Parks and Crown Land Legislation (Mount Buffalo) Act 2010

The Act revolves around the concept of “revocation of reservations” under Victorian Crown land law. A reservation is an Order in Council that sets aside Crown land for a specified public purpose, such as a public park, showground, or recreation reserve. The revocation mechanism in Part 4 (sections 19-22) operates by direct statutory override: the Act itself revokes specified Orders in Council to the extent they apply to the land shown hatched on the relevant deposited plans. The effect is set out in section 22: the land becomes “unalienated land of the Crown, freed and discharged from all trusts, limitations, reservations, restrictions, encumbrances, estates and interests.” This is a complete extinguishment of prior Crown grants, trusts, and management arrangements, subject only to the preservation in section 19(2) for one specific private interest and two temporary reservations. “Unalienated land of the Crown” means the land returns to the Crown’s absolute ownership and control, with no pre-existing public trust or reservation burdening it. The Crown may then deal with it as uncommitted land, potentially for sale, lease, or other disposition under the Land Act 1958 or other statutes. The Act also employs the concept of “temporary reservation” - a reservation of limited duration (as opposed to permanent). The two Corio Bay temporary reservations (items 2 and 3 of Schedule 1) are expressly excluded from the revocation’s effect, meaning they remain in force as if the Act had not been passed. The Act uses “committee of management” and “trustee” as entities responsible for managing reserved land under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978; their appointments are revoked for the land whose reservation is revoked. “Regulations under section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978” are also revoked for that land - such regulations typically govern the use and management of reserves. Another key concept is the “saving” provision in section 19(2)(a) for the Sisters of Mercy Association’s interest described in Volume 09293 Folio 574. That interest is a specific registered interest (likely a lease, licence, or easement) that survives the revocation. The Act does not define the nature of that interest; one must inspect the Register to ascertain its precise legal character. Finally, the “Register” and the role of the Registrar of Titles are central to the implementation: section 23 imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to amend the Register to reflect the changes in land status. This ensures the changes are recorded in the Torrens system, giving them effect as to title.

The Act directly affects several categories of legal and natural persons. First, the Crown in right of the State of Victoria is the primary beneficiary: the revocation of reservations returns the specified parcels to unalienated Crown land, giving the Crown unfettered control over them. For the Corio Bay, Geelong land (2.6 hectares between high and low water marks), the Sisters of Mercy Association (ABN: 68 311 734 138) holds a preserved interest in Lots 1 and 2 as described in Volume 09293 Folio 574. That entity’s rights are unaffected by the revocation, so it retains whatever estate or interest it holds. The holders of the temporary reservations at Corio Bay (items 2 and 3 of Schedule 1) and their committees of management are also not affected; they continue their management roles. For the Shepparton Showgrounds Reserve, the affected land comprises two parcels: Parcel 1 (0.255 hectares, Crown Allotment 2004) and Parcel 2 (370 square metres, Crown Allotment 2005). These were reserved for “Show Yards” purposes, originally for the Shepparton Amalgamated Agricultural, Horticultural, and Pastoral Society. The revocation extinguishes that reservation, so the Society and any committee of management or trustee lose their rights and responsibilities in relation to that land. The land reverts to the Crown free of the showground purpose trust. For the North Park Recreation Reserve, Swan Hill (1.762 hectares, Crown Allotment 2021, Parish of Castle Donnington), reserved for public park and recreation, the revocation similarly removes that public purpose designation. The committee of management and trustees for that reserve are revoked, and regulations under s.13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 cease to apply. Local councils or community groups that may have managed or used these reserves as public recreational space lose any statutory stewardship rights. The Registrar of Titles is directly affected by section 23, which imposes a mandatory obligation to record the changes. This may involve updating certificates of title, noting cancellations of reservations, and removing encumbrances. Practitioners advising on land transactions in these areas must verify the current title position post-act. The Act also indirectly affects any person who may have had an interest derived from the reservation - for example, a licensee or permit holder under a committee of management arrangement - as those rights are extinguished by section 22 unless preserved. The Act does not provide for compensation for loss of management rights or other interests not expressly preserved.

