Hansard debates

                TRADITIONAL OWNER SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2012
                           Statement of compatibility
Mr  CLARK (Attorney-General)  tabled  following  statement  in  accordance  with
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
  In  accordance  with   section  28  of  the   Charter  of  Human   Rights  and
  Responsibilities   Act   2006   (charter   act),  I  make  this  statement  of
  compatibility with respect to the  Traditional Owner Settlement Amendment Bill
  2012.
  In my  opinion,  the Traditional  Owner  Settlement Amendment  Bill  2012,  as
  introduced  to the Legislative  Assembly, is compatible  with the human rights
  set out in the charter act.

  I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
  Overview of Bill
  The bill seeks to  amend  the  Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (the act)
  to:
    provide a  statutory basis for standard  conditions in a  land  use activity
    agreement in order to manage  future  state liabilities, prevent duplication
    of cultural heritage processes, and streamline processes for access to earth
    resources;
    facilitate  economic  development  and reduce red tape  by  enabling  carbon
    sequestration projects on Aboriginal title land and allowing commercial uses
    of flora and forest produce to be authorised through a settlement;

    increase the ability  to reach settlements by broadening the eligibility  of
    members of a  traditional  owner group to  exercise  their rights  under  an
    agreed natural resource authorisation order;
    correct inconsistencies and  ambiguities in the provision of the Traditional
    Owner Settlement Act 2010.

 Page 4131


  Human rights issues
1. Charter act rights that are relevant to the bill
(a) Section 19(2) -- Distinct cultural rights of Aboriginal people
  The bill will enhance the  cultural rights of Aboriginal  people under section
  19(2).
  It does  this  by broadening the  eligibility of members of  traditional owner
  groups  who enter into a settlement package under the act  to  access  natural
  resources according to an authorisation  order.  Currently,  the  act provides
  that a traditional owner must be a member of their group's corporate entity in
  order to exercise their rights under an authorisation order or exemption.

  This bill will  amend the relevant  provisions  such that a  traditional owner
  need only be a member of the group.
  Similarly, the  bill  enables traditional owners  who enter into  a settlement
  package to develop commercial opportunities from the use of natural resources,
  including traditional activities that have a commercial element,  for example,
  traditional crafts  and  art. Currently, the  act restricts the  ability  of a
  settlement package  to  provide for the  authorisation of commercial  uses  of
  certain  natural  resources.  This bill will lift that restriction, supporting
  traditional owners to maintain  their economic relationship with the resources
  of the land.

  Also, the addition of new land use activities provides a further protection of
  the right of traditional  owners with a settlement  package to maintain  their
  distinctive spiritual,  material and economic relationship with their land and
  waters  and  other   resources,   by   enabling  a  minimum  notification  and
  consultation process, or a negotiation requirement, where a  land use activity
  is proposed  that would impact on their traditional owner rights. This ensures
  that traditional  owners  are able to  have  their interests  represented  and
  respected.
  Robert Clark, MP
  Attorney-General
Second reading

  Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) -- I move:
  That this bill be now read a second time.
This government is committed to the fair and  timely  settlement of native title
claims, through negotiated outcomes.
It is not in the interests of Victoria for the  government,  traditional  owners
and third parties  to spend years,  sometimes  decades, in Federal  Court native
title determination processes if  this can be  avoided. Preferably, a negotiated
settlement  can enable the redirection of resources towards social, economic and
cultural benefits  for  traditional owners  while  at the  same  time  providing
certainty for users of Crown land.
In 2010 there were 14 claims before the Federal Court.

Since the passage of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (the act), no new
claims  have been lodged and 6 of the 14 have been resolved or discontinued. The
government  is negotiating for  the  withdrawal of four  of the eight  remaining
claims,  brought  by the Dja Dja Wurrung people in  central  Victoria,  and  has
agreed  to negotiate  using the act to settle the Wamba Wamba, Barapa Barapa and
Wadi Wadi  people's  claim  in  north-central  Victoria. Where the circumstances
warrant  it,  the government will use the act to finally  resolve  native  title
claims and avoid their future lodgement.
However, the act has a number of flaws and deficiencies which this bill seeks to
remedy.
The bill will amend the definition of  a traditional owner group in section 3 of
the act, specifically subsection (a).

