Thursday, 14 November 2024
Bills
Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024
Bills
Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024
Second reading
Debate resumed.
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:03): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. This is another state government step to take more power and more control and to not only pump itself up but to crush communities and to crush local councils and their involvement.
Sadly, the Suburban Rail Loop has all the signs of a project that will act as a brake on the state’s development for decades to come, probably for a century to come. This is a huge project. The state government’s so-called investment case – let us be clear here – is not actually a business case; it does not consider alternatives. A proper business case would look at if this could be done, if that could be done, the advantages of this, that and the following and the disadvantages. That is how you would normally operate in these sorts of processes. But the former Premier made it clear that it was not a business case. He said this publicly. He said, ‘It’s not a business case, it’s an investment case. We’re doing this; this is an investment. We’re proceeding with it. We’re not waiting for the business case, we’re not waiting for Infrastructure Victoria, we’re not waiting for Infrastructure Australia and we’re not looking at other options. We’ve got a mandate, and we’re going to do it. We’ve got an investment case coming.’ That is what we saw.
That investment case for stage 1 begins at $35 billion dollars. Prior to the 2018 election the then Premier and the then transport and infrastructure minister Jacinta Allan promised that the three stages, the long loop right around the city, would cost $50 billion. Now we know that even their first stage is $35 billion. And let us be clear: it is not going to be $35 billion, there are already significant signs of escalation. There is a schedule attached to that infrastructure case, a schedule of roads and other infrastructure that will be built. None of those are costed. So there you are, the state government started at $50 billion, but now we know it is going to be much more than $35 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Office has done very good work and said it will be $125 billion in capital costs for the first two stages and more like another $75 billion to run it over the extended period – so $200 billion. I say that the state government has not been honest with the Victorian community about these full costs.
The state government has signed the contracts in recent days for some key tunnelling components, and it has done that before it presented the investment case to Infrastructure Australia. This is entirely the reverse of the normal process. Normally the checking authorities would actually see this and have input into this. They would have logically demanded a proper business case that looked at true alternatives and options, rather than the proposal that the state government has written its investment case on. The state government has in recent days signed this, signed up some of these contracts, trying to bind the state into the future for decades and decades to come. Nobody believes that the escalation in cost on this project has finished. We think the escalation will continue and continue massively. If you look at contemporary projects, as an example, the North East Link began as a project in the vicinity of $5 billion. It is now $26 billion and still climbing. This is a huge, huge impact on the state, and we know that there is more than $40 billion in increased costs – cost overruns – due to the state government’s incompetence and its inability to manage money and projects.
Victoria has no public works committee like we used to have prior to the 1980s. It was abolished by the Cain government. It was a committee that actually had real powers to examine and monitor projects and actually deliver strong outcomes. The state government ought to, in my view, reintroduce a public works committee that has real power to oversight projects, to look at business cases and to actually make useful and practical suggestions. It is important to realise the consequence of this huge and unwanted spending that the state government has embarked upon. The truth is that it is going to bind the state’s financial position for decades and decades and decades into the future.
Some who are familiar with Victoria’s history will remember reading of the days in the 1870s and the 1880s when there was a plethora of transport projects across the state – rail projects. These rail projects inevitably became more costly, and many of them proved unviable. There are all the signs that this project, the Cheltenham to Box Hill rail line, the Cheltenham to Box Hill tunnels, will be unviable too. It is clear from the investment case, when you look at the proper weightings of the investment aspects of this, that the cost–benefit analysis does not stack up.
The ratings agencies have been very clear about this project. They have been very clear that the project will potentially cripple the state’s financial position into the future. This is a Labor government to its bootstraps in its management of money. It cannot manage money. It always has cost blowouts. It has always mismanaged projects. Every single project it touches –
John Berger: You have got no projects to manage.
David DAVIS: Well, we did in government. I managed Box Hill Hospital, a very important hospital for you. We brought that in under budget and on time. Box Hill Hospital –
David DAVIS: You think it is a disaster, do you? We up-scoped it. We got two more floors, and we actually brought it in on time and under budget with more floors and a larger project than had been initially proposed by Labor. That is the truth of the matter. The same is true in hospitals like Bendigo, so you do not need to talk to me about these things. We actually did do these projects.
I want to come back to the impact on the state’s future financial position. The ratings agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have been very clear that this is going to cripple the state’s future borrowing capacity and the enormous borrowing that is being undertaken here is a real financial risk for our state. So the independent arbiters who look at national jurisdictions, subnational jurisdictions, firms – they look at all of those – worldwide have singled Victoria out. They have pinged Victoria and said this state is at real risk here and if you proceed with this reckless process there is going to be a very serious consequence. You risk having a downgrade in your credit rating.
We already know with the massive surge in spending under this government and the surge in borrowing that our debt as a state is going to be larger than New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania’s combined by the end of the forward estimates period. That is where we are heading. We are heading for nearly $190 billion, from the state government’s own figures, and we know that that is going to leave us very much out of the action when it comes to being able to do other projects that are needed statewide, whether that is in the growth areas or in country Victoria or other projects in health and education. The state will deliver far less than it could have. We know that the debt repayments are likely to hit $26 million a day again in the forward estimates period. That is where we are heading. We are in a position where the state is recklessly signing these contracts. We are facing huge sovereign risk for the state and real concern about our ability to meet our commitments into the future and in particular to provide the other infrastructure that is needed in this state.
We have already got the highest level of tax in Australia, and we have already got the highest levels of regulation in Australia. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry work is very instructive in regard to the levels regulation and the high levels of tax – the 55, 56 new and expanded taxes. Despite the promises of Andrews and Pallas repeatedly in 2014, 2018 and 2022 that they would not be putting on new and expanded taxes, these taxes are cutting in and making it very, very hard for businesses. This is about the future. The way that the state government has gone about this is absolutely reprehensible, through the taking of planning powers, and this has been done for one reason alone: the state government has no proper funding sources. They say in their own documents that a third should come from the state, a third from the Commonwealth and a third from value capture. But how is that value capture to be instituted? I would not trust this government that there is not going to be a direct levy on every household and every business in the vicinity of these stations. The state government has already begun its reckless push for ill-defined, unplanned, massive increases in density in a range of areas without local support and without local approval. If you look at places like the City of Whitehorse, there is not that local support and there is not that local approval for what is being proposed.
A member: Not in Niddrie.
David DAVIS: Not in Niddrie. It is not the Suburban Rail Loop directly there, but it is the same issue in the sense that state government is attempting to override local communities. It is attempting to strip back planning powers, it is attempting to crush local opposition and to roll over councils that have got, in many cases, very sensible suggestions. For example, when the bill went through this chamber in the first instance we saw what the state government was proposing. We tried to make sensible, thoughtful amendments to protect communities and ensure that councils were not in a position to be unable to put sensible proposals forward – sensible changes that look at the future.
The state government is being secretive on all of this, cutting out the involvement of local communities and cutting out the decisions of people who say, ‘We’re worried about our local school. We’re worried about our local health services. We’re worried about where the open space will be.’ And I think they have got every reason to be worried. These are matters that the state government has not put forward proper, thoughtful, detailed proposals on. They have not done that. I cannot in the case of Burwood look at a decent, proper proposal as to what will be built and how it will be done, and I think we are going to end up with nasty, unpleasant developments that have not been thought through. There will not be the open space that is required. You are going to put these incredible density requirements in, and yet where is the open space? Where will the children play? Tree canopy is another key point.
All of these are important, legitimate questions about this Suburban Rail Loop, and yet all the government does is bring forward bills that give more and more and more power to Jacinta Allan and her ministers. They take power from local communities and they take power from local councils. They are putting in place a nasty, vicious and authoritarian approach to the building of infrastructure, and I say the community deserves more.
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:18): I am proud to stand and support the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Wow, we have had quite a bit of commotion from the other side, which is what we expect from the Liberal Party – a whole lot of nothing. That was another classic example of that from Mr Davis.
It is this Labor government’s experience in delivering transformative infrastructure projects that means we understand where we can streamline those processes to continue to get infrastructure to community, to work with local governments and work with communities to get that infrastructure delivered as quickly as possible. Anyone who recalls 2010 to 2014 – it does not matter who you talk to – when the Liberals were last in government recalls that nothing happened in the state, and the same goes for infrastructure. They cannot point to a project that they delivered. Under Nap Time and Dolittle nothing happened in this state for four years. In the 10 years that the Labor Party has been in government, we have gotten on and we have delivered. Whether it is in education, whether it is in health, whether it is in infrastructure – that being roads, rail, public transport – we have gotten on and delivered to connect our state and to underpin the economic productivity of our state, not just now but into the future. We see through data that when the Liberals were last in charge unemployment was something like double what we see under Labor. Regional unemployment – low; metro unemployment – low. People are in work. We know that if those opposite get in they are going to come in and they are going to cut, they are going to cut and they are going to cut. They do not care about future generations of Victorians and ensuring they have the infrastructure they need, they have the housing they need, they have the jobs – not just jobs, but jobs with good pay and fair conditions so that our families, our communities can have absolutely world-class quality of life.
It was interesting getting a lecture from Mr Davis over there about figures and finances given that before the last state election he could not even present his own party’s costings. He was Shadow Treasurer. I do not know why he is Shadow Minister for Energy, Affordability and Security now, but anyway. As Shadow Treasurer he could not provide simple, high-level costings – ‘Oh, I’ll get back to you in a few moments. I’ll get back to you in a couple of hours.’
Mr Davis has left the chamber. I am quite disappointed, so I might have to move to their lead. I think Mr Mulholland led the debate on this. Maybe it has already had a second go, but the classic Edward Scissorhands, if that got a second go, I reckon you could be a lead act for that, Mr Mulholland, because we know if you get in and you get your hands on the levers, you and the Liberal Party will cut, cut and cut, and Victorians will feel it. It is your economic policy to drive down wages. It is your economic policy not to invest in the infrastructure that all Victorians need. I am proud to be part of a government that has removed 84 level crossings. I am proud to be part of a government that has got on with the Metro Tunnel. The Sydney Liberals, they understand the value of a metro tunnel. They understand it. It is incredible. I will come back to the Metro Tunnel in a little bit and the benefits that it has not only to metropolitan Melburnians but those in the regions.
The West Gate Tunnel – the infrastructure and investment we are making is setting Victoria up for generations to come, investing in our future economic productivity, investing in the livability for future Victorians and all of us here today. It is a far cry – and I know sometimes I get a little bit of flack from those opposite for going back to the Kennett years – but I distinctly recall the railway lines being ripped out, train stations closing and the banks shutting their doors. The mood was one of depression. We look in the regions now and the mood is one of optimism. We just celebrated 20 years of a Labor government by reopening the Bairnsdale line. I was down there with Minister Williams recently. It was fantastic. Communities want infrastructure. Communities want governments that will invest in them, invest in their towns and invest in their communities and infrastructure so they can get on and keep their local areas productive, connecting business, allowing people to get around and live their lives the best they can.
The Metro Tunnel is going to unlock capacity with the speed at which we move people around. We have made rail upgrades on every regional line in Victoria – coming into the city, being able to change stations. I cannot even keep track – is it 50 upgraded or brand new stations? These enable Victorians to connect into health centres, into centres of education and into various places around this city, connecting our great, great city not only for metropolitan Melburnians, who I think were the only ones that you lot thought about giving a discount on public transport fares at the last election, whereas we brought in the regional caps. We have got more regional Victorians on upgraded rail lines with new VLocity trains that were built right here in Victoria by Victorians, creating Victorian jobs, further boosting and stimulating our local economy and, with apprenticeships and traineeships, setting up the next generation of the skilled workforce in this state. Sorry to hark back to the 1990s, but that is something that you lot definitely did not believe in: ‘Sack them all. Get rid of the pipelines of trainees and apprentices.’ You got rid of them. That is exactly what happened. We have invested in our rail infrastructure, we have invested in our road infrastructure, we have supported a generation of workers getting trained in traineeships and apprenticeships, and we have made that an absolute point, whereas you lot could not care less. We have made sure that the construction of those trains, the maintenance out at Pakenham – Downer’s facility out there is the biggest in Australia, able to maintain and manage about 80 VLocity trains that will run on our new train systems.
I hope what I have been able to do in the short allotment of time I have had is to paint the stark difference between a government who will govern for all Victorians – metropolitan, regional, rural – provide the infrastructure that enables them to get on and live the best possible lives and set the economic position of this state to be one that is strong long into the future and those opposite, who are negative. The noalition want to talk down every single thing this government does. They never come to the table and support, whether we are talking about the West Gate Tunnel, whether we are talking about metro – it does not matter. Whatever infrastructure project it is, they will not do it, because your position is to do nothing – Nap Time and Dolittle, it continues on. Whether it was the Kennett era, when most of you were in student politics studying Reaganism and Thatcherism and how to disembowel society, that is fundamentally at your core.
