Wednesday, 12 August 2026

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (19:16): (2678) My matter is for the Minister for First Peoples on behalf of a resident who has raised concerns about escalating costs and lack of transparency around cultural heritage management plans. A constituent undertaking a proposed four-lot residential subdivision had part of their property covered by the cultural heritage sensitivity layer. They were initially given an estimated CHMP cost of around $24,000. However, as the process progressed and additional assessment stages were required, the final expenditure was close to $36,000. This added close to $9000 per lot before any subdivision, infrastructure or housing costs were incurred. The costs are in addition to roads, drainage services, engineering, council charges, titles, financing and construction. For smaller residential subdivisions costs of this nature may affect feasibility and ultimately flow through to the final cost of creating residential land and housing.

During the process the owner found it difficult to understand what would trigger the progression from standard to complex assessment, what additional field work would be required and what the ultimate cost was likely to be. They want to make it clear that they are not in opposition to Aboriginal cultural heritage protection. They support respectful engagement with traditional owners and the protection of cultural heritage. Rather, their concern relates to transparency of costs, escalation of assessment stages and whether ordinary residential landowners are able to make informed decisions about likely total costs before becoming committed to the process.

The current CHMP process is too often costly, unpredictable and lacking in transparency, leaving landowners exposed to significant expenses with little certainty about where the process will ultimately end. For smaller subdivisions these costs and delays add to the cost of creating new housing and affect the feasibility of development. The Nationals believe cultural heritage protections are important, but the process must also be practical and transparent, and it needs reform. The action I seek is for the government to substantially review and reform the cultural heritage management plan process to introduce clear timelines, sensible cost caps and greater transparency around costs and assessment requirements.