This amendment will make it clear  that  a  traditional  owner  group,  for  the
purposes  of  this act is one that  has,  or  is  able to have, a  native  title
settlement --  that is,  a group  that can  enter into a registered and  legally
binding Indigenous land use agreement to  withdraw native title and compensation
claims  and to  not lodge  any in  the future.  This definition ensures that the
government has settled with the 'right people for  the  right  country' and that
the settlement can provide legal finality and ongoing certainty.
The  bill  further  clarifies the purposes for which the government can  make  a
native  title  settlement and  the  relationship  between  the  agreements  that
comprise  a  settlement package. The  bill  makes clear  that  a  settlement can
include  an Indigenous  land use  agreement, which is the means by which a group
'contracts'  out  of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth). The  Indigenous  land  use
agreement assists  the  state to achieve  finality  by preventing the  making of
future native title claims.

The  amendments  under division  2  relate to land  agreements.  They deal  with
unintended situations where  the  grant of  land  to a traditional  owner  group
entity could be taken to extinguish native title, and where the grant of land in
Aboriginal  title limits the ability of the government  to enter into agreements
to  have Crown land used for carbon sequestration. There are likely to be future
economic  opportunities in regional  Victoria arising from carbon sequestration,
as carbon credits are available from the commonwealth for trade.
The bill will strengthen the framework  for land use activity  agreements, which
are the means  by which traditional owner  procedural rights over certain future
land use activities are given effect. There are not  yet any  land use  activity
agreements in the state and a number of amendments are required to ensure that:
  there is sufficient certainty for the investment in, and development of, Crown
  land;

 Page 4132


  there  is a  limit to  the future  liabilities  accrued by  the state  for its
  significant land use activities on Crown land;
  there is no duplication of processes across different acts; and
  the  system is broadly  comparable with the procedural  rights available under
  the  Native  Title Act, which  is  necessary for  reaching  agreement with the
  traditional owners.
Specifically,  the bill will deal with some of the gaps between the Native Title
Act and  the  act,  by  enabling procedural rights over some land use activities
that were  not defined  in the Traditional Owner Settlement Act in 2010, and  by
making a minor amendment to the Planning and Environment  Act  1987  to  clarify
notification rights for traditional owner group entities in relation to planning
scheme amendments.

This  bill will  also amend part 4 of  the Traditional  Owner Settlement  Act to
provide greater certainty  for investment and  development in our state's alpine
resorts. These resorts were  established specifically for  this purpose and  the
government seeks to ensure that new developments can proceed with certainty. The
amendments provide for  certain land use activities  in alpine resorts  to  give
rise  to  advisory  procedural  rights --  providing  traditional  owners   with
notification of those activities. These  amendments  bring the Traditional Owner
Settlement  Act  procedural  rights into line with the level of Native Title Act
1993 (cth) procedural rights available in alpine resorts.
Other key amendments to part 4 of the act will:
  streamline  the  processes  for  negotiations and for certain low-impact earth
  resource approvals; and

  ensure that there is no duplication with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
The act currently provides for the activities that can be included in a land use
activity agreement. However, the act does  not provide for an up-front agreement
with  traditional  owners  about the  community  benefits that  should  apply to
certain  activities  or about  the  relationship between  a  land  use  activity
agreement and the  Aboriginal  Heritage Act  2006.  Addressing these matters  as
standard  conditions  in an agreement  will streamline these  processes and make
them more certain for everyone involved.
The  other group of amendments  to part 4 of the  act will clarify the provision
relating  to  the ministerial directions  that  are to  detail  the  process for
advisory activities, and the  information  requirements  of  a decision-maker in
relation to negotiation and agreement activities.