We know that if you get the opportunity to have your hands on the levers of government, it will be dark, dark times for the Victorian people, because there are no values within the opposition that align with those of giving community and giving individuals and giving families a better quality of life. You do not have those values, and that is why you come to this place with no plan. That is why you go to Victorians with no plan. That is why Mr Davis, when he was Shadow Treasurer, stood up in front of the press pack days before an election and could not outline costings for your party, because it is not in your DNA to bring Victorians a plan. It is in your DNA to look around at your colleagues, if you call each other that, and see who you can knife, see who you can bring down, and take their position. That is why you have had leader after leader after leader, and that is why we have had Premier after Premier – regional premiers, I might add; four in a row from the regions of Victoria – who have led and invested in this state, invested in Victorians for Victorians. That is why I am so proud to support this bill. I look forward to hearing further contributions from my colleagues, and I am sure we will hear nothing but negativity and sniping from those opposite.
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:29): I also would like to say a few words about the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. It seems that we have some grand claims from the government and some grand claims from the opposition as well, but I will try and focus on the bill.
Before I start I would like to just point out a few things that have happened since the last election. The Libertarian Party’s position before the last election was to oppose the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL), not because we do not like infrastructure – in fact I love infrastructure – but we were concerned that it did not stack up financially. The cost–benefit case – we were concerned that it did not stack up financially. I still maintain that concern. I also share some of the concerns that were raised by Mr Davis. I am concerned about the state’s credit rating. These are very serious issues.
However, we are in a situation now where advocating for simply knocking the project on the head would also be irresponsible because contracts have been signed, and as everyone in this state knows, we have a rather sordid history of cancelling things and then paying enormous sums of money for literally nothing, and we cannot simply advocate to do that either. So it looks like at least part of the SRL will go ahead, although I would urge the government to maybe do what it can to scale some of it back, to optimise it and to ensure that that it is as financially prudent as possible and maybe slow it down and tap the brakes on a few of these things, because as I have said previously, the government is sort of competing with itself for labour and resources in this state, and that does not seem like a smart thing to do either.
That brings us to the bill. One of the important things that this bill does is it talks a lot about compulsory acquisitions. Now, libertarians hate compulsory acquisitions – we do not like them at all. However, what this bill does is effectively allow the government a more granular option to acquire smaller parts or even just to gain access to something for the timeframe of building, so, for example, to have an easement on a property for a period of time and then have compensation to the property owner rather than acquire the property outright. Similarly, they can acquire parts of properties, and they could also acquire access underneath the property, none of which are possible now. To my mind, if we are looking at property rights, these infringements on property rights are less than total acquisition of the property.
Also, with regard to the financial impacts, I know that the government’s only other option would be, if they cannot negotiate underneath the house or part of the house or access through the property – not necessarily houses; it could be anything – to just acquire the entire property. If they only needed it for access, then they would acquire the property and then sell it again after they no longer need the access, which seems like an extremely wasteful thing to do. So to my mind, having this more granular approach to what they are doing, despite the fact that I do not like the acquisition the first place, poses less of a property rights burden, and it is also cheaper for the Victorian taxpayer. So I think that is a good thing that it is doing that with regard to property rights.
With regard to some of the other parts about declaring the precincts and allowing staging of the projects, I think, as I just stated, that staging is a good thing, because it allows the flexibility to have a pause in between or potentially make smaller chunks of work that could be delivered and see if there are problems with it and maybe pull the plug on it or take a different approach or something if it is not working. I think that is a good thing. In fact in my background I worked a lot in project management. Some people will be familiar with agile methodology, and what that tries to do is have very, very small chunks of work and cycle them over very quickly so that if you are going to fail you fail very quickly and you know what went wrong and then you can try a different approach, rather than have some grand, huge project. Then what often happens is you find out when you get to the end that all these problems pop up and costs blow out and all these other things. I am not suggesting that the government use agile methodology for these construction projects, but certainly if they are managed properly – we will wait and see whether they actually end up that way or not; from what we have seen so far there have been a number of blowouts already, which is not good – I would encourage the government to use this idea of staging to keep things smaller, contracts smaller, so that if they have got a supplier, for instance, that is not performing, they can get rid of them and get another one. There are lots of options here that could be done that would make the project have less risk and potentially cost less money.
The Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill. However, I would urge the government to scale back as much as possible on this spending so that we do not end up in the situation outlined by Mr Davis where we end up with a credit rating downgrade and find it far more expensive for the state to issue bonds.
Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (14:35): I rise to contribute to the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The prospect of a local council no longer having the power to protect your neighbourhood from high-rise developments that will fundamentally change the character of the community you live in for decades is real. The Allan Labor government intends to impose this reality on families in the west and throughout Victoria through this bill. As Liberals and Nationals, we cannot support the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024.
In part 2, clause 36 of this bill seeks to dismantle local democracy by stripping councils along the Suburban Rail Loop corridor of planning powers. This centralisation of decision-making signifies a shift towards a command-and-control style of governance, exposing the government’s approach to power – that is, a large, controlling state with minimal consideration of public accountability. This is a clear example of the Allan Labor government’s approach to governance and authority, one that prioritises central control over the voices of locals and individual rights.
Not all Victorians want to be crammed into towering skyscrapers; what they want is freedom to choose the type of home that best suits their needs and lifestyles. As Liberals we firmly believe that it is for the market, not for the government and authority, to determine what type of housing people want and live in. It is not the role of the Allan Labor government to impose its vision of housing on people. Take Niddrie, for example, in my electorate. This bill has promised to erect multistorey buildings up to 20 storeys high, which will fundamentally alter the character of the community and the way of life of the people who call this area home. This is a form of development that we cannot support. This is a reactive development.
Responsible development involves building, upgrading and renewing suburbs to meet the needs of the growing population without losing the heritage and qualities that make those communities special. This could involve fostering townhouses and duplexes to create moderate density, offering more housing options without eroding the suburban atmosphere that areas like Niddrie provide families in the west. However, the Allan Labor government’s approach to planning is far from responsible. As outlined, this bill focuses on aggressive densification through the creation of activity centres and priority precincts. The government asserts that the measures will lead to the construction of 300,000 homes by 2051. The imposition of such intense development in the areas raises significant questions. High-rise development is a part of the plan to transform suburban areas like Footscray, East Werribee and Sunshine into high-density urban centres, but it risks losing their unique characters.
The Allan Labor government is silencing local governments. Councils will no longer have the ability to reject reckless planning proposals along the Suburban Rail Loop corridor. However, they will still expect ratepayers to pay the same, if not higher, rates to fund and expand the public amenities that the developments will require.
The amendments to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 expand the definition of ‘non-transport infrastructure’. This is quite alarming to me. Under this expansion the Premier and the minister will have the power to designate virtually any development, whether it is civic infrastructure, a public place or even residential and commercial buildings, as part of a precinct project. This allows the government to declare these projects without the need for traditional transport infrastructure, creating a vast, unchecked authority for the minister to bypass local councils and the entire planning process. This bill hands sweeping, undemocratic power to the government, leaving local communities voiceless and ratepayers without representation.
The proposed amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 take a radical step away from responsible planning processes and practices. These changes allow development to proceed without traditional planning permits, provided they receive a ‘permitted as of right’ or have a permit that circumvents usual planning requirements. This grants the government almost unchecked discretion to approve high-rise residential and commercial developments in sensitive areas, areas that were never intended for such intensive growth. For communities that worry about overdevelopment, this bill will only emphasise those concerns as it pushes forward with forced densification, disregarding local needs and priorities.
Another deeply troubling provision in this bill relates to the compulsory acquisition of land and extinguishment of easements. New section 116 allows the government to extinguish easements through a notice of acquisition without even requiring the government to acquire the land. What does this really mean? What it means is that if this extinguishment of easement affects an individual’s property, they could lose their property rights with no recourse for compensation. For hardworking Victorians, their homes represent their security, their roots, their future. However, this bill only serves to erode those values and rights. It puts their homes at risk without their consent. It takes away the local voice they have trusted to protect their interests. The essence of this bill is the government’s attempt to deprive people of their property rights without providing sufficient protection. Property rights are a fundamental part of our society, and the bill’s subjective approach to depriving landowners of their rights without compensation is a serious cause of concern.
I just want to refer to a quote regarding the critical role of property rights by former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He said:
There are no better measures real or symbolic of how well we are succeeding as a nation and as a society than the quality of our housing and the nature of our cities.
These words are just as relevant today as we examine the provisions of this bill. We must be cautious in allowing such an erosion of fundamental rights, as it not only threatens property ownership but also undermines the broader way of life for everyday Victorians.
This bill allows intrusive activities such as geotechnical surveys, ecological investigations and even drilling into private land, all without proper consultation with the landowner. Under clause 45, new section 201QO only requires seven days notice to carry out such work. Such overreach undermines the very essence of property ownership. When the government grants unchecked powers to agencies to enter and alter private property without consent, it directly threatens the sanctity of that which is most personal to Victorians: their home and their land, their castle. This bill risks eroding those protections, placing the interests of the state above the rights of individual citizens and setting a dangerous precedent for further encroachments on personal freedoms. It will strip away the rights of local communities and bypass their voice.
In closing, this bill represents a grave overreach of executive power, threatening property rights, disrupting communities and risking irreversible damage to the character of our suburbs. It forces through a poorly planned densification agenda and ignores the real-world impacts on Victorians. This bill lacks the clarity and safeguards needed to protect our communities and property owners. It prioritises political expedience over responsible planning. It strips away the rights of local communities, bypassing their voice. It disregards the input of local councils, property owners and ordinary citizens in favour of a top-down, heavy-handed approach that elevates a political agenda over the needs and concerns of the people.
Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:46): Victoria is in absolutely shocking debt; we all know this. It cannot be escaped that that is in no small part because the contracts we keep signing are based on poor business cases – business cases that this government received reports about from their own advisers that had big flaws in them. We have had ghost shifts, we have had blowouts, we have had delays and we have had cancellations. It is absolutely terrible, and we all want to avoid a downgrade in our credit rating. It is also due in no small part to the ridiculously bloated bureaucracy. I think this is a fantastic step towards saving money where we need to save money. It does not go as far as creating a department of government efficiency – that would be fantastic – but it is a good start in that direction. I think access over acquisition is a good principle and a good tool to have in your toolbox. It saves money and saves time and hassle for everyone involved.
I heard Thatcher and Reagan criticised over there. The implication was that when everyone on this side of the chamber was at uni that is who they were learning about. I was not, actually. I was with the people on that side of the chamber, and I do recall hearing about Mao and Stalin, I must be honest. I would much rather have Thatcher and Reagan and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, actually, for government efficiency. I am all for it. We have got debt, and it needs to be paid down.
I dislike the centralisation of powers as much as the next person on this side of the chamber, but all of the things that have been complained about today have already happened. We already lost our planning powers. We already lost our rights. That was back in 2021–22. If something is declared a project of state significance, basically the government can do whatever they like. This bill has nothing to do with planning, however. This bill is limited to delivery powers, the stage that comes after the project has already been through its planning approvals process, and none of that changes.
I was going to talk about the amendments, but I will not. I will just keep it short. Basically, I think we need to pay down this debt. I commend the government on this measure of efficiency in government departments, and I hope to see more of it.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (14:48): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The bill seeks to amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the delivery of precinct projects utilising the project powers under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009. I will say that the bill in its current form is somewhat perplexing, and some aspects seem intentionally vague. I will be seeking some clarity around certain provisions in the committee-of-the-whole stage.
Possibly the most perplexing aspect of this bill is why it is necessary at all. In Victoria’s housing statement the government committed to:
… review and rewrite the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to build a modern, fit-for-purpose planning system.
Surely the reforms we are seeing today would actually be included in the new act. So why then is the government seeking to amend the act now rather than wait a few more months until the review is completed? I do not imagine much is going to happen in the way of precinct development between now and early next year.
There also appears to be some ambiguity around the definition of ‘precinct projects’. What sort of areas are likely to be declared precinct projects, for example? Major precinct developments are one thing, but could these powers not be used equally for small-scale precincts, and if so, how and where?
We have concerns about the very short notice periods needed to enter private land to carry out minor works. I would argue that a seven-day notice period is insufficient and would question the government’s rationale for giving private property owners only seven days notice before someone can enter their property to start drilling holes and testing soil and so on for who knows how long. We are also concerned about the rights of review for property owners or occupiers being removed.