The Act imposes relatively few duties and grants few new rights; it is primarily a legislative instrument that changes the legal status of specified land. The key duty is on the Registrar of Titles under section 23: “The Registrar of Titles must make any recordings in or amendments to the Register kept under the Transfer of Land Act 1958 that are necessary because of the operation of any provision of this Part.” This is a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation. The Registrar must act to reflect the revocation of reservations and the resulting conversion of the land to unalienated Crown land. Failure to do so would leave the Register inconsistent with the statutory reality, potentially causing title defects for subsequent dealings. The duty extends to making “any recordings or amendments that are necessary” - this likely includes cancelling notations of reservations, removing entries for committees of management or trustees, and recording that the land is now Crown land. The Registrar does not have a duty to create new certificates of title unless the existing folio requires alteration. Another duty, though not explicit, arises from the effect of section 22: any person previously acting as a committee of management or trustee of the revoked land must cease to act in that capacity because their appointment is statutorily revoked. They no longer have authority to manage the land, grant licences, collect fees, or make decisions. Similarly, the Crown (as represented by the relevant department) has the right to take possession and control of the land without further legal process. The rights granted by the Act are primarily to the Crown: the right to have the land freed from trusts and reservations, and the right to deal with it as unalienated land. Any third party who held an interest preserved by section 19(2) retains their rights; thus the Sisters of Mercy Association retains its interest as described in the Register. The Act does not grant any new rights of appeal, review, or compensation to persons whose interests are extinguished. There is no provision for objecting to the revocation or for claiming compensation for loss of management rights or other interests not expressly saved. The Act also does not create any ongoing reporting or compliance obligations; it operates as a one-time statutory event. For the land in Shepparton and Swan Hill, the rights of any agricultural society or local government acting as reserve manager are terminated without compensation. The duty to update the Register is the only continuing legal obligation, and it is imposed on a single state official.

The Act contains no penalty provisions of its own. No offences are created, no fines or imprisonment are specified, and no enforcement mechanisms are established. This is consistent with the Act’s character as a land-status-changing statute rather than a regulatory or prohibitory law. Enforcement of the Act’s effects relies on existing legal frameworks. For example, if a person purports to exercise authority as a committee of management after their appointment has been revoked under section 22(b), they may be trespassing or interfering with Crown land, and the Crown could rely on general laws (such as the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Land Act 1958, or trespass provisions) to remove them. Similarly, if the Registrar of Titles fails to amend the Register as required by section 23, that failure could potentially be challenged by way of judicial review (mandamus) in the Supreme Court, as section 23 imposes a public duty. However, the Act does not prescribe a time frame for the Registrar’s action, nor does it specify consequences for delay. The revocation itself has immediate legal effect upon the Act’s commencement (8 July 2010 for Part 4), regardless of whether the Registrar has updated the Register. Section 22 states that on the revocation by this Part of an Order in Council, the land is taken to be unalienated Crown land, freed and discharged from all interests, and the appointment of committees and trustees is revoked. This is a self-executing provision. However, practical enforcement of the Crown’s rights may be complicated if the Register still shows a reservation or a committee of management. The Registrar’s failure to amend could create a misleading record, but that does not affect the legal status under the Act; s.22 operates as a statutory override. The explanatory details in the endnotes state “No entries at date of publication”, indicating no reported cases or enforcement actions specifically under this Act. Potential penalties could arise indirectly if someone breaches regulations that used to apply to the land before revocation; after revocation, those regulations are themselves revoked by section 22(d). So no extant regulations specific to that land remain. The Act does not empower any minister, secretary, or agency to issue directions or impose fines. The only enforcement lever is the general law of the Crown’s ownership, which can be asserted through the ordinary courts if there is a dispute about possession or title.