The  amendment to part 5 of the act, which provides  for a funding agreement and
the  establishment  of a trust to hold and invest settlement funds, will clarify
the purpose of  the  trust  that has already been established. This trust, which
has  had  moneys  paid into it  as  part  of the Gunai  Kurnai  settlement, is a
charitable trust.  The  definition of 'charitable'  in  terms of tax  rulings is
informed  by common law  and  statute. Making this  amendment will increase  the
likelihood that the trust is  ruled to  be charitable  into the future. This has
important  implications for  the  effectiveness of the  trust  as an  investment
vehicle for managing traditional owner finances. This amendment will not prevent
trust money being used for economic development, but it does assure that profits
will be applied for community purposes and community wealth generation.
Part 6  of the  act provides for traditional owners to be  authorised to  access
natural resources for traditional and non-commercial use. However, as it stands,
this part:

  does  not  allow for commercial agreements to be made, limiting the ability of
  traditional owners to pursue their economic development objectives and achieve
  independence and sustainability; and
  an authorisation can  only apply to traditional owners who are also members of
  their corporation (traditional owner group entity).
This  bill will amend  part  6  of the act  to  enable commercial matters to  be
included in  a natural resource agreement and to enable authorisation orders for
flora and forest produce to include commercial uses -- for example, bush crafts.
This  reduces  red  tape  and  makes it easier for traditional owners to  pursue
economic development opportunities.
The  bill will also enable authorisation  orders to  apply to  all members  of a
recognised traditional owner group.

Currently, if a person  chooses not to be a member of their group's corporation,
for whatever  reason, they are not able to exercise natural resource rights as a
member  of  the  group.  Similarly,  children  are   effectively  excluded  from
exercising such rights because a  person under the age of 16 cannot be a  member
of  a  registered body corporate under the commonwealth Corporations (Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned on motion of Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine).
Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 26 September.

  PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT (VICSMART PLANNING ASSESSMENT) BILL 2012
                                 Second reading
Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion of Mr CLARK (Attorney-General).

  Mr  BATTIN  (Gembrook) --  I  rise  to support  the  Planning  and Environment
Amendment (VicSmart  Planning  Assessment) Bill  2012.  I will start  by talking
about the former Minister  for  Planning,  the member for Essendon, who stood up
earlier to contribute to this debate. His idea of how to fix the planning system
was to throw  money at it: 'If we throw more money at it, eventually it will get
better. It will fix itself. If it doesn't work, don't worry, you  can throw more
money at it again'. We congratulate him.  We know he came to the lower house  to
pursue his  leadership aspirations.  He is  well and  truly on  the way. He  was
targeted to become Premier -- --

  Mr Nardella interjected.

  Mr BATTIN -- I hear even the member for Melton laughing at that. It was pretty
funny that the member for Essendon came to the lower house to do that.
I congratulate the Minister for  Planning  on his changes to VicSmart. This bill
provides for a  common-sense  and smart  planning  system that gives  people  an
understanding of where they need to go and how they can get a planning permit in
a  shorter  period  of time. We have heard many government members talking about
how  some  very  minor planning  permits currently  take up  to 47  days  to  be
processed.
  Mr Wakeling interjected.

  Mr BATTIN -- The member for Ferntree Gully said some are taking up to 77 days.

This system will bring it down to within 10 days  and will improve productivity,
cut red  tape and take a bit of pressure off councils  and others. My electorate
comprises parts  of the  cities of Casey  and Cardinia  and the  Shire of  Yarra
Ranges. Currently in the City of Casey 4207 building permits  are  being issued,
which is  an  astronomical number. I know for a  fact  that the City of Casey is
very much looking forward  to  these  changes  coming  through  so  that  it can
streamline its processes on a lot of that construction work.
Some examples  of  applications include  the  building or extending  of  a fence
within 3  metres of a street,  the construction of a service  station on land in
industrial zone 1 and the carrying out  of a  development in  a heritage overlay
which  is  already  exempt from public notice and review. This bill will  ensure
that these applications are not treated in the same way as complex applications.
This is about getting people to work more efficiently.

