 2:03 pm.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (14:05)

David DAVIS: With respect to clause 1, the purposes, the bill amends the Building Act 1993, the Architects Act 1991, the Surveying Act 2004 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987. I did flag with the minister a little earlier some of the matters that we wanted to consider, and I will start with the simplest of matters. There was, first of all, the earlier building and planning bill, which was here last year. It had a number of changes to the Architects Registration Board of Victoria (ARBV), including a reduction in the number of registered architects on the board. This obviously was not supported by the architecture profession, and I can indicate quite clearly that thousands and thousands of people responded to a survey that I distributed with overwhelming opposition to those particular changes. So whilst they are not in this bill, I will just perhaps take this opportunity to ask the minister: what is the government’s intention with this bill with those matters, and are they intended to be brought back to this chamber in a different form or in a future bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, at the outset, you would know that I am not the relevant minister for the Minister for Planning. You would also note that we have got new members in the chamber and this is the first committee stage that many people have had the opportunity to see up close. And you would know that asking about matters that are outside a bill would put me in a position to say it is not within the context of the bill, and therefore I am not obliged to give you an answer that is outside the scope of this bill. Having said that, the advice that I have received is that these matters are under further consideration.

David DAVIS: Thank you, Minister. Further on the theme of architects, there are a number of matters in this bill that the architecture profession was concerned about. They communicated that to the opposition – and, I suspect, also to a number of the minor parties – and certainly to the government. It is my understanding that the government has made certain commitments, and we have had those conveyed to us, but I am just very exercised to see them recorded in the Parliament from a ministerial perspective so that we can be sure that those commitments are authentic in the full and will be implemented. They are criminal sanctions and the cost for insurance checks.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. On both those matters, Mr Davis, I have some information to provide you. The Australian Institute of Architects raised concerns that because the bill does not define criminal sanction offences unrelated to an architect’s work it could be recorded on the register of architects and the information subsequently made public. Under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, if requested by a relevant regulator in another state, ARBV is required to share information relating to any civil, criminal or disciplinary action taken against a Victorian architect who wishes to work under automatic deemed registration elsewhere. Additionally, a person who is subject to criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings in relation to an occupation that covers the activity in any state is excluded from ADR, and it is up to the ARBV to ensure interstate architects working in Victoria under ADR are not subject to those proceedings. Creating a power to record details about criminal sanctions and including them in the register of architects is necessary to enable the ARBV to acquit both of these responsibilities.

The bill provides important discretion to the ARBV about which criminal or disciplinary sanctions against an architect it records on the register. As a result, the bill does not require the ARBV to record criminal sanctions unrelated to an architect’s occupation. While imposing these requirements on regulators, the Mutual Recognition Act does not define ‘criminal action’ or ‘criminal proceedings’. Regulators have been working with their counterparts across jurisdictions to understand their obligations under the act, including arriving at a common understanding of the meaning of ‘criminal action’ and ‘criminal proceedings’. Due to these ambiguities arising from the Commonwealth legislation, the bill has provided that the ARBV has the flexibility and discretion to interpret what constitutes a criminal sanction and choose whether to record it on the register of architects. Given the context in which these amendments are made, it is expected that criminal sanctions will only relate to crimes connected to a person’s work as an architect. It is intended, for example, that any criminal conviction or finding of guilt in a criminal proceeding for an offence against the Architects Act would form part of the meaning of the criminal sanctions in relation to the bill. The amendments are not related to the publication of information on the register. Information that must or may be published will be prescribed in regulations per new section 16C.

You also asked about the fees and the concerns about them being paid twice. Costs incurred by regulators to conduct annual insurance checks for Victorian registered practitioners are covered by existing fees – for example, annual renewal fees. If a fee for the examination of required insurance is introduced, it will be set at cost recovery levels and a commensurate reduction will be made to the existing fee-recovering costs for the inspection of insurance coverage. This approach will ensure Victorian registered practitioners are not paying twice for the inspection of insurance.

David DAVIS: I thank the minister for those assurances. The architects, I think, will be happy to see those in Hansard, and I am certainly reassured.

If I can just move to a separate issue that is dealt with in the bill: green wedge management plans. Most councils have some form of green wedge management plan now, but this seeks to formalise much of this, and there is a series of questions that flow from that. Our criticism of this is not the concept – we actually think that it is something that provides a modest additional layer of protection. Our concern is that the government continues to override green wedge protections despite what management plans and what planning and environmental work has been done and prepared over many years. I want to quote a couple of examples. The first and most obvious one is the Suburban Rail Loop stabling at Heatherton, which is in the chain of parks in the City of Kingston. It is a very significant green wedge area, and 30 years of work has occurred in developing that. I pay tribute to the work done by the City of Kingston – not perhaps in its current iteration, but certainly over that longer period – and to the work done by governments of both political colours. The government went to the election with a set of promises prior to 2018 about money for development of the green wedge and the sporting facility, only to later see the announcement of the Suburban Rail Loop seizure of green wedge land at Heatherton for stabling and maintenance – so a large industrial structure to be inserted into the green wedge in the City of Kingston.