The Act directly interacts with several Victorian statutes. The most immediate is the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, which governs the reservation and management of Crown land. The Act revokes certain Orders in Council made under that Act (or its predecessors) and additionally revokes any regulations under section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 that applied to the revoked land (section 22(d)). It also revokes appointments of committees of management and trustees - both are creatures of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. After revocation, that Act no longer applies to the land (except for the preserved temporary reservations). The land becomes subject to the general Crown land management regime under the Land Act 1958, which governs the sale, lease, and management of unalienated Crown land. That means the Crown may dispose of the land or grant interests in it under the Land Act 1958, free from the specific reservation purposes. The National Parks Act 1975 is also relevant: the Act’s original purpose included amending that Act to extend the maximum lease term for land in Mount Buffalo National Park, but those amendments were repealed. Nonetheless, the revocation of reservations does not involve National Parks Act land directly; the parks and marine sanctuaries amendments in Parts 2 and 3 are now repealed, so their interaction is moot. The Act interacts with the Transfer of Land Act 1958 through section 23, which compels the Registrar of Titles to update the Register. The nature of the recordings will affect how the land is dealt with under the Torrens system. The Act also interacts with the Real Property Act 1860 (Victoria’s earlier system) indirectly: the land described in Schedule 1 may have had old system title; section 22 extinguishes all estates and interests except those preserved, which would include any old system interests. However, the Act does not convert the land to Torrens title; it simply declares it unalienated Crown land. Future dealings would likely bring it under the Transfer of Land Act 1958. For the Corio Bay land, the interaction with the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 (if applicable) is not addressed, but being between high and low water marks, it is likely subject to the Crown’s prerogative rights in the seabed. The Act does not affect any other state or federal laws such as Aboriginal heritage legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), or the Planning and Environment Act 1987. However, subsequent development of the land would require compliance with those laws; the revocation does not grant any exemptions. The Act also interacts with the provisions of the Sisters of Mercy Association’s preserved interest - that interest remains subject to whatever terms are in the original grant (likely a lease or licence under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 or Transfer of Land Act 1958). The Act does not modify that interest.

The Act itself has a sparse amendment history. The only amendment to the Act has been the repeal of Parts 2, 3, and 5, and sections 3-18, 24 and 25, all effected by section 25 of the Act itself. Section 25 was a repeal provision that came into operation on 30 June 2012 (as noted in the Table of Amendments in the endnotes). This is a self-amendment: the Parliament included a delayed repeal of large parts of the Act. The effect is that from 30 June 2012, the Act ceased to contain any amendment provisions for other Acts and became solely a land revocation statute. The long title and the purposes section (s.1) still refer to those repealed amendments, but they have no operative effect. The endnotes also indicate that the version is “Version No. 003” incorporating amendments as at 30 June 2012. Version 003 presumably incorporated the repeal. There are no other Acts or subordinate instruments that have amended the Parks and Crown Land Legislation (Mount Buffalo) Act 2010 according to the Table of Amendments, which shows only the amending provision being s.25 of the Act itself. The Minister’s second reading speech is noted as being delivered on 6 May 2010 (Legislative Assembly) and 27 May 2010 (Legislative Council). The Act received assent on 15 June 2010. Commencement was staggered: sections 1-8, 14, 15, 19-25 and Schedules 1-6 commenced on 8 July 2010; sections 9-13 and 16-18 commenced on 21 August 2010. Those latter sections are now repealed, but they were operative for a period between August 2010 and June 2012. The Act was originally structured as: Part 1 Preliminary, Part 2 Amendments to the National Parks Act 1975 relating to Mount Buffalo, Part 3 Amendments to the National Parks Act 1975 and Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 relating to parks, reserves, and fishing offences, Part 4 Revocation of Reservations, and Part 5 Repeals. The repeal of Parts 2, 3, and 5 renders the Act a remnant of its original form. Practitioners must be aware that any reliance on the amending provisions for the period they were in force may still be relevant for historical interpretation of the law at that time, but the current law does not contain those amendments. The Act’s version history shows it has not been amended by any subsequent Act, indicating it is spent and effectively a dead letter except for the revocations that have already taken effect.