It allows builders, the people who are actually constructing these buildings, to
get out there and work rather than having to wait around. We  hear from a lot of
small businesses how the delay  in  issuing  permits affects them. These are the
people  such delays mostly affect. Whilst the opposition  talks about how delays
affect developers, they actually affect small  businesses more than anyone else.
Delays affects them in getting their work  done because  they have to sit around
and  wait before  getting  people  started  on the  work. As  I said,  these are
common-sense  changes to  allow  for faster processing  of  simple permits  that
currently take months.
Both Casey  and Cardinia are  rapidly growing areas, particularly Cardinia which
has up to seven families  a  day moving into the area, so it  is  important that
council sets up the  best possible system to get permits through and keep things
moving along so that simple and straightforward applications get through.

This legislation  will be easy to  understand. It will clearly  outline up-front
the standards that need to be  met and reduce delays. That  is what we committed
to prior to coming into government: reducing delays and cutting red tape in many
fields. This is one of  the areas in which we  will  cut red tape and make  sure
that common sense prevails to allow councils  to  get  on  with  getting permits
through in 10 days. Such a straightforward approach to our planning sector  will
also allow builders and other small businesses  to get on with what they need to
do.
When  the  Minister for Planning introduced VicSmart through  the  parliamentary
process  there was much talk about it within the councils in my electorate. They
were very supportive and happy  to see a government that was willing to stand up
and put in place processes that would enable them to streamline their processes.
These councils  look forward  to the  new system  coming  in  so  that they  can
implement the legislation and start streamlining those processes.

The  system  was initiated  by  the Minister for  Planning's  Victorian Planning
System Ministerial Advisory Committee. The committee  highlighted the importance
of streamlining, making  things  simpler and getting  applications through in  a
more efficient way, which are all essential in areas of such rapid growth.

 Page 4134


In the Australian  Financial  Review  of  14  May  2012  the Property Council of
Australia's Victorian director, Jennifer  Cunich,  is  reported  as  having said
that:
  ... the system  had  to be overhauled to provide clarity and consistency, with
  appropriate time lines and a clear long-term perspective.
  'The Victorian planning system must set the vision and provide clear strategic
  direction as to what the Victorian government wants to achieve', she said.
  'Increasingly, there  is a significant  mismatch between  government, industry
  and  community expectations of  the consistency and  outcomes of the  planning
  process'.

This is what  we are trying to do: make sure that the community and the councils
have the same understanding  of how  the system will work and in which direction
they are going.  It  is  important  that  we  understand  that  the Minister for
Planning's  long-term view to change these systems and get them into  the  right
places is only going to be of benefit to the state.
We have  heard  those  opposite  talk about Labor's planning reforms. We are all
aware that some of their planning  reforms  included taking title rights away to
avoid the Victorian Civil and  Administrative Tribunal in  relation to high-rise
developments along any part of the public transport system or  major roads. That
would  have  included bus routes through some of the estates in  my  electorate.
People in those estates feared what may or may not happen to those areas without
the ability to appeal against some of those decisions.

This government said that it would overturn that decision -- which it did -- and
get back to a system where straightforward applications could go through without
having to be held up by red tape.
We want to get things going to ensure that  communities have an understanding of
the direction in  which we are heading. The  minister has at no time  shied away
from  that.  He has set a  direction  for Victoria. He  has  spoken  a lot about
planning. He has publicly  released plans for Fishermans  Bend and for expanding
the  city. It  is common  sense: put  people where  the facilities are and where
there is public transport and make  sure that  as growth  occurs in  Victoria we
already have the facilities to match that growth.
In  my electorate there is rapid  growth in Officer. We are planning ahead -- we
are not waiting until the  houses are built --  and  we are building schools  in
areas like Officer.

