PARK WATCH Article September 2026 |

Ben Gill, Nature Conservation Campaigner on the misuse of the state projects clause

Clause 52.30 is a little-known clause in Victoria’s planning scheme with a lot of power. It can strip a project of almost every ordinary planning safeguard. When the planning minister decides something qualifies as a ‘State Project’, local Council assessment falls away, there’s no public notice or right of objection, and there’s no review at VCAT. The minister alone judges whether public consultation was adequate, and decides the outcome behind closed doors.

The clause was introduced to fast-track projects like the Commonwealth Games and COVID-era stimulus projects. It’s supposed to be for time-critical undertakings of state significance.

Now, it’s being used to wave through projects that have already failed, or bypassed, the ordinary processes.

How it works and how it was used at Mount Macedon

The clause is broad by design. It can apply to any project carried out by, on behalf of, or funded by the state or a public authority on Crown land. In practice that means it can reach across Victoria’s parks, reserves and coastal Crown land, from small-scale work to major undertakings like the approved Great Ocean Road Coastal Trail and its 75 km of new and upgraded walking track.

The trees destroyed at the summit of Mount Macedon in April 2026 show what that reach looks like on the ground. Parks Victoria first applied to Macedon Ranges Shire Council in 2022 to remove trees inside Macedon Regional Park, including Snow Gums, Alpine Ash and Dwarf Silver Wattles. The intention was to open a view line to and from the Memorial Cross. There were 62 objections and it was refused by Macedon Ranges Shire Council in July 2023 because of impacts to nature.

Parks Victoria appealed to VCAT, then abandoned that appeal after advice that another pathway was available. In May 2025, it lodged a Clause 52.30 application instead. Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny signed the determination on 1 April 2026, and machinery arrived on 13 April. The proposal itself never changed, only the decision-maker did, and with it, the public’s ability to have any say.

Justification doesn’t hold up

Why did Parks Victoria think a view trumped rare trees? It cited a heritage requirement to maintain sightlines. But on 27 April 2026, Heritage Victoria confirmed no such requirement exists. Separately, Clause 52.30-7 requires native vegetation offsets to be secured before destruction begins, and only the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) can vary that requirement.

The Secretary has now put in writing that DEECA was never asked to consider any pre-commencement requirement under Clause 52.30-7, never asked about varying offset timing, and that impacts of plants previously removed ‘have not been required to be assessed as part of a statutory decision.’

VNPA and local groups have also run a long Freedom of Information campaign to find the paper trail behind the decision. What we’ve obtained raises real questions about how and why the decision was made, and access to several key documents has been blocked.

Wide-reaching implications

Mount Macedon is the clearest example so far, but the real issue is the mechanism itself. A provision meant for projects of genuine state significance was used here to clear a woodland for a view in a regional park, after that same clearing had already been refused. If Clause 52.30 can be used this way once, it can be used this way again, on any government-funded work on any Crown land. With no notice, no objection and no review.

That’s the precedent we’re asking government to close off. The checks and balances in the normal planning process are there for a reason. To make sure projects meet community expectations.

What needs to change

We’re calling on our elected representatives to close Clause 52.30 as it currently applies to Crown land and protected areas. A loophole this wide erodes public trust and social licence, regardless of which project it’s used for next. Emergency and genuinely state-significant projects need a fast-track pathway, but that pathway has to be fit for purpose, not open-ended.

More broadly, this is a test of whether Parks Victoria operates on a protected areas model where nature conservation comes first, or a tourism model where nature is cleared for the sake of a view.