I want to be clear: we do not seek to block infrastructure development in this state, but we would like to see some better checks and balances around these reforms, and we are not convinced that there is sufficient justification for this expansion of powers and would like the minister to provide some concrete examples of how the powers could and will be used, as well as a better justification for the timelines that are proposed. However, perhaps some of these questions will be better addressed in the committee-of-the-whole stage, and I look forward to that occurring.
Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:51): I rise to speak and to share a few words on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. This is a bill which is about major projects in the legacy of a government that is delivering and has delivered countless major projects for the betterment of all Victorians. When you deliver major projects focused on helping people get to where they need to go for work, for recreation, for education, you help families, communities and businesses to thrive. This is a bill which represents the government’s continued commitment to delivering the proper infrastructure and amenities in the right places all the way across the state of Victoria. The government is focused on ensuring that we deliver these infrastructure and transport projects in Victoria across a broad housing strategy so that we can tackle the housing crisis, boost housing supply and also increase affordability. This is a bill which will help us to support these priorities, help to deliver the critical infrastructure that our state needs and facilitate further economic investment in Victoria. Investment in this sort of infrastructure means shorter travel times and improved safety. It means Victorians can get home sooner and safer. At the same time we are creating thousands of jobs for Victorian workers through the Big Build.
The bill in detail will propose various amendments to modernise the delivery powers under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to ensure continued development and delivery of our state’s primary transport and precinct projects. It will amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to reduce the time, costs and risks associated with developing state-led or state-facilitated precincts. This will be achieved by enabling the Premier to declare a precinct project of state or regional significance. Amendments will also provide the minister and public authority specified as being responsible for the development of a declared precinct project, with access to project delivery powers specified under the MTPF act. It will also amend that same act to expand the definition of ‘non-transport infrastructure’ to facilitate the delivery of major transport projects with associated precinct components. It will also expand the definition of ‘transport project’ in the act, enabling a declared project to include a program of works or separate projects. Other amendments are also proposed to the act’s project delivery powers and related provisions to provide time savings, reduce costs and mitigate various other legal risks. Additionally, there are minor amendments to the Road Management Act 2004, the Transport Integration Act 2010 and the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 to support and ensure consistency with other amendments within this bill.
Precincts are a key part of this government’s plan to meet future population demands and ensure that infrastructure is delivered where people live and work. The Allan Labor government is committed to supporting the development of priority projects to achieve our target of building 800,000 homes in Victoria for Victorians over the decade. It is important that they work on delivering these projects in a streamlined way, reducing the cost, the complexity and the time required. This will reduce the length of disruptions in local communities and ensure that the broader community can benefit from these projects sooner. We have already seen, under the existing provisions of the MTPF act, the benefits of delivery by the Allan Labor government of significant transport projects and the benefits that have flowed through them. The bill recognises the importance of delivering these priority precincts through the amendments to the Planning and Environment Act.
I think it is important, as we talk about what is one of the big, complex and important issues that we regularly discuss in this place – that is, transport – that we do so through the lens of what it actually means for everyday Victorians, especially those busy working Victorians, those aspirational Victorians, and how it helps them to get to their work more easily, to their social activities or to whatever else it might be of the very many economic, cultural and social opportunities that are opened up when you improve that accessibility to transport. You see it from the service level as well and from the record number of regional V/Line rail services that are now operating across the state each and every day. We have a regional rail network that is the envy of Australia, New Zealand and indeed many North American jurisdictions as well. We see as well, with regional fares being capped at the metropolitan rates, that for less than $11 a day you can travel the length and breadth of the entire Victorian regional and metro rail networks. And we see that continuing investment delivering better patronage and better outcomes for people, which also means less cars on our regional roads, which is a very good thing.
We continue to see record amounts of economic growth in regional Victoria, spurred on and supported in part by initiatives such as this and the vast infrastructure initiatives that have gone into supporting and supplementing the V/Line network with the regional rail revival across all of the core lines of the network. This includes track duplications, signalling and speed upgrades, new bridges and the like and significant duplication in the Geelong area as well, with the new double track from South Geelong through to Waurn Ponds, again, opening up the freedom that comes through that flexibility and frequency of services and increasing the value of those services to those local residents, to regional Victorians and indeed to all Victorians.
With the bigger projects that we have done, such as through the regional rail revival – when it comes to discussing transport infrastructure – that is the impact they can have. And in the case of the Barwon region down in Geelong – I am sure this will be of great interest to you, Acting President McArthur; I know we had some good discussions about buses in this place yesterday, and perhaps we can, in addition to our bus journey together, ride the new train service down on the wonderful newly duplicated track in southern Geelong as well – you see the benefits and frequency that is coming from that new timetable, which has been coming out in the second half of this year, and how that is opening up opportunities for people in that part of Victoria.
You see it as well across not just metro Melbourne but predominantly metro Melbourne with the impact of the government’s level crossing removal program. We have now seen that more than 80 of the 110 total level crossings slated for removal have already been completed. When this now government, then opposition, first promised to remove 50 level crossings across metropolitan Melbourne over an eight-year period, we know those opposite ridiculed it. They said it was not feasible, it was not practical, it was not achievable; it was not going to happen. Well, not only did it happen but it actually happened far ahead of schedule, and from that we were actually able to broaden the scope of the project so we now do not have 50 level crossings that are being removed – we have 110. Indeed in my own region I have seen many great examples of that, whether it is my personal particular bugbear, Clyde Road in the suburb of Berwick, which was transformed as a result of that level crossing removal and will now be further transformed through another major transport infrastructure project, the Clyde Road upgrade, augmented by yet another project, which is the new O’Shea Road link, which is taking pressure off that road as well; or the many other level crossings in Narre Warren, in Hallam and on Thompsons Road in Merinda Park in the Cranbourne area, which had been a very significant bottleneck. With the terrific new sky rail we have seen bottlenecks removed, such as in Clayton, in Noble Park, all the way up the Frankston line and on those three core Metro train services which service my electorate, those being the Pakenham, the Cranbourne and the Frankston lines. By the end of this project we will see every one of those lines level crossing free. Every metro electric service that runs in the South-Eastern Metropolitan region, the vast region that I am privileged to look after, will have zero level crossings on that electric network, and that is a terrific thing to see with where we came from.
Just outside my electorate I recall that when I was attending university at Monash and living in Clayton the longest I waited for the boom gates when they were down at Clayton station was 17 minutes straight. Obviously, you had the traffic that was banked up, the pedestrians; you had a large amount of bus traffic as well. But you also had, with Monash Medical Centre just up the road, ambulances being held up in this traffic as well – potentially life-threatening delays. It is much the same situation in Berwick, and in Casey as well. We had the same issue with Casey Hospital being quite close to the Clyde Road level crossing, and as a result of that removal that access is now being improved as well.
Michael GALEA: No, I am not. In the Clayton example we have much easier traffic flow through that junction now, supporting the excellent work that the healthcare staff at Monash Medical Centre and the various other health organisations affiliated with that site provide for Victorians, particularly south-easterners, every single day. Indeed the transport connectivity in that region is only set to further dramatically improve with the Suburban Rail Loop, and we are seeing works already well underway on site at Clayton, as we are indeed at other locations along the network. We are going to see that hub at Clayton station, where people will be able to come from all across the south-east on the Pakenham and the Cranbourne lines straight into Clayton. You will also be able to come in from the city and through the new Metro Tunnel, another big transport project also opening next year.
You will be able to come from the inner-western suburbs as well, change at Clayton, and it will be one stop to Monash University or three stops to Deakin University, along with the educational offerings and all the very many other employment options that you have in a precinct like Monash in particular, the largest education precinct in Australia, which is also, very significantly at the moment, a precinct that has no rail connection whatsoever. The inclusion of a station at Monash on their campus will serve not just Monash University itself but the synchrotron and the various medical and medicinal manufacturing sites that we have onsite, including one that was just opened earlier this year through the support of Minister for Medical Research Ben Carroll. We are seeing all these things coming to Clayton and Monash, but there is only so far it can grow and only so far it can grow without the backbone of a heavy rail connection. That is exactly what we are going to have with the new Suburban Rail Loop providing that easy access to Monash.
Whether you are coming from my electorate in the outer south-east, if you are coming on the Pakenham line, on the Frankston line, or indeed if you are coming from the eastern suburbs or central or western Melbourne through the Metro Tunnel, these transport projects are really providing supports for Victorians that are going to make accessibility and opportunity that much more attainable for all. That is a really critical thing, especially when you look at the fact that Melbourne is already one of the top three cities in the world for medical research. It is Boston, it is London/Oxford and it is Melbourne. We are already right up there. Unlocking the future potential of Monash in particular, at the heart of our south-eastern suburbs, is going to make a transformational difference and help us on that journey, just as much as the new Parkville station will when it opens next year in serving another really critical precinct of education, medicine and research just to the north of the city by providing that direct connection to the rail network and one-stop services, whether you are coming from the west, the north-west or indeed the terrific South-Eastern Metropolitan Region. This is what the impact of these projects is – it is unlocking these potentials. Medical research is a very important aspect of that. It is not the only aspect but is perhaps one of the best examples, because indeed as I say, we are one of the top three cities in the world for medical research, and these investments in the Metro Tunnel, in the Suburban Rail Loop and in all the various other smaller-scale projects happening right across metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria all feed into those agglomeration effects that will be able to be achieved from these already world-leading precincts, giving them every opportunity to step up and come to the next level.
For many, many reasons through the work of this government in transport infrastructure, be it in the south-east, be it in the west, be it in the north, be it in any part of regional Victoria or indeed inner-city Melbourne, we are making those investments in the roads, in the rail infrastructure and in the other supporting amenities and stations and other services to improve transport and accessibility for all Victorians. In order for that work to continue and for it to continue as effectively as possible, as I outlined for those various reasons in the first few minutes of my contribution today, this is a bill that should be absolutely supported. For those reasons I commend it to the house.
Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:06): I also rise to speak on the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and I want to point out a number of things. This is a government that has been taking away people’s voice. It has not been consulting with local people. It has not been talking to those who will be impacted. We heard a very impassioned speech earlier from Mr Welch. He talked about the impact it is going to have on his local area – beautiful suburbs and homes, lovely trees, parkland areas. People come to this country to have a better life. They come here with dreams and hopes, aspiring to have a home, maybe with a garden – something that they may not be able to have in the country that they came from. And we have some of the most beautiful suburbs.
Recently as part of a delegation from the Australasian Study of Parliament Group I went to Wellington, the city of my mother’s birth. I had actually never been to Wellington before, and I was not there for very long. I could see the beauty of the natural surrounds, but let me tell you, what I noticed was that when it came to planning and when it came to changing the way the place looked based on infrastructure and development in buildings, I feel that they have made a lot of poor decisions and choices that could have been done differently. Where there were old homes, in amongst them were ugly buildings that had been built. There were high-rises of medium density that had just sprung up in the middle of anywhere, taking away breathtaking views of the water. Lovely old homes had clearly been dismantled or had been put next to things that just simply did not suit the area.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the old cities of France, and it is relevant to this bill because in parts of Europe – and I picked France because I have a sister that spent a lot of time there – where they have the old historic buildings, they have allowed those old historic homes and shopfronts to remain and they have protected the heritage of them. They have put it around in such a way that it actually maintains the character and so that it is not infected by things like new buildings, and new cities are built around the old so that people can still go and enjoy what has been and see the history and celebrate the history. Let me tell you the reason I picked France. It is because we know that in amongst the history of France there was bloodshed, and yet people are prepared to keep these beautiful buildings that celebrate their history.
The bill concerns me first of all in the area of planning. We are taking away planning choices that are consultative. I look at this bill, and it worries me to see once again how much power we give to our ministers through these bills that come through this house. Just time and time again, more and more power, more and more say and less and less transparency are coming through this house and through the other place, where we are taking away people’s ability to have a voice and to protect the things that they love about Australia. When it comes to things like the Suburban Rail Loop, what consultation took place? Even some of the think tanks turned around and said, ‘There’s just no way that we can actually look at this and seriously consider it as something that Victoria needs or that it can afford to spend money on.’