We are building special schools and secondary colleges and making sure the  road
infrastructure  is  there. We are improving the train network in Officer, and we
have increased the  number  of trains that travel to Pakenham. We have increased
maintenance  to  make sure  that  the trains can  operate  continuously. We have
already seen an improvement on the train network in Pakenham, where  the  trains
are running on time more often. There are more  trains running every day, and we
are making sure  not only that the trains run on time  but that all the services
operate, which is important in that area.
I congratulate the minister on the Planning and Environment Amendment  (VicSmart
Planning Assessment) Bill  2012. In the next few years, when we see that the sky
has not fallen in and that the whole world did not end when this  bill came into
operation and  when we see  construction taking place, small  businesses will be
saying  that  this  bill  was a fantastic opportunity to get  things  moving  in
Victoria and that productivity is back to where it should be.

Then we will see that those on the  opposite side who have continued  with their
scaremongering in relation to this particular issue may not have as much to fall
back  on  once the evidence is at hand  and  that  evidence says that we have  a
system, which was supported by the minister,  that works.  I commend the bill to
the house.

  Mr FOLEY (Albert Park) --  I rise to contribute to the debate on the  Planning
and  Environment  Amendment  (VicSmart Planning  Assessment)  Bill 2012.  Having
listened to a number of contributions from government members, I am not too sure
what  the collective noun would be for a group of gullible  backbenchers  lining
up, one by one, to parrot key lines from the minister's office.

Those  opposite have been putting on the record the bravest of commitments about
the  operation  of  this Orwellian  world  of the Minister  for  Planning, where
consultation is ministerial direction, where the involvement  of people is but a
tick and flick by some unaccountable council staff and where peace is war and we
have always been at  war. That is the sort of rubbish those opposite  would have
us believe.
I  think the collective noun --  if we are going to  call  it anything -- for  a
group  of government  backbenchers  lining  up  one  by  one to  make  cast-iron
commitments about  how this system will work, and in whose benefit and in  whose
interest  it  is,  would  have  to  be  a  line-up  of  lemmings.  A  lemming of
backbenchers is what  we  have opposite. They  are charging headlong  towards  a
planning system, but they are heading  for the cliff of doom  as they parrot the
nonsense their minister's office has prepared for them.

This  bill is about pretence. The Minister for Planning is about  pretence.  The
bill pretends  to be an efficient method of delivering freedom from planning red
tape. It pretends  to  be about allowing  low-impact proposals in  the  planning
system to be dealt with more quickly. It 

 Page 4135


pretends to offer  a guaranteed  reduction in  the time taken to make a planning
decision to 10 days. It pretends to be many things it  is not. This reflects the
approach of  this government, particularly  the  Minister for  Planning,  to key
issues and the way in which the minister  sees the world being recast in his own
image, where black is white and white is black.  The minister  makes things  up,
and this particular  bill will  come back  to haunt those opposite. We will hold
that conga line of members on the backbench to account for the arrangements they
have promised to their communities, one after one, as they line up  lemming-like
to wear the consequences of this in the weeks, months and years to come.
My own community knows only too well that what this minister says in relation to
planning is one thing  but what he does is another. We  should take heed of some
of those examples.  We  simply  do  not  buy  the assurances of this government,
particularly in regard to its lack of rigour and its pretences in terms  of what
it says is going to happen.

VicSmart does  not,  by courtesy of  the scheme which applies,  provide planning
permit certainty; it can be applied to pretty near anything.  We have  heard all
sorts of commitments about fences and  tree removals  as if that is the totality
of what developers' interests are and  that  represents  the  extent of areas in
which efficient decision making is to occur.
This government has  form  on removing  rights  from communities and  preventing
local input. Communities  such  as  mine are rightly suspicious when there is no
reference to the class  of permits  covered by this bill. Essentially it is open
slather for members opposite and their mates to  do  what the government decides
will be in  its interest, not the  community's interest. Consider  the following
examples that give a lie to the honourable member for Gembrook's commitment that
somehow this is about a consistent planning scheme.