Ann-Marie Hermans: They are destroying the environment.

David DAVIS: My colleague is quite right: it is destroying the environment, and the community had worked toward and looked forward to building that big area of parkland in the chain of parks – part of the green wedge. So my simple question is: will these green wedge management plans prevent this incursion into the green wedge – yes or no – or will they prevent further incursions into the green wedge?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Mr Davis, for your question and commentary in relation to these matters. Green wedges do support a variety of activities, including primary production, areas of biodiversity conservation and in some instances infrastructure, a wealth of water resources, extractive resources and other natural resources. Green wedge policy over several decades has recognised the importance of these areas for city-servicing infrastructure, including airports, water treatment and retention, and landfill and quarrying sites. The bill before the house sets out the objectives for green wedge management plans, one of which is to provide for the beneficial use of green wedge land that contributes to the sustainability, prosperity, health and wellbeing of Victorians. In particular the explanatory memorandum highlights examples of the beneficial uses, including the development and operation of major infrastructure assets including wastewater treatment plants, waste management and resource recovery facilities; airports and flight paths; major transport linkages and infrastructure; energy generation, transmission and storage, including supporting renewable energy sources such as wind and solar; tourism and recreation linked to natural environments; cultural heritage and agricultural activities; rural industries; and extractive industries, as I referred to earlier, that can continue a non-urban role of the green wedge land.

David DAVIS: The minister has laid out a long list of things that are allowed in green wedge land. I would put to the minister that under the planning understandings there are a number of existing uses – you know, extractive industries is one of them – where it would be completely beyond the pale to imagine a new permit being issued for an extractive industry in a green wedge. I do not think that is what people understand the green wedges to be. Now, I understand there is prior usage and there has got to be recognition of those points, and some of those uses go back many decades, but this is the point we are getting to: would these green wedge management plans stop the Heatherton stabling yard? That is question one, and question two is: will these green wedge management plans actually stop these extraordinary uses, like the example you gave of extractive industries? Will there be further extractive industries placed in green wedges? I mean, I am sorry, I would be horrified if that were the case.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I am not going to be drawn into a specific example in this instance, but infrastructure has a longstanding permitted use, and as I outlined in my previous answer, this bill is enhancing and clarifying some of that, and this is a common practice that has existed under your government and now under our government. My previous answer already addressed many of the issues that you have raised.

David DAVIS: I would just make a comment at this point, because I understand the minister does not want to be drawn on these matters, but this is our concern – that these green wedge management plans, worthy in themselves, add no additional protection. The green wedge is open slather for this government. The idea that you would put a stabling yard and a maintenance yard in green wedge land is just extraordinary. So that is my statement. The idea that the minister would not rule out extractive industries being added to the green wedge also worries me. But leaving all that aside, I will ask a different –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: Do you want to respond to that?

Jaclyn SYMES: I just want to make a comment in relation to repeating that the bill sets out objectives for green wedge management plans, which include to provide for the beneficial use of green wedge land that contributes to the sustainability, prosperity, health and wellbeing of Victorians.

David DAVIS: I thank the minister for that, but that does not reassure me. They are very high-level matters, and the fact of the matter is the government is actually ignoring those sorts of objectives and placing industrial-scale stabling and maintenance in the green wedge. But I have one further area to ask about, and that is in the City of Hume and thereabouts. The toxic spoil that the government is dumping from the West Gate Tunnel is an example –

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick has got news on how toxic that soil is, I think.

David DAVIS: Well, he might. Let me be quite clear: I do not think it is appropriate to be dumping that spoil in green wedge areas, and I wonder if you will provide some assurance to the chamber that those sorts of toxic spoil dumpings would not occur under these new arrangements.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not want to be drawn on individual examples, Mr Davis. We are talking about a bill, not necessarily about existing issues that you are wanting to draw into it, but my understanding is that the Bulla facility that you are alluding to is not even in a green wedge, so I do not really understand how you are expecting me to answer a question that is that specific. I think we should come back to the bill, not an issue that you want to draw the house’s attention to that I do not think is relevant to the contents of this bill.

David DAVIS: Let us talk about a future issue. The government has said it is proceeding with its Suburban Rail Loop, which will generate a large amount of spoil, and it is quite possible that in the south-east of Melbourne in some of the old industrial areas there will be toxic spoil removed from the tunnelling. So my question is: will these new rules and requirements for a management plan prevent toxic spoil that may be removed out of the Suburban Rail Loop tunnels from being dumped in the green wedge?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, that is an entirely hypothetical question.

David LIMBRICK: I just have a couple of quick questions related to green wedge zones. Could green wedge zones be declared renewable energy zones or be used as part of renewable energy zone infrastructure, for example synchronous condenser technology or overhead lines?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, I was just conferring with the advisers, Mr Limbrick, and the short answer is yes, it is possible. Just prior to you coming into the chamber, I brought the house’s attention to the explanatory memorandum that highlights examples of some beneficial uses for the green wedge and that included energy generation, transmission and storage, including renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 40 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (14:23): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (14:23): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting their agreement.