It is a diabolical situation when we have a state under this Labor government that is in significant debt. I mean, what are we paying – $26 million a day in interest alone? What kind of government allows that to happen? And now we are going to have a bill like this which is going to allow transport and infrastructure to take place with, again, more power to a minister and also to allow the planning of homes to be brought into the whole structure of the minister’s power. It is going to look at the Suburban Rail Loop, and it is going to look at housing. We know – I know – this is a pure gerrymandering exercise. If we are struggling to have democracy in this state already under this government with its draconian ways of going about things – like, for instance, the way it just recently named a reservoir in my electorate without even consulting the local people – and if we are going to allow more and more power to go to this government, we will have less and less choice, less and less democracy. What we are seeing with something like the Suburban Rail Loop is an entire situation where we have a gerrymandering exercise, literally putting up medium- to high-density buildings around an area to make sure that it captures a whole lot of electorates so that it will be a state that can never have a choice. We might as well be socialist, because we will just go completely under.
We literally need Victorians to start speaking up and going, ‘This is ridiculous.’ The Suburban Rail Loop is not just a waste of money, it is at a time when we cannot afford to spend the money. It is the most embarrassing situation to be in such a highly populated state, such a popular state for visitors, and not even have a train station at our airport. And yet we are going to put up a Suburban Rail Loop – are you kidding me? What kind of government is this? How diabolical is this state that it is prepared to put politics over policy? Everything this government does, make no mistake, is politics over policy. It does not matter what the people think. It does not matter what the people need. It does not matter what it is going to cost everybody. We are going to be paying for their mistakes for generations to come because of this draconian government. This government that locked down Victorians for an unprecedented amount of days, more than anybody else in the world, so that we have the high mental health issues that we have is still continuing to put stress on Victorians and on local people.
I also want to talk about the fact that we are looking at doing this, and yet I can say that in my region we have so many people that do not have access to appropriate public transport. Where is the station in Clyde North? Where is the station in Cranbourne East? Still coming – still broken promises. We cannot even see any effort to make that possible. Talk, no action – no action where it counts, only where it counts in terms of gerrymandering to be able to take over the state so that Victorians have no choice. Make no mistake, this is not about building homes and having a Suburban Rail Loop that people asked for. This is about building a Suburban Rail Loop that nobody asked for, except maybe those who are stakeholders to make money off it. Nobody asked for it, and it is allowing people to put medium- to high-rise density in areas that are beautiful, historic areas with lovely suburban homes that are gracious places to live. People work hard to buy homes in those areas. It can take a very long time before they can move into some of those areas, and now we are going to take that away from them by putting monstrosities up, by putting things up that are going to take away from the beauty of the area, and on top of it we are going to make congestion impossible. It is not just about having a train station – do not think everyone is going to use the train station. We live in Australia; we are spread out everywhere. I can tell you as a person who lives in the south-east how much time I have to spend on the Monash Freeway; it is ridiculous. I can tell you that even with the roads being developed it is five, 10 years too late. We still have single lanes in Berwick on Clyde Road – what the heck – and we are going to spend our money on this?
Do you know that if we spend the money on the Suburban Rail Loop, we are not going to have the money for other things that we need in this state? Right now people are going without in order to pay for this debt and in order to pay for ludicrous decisions that get made by this state government because it simply has got completely out of touch with the Victorian people. It does not care about the Victorian people; that is the reality. If it did, it would not be making decisions that really only suit it politically and nobody else. We all pay for it. It is not good, it is not helpful. There might be a couple of uni students that go ‘Yay!’ but when they realise how much the cost of living has gone up in order to make this possible it is not ‘yay’; it is debt, debt, debt for decades and decades and generations to come. It is going to stitch everybody up in a situation where we cannot get out of it, and when they say, ‘Oh, cost of living, things that we couldn’t control,’ what a lot of rubbish. There are decisions being made in this house and in the other place. There are decisions being made that are impacting everyday Victorians on a regular basis, and this is just one of them. This is not okay.
As I said, we do not even have a train station in Cranbourne East. There has been a railway line in Cranbourne for however long, but we do not have a train station. That is the reality of it: we do not have one. We do not have a Clyde North station. And let me say that when it was closed a long, long, long time ago it was a rural area; it is now a suburban area with suburban growth, with new homes and new estates. In fact, if you look at how much the population has increased in the last 30 years in Cranbourne alone, it is phenomenal. We have no train station and people are gridlocked on roads simply trying to get to their kids. I have heard stories of people taking 30 minutes to get their kids to school or to the local McDonald’s or the local stores. Just to get them up the road and around the corner, it is taking them that long because they are gridlocked, because we do not have a station there. People have to drive to Cranbourne to get to the station or to Berwick to get to the station or to Narre Warren to get to the station, because Clyde North and Cranbourne East do not have stations.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: Mr Galea, you are interrupting. This is your area, not just mine, and you should be advocating for your people, as I am right now, and the Suburban Rail Loop is not going to help them at all.
Members interjecting.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mrs Hermans to be heard in silence, please.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: Thank you, Acting President. I appreciate that. I want to go back to the purpose of the bill, and I think it explains how extraordinarily bad this is. The Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill amends different acts to grant the ministers and authorities delivering precincts and infrastructure programs greater power. Do we honestly need to give this government and its ministers greater power? Think about the decisions that they are making for everyday Victorians. We do not need to give them greater power. If anything, we need to have bills that are taking some of this power away and giving it back to the Victorian public so they can have a say about what is happening in their local areas. It is appalling to think that the lack of consultation that is going on is impacting everyday Victorians, but that is exactly what is happening under this Labor government. There is no consultation, or so little that it is ridiculous. It is laughable. What do they do? They go and have a little branch meeting and talk to their mates and say, ‘This is what we are going to do.’ They probably do not even consult the people, because let us face it: they are socialists. They want socialism. They want no choice. They just want a top-heavy situation where you have a little bit that has a whole lot of power and money and everybody else is poverty stricken and without a voice – that is socialism.
The Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 allows the Premier to nominate a transport infrastructure project as a declared project, but this is going to give the minister overseeing the project and the project authority in charge of its delivery substantial powers in relation to compulsory land acquisition – did you hear that? Compulsory land acquisition, commercial contracting, utilities and impacted roads interface and the extinguishment of existing easements, rights and caveats. That is right, the extinguishment of existing –
Members interjecting.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: On a point of order, Acting President, I cannot hear myself.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): I uphold the point of order. It is getting very unruly in here. Mrs Hermans, with her last few seconds, will be heard in silence, please.
Ann-Marie HERMANS: I say to everyone that does not want their land to be taken by this government: you should be putting up a fuss because this government is out of control.
Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:22): If it assists the Chair, I am only too happy to have any interjections whatsoever. In fact I am quite happy to discuss them at great length.
It is a pleasure to rise and speak in this particular debate, although it does strike me that there are some curiosities about what is now occurring in this place. I suppose the immediate curiosity is we are harking back somewhat to the previous housing statement in 2023, but that is not really true either, is it? It is not really true. This all goes back to, if you recall, the Labor Party some years ago – under I think it was Bracks, but I could stand corrected by the other side – which talked about a 20-minute city. Does anyone remember the 20-minute city? I do. That is what they talked about. Even at that time they talked about zones of 800 metres, so these are not new concepts. I suppose what is new about all this, this Orwellian, this sort of –
Nick McGOWAN: Yes, it is a big word for this time of the afternoon, I know. This massive grab for additional power. It is something that in opposition the Labor Party of the day would often accuse maybe the Liberal Kennett government of. That is the sort of behaviour that is being exhibited today by the modern Labor Party, because we know the modern Labor Party hate workers. We know in particular they hate retail workers. It is a disgraceful position that they have, and I for one will not support them in their hatred of retail workers.
Michael Galea: On a point of order, President, on factuality and relevance, I ask Mr McGowan to come back to the bill that is at hand.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): In fairness to Mr McGowan, there were a lot of interjections. I could not hear what he said, but I will ask Mr McGowan to stay relevant.
Nick McGOWAN: I will try to the extent that is possible for my small brain to remain as relevant as I can. But I was talking for a moment about workers in this state, because they are going to be the ones who have to build all these homes.
Nick McGOWAN: I wish they were jobs for our workers. Unfortunately, they have left this state in droves. As we know, they have all gone to Queensland, they have all gone to New South Wales. I do not blame them for going to Queensland because that is a brand new horizon there – thank God for that. That is all we can say for them and their prosperity.
What is very interesting about this bill – and I think somebody has made a bit of a mistake on the other side. I do not quite know how this got past the relevant chief of staff, I do not quite know how it got past the cabinet table, but it did. It now gives to the Premier these powers, or some of these powers at least. What Premier in their right mind would use these powers? In politics, particularly on the Labor side, they have always had this differential. They have always allowed their planning minister to do all that sort of grubby work. That is what they like to do; they let the planning minister do the grubby work. In actual fact the planning act –
Nick McGOWAN: Well, grubby work when it comes to the Labor Party. It is when they step into your neighbourhood –
Michael Galea: It is important work.
Nick McGOWAN: No, it is grubby work, because the Labor Party come into your neighbourhood, they make some sort of edict that this shall henceforth be a 20-lane highway, and gone are your rights of anything, got are your rights of appeal, gone is your right to public consultation – that is what they say. Then they say, ‘By the way, can you just sign this little document, and we’ll give you a nice little non-disclosure agreement here as well.’ So that will tie you up. It is like cuffing you, really. They will trample all over your rights to free speech, and this is their modus operandi. They are doing this everywhere. The North East Link Program is just another example where they have come in, ‘they’ being the Labor government of the day –
A member interjected.
Nick McGOWAN: Watsonia is a great example. Thank you for reminding me. Watsonia is a perfect example of where the government of the day came in, had the poor public over a barrel and said, ‘Unless you sign this document, we will not compensate you. We won’t give you shades for your windows. Even though there are lights with the power of the MCG blazing into your window giving you a nice little Donald Trump like suntan while you’re standing there at the same time, we still refuse to give you any curtains whatsoever unless you sign this non-disclosure agreement.’ I know the minister is shaking her head, and I share the minister’s disappointment at the government’s use of non-disclosure agreements; I know she would share that disappointment with me too, because the use of non-disclosure agreements is an abhorrent act. It happens time and again all too frequently, and the minister knows it. I would encourage the minister in her portfolio not to allow the use of any non-disclosure agreements whatsoever, because all they do is stymie the rights of the individual, and in many cases women, to be able to speak out.
Nick McGOWAN: I would happily have any non-disclosure agreements removed, but I can only speak for myself personally, Minister, as you know. Nonetheless, it is the pattern of this government to come in with their power grabs, apply their non-disclosure agreements and have their way with the local communities, having done no proper public consultation and having done no proper planning.
This brings me to a salient point. Time and again those elected representatives at local government level are being ignored. It is no coincidence that recently not only were there proposed changes to ResCode but there were also obviously these additional activity areas. They were brought about at precisely the time we had the local council elections and at precisely the time –
Evan Mulholland: Caretaker mode.
Nick McGOWAN: Thank you, Mr Mulholland – they went into caretaker mode. It was precisely the time they were unable to respond to the government’s attack plan – let us call it that, because that is what it was, let us be honest. In almost every example the councils have done diligent work and diligent consultation with the local communities. They know where that growth should go. They know where they have done consultation and why there are some areas that are appropriate for development and other areas that are not appropriate for development. They also have seen forward, and I do not think the government has quite grasped this fact yet, or maybe they simply do not care; it is probably the latter. If overnight you are going to rewrite the whole population map of this state and say, ‘We’re all going to high-density. It’s all going to be along the rail corridors’ – and hard rail at that – then you actually need to provide the schools, you need to provide the maternity health care, you need to provide the hospitals and you need to provide all the other infrastructure, whether it be police stations, ambulance stations or fire stations. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this government has bothered to do any of that at all.
In addition to not planning for that, they have not budgeted for it. None of these changes, none of these power grabs and none of these so-called plans for the future actually come with any monetary support whatsoever, and it will be the local councils, it will be local government, who are left to clean up the mess time and again. If the government is to have its way with these areas and have a position where we actually go from low to medium to even high density in a matter of years, what it will be seeking is a rapid turnover of that property. They will seek that rapid turnover for two reasons: one, so they can raise revenue from the exercise, because if this government have shown anything time and again, it is their propensity, their desire and their thirst for cash. They have a thirst for cash because of course they spend it like a drunken sailor. We know that.
A member interjected.
Nick McGOWAN: Well, semi-drunk – would you prefer that? A semi-drunken sailor – because they have such little regard for public money that no sooner do they see it come in the door than it is already out. In fact I do not think they see it come in the door anymore; it just bumps off the house altogether.