There is 3-5 St Kilda Road, which is in an area that I share with the honourable
member  for  Prahran;  it  is  on our mutual electorate boundary. The member for
Prahran responded  to a number of community concerns about  a 27-storey proposal
for what  is currently  a 2-storey building south of  the St  Kilda Junction  by
getting up in this  place and calling on  the  Minister for Planning to  call in
that proposal and make sure  that  planning application was knocked off. What do
members think happened? It was called in  all  right,  and the minister approved
the whole  thing.  Then what  happened? For  the first  time south  of St  Kilda
Junction there was a multistorey application for  a residential development well
above the  planning scheme  height limits.  What did  we then  see south  of the
junction? Application after  application used that  precedent as its basis.  Now
the member for Prahran is nowhere to be seen. He has gone  missing when it comes
to that.
Let us not stop there.

Let us look at 1 Albert Place on the corner of Albert  and St Kilda roads. It is
the  so-called 'tower  of power', the  former BP  House. There  are a  number of
members of  this Parliament -- oddly  none  on this side --  who call that their
residence. It  also  houses a number  of Liberal Party fundraisers  -- surprise,
surprise!
The  City of  Port  Phillip,  which  was  the  responsible  planning  authority,
expressed a number of concerns about that development. It met with the minister,
and the minister said, 'Don't  worry; I'll  call that  in'. There was a proposal
for  a development  right next door on Albert Road. It  was arguable  whether it
would  go  ahead.  A week before it was  due  to  go  to the Victorian Civil and
Administrative  Tribunal to  be tested  on its  merits, it was called in  by the
Minister for Planning. What did  he do? He knocked that one off. You have got to
be able to protect  your mates' views of the bay. That was the  central planning
recommendation there, but I can assure the house that it does not end there.

Freshwater Place, the  second entry point  to  Melbourne, where numerous  cruise
ships come in every summer,  had been  opened. It  was a fantastic facility that
was developed,  with all due  credit to the Kennett  government, through Mirvac.
The Labor government may have had a few problems with it at the time, but it was
reorganised  and  saved  by  my  predecessor as the member for Albert Park,  the
Honourable John Thwaites, when he was Minister for Planning. What happened then?
In that scheme was a series of post-Kennett government arrangements that were in
the process of being handed back to  the City of Port Phillip  with covenants on
the title  restricting the height  to two levels. Companies  associated with the
Kuwaiti royal family  bought the title  on  spec and essentially  flogged around
town a proposition again to set that up to some 27 storeys.
The  now Minister for  Planning then adopted the  former government's policy  of
committing to make sure that the City of Port Phillip was the planning authority
and, as good as his word, he delivered back the planning responsibility.

Then whilst an urban design framework was being developed, what did he do, along
with the Minister  for Major Projects, who  also had an interest in  this as the
inheritor of arrangements from Mirvac and  Major Projects Victoria? He  gave the
community  a commitment, saying, 'Yes, the City of Port Phillip  is going  to be
the  planning  authority here'.  What  did  the developer  do?  Before the urban
planning framework was put in place, he might well have thought, 'I am 

 Page 4136


going to  get  stitched  up'; so he headed off to  the  Supreme Court to seek to
remove the covenants  and  have  no planning controls. What did the Minister for
Planning and  the Minister for Major  Projects do in  those  circumstances? They
each  said,  'Oh, no, that has nothing  to do with me. This  is a matter for the
City of Port Phillip'.
We then  saw  the  Minister  for  Planning  and  the Minister for Major Projects
abandon that community. But the biggest form -- where it says one thing and does
another -- that this government brings to this issue is on  the Fishermans  Bend
precinct.  The  minister  proudly  announced  Australia's  largest  inner  urban
redevelopment proposal. This is the government that  was  going  to stick up for
community  rights  and  third-party  rights.  There  was not  going  to  be  any
ministerial  decision making with  this government. We  are  going to have  four
suburbs of  63 000 people,  according to documents released  from the minister's
own department under FOI. What did the government do?