We have no finer example of that than the North East Link Program. That is a disastrous 10-kilometre stretch of freeway – although, it is not open. I think they have now just begun digging, but they may not have even begun digging. I am happy to see the evidence if they have. It started off in the vicinity of $4 billion to $6 billion. That is what they mused at, $4 billion to $6 billion. Having consulted widely with the local members, Mr Carbines in the other place, Ms Ward in the other place and Mr Brooks in the other place, of course, unfortunately, Ms Ward had her way. Instead of going through Eltham and where the powerline easement was for very many years and stretching over into Warrandyte and connecting properly into the Eastern Freeway, no, let us drag 70 per cent of that traffic in a direction it does not want to go. Let us take it back towards the city so that we will have it all sort of clustered up towards Bulleen. Let us bring them right back there where they do not want to go. What is more, it will not cost $4 billion or $6 billion anymore. No, no, at last count what was it, Mr Mulholland? Do you recall from memory?
Nick McGOWAN: $26.9 billion. The North East Link Program is actually making the Suburban Rail Loop look like it is half a bargain at this point – half a bargain, just half a bargain, Minister, not more than that. But at $26.9 billion for 10 kilometres of tunnel – I mean, do the math. If this thing is not lined with gold, we have been dudded, ladies and gentlemen, we have absolutely been dudded. It will actually have to stand as one of the most expensive pieces of ridiculous infrastructure in this state’s history – ridiculous because it is in precisely the wrong location and ridiculous because that location was chosen for political reasons. It was called ‘option C’, and it was called that because no-one had the guts to do what was actually needed. At some point in our future we will have to have a further ring-road, as Mr Mulholland knows too well, that extends beyond the Western Ring Road to actually compensate for the $26.9 billion – although by the time we finish, goodness knows, it is probably going to be in excess of $30 billion.
This is the same government, do not forget, that not too long ago now – and member Lovell will recall this with some pain and agony. It will probably be triggering her now as I am speaking, but she will remember only too well when the previous government cancelled the contract to connect the Eastern Freeway – a billion dollars.
Nick McGOWAN: Over a billion dollars. Let us say it is $1 billion – let us say it is $1 billion for argument’s sake, right? We could have connected it for $1 billion. It would have been the most cost-effective and would have stood tall as perhaps the best expenditure of public money in the history of Victoria had it gone ahead, because not only would it have done the job that it is was supposed to do, it would have been done at such an economical rate by comparison to everything this Labor government has done since – everything. That was $1 billion. For the North East Link Program we are talking about $27 billion. It was $1 billion to cancel it. They did not need to cancel it, though, as you know, and I know that. They did not need to cancel it. Of course they did not need to cancel it. But they did.
Wendy Lovell: They gave someone a billion dollars not to build a road.
Nick McGOWAN: We are in the habit in this state, as member Lovell knows, of not only cancelling contracts but of giving money to people and companies and corporations, which I am sure the Labor Party would love, because we know that they have no more love left for the workers of Victoria. But they clearly have a lot of love left for shareholders, because they are quite willing, time and again, to give money to shareholders for nothing – a billion dollars to the shareholders of those companies for absolutely zero, for them to walk away –
Nick McGOWAN: To not build a road, that is very true. But then they spend of course hundreds of millions of dollars not to have a games – or put more specifically, hundreds of million dollars to gift the games to another country entirely. That is the record of this current Labor government.
I digress ever so slightly. My point previously was this: what government in their right mind would take the responsibility away from the Minister for Planning, who is supposed to do these kinds of things, and give it to the Premier? And then what Premier in his or her right mind would actually go, ‘You know what, I’m going to now exercise this power and bring this political hit on myself.’ Even the politics of it does not add up. What Premier would do that? There is a reason that time and again premiers, plural, of all parties have allowed the planning minister to do these sorts of jobs. There is a reason why the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is probably the most powerful act in the state of Victoria; it gives the Minister for Planning Orwellian power. It really does. We all know that. We have been around long enough. We are not silly enough to believe anything else. So why would this government now go and extend that and actually make that the remit of the Premier? Why would they do that, Minister? I do not know. I do not understand what the cabinet table discussion was that day. What little gem of an adviser or chief of staff thought, ‘This will be good idea. Let’s bring that problem into our office.’ What were they thinking? Oh, my goodness, Premier. Premier, I think you have got to go back and say, ‘Listen, you know what, I think I’ll leave it with the planning minister.’
It is not like back in the days when poor old Mr Wynne inherited what Matthrew Guy had done. All that Mr Wynne had to do was sit there and surf the board in. That is all he had to do. He did not have to do anything for years. He did not do a thing – he did not need to, because Matthew Guy, the former planning minister, had done all the work for him. He extended the growth boundaries; they had done all the hard yards. All Richard Wynne had to do was sit back, have a coffee, sip on his latte in inner-suburban Melbourne, wherever that was, and enjoy the sunshine.
Nick McGOWAN: He did enjoy the sunshine. That is what he had to do. I do not know why the government has taken this path, because in all truth they did not need to. That is the bottom line. They did not need to. It is a massive grab for power. It is a bad political move because it was not necessary in the first place. They could do what they needed to do if they wanted to do it. They are insisting on doing this in just the same way they insisted on stripping workers of their rights under WorkCover. We have seen the consequences of that coming home to roost very quickly. Just a number of days ago in fact not only was Trades Hall speaking out, but a number of unions were saying how the decisions of this government have fallen not flat but have fallen flat on their face – that would be a better way of putting it.
What this Labor Party is showing is that it is actually abandoning its traditional supporters. It is abandoning the workers of this state. It is abandoning any commitment it might have had at any point in its history to consultation, to genuinely listening to the community or to consulting with the community before it acted. Because time and again they have shown a reluctance to actually listen to those who elected them. They are showing a reluctance to take on board what is being received from the community. They have certainly shown absolute contempt for local government and those who are elected as local councillors and who have done the hard yards when it comes to planning work. Worst of all perhaps, they have also showed contempt for actually planning the state in a way that is both orderly and in our best interests. I have not even begun to touch on the fact that even if they succeed in everything they seek to do, they are going to create towers of problems, towers of travesty, because in so many cases in my local community I see and am approached almost every week by people who cannot reconcile the difficulties they have within their body corporates –
Michael Galea: Outrageous that young people should be able to buy a home.
Nick McGOWAN: Say that again.
Michael Galea: Outrageous that young people should buy a home – is that what you’re saying?
Nick McGOWAN: I am saying that I absolutely believe it is sad that the Labor Party of Victoria are abandoning the workers of this state and the retail workers of this state. It is a great regret of mine that they continue to do so.
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (15:37): What a wideranging debate we have had today, and it has been an interesting flex of the ordinary rules as they apply to relevance, given that we have covered an enormous terrain ranging from France to Wellington and from the rules around what has happened for housing approvals through to what has been alleged to be a series of – and I will quote one of the opposition speakers – ‘land grabs’.
This gives me an opportunity in summing up, as it relates to this bill, to state what the bill actually does. The bill is intended to provide designated priority precincts with access to comprehensive delivery powers. These are delivery powers, not approval processes. When we talk about what this bill is intended to deliver – and I am looking forward to going into further detail about this in committee – I am hoping that the clarity that can be provided will assuage some of the concerns of those opposite about what the legislation put before this chamber as amended by this bill will do but also what it does not do, because we do need to distinguish between delivery and planning. We do need to be able to unpack some of the concerns that have been raised by members in their contributions about acquisition of land and about the way in which that can occur already; the way in which it is proposed to occur under this bill; the settings and protections which will apply to the acquisition or use of land, including in relation to easements; and the way in which this is intended upon operation to provide a better measure of certainty and security but also efficiency in the delivery of projects under precinct areas as declared.
This is a bill which is about efficiency. It is a bill which is about addressing the challenges that we have under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to enable us to deliver more of the iconic transport infrastructure projects and precinct projects cheaper and more efficiently without then having what might otherwise be an overreach through an abundance of caution by people seeking to use land and anticipating that a greater parcel of land may be used or may be needed despite it ultimately not being used. Priority precincts are about streamlining outcomes, reducing red tape and giving more certainty to the broader community, whether that is across local councils, whether that is with businesses or whether that is with communities. Again, this is about making sure that we can assist and facilitate many of the frameworks that already apply. This is about making sure that what we do already is able to operate in a consistent, in a cost-effective and in a transparent fashion.
There have been a number of amendments foreshadowed. I am looking forward to discussing those amendments and to answering any questions in the course of committee. But this is ultimately about developing the right infrastructure and amenities in the right places to support thriving and growing communities across the state and making sure that when and as we deliver those projects we can do so in a way that enables connection to vital transport infrastructure and amenities and makes sure that renewal areas can benefit from better land assembly and infrastructure coordination, increased integration with development and better value for the community.
That was quite the emphatic contribution there, Deputy President, and no doubt you are as enthusiastic about taking this into committee as I am. On that basis I do look forward to discussing the bill and I do look forward to answering questions and allaying a number of the concerns, however unfounded, that have been raised in the course of contributions in the second-reading debate.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (13): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (15:49)
Minister, I will ask at clause 1: does this bill change existing approvals processes for precincts?
I want to be really clear about the way in which this bill is intended to operate. It is about providing designated priority precincts with access to the delivery powers available under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 (MTPFA). It is really important, as I said in my summing-up, to contrast this – that is, the delivery powers – with approvals processes. Approvals processes remain intact for the purposes of the safeguards and the decisions that are required to be taken. The declaration of a precinct is a decision that is taken by the Premier along with work by, with and from the relevant project minister – that is, a line minister – so if it were, for example, a housing project or a precinct, that would then involve work with the relevant minister for those purposes and the relevant authority. This enables access to those delivery powers under the MTPFA. As I said, they already exist. They do not provide any new precedents, but they enable existing powers to be used more efficiently and effectively. While the declaration of a priority precinct occurs under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this does not impact existing planning approvals processes. The purpose is merely to declare a priority precinct as an approved project, which enables access to those delivery powers.
Minister, was this bill developed to facilitate the activity centres that have been recently announced by the government?
No. The bill was developed for the development of priority precincts.
Minister, just for your convenience and the chamber’s convenience, I am going to ask all my questions on clause 1. Clause 22 makes changes to activities that are typically managed under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. The clause appears to provide government or those authorised to occupy and carry out works on private land in declared precincts by giving 30 days notice. Why is the notice period so low?
Clause 22 of the bill provides for a power that enables entry onto and the carrying out of works on land for projects that are declared under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act and that are intended to be acquired. The proposed provisions contain a requirement for a project authority to notify the occupier or owner of the land 30 days before exercising the powers. That 30-day notice period is actually longer than what is available under other similar provisions that allow for temporary occupation already within the MTPF act. For example, the existing temporary occupation power under section 165D only requires seven days notice, so this timeframe, being 30 days, strikes an appropriate balance in providing those protections to affected persons, such as land owners and occupiers, and the need to deliver those complex major transport projects. Additionally, the proposed powers in clause 22 provide for numerous protections for affected land owners and occupiers, including those as they relate to rent for occupation of land and pecuniary loss or expense resulting from the occupation, along with compensation and obligations around the use of land as outlined for the other matters.
In clause 45 new section 201QO, for your convenience, provides for seven days notice to enter private and council land to undertake, among other things, soil boring, geotechnical and site survey work, ecological, archaeological and utilities surveys and contamination investigations. Seven days seems to be very, very short indeed for the notice period. People might be away on holiday, businesses might be off. It is an extremely small amount of time. Why is that? Why is it such a short amount of time? Seven days seems a short amount of time for anyone to just be able to come onto your property.
This is actually about the distinction between those invasive works on the one hand, which is where the longer period comes in, and the less invasive work such as surveying, to be conducted on a property –
Harriet SHING: Well, 30 days, as I said, is longer than many of the other provisions in the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act already. It is significantly longer. This is where, again, the scale of duration, being seven days, relates to those much less invasive works. If, for example, you have got a surveyor on the property, it would be that sort of work under the geotechnical assessments that you have just referred to in your question.
The bill also inserts a new section 116A into the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act, which allows a project authority to extinguish easements using a notice of acquisition but does not require the government to acquire the land. What compensatory regime will the government employ for those that have had any rights extinguished?
Compensation is set and determined by the valuer-general, and that is in accordance with an established formula. Then there can also be discussion between the parties. If there is disagreement, there is the capacity for that matter to be the subject of proceedings.
Proposed new section 201QB in the Planning and Environment Act states that in the context of a precinct project:
… a development or proposed development … is not prohibited by or under an applicable planning scheme if –
it is permitted as of right; or
it may be undertaken without a planning permit (whether or not the planning scheme requires other approvals or consents to be obtained before it may be undertaken); or
it may be undertaken with a planning permit (whether or not a planning permit may be granted or refused).
What counterbalancing measures are included within the broader planning framework to balance out the rights of communities to have a voice?
This is actually about planning processes being able to be exercised by the Minister for Planning but also by affected parties. There are still capacity options for people who are not satisfied with decisions that have been taken by the planning minister, and in some instances under this bill, and I am sure we will get to them, there are opportunities for VCAT to be involved. But in any event, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to hear and determine questions of law.
Proposed new section 201QD of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 does not seem to mandate the notification of landowners, land occupiers, councils, road authorities and infrastructure managers prior to the declaration of a precinct project. Will communities only learn about declarations after they have been made?
Community engagement is actually a really significant part of decision-making that is embedded into a number of different places in the course of any kind of development. So when we talk about the systems that will develop precincts and develop projects, like anything else there are planning approvals processes, environment effects statement (EES) requirements, planning scheme amendments and planning permits. They are all about engaging with communities and providing those opportunities for community voice, to coin a phrase used by one member of your benches in the course of contributions, to be heard as part of that work in making decisions.
So just confirming that there is no requirement to notify affected landowners, authorities or managers prior to the declaration of a precinct project.
The declaration occurs alongside all of the other work which is actually about notification. It does not necessarily arise in the context of the declaration itself, but all of those other steps are inherent in the work around development of the sorts of subject matter that these precincts involve.
I just want to clarify for Hansard: could it be that under this legislation and in the application of this legislation a declaration of a precinct project is made without consulting those relevant stakeholders I just mentioned?
The declaration, as the bill makes clear, is made by the Premier alongside the relevant project minister and authority, but again, this is about making sure that all of the other processes, including all of the other processes I just outlined that involve that community engagement, continue without being disrupted. So that is where the community engagement and consultation comes in. Every part of the development of a precinct that relates to the sorts of subject matter covered by an EES, planning scheme amendments and planning permits is actually part and parcel of community engagement in and of itself.
I guess the point is there is actually no formal way of appealing or consulting after the declaration is made. You are saying that there will be some consultation, but that obviously cannot change the declaration at all. So is that a confirmation that there is no mandated engagement process prior to the declaration?
The Premier has the capacity to make that declaration alongside the relevant project minister and the relevant authority, and it is from that process that the relevant planning processes and what that means for approval processes will enable that community consultation to occur, as is already the case.
I just have one more. New section 201QB(2) also states that the Premier must not make a precinct project declaration unless the Premier:
has assessed the development or proposed development, or works program or proposed works program, as a development or program that is of economic, social or environmental significance to –
the State; or
a region of the State.
Can you advise how exactly that is defined?
Harriet SHING: You mean how a region is defined, or how its social –
Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes, just to explain that section with particular reference to ‘the state or a region of the state’. I just want a definition or an explanation on that section in application.
It is probably easiest, Mr Mulholland, if I give you practical examples. Arden is one of those examples. When we think about Arden being a key area for housing delivery, that requires the provision of, for example, suitable drainage, and we know that when it comes to easements, we are talking about drainage, sewerage and carriageways, for example. The current delivery tools are not actually fit for purpose, and access to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act will reduce that complexity. Other areas include Fishermans Bend and Sunshine, again by reference to what may be an intersecting number of those social, economic or environmental projects of significance.
Minister, one of the purposes of the bill is to amend the Planning and Environment Act to provide for the delivery of precinct projects utilising the project powers under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009, and I have a few questions about that particular purpose. Firstly, the government made clear in its housing statement that there will soon be an entirely new planning and environment principal act. Part 3 of the bill that we are considering today pre-empts the new principal act. Can I ask: why is it necessary that the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be amended now, rather than waiting a couple of months for the new principal act?
The review of the Planning and Environment Act is, as you know, one which is necessarily of a very, very broad remit. The act itself contains a number of frameworks. It is 30 years old, so it is no longer fit for purpose, and one of the things that we know we need to do is review that entire framework for the purpose of a more contemporary application of systems to the way in which those matters are addressed. The delivery powers that are covered in this bill do not actually themselves appear in the Planning and Environment Act. The amendments to the Planning and Environment Act as part of this bill are to unify the parts of that act that make reference to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act.
Should we assume then that the government is not intending to replicate part 3 of the bill in the new planning and environment act when it surfaces?
As I said, those delivery powers covered in the bill do not appear in the Planning and Environment Act, but it will be re-enacted as part of the new act. That is the intention, as has been stated.
If it is going to be in the new planning act, can I go back to my original question, which is: why are we doing this now rather than waiting a couple of months when the new act will be before the Parliament?
Because this is to enable the more efficient delivery of projects that are the subject of a precinct declaration. That is about delivery rather than the planning processes that sit within planning approvals within those planning amendments and, for example, environment effects studies.
Before we get into this more in discussion around clause 45, the declaration of precinct projects appears to be unable to be reviewed on application to the tribunal or the courts or even by way of a disallowable instrument in either house of the Parliament. Why has the government chosen to remove all of those checks and balances?
This is not about removing checks and balances in the context of distinct precincts. The distinct precincts, as the subject of declarations, enable those delivery processes to become more efficient, and they streamline the way in which that can occur. They reduce a number of the inefficiencies and the excesses and the uncertainties for people involved in the development and delivery of precincts. The counterbalance to that remains the existing planning processes that are not displaced by this bill.
If we accept then that there is an absence of those checks and balances, which I think we can do –
David ETTERSHANK: Okay, I will go back to that. Let us go back to the last question then. Has the government effectively precluded any of those checks and balances being available in the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Legislation Amendment Bill?
Those checks and balances, as they relate to planning processes, are not displaced by the delivery processes in this bill. I think we might be going around in circles.
I think we are going around in circles, but thank you, Minister. It is an enjoyable circle. Given the absence of these checks and balances, howsoever constructed, I think the Parliament should know the government’s intention about what sorts of projects will be declared as precinct projects. Can the minister give a full picture about what sorts of areas are likely to be declared as precinct projects?
Mr Ettershank, I do appreciate the exchanges that we are having here in the course of trying to alleviate concerns, including those that have been raised by the opposition in the second-reading debate. I just want to be really, really clear that while the declaration of a priority precinct occurs under the Planning and Environment Act, it does not impact upon existing planning approval processes. The purpose is merely to declare a priority precinct as an approved project, which enables access to those Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act delivery powers. One of the areas, for example, is Fishermans Bend. That is a major urban renewal area. It is right on the doorstep of our CBD. The existing delivery powers available for priority precincts are currently disaggregated, and I am sure we will get to the other parts of the bill that seek to harmonise these in a way which is resulting in more efficiency, but they may in their current form create a measure of administrative complexity that to our mind is avoidable and preventable complexity. So under the proposed amendments to the Fishermans Bend precinct there will be able to be benefit from better land assembly and infrastructure coordination. For example, if there is access to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act delivery powers, we will see a reduction in complexity of administrative overhead of acquiring land. It will create the power to temporarily occupy land and alter drainage, which could offset the need for some compulsory acquisition.
It is then also about making sure that we have a measure of certainty that the role of the state in delivering infrastructure is less vulnerable to ambiguity in areas where a declaration of precinct is in place – that is, that we have a range of measures in place to ensure that we are not, for example, leading to perverse incentives for developers to acquire more land than they think they might need because they are doing that pre-emptively rather than a process for access to, for example, an easement or parts of land for the purpose of building and development which is ultimately much smaller than that which might otherwise be acquired.
I want to come back to the Fishermans Bend example. That is the biggest development proposal in Australia, and I guess there are potentially a lot of much, much smaller projects that are much closer to people’s homes, figuratively as well as literally. Perhaps I will just ask the question: is there any limit on how small a precinct project can be?
In having given you the Fishermans Bend example of that area, which is a centralised, condensed location for any number of different things – whether that is employment or housing or infrastructure – the area there has not been the subject of any declaration, just to be really, really clear. One of the things that is a fetter to the way in which the declaration can occur is that it has to fit within the landscape of being of economic, social or environmental significance to the state or the region of the state. So that is the essential criterion. What I am sure we will get to in the course of further discussion about this bill is also what it means to have assets or land added to the scope of the area that has been the subject of the declaration. For example, when we talk about adding a car park to a level crossing removal area, that is the sort of thing where we might have an additional part of the precinct to which that will apply, but that is only because it would otherwise not be of sufficient size to attract its own declaration.
If you have a bundling, for example, of a number of car parks at stations, with the expansion of level crossing removal and access to the public transport network which we have announced, then that is something which again does not make sense. It does not stack up. So there is a question of scale here, but when we talk about economic, social and environmental significance, that is something which invites a conclusion of the necessary scale that justifies it in the first place. But for that scale, the process of efficiency would not arise in the same way for smaller footprints, for smaller projects or for lesser scope.
I am not sure if that entirely answered it. Perhaps if we take your example of the car park, I think the government announced recently that the car park next to the Footscray station would make a nice future housing site. Would that fall within the scope to be deemed to be a precinct project even though Footscray station itself is obviously not a designated project?
I am not in a position to be able to provide you with specialist expert decisions on the sorts of hypothetical scenarios for approvals frameworks, but again, scale is one part of this, and the essential criterion is economic, social or environmental significance to the state or to a region of the state. That is the benchmark. The extent to which that might apply is going to be a matter which needs to be taken into consideration in the circumstances of each matter. But when we compare and contrast the sort of example that you have just suggested – that is, a proposal for a housing project next to Footscray station – with the example that you outlined earlier, Fishermans Bend, and you correctly referenced that that is one of the largest, if not the largest, proposed precinct developments in the nation, you can see that we have got very, very different ends of the spectrum there.
I am just trying to construct this as we go here. So if we have got that potential precinct project and we have got that criteria of significant social, environmental and suchlike impact, what is the provision open to citizens or any entity to dispute whether or not that is in fact a significant area, as you mentioned, Minister?
As in: what is the scope for inreach into the declaration? Is that what you are saying? Sorry, can you just flesh that out a bit for me?
If the Premier says, ‘Yes, okay, we’re going to make this a precinct project,’ and it fits that significant environmental, financial or economic et cetera criteria, what provision exists for a citizen or an organisation to dispute that it is in fact a significant area?
Mr Ettershank, this is a bill which provides purely for a delivery process under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act. All of the planning processes that apply for the purpose of development remain intact. That is the process whereby there is engagement and opportunity for contest in the event of dispute, including as that might arise under quasi-judicial tribunals like VCAT or indeed questions of law to be raised with the Supreme Court. There are also processes as they relate to compensation or to rent in relation to acquisitions as set by the valuer-general, which may also be the subject of negotiation.
Did the government consider the potential risk in not more clearly defining what can be declared a precinct project? For example, should a future government of any partisan character wish to use the unreviewable, undisallowable powers to declare an area to be a precinct project, what is stopping them from doing that?
I would suggest that by reference to the nature of democracy we do have a political approach to the way in which governments formulate policy offerings and develop legislative processes. From there we have a legislative process such as the one that we are in at the moment. This is then about the primary objective around scope and the primary criterion being social, economic or environmental significance. That is the measure by which that determination can occur. Ultimately, the Premier – that is, the leader of the state – is accountable for that decision, and this is a bill that provides a measure of clarity that that ultimately sits with the Premier of the day and that that is work that is then undertaken by the relevant line minister, the portfolio minister. In the case of a housing development, for example, that would sit with the relevant minister responsible for that housing, and the Premier is ultimately responsible to the community for that decision as it relates to a declaration.
I guess I want to sort of pick this one a little bit as I still have a bit of a PTSD from three rounds of the east–west tunnel fight. There is a lot of complexity here, and the issues that we are canvassing could also be scrutinised again when the new planning and environment principal act emerges. Minister, can you provide an update on when that new principal act is likely to be published in draft and available for parties to consider it?
That particular act is currently under review. It sits within an entirely separate part of the department. I appreciate your reference. I think you said PTS as it relates to the east–west link. I think that you –
David ETTERSHANK: PTSD.
Harriet SHING: Well, it is not necessarily a disorder as it is classified under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but we can go to that question another day. This is one of those areas, though, where again uncertainty in development and the vulnerabilities that communities have felt around the way in which development has occurred is actually one of the principles that the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act is intending to address, and this is where this process for delivery and what that delivery approval looks like again sits alongside that planning approval process. But that act that you have referred to is under review, and it is under an entirely separate part of the department in question. Again I am sure that the department or officials can have a look at what they might be able to provide you by way of general information, but it is not actually within the scope or the contemplation of this bill here today.