The very first  thing it did was abolish  any notion that the city council would
have any  role to  play. Third-party  rights are  nowhere to  be  seen  and  the
community voice  cannot  be heard anywhere,  except  through a working  group of
Places Victoria.
Who do we think Places Victoria  is  headed by? Not at the moment,  but  at some
stage -- once he extracts himself  from the predicaments he got  into -- it will
be  the Premier's personal buddy. As the minister has proudly announced there is
not a single opportunity in the  largest inner urban redevelopment  in Australia
for any  committee member to have a say about what  is going on across the road,
where  the  infrastructure  is   and  where  the  support  is.  Where  are   the
arrangements?  What we  have is a minister who says one thing and  does another,
and this community is awake up. The conga line of  lemming-like gooses along the
back rows opposite  -- if we can have lemming-like geese -- will  live to regret
their support on the record, chiselled in stone for everyone to see.

  Mr WAKELING  (Ferntree Gully)  -- How can you follow such a pitiful rewrite of
history by the member for Albert Park? This is  the party  that gave  Victorians
Melbourne 2030. You only  need to look at the history of the  way it handled the
Windsor Hotel development to  see that this was a  party that had form  when  it
came to planning. I am very pleased to stand  in this house to support this very
important piece of legislation.
In  a  previous  life I was  a  councillor. I remember being  told  at a council
meeting that the then government had introduced a  policy  called 2030, and that
for the City of Knox that policy meant that we as a community were going to have
to accept 15 000  new houses. That was not  because the community wanted 15  000
new houses. It was because those  opposite told  my community, 'You are going to
have to accept 15 000 new houses whether you want them or not'.
  Ms Duncan interjected.


  Mr  WAKELING -- I am so pleased to take  up the interjection of the member for
Macedon, because she was a member of the government  whose members  at the  time
sat there like lemmings and accepted it.
Knox council started to develop a structure plan for the suburb of Boronia. This
was  a  strange  concept  because the  council  developed  a structure  plan  in
consultation with the community. They actually determined  what the height limit
should be  in various parts of that suburb. I would think that all of us in this
place would think that is a great idea. Unfortunately  there was  one person who
did not agree with that. That person was the then Labor Party planning minister.
He  gave  an  edict  to  the council, saying, 'Regardless   of  what  you  want,
regardless of what the community wants,  as planning minister, I will not accept
anything under three storeys'. There was  a three-storey minimum height limit in
Boronia.

We are talking about suburban houses at the foothills of the Dandenongs, and the
vision of the then Labor government for the entire suburb of Boronia was nothing
under three storeys. Acting Speaker, as you can appreciate -- --
  Ms Duncan interjected.

  The ACTING SPEAKER  (Mr Northe) -- Order! The member for Macedon will have her
turn.

  Mr WAKELING -- Clearly the member for Macedon  supported  that  policy and the
member for Monbulk,  who also represents Boronia, accepted that policy. However,
I am very pleased that the member for Bayswater and I stood up for our community
and  would  not accept that. What  did  we do when  we  came  to government? The
council said, 'We are instructed by the  state government that we cannot develop
a structure plan under three storeys'.

The Minister for Planning wrote to the council and said that the edict issued by
the former Bracks and Brumby governments has gone, been removed and scrapped
The minister then said, 'I will allow the community to develop a plan'. Here  is
a novel idea: the minister said, 'I will let the Knox community, in consultation
with Boronia residents, come  up with its own plan  that meets the needs of that
local  community'.  Isn't that a novel idea? Instead of saying the  Minister  of
Planning sitting in an office on the 24th floor of a building in the CBD 

 Page 4137


is the  best person to know the outcomes for Boronia residents, he said  Boronia
residents, in consultation with the  council,  can  develop  a plan. Do you know
what? That is exactly what they did.
They went away and developed a plan that was approved by the local community, in
consultation  with the council, and that was then signed  off  by  the  planning
minister. Was  there an  edict from  the minister for there to be a three-storey
minimum height control? Of course there was not.
  Mr Nardella interjected.