I thank the minister, and I appreciate the more erudite version of no, which would be otherwise perfectly reasonable. I do have some further questions that I would like to pursue relating to clauses 22 and 45, but I might deal with them as we get to that point.
Just to pick up on my colleague’s questions in respect to the precinct projects, why is it that these powers will now be shared with the Premier? Why not just simply leave most, if not all, of these powers in the new act with the planning minister as opposed to the Premier?
There will be a number of different areas where a precinct may fall as it relates to different ministers. The Premier is ultimately the one who sits at the centre of accountability to the community. It will not always be the planning minister, and therefore it is appropriate. And this has driven the drafting of the bill in its current form, that the Premier declares that project or precinct, as I have indicated to Mr Ettershank and also to Mr Mulholland in his questions, and then appoints a responsible minister. That responsible minister is a minister connected to the subject matter of that precinct declaration alongside an authority also equipped to be similarly across the detail.
I suppose perhaps I am naive, but that is always what the cabinet process has been about – bringing ministers together, getting their input and having the relevant minister, usually the planning minister, drive such projects. It seems like another level of complexity to be actually giving the steering wheel, as it were, to the Premier sometimes and on other occasions to the planning minister and in many respects then codifying the behaviour between the two, because this bill actually outlines instances where the planning minister must consult with the Premier. Notwithstanding that, when it speaks of the precinct projects in particular here – Mr Ettershank was also referring to the capacity for challenge to what is essentially a declaration via the Premier of developments of state or regional significance – is there a capacity for any Victorian to challenge legally these proposed declarations of both state and regional significance for projects?
Mr McGowan, I will take you up on perhaps a couple of your remarks at the outset of your question. When we talk about precincts, as I indicated earlier, they may well fall most appropriately to a number of different ministers in a number of different instances. For example, the planning minister may of course be part of the process whereby he or she is designated as the relevant minister for the purpose of that precinct and the declaration so that the Premier makes that decision and from that that relevant minister is appropriately charged with the remit for the work that is undertaken there within the scope of those existing planning approvals, frameworks and processes, such as environment effects studies, planning amendments, planning approvals, processes et cetera. It might also, for example, be the Minister for Education, where there is an education precinct. This was something which came up in a number of the contributions made by people in the course of the second-reading debate. But ultimately this is a system which replicates the process for major transport projects, which are declared by the Premier.
Perhaps I might not have been so clear. I may have had the answer in that, but is it correct to say then that once the Premier has declared the development or proposed developments of state or regional significance there is no mechanism to challenge that declaration? I am reading from the explanatory memorandum here.
This is about declaration of precincts, and there is not a mechanism for challenge provided for in the bill. The mechanisms for challenge exist in a number of other areas as they relate to the approvals processes, and it is the approvals processes which guide the way in which the development of a precinct to realise its objectives is undertaken. Again, as I have indicated in response to other questions, there are opportunities to proceed with a challenge to those processes in a number of different frameworks.
I will have one last go. I understand that it is in respect to the precinct projects. I understand that, Minister. But what the memorandum here says and the bill says in the detail is that, as I read it, there is no way for any Victorian to challenge the Premier’s declaration that a particular development or proposed development is of significance, be it state or regional, and therefore will be a precinct project. Am I correct in saying that? Because that certainly seems to be the case.
Development of a precinct is not the same as approval of a development. I think that is where our ambiguity may have arisen in this exchange, Mr McGowan. What I would say is that the planning, environment effects, approvals and amendments processes continue intact, but this is about making sure that we have a mechanism that enables the Premier to make that declaration. Just again, by way of example, an environment effects statement process has at its heart a public hearing. That is one of a number of different examples about how there are rights to be exercised by people or by bodies around the implementation of proposed decisions. This is a delivery process. The planning processes sit in the system that they have sat in for a considerable amount of time. Within those frameworks exist a number of mechanisms, such as that public hearing that I just referred to.
But in order for the Premier, in this case, to make a declaration that it is a precinct project, the Premier must have had to go through a process to satisfy her or himself that it is a project of regional or state significance. My question is in respect to that decision: is that a decision that can be appealed?
I just want to perhaps unpack this to its practical application. If, for example, somebody engages with a planning process with the intention of challenging the validity of a particular decision or having input into a proposed course of action, any further opportunity, or any opportunity such as the one which you have talked about around a declaration, would in fact be redundant, because a challenge to the nature of the declaration as to whether a precinct is of social or economic or environmental significance is in fact much more comprehensive, much more general as far as delivery processes are concerned, than the planning processes, which are the subject of and are able to be the subject of appeals processes or contest.
My colleague Mr Mulholland asked earlier this afternoon a number of questions in respect to notification, in particular both the seven- and the 30-day notification periods, albeit for different aspects, one being a notification for temporary works like minor surveying and perhaps drilling and the other one being a more permanent occupation. What is the method of notification of those notices under either the act or the regulations that is envisaged?
There is a written notice process whereby written notice is given to the landowner or to the occupier in question, but in practice there is a range of communication that occurs before that seven-day period kicks off. That is doorknocks or phone calls, attempts to contact and engagement with people. The intention is not to spring this on people. The written notice is there, but it sits alongside what ordinarily occurs: a range of different processes to engage with people about what that means, including the presence that will occur, for example, on that early surveying work on site within that seven-day period.
When will notices be taken as served in that case? The older I get, the more cautious I am about these matters, because even though it might be a written notice, it might be in the form of an email versus a letter. You and I both know that the two take different periods of time to be delivered and that an email may go unnoticed whereas a letter may not. This does have real life consequences for people in the routine of their lives, particularly as only seven days, as Mr Mulholland pointed out, is a very short period of time. Someone could perhaps easily miss an email. But certainly I would appreciate an answer to that question.
Thanks, Mr McGowan, for that question. It speaks to the challenges of communication across any number of different media. You have referred to not necessarily picking up an email. There are also people who have not necessarily picked up mail from their postboxes. There is a written notice, so that is a hard copy, printed notice. However, as I have indicated, there is a practical approach taken to this sort of engagement. It is intended to provide people with a measure of certainty, and that is why phone calls, doorknocking, face-to-face engagement and opportunities for people to understand what this means are inherent to the work that occurs, consistent with existing powers under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act.
It is also about making sure that people understand the nature of the power within that seven-day period that is sought to be exercised – that is, exploratory surveying work or investigation work to be undertaken. This is about, again, the relatively unobtrusive or non-disruptive nature of the work that is proposed to be undertaken, and that is as distinct from the 30-day period which has been discussed in earlier questions.
When you say ‘non-intrusive’, I take it from the seven days that would not then include any form of drilling – in the instance where seven days notice is provided. Is that correct? I would think drilling, for example, would be quite intrusive in a property.
When we talk about investigative work, that may include drilling. Again, surveying and investigative work are part of the species of works that may be able to be undertaken there. There is a relevant section that I will take you to, which is section 264. Notice can be given by delivering that personally; by leaving it with someone older than 16 at the usual or most recent place of business; by sending it by post addressed to the person at the usual or last known place of residence or business of that person; by sending it to the address advised for notices; or by sending it by email if the person has consented. As I said, this is about a number of different approaches. The purpose of this communication is to provide people with certainty. Again, a range of different steps are available, and that is applied in circumstances that give the most pragmatic opportunity for that information to be received.
I could probably take much more time on this, as I am getting more and more concerned the more questions I ask, Minister. But thank you for the answer nonetheless. I am concerned by part of your answer to that question only because it involved a 16-year-old, and as you and I might know, you give something to a 16-year-old –
Harriet SHING: Older than.
Nick McGOWAN: Sixteen or older I think is what you said, but I am happy to stand corrected. But if you give something to a 16-year-old, there is every chance the parent may never receive what they have received. So for that parent, that may well be one hell of a shock. I just do not understand why we would, in legislation, make any 16-year-old responsible for the receipt of a notice like that. Why it ought not be an adult troubles me somewhat significantly.
That segues into my last question for the purposes of this particular part of the bill, and that is: once the notice has been received by a Victorian, do they have a period in which they can appeal that decision or that notice, either the seven or the 30 days?
Harriet SHING: Appeal what part of the notice?
Nick McGOWAN: That they can contest the notice – other than going to court.
Harriet SHING: Do you mean contest the substance of the notice or the form of the notice?
Nick McGOWAN: The substance of the notice.
Okay. No, there is no right of appeal in relation to the substance of that notice and the intention to undertake that work. This is where, again, the bill is about getting that access able to be provided. It is about harmonising that work with the Major Projects Transport Facilitation Act that existed. If the notice is, however, served unlawfully, then that could be contested, for example, in the Supreme Court. So the usual rules as they apply for the form, as distinct from the substance – which is why I asked the question – would remain intact. But the decision to exercise that power for early exploratory or investigative works within that seven-day period would not. There are a range, though, of counterbalancing factors involved in the access to or use of that land in a way that is not dissimilar to the deployment of easement access for certain purposes where there is broader disruption to the owner or the occupier of surrounding land.
Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 (16:45)
You have sort of covered this, but I will just fish a little more. There is a very short notice period given to landholders to occupy and carry out works on their land. Can I ask what the rationale is for only giving 30 days notice when the lead-in time for development is presumably much, much longer – you have talked about the long planning process that goes before this. And why is the government bypassing the usual time-considerate compulsory acquisition processes?
As I have indicated, the clause that you have referred to provides for a power that enables entry onto and the carrying out of works on land in project areas that are intended to be acquired, and the proposed provisions contain a requirement for a project authority to notify the owner or occupier 30 days before exercising those powers. The 30-day notice period is longer than what is available under other similar provisions that allow for temporary occupation that already exist within the MTPF act. For example, the existing temporary occupation power under section 165D only requires seven days notice, so 30 days is considered to strike an appropriate balance to provide protections to affected persons alongside the need to deliver complex major transport projects.
In addition to that, there are numerous protections that are provided for as they relate to affected landowners and to occupiers – rent for the occupation of land, pecuniary loss or expense resulting from occupation, compensation and obligations around the use of land – as I have outlined in my answer to other questions. This is about providing a balance. We do want to make sure that we have that balance in place with a measure of certainty, again, that is greater than a number of the other provisions in the legislation as they relate to other temporary occupations.
I am just going to probably run past the second part of that question, which is: why is the government bypassing the more time-considerate compulsory acquisition processes?
I am concerned that you may have conflated two issues around compulsory acquisition on the one hand and early access to a site for the purposes of determining scope, for example, of the project.
My apologies if I have been unclear there, Minister. I might be misunderstanding here. The 30 days notice would still apply, would it not, in the context of an acquisition under the proposed bill. So I guess my question in that context would strike to: why this clause rather than the existing land acquisition options which exist, which are more time-considerate?
Thank you, Mr Ettershank; that is perhaps a little clearer. This is about a project authority being able to enter, occupy, use and carry out works on any land inside the designated project area predicated upon an intention to later acquire an interest in the land on which the permanent infrastructure is constructed. So land occupiers or owners will be compensated during occupation and will be compensated in full for the land that ultimately needs to be acquired for project purposes. Currently, when infrastructure needs to be constructed for a project, a project authority must compulsorily acquire an interest in the land based on the anticipated location of the infrastructure before construction kicks off, so any land that is surplus to project requirements must then be declared surplus under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act before the project authority can sell, lease or otherwise dispose of its interest in the acquired land. This is about reducing uncertainty for all those parties where there may be a need to construct works on these lands, and it is providing landowners with greater certainty that the minimum necessary land will be permanently acquired rather than a larger parcel that may be acquired to accommodate a margin of change to the footprint during finalisation of the design and construction. So in essence this is not about bypassing a process. It still needs to be conducted through the land acquisition process for that land that is acquired.
Minister, I think Mr Limbrick alluded to the fact before that it is desirable that you do not have to buy the whole house if you just want the back thunderbox or whatever.
Harriet SHING: Mr McGowan would quite like a back thunderbox.
David ETTERSHANK: I think we all agree that that idea that you can simply take a more strategic approach to land acquisition is highly desirable, and I agree with what you say there. I am assuming, though, before you demolish the aforementioned thunderbox and dig a hole that in fact you are going to acquire the land, so that would in itself become subject to a process. Maybe I am missing this, but as I understand it, the current provisions for the acquisition of land, notwithstanding that they are less strategic, are more time considerate than the proposed changes in the bill.
Harriet SHING: Time considerate?
David ETTERSHANK: You are allowed more time to acquire. I would just try and get that point, if we could get some clarity on that, please.
This is about the way in which occupation can occur, where there is a later intention to acquire, or potentially to acquire, an interest in that land. This is also, again, where we have a system that is not being bypassed. You do still need to go through that land acquisition process for that land that is acquired. I would be very cautious about encouraging any conclusions that this is in fact circumventing any processes that relate to land acquisitions or to the way in which those land acquisitions are determined, the way in which rent or compensation is determined and the way in which legal process operates as it relates to those matters.
I move:
1. Clause 22, page 16, line 23, omit “30” and insert “90”.
I covered this in my contribution earlier, but we are seeking to amend new section 165Q to increase the mandatory notice period from 30 days to 90 days to give landowners greater certainty. It was certainly covered to an extent in the committee about how that is a short period of time. Currently the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act gives a project authority the ability to enter, occupy and use land within the project area for the approved project if the project authority intends to compulsorily acquire at least part of the land on which the permanent infrastructure is to be constructed and if the project authority is satisfied it is not reasonably practicable to precisely identify the area of land on which permanent infrastructure will be constructed before the works for the construction of the permanent infrastructure are commenced. Increasing the mandatory notice period from 30 days to 90 days would give landowners greater certainty.
The government will not be supporting the coalition’s amendment. This is about making sure that we can proceed with reducing costs and delays, and it is also about ensuring that we are sequencing the development and the delivery of precincts and interests in the right way. We want to make sure that authorities are in a position to undertake works and also to understand the scope of what an interest or potential interest will look like. It has then been the basis for amendments to enable this to occur more quickly. We want to make sure also that it is clear as to how this can be done. It is about understanding that this work can only be undertaken, as I said, where there is an interest to later acquire an interest in the land which supports constructed permanent infrastructure. And these provisions contain a requirement for a project authority to notify the occupier or owner of the land 30 days before exercising the powers, which is what we have gone through already.
If the timing is increased to 90 days, the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority or project authorities would either acquire the parcel of land or use other existing powers, and without this pathway the entire parcel of land may need to be acquired before works are undertaken. This goes to Mr Ettershank’s quite colourful description of a thunderbox at the back of a house, which I think references Mr Limbrick’s reference to a thunderbox at the back of a house, being acquired before works were undertaken, and once finished, the surplus land could be divested, which would increase the number of transactions for both the project authority and the landowners. This is where the protections in clause 22 are numerous. They include notice requirements, a condition report, advance works notice, draft notice of intention to acquire, obligations on the project authority in relation to the exercise of powers, rent for occupation of land and pecuniary loss or expense resulting from the occupation, compensation and obligations around the use of land, including make-good provisions.
The Victorian Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We take on board the extensive discussion that has happened through committee and the government’s advice that the 30-day notice period exceeds what is commonly available under existing legislation for similar entry powers.
I thank the minister for the clarification. We do support a longer notice period in this clause, and Legalise Cannabis will be supporting the amendment to clause 22.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to; clauses 23 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 (17:06)
Proposed new section 201QB of the Planning and Environment Act gives the Premier the power to:
… declare a development or proposed development, or a works program or proposed works program, to be a precinct project.
That new proposed section goes on to restrict the Premier from making such a declaration unless the Premier is satisfied that the development or works program is not prohibited by or under an applicable planning scheme. That sounds very comforting and I think strikes to the minister’s previous comments about the separation of this bill from existing planning processes. However, I just note that the planning minister already has the power, literally at the stroke of a pen if she so wishes, or some future planning minister so wishes, so this does not actually seem like much of a restriction at all. So my question is: what if something goes wrong? What if the declaration impinges on the rights and interests of a private landholder or a municipal authority and there is no ability for that private landholder or municipal authority to do anything about it? What then?
What then in relation to the declaration, or what then in relation to a decision around the approval process? This bill is only about a delivery process akin to that under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act, and as I said and as we have canvassed extensively in this debate, all of those other planning processes remain intact. The primary consideration, as I indicated, is for the Premier to determine that this is a precinct or a development of social, economic or environmental significance and to be required to consider a number of factors. That is the primary factor involved in these matters.
Perhaps I have expressed myself poorly. The way in which the bill is drafted is designed to give a level of comfort that the Premier in applying her mind, or some future Premier in applying their mind, for less pure purposes – other purposes – would have this restriction of the existing planning scheme in place. So the Premier could not approve a new precinct without reference to the applicable planning scheme, which, as you talked to before, is the product of a long process of consultation. But of course the planning minister literally can with the stroke of a pen amend any planning scheme, effectively bypassing that – and I have personally experienced this. The planning minister has sweeping powers to make those changes, which would nullify that potential safeguard. So if that planning minister’s discretion was exercised in that way and it was wrong or it was inappropriate, it is still going to deny that safety net that the act purports to provide. So my question strikes to: if you are a council that has been done wrong or an authority that has been done wrong or a landholder that has been done wrong, what then?
There is a lot in what you have just explored, Mr Ettershank. Ultimately, the work that a planning minister does is the subject of that planning minister’s powers. I cannot speak to the purposes or the motivations of any planning minister into the future, nor can I speak to what the substance of the planning framework and approvals scheme might look like. But this is also about the existing capacity for matters to be considered as they relate to questions of law, and any questions of law that might apply as a consequence of a contest – notwithstanding that, for example, the planning minister can call in matters which then are not able to be determined de novo by VCAT, for example – and rights as they relate to questions of law remain intact. So this is where, again, I cannot speak to what might happen in the future, but this is about those existing processes, amendments and approvals such as the EES, which includes a public hearing process, being intact and that the Premier’s considerations are chiefly informed by social, economic or environmental significance and reducing costs and delays. It is ultimately about making sure also that we have a measure of consistency with the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act and the scheme under which that operates, as I have indicated in a number of other instances already.
I am going to move on. Most planning scheme amendments are disallowable instruments. Why isn’t this new higher power, the precinct project declaration power, not also proposed to be a disallowable instrument? Why is Parliament denied the right to revisit or review such a decision? I am happy to clarify that: the bill specifically excludes a whole range of appeal mechanisms, including disallowance motions in either house.
So this is ultimately back to the point that I discussed earlier in response to questions from Mr McGowan. This is the same as that system which operates under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act. The Premier has the power under that framework to make that declaration, and this is then a replication of that process. The Premier is then ultimately accountable to the community as it relates to the decision by reference chiefly to projects or precincts of a social, economic or environmental significance to the state or to a region.
I might try this from an elliptical point of view, because I think we are possibly talking at cross purposes here. But it could be that I am just not getting it.
Harriet SHING: Or me. I could not be getting it, who knows? It is very late in the day.
David ETTERSHANK: It is late in the day, and it is late in the week. Perhaps if we look at it through a different lens. Section 38 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that the only planning scheme amendments that are not disallowable instruments are those prepared by the Suburban Rail Loop Authority, as I understand it. If this bill were to pass, neither planning approval nor project delivery will be able to be checked by elected representatives in this place for land in the vicinity of the Suburban Rail Loop, for example. Without these checks and balances, very little room is left for government error, so my question is: what happens if you get it wrong in that context?
Again, I am trying to perhaps meet you where you are. Those matters are still the subject of those approval processes under the planning framework. There are still rights of contest that apply under those processes, which sit underneath a declaration. Where there are decisions taken within the planning approvals process, those rights are not disrupted, those rights are not negated. The consequence of a precinct declaration is to enable that delivery framework. It is not to disturb the framework of planning processes and what they mean in the way in which an appeal or a contest might otherwise be exercised.
The net effect, though, would still be to extend the net for possible developments that are immune from disallowable instruments. That would be the effect, surely? It would just cast a broader net, other than just as it currently stands, which is only Suburban Rail Loop Authority decisions.
Harriet SHING: But not appeal. You can still take them to court.
David ETTERSHANK: I am talking about disallowance motions here.
Harriet SHING: Yes.
David ETTERSHANK: I am sorry if I am not getting this.
No, that is okay. Ultimately, the Premier in making that declaration is accountable to the community. There are rights that exist under the planning approvals framework and those decisions include public hearings on matters of law that can be heard and determined by, for example, the Supreme Court. Those rights remain intact. But ultimately, this is a declaration that sits with the Premier as the first minister of the state of Victoria.
Minister, if precinct projects are in areas where specialised planning controls have already been put in place to remove the notice and review provisions of the Planning and Environment Act – that is, third-party rights held by landowners have already been removed and the landowner is powerless to do anything about it – are you saying that basically seven days notice is adequate to enter that property and start geotechnical drilling, for example?
Are you referring to the existence of an easement as it relates to access to a property or to use of property? Or are you referring to entry onto property for the purpose of access where an interest might be contemplated to be taken in the course of project delivery?
I guess I would start off by taking an easement as an example. I would assume that in that case specialised planning controls have already been put in place.
Harriet SHING: Yes.
David ETTERSHANK: My question then strikes to – if you have got that situation, is seven days really an adequate notice period? I am sort of coming to the amendment, I suppose, that will be moved in this regard.
The declaration in and of itself does not actually affect any form that developments might take. Those developments are determined by planning processes and by instruments such as precinct structure plans, so the bill does not affect any of those processes. I covered this earlier around the nature of easements being for sewerage, for drainage and for carriageways. This is then an existing interest that applies to land, and that interest does not inform the value of that land. What it does do is enable access, but that easement process is then something which exists for the purpose of access for certain purposes. But project authorities would in practice work with land owners and occupiers to ensure that they are appropriately notified before land is entered. It is not dissimilar to what happens when, for example, works are intended to be undertaken on drainage on or adjacent to a property, with a portion of that drainage being on a property. That notification is ordinarily given.
Mr McGowan has talked at length before about whether a 16-year-old could be trusted with a letter, but in practice people do a considerable amount of work, with letterbox drops and letters, emails, if there is consent to provide that, and doorknocks. This is about making sure that again people are aware of what is happening. Easements are not an area of law where interruption to quiet enjoyment is taken lightly. For the very fact that it involves a measure of disruption, however small that might be, that leads to a practical application of the principles of engagement with people who are affected by that disruption. So this is where, again, it is about working with landowners to ensure that that appropriate notice occurs before that land is entered.
Previously in the second-reading debate, I explained these amendments, so I am going to save the chamber a bit of time and just move my amendments. I move:
2. Clause 45, page 55, after line 33 insert –
“(6) A person or body referred to in section 201QE(2)(a) may apply to the Tribunal for review of a declaration made under subsection (1).
(7) After hearing an application for review under subsection (6), the Tribunal may –
(a) set aside the declaration; or
(b) modify the declaration; or
(c) confirm the declaration.”.
3. Clause 45, page 57, line 13, before “A precinct” insert “(1)”.
4. Clause 45, page 57, after line 17 insert –
“(2) Despite subsection (1), a precinct project declaration does not take effect unless –
(a) notice of the declaration has been given to –
(i) owners and occupiers of land within the project area; and
(ii) road authorities, municipal councils, and infrastructure managers that will be materially affected by the precinct project declaration; and
(b) the notice has been publicly available for a period of at least 30 days, during which persons may make written submissions to the Premier; and
(c) the Premier has published a response to the body of submissions made.
(3) In this section –
infrastructure manager has the same meaning as in the Road Management Act 2004;
road authority has the same meaning as in the Road Management Act 2004.”.
I would just indicate, as per some of the previous questions on this amendment, that Legalise Cannabis Party will be supporting the proposed amendment.
The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. I think it has been ventilated extensively throughout debate that the bill leaves existing planning processes and appeal mechanisms relating to approvals intact.
The government will not be supporting Mr Mulholland’s amendments as moved, which will come as a surprise no doubt to him and to his colleagues. I have outlined the reasons for the government’s position in this regard, but I do thank people for their engagement, asking questions and seeking clarification about the effects of this bill as intended.
Council divided on amendments:
Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendments negatived.
I move:
5. Clause 45, page 64, line 10, omit “7” and insert “14”.
6. Clause 45, page 64, line 14, omit “7” and insert “14”.
For the benefit of the chamber, I explained this – it is in Hansard – during my second-reading debate contribution, which I am sure you were all listening to, so I will leave it at that.
Legalise Cannabis will be supporting the amendment.
The Greens understand the intent of the amendment and in principle would like to see notice periods that are adequate. We accept, though, the government’s justification in this place that they are seeking to create consistency with the existing notice periods under the act.
Mr Mulholland, it will come as no surprise to you that I listened assiduously to your comments and to your contribution in the course of the debate, and the government will not be supporting your amendments for the reasons already stated in the course of this committee stage.
Council divided on amendments:
Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to; clauses 46 to 53 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.
I want to thank everybody who has been part of the extensive consultation and discussion about its terms and the debate that has taken place here today.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (24): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (13): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.