  Mr WAKELING -- The policy  supported  by  the  member  for  Melton  said  that
activity zones,  regardless  of  the views  of  local communities, had  to  have
multistorey  developments.  I believe the  member for Melton  has  never been to
Boronia, but I will stand corrected if he has.

I can tell  members  that  the people who reside in  that  suburb  do  not see a
minimum three-storey height limit as a good planning  outcome.  But that was the
edict from  those opposite. This is the way they swept it  under the carpet: 'We
have told Knox that they have  to  have 15 000 new houses. We don't  care  where
they are. We  don't  care how that is  developed.  We've got a document;  it  is
called Melbourne  2030.  A  three-storey height  limit  in Boronia is  going  to
achieve that planning outcome'.
Do you know what, Acting Speaker? Funnily enough,  local communities like having
the opportunity to participate in local planning outcomes. Those opposite sit in
this house and vehemently  oppose the right of  locals  to have a say  in  their
local communities. I will stand in this house and proudly say  that I am part of
a  government  that  allowed  local communities to have a say in local  planning
outcomes.

We now have another situation  in  Ferntree  Gully. When the council developed a
structure plan the previous government issued an edict  that  it would not allow
height limits of 7.6 metres in and around the Ferntree Gully Village because  it
did not believe that that met the needs of urban development.  Funnily enough, I
would have thought the  council in consultation  with  its community would  know
better than some planning officer sitting in an office here in Melbourne's CBD.
We  believe that local communities should have the opportunity to have a  say in
local  outcomes. If members want to  know how out of touch those opposite are on
the issue of planning, they need only listen to them yelling and screaming in an
attempt to support the previous government's  position of taking away the rights
of individuals  who live  in communities to have a say about local issues. Those
opposite say, 'Locals don't  know better'. They  say  that the government  knows
best.

They say that the former planning minister, the member for Essendon, who had his
whiteboard, knows  better  about  planning than  the  people who  reside  in  my
community.
When  the  state government changed the position in regard to Boronia, what were
the views of  those  opposite?  Where was the resounding opposition? There was a
deathly silence. They knew in their heart of hearts that they could not stand up
and tell Boronia residents that the  outcome  that  was  being  achieved by this
government was bad, because it was supported.
I would have loved  for the opposition's planning spokesperson to come out to my
community and say, 'I don't believe, Boronia residents, that you have a right to
say what the height limit should be in your own community.

I know better, because the former  minister, who is now the member for Essendon,
knew better than  all of you who live in that community that you should accept a
minimum three-storey height limit'. I challenge anyone on that side of the house
to  come out to Boronia and tell my community that this government got it wrong,
that this government in allowing for height limits of less than three storeys in
the Boronia  community,  which  is what residents wanted, was a bad decision and
that the fact that we  overrode  the  decision  of  the  previous  Minister  for
Planning was wrong.
  Ms Neville interjected.

  Mr WAKELING -- I take up the challenge of the member for Bellarine. I am happy
to facilitate a meeting for the member for Bellarine to come out to my community
to tell them they got it wrong. At the end of the day -- --

  Honourable members interjecting.

  The  ACTING  SPEAKER  (Mr Northe) -- Order! We will not be organising meetings
now.

  Mr WAKELING -- Those  opposite  know  that  what happened was they had clearly
messed up that previous situation and this government  came  out  and  fixed the
problem. I  am  very pleased to  support  this important  piece  of legislation,
because it puts  a line in the sand for the way this government will be handling
planning compared with the past.