The endnotes for this Act contain no entries under “Explanatory Details”. The Table of Amendments does not list any cases. Based solely on the source provided, there is no reported litigation involving the Parks and Crown Land Legislation (Mount Buffalo) Act 2010. This is unsurprising given its limited scope: the Act is a piece of machinery legislation that revokes specific reservations and directs the Registrar of Titles. There are no novel legal questions, no dispute resolution mechanisms, and no cause of action created. If any litigation arose, it would likely concern the effect of the revocations on third-party interests, such as whether the Sisters of Mercy Association’s preserved interest was correctly described, or whether the revocation of the Shepparton Showgrounds reservation interfered with contractual rights of the agricultural society or its lessees. However, the source does not record any such cases. The absence of litigation does not mean there were no disputes; it may simply mean that the Act operated as intended without challenge. Land status changes of this nature are typically non-controversial if the affected parties are aware and have consented (e.g., the Crown may have negotiated with the Shepparton Showgrounds Society beforehand). The preservation of the Sisters of Mercy interest suggests that interest was recognised and protected to avoid litigation. The Act’s clear and self-executing wording (section 22) leaves little room for interpretive disputes. Section 22 extinguishes all interests except those expressly preserved, so a would-be claimant with an unregistered interest would likely have no standing. Judicial review of the Registrar’s failure to update the Registers is a theoretical possibility, but no such case is recorded. For a complete picture, one would need to search Victorian Supreme Court and VCAT databases, but the source provided does not contain any case references. Therefore, for the purposes of this deep dive, it is accurate to state that the Act’s litigation history is nil according to the available source material.

Several aspects of the Act may trap an unwary practitioner. First, the Act’s current operative content is much narrower than its title and purposes suggest. The long title and section 1 refer to amending the National Parks Act 1975 and the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, and to making minor amendments to other Acts. However, Parts 2, 3, and 5 are repealed. A quick glance at the purposes could mislead someone into thinking the Mount Buffalo lease extension is still in force. It is not; it was repealed effective 30 June 2012. Any reliance on the amending provisions for current law would be erroneous. Second, the plans in Schedules 2-5 are not reproduced in the text; they are only referenced as “”. The hatched areas that define the exact land subject to revocation are not visible. Without obtaining the deposited plans (referenced as LEGL./10‑009 and others), one cannot determine the precise boundaries. A solicitor advising on a property near the foreshore in Geelong, for example, must locate the physical plan to see if a client’s interest falls within or outside the hatched area. Third, the preservation of the Sisters of Mercy Association’s interest is limited to Lots 1 and 2 as shown on plan LEGL./10‑009. However, the temporary reservations in items 2 and 3 and their committees of management are preserved under section 19(2)(b). That means the revocation for Corio Bay is only partial. The general revocation under section 22 would otherwise have extinguished everything, but section 19(2) carves out these interests. The interplay is confusing: the Order in Council is revoked to the extent it applies to the hatched land, but the revocation does not affect the temporary reservations or the Sisters of Mercy interest. This suggests the hatched land does not include the land subject to those temporary reservations. A reader must cross-reference the plans to confirm. Fourth, section 22 states that on revocation, the land is “freed and discharged from all trusts, limitations, reservations, restrictions, encumbrances, estates and interests”. This is a sweeping extinguishment that could catch unregistered interests, oral licences, or equitable claims. If an entity had an informal arrangement to use the recreation reserve, that right is extinguished without compensation. There is no savings provision for holders of permits or licences from the committee of management. For the Shepparton and Swan Hill land, any ongoing event bookings or usage agreements are voided. Fifth, the Act does not specify the fate of any improvements on the land. Under general law, improvements become the property of the Crown as owner, but the Act is silent. This could lead to disputes if a committee of management had built structures. Sixth, the Registrar of Titles’ duty under section 23 is to “make any recordings in or amendments to the Register … that are necessary”. But the section does not impose a time limit, nor does it require the Registrar to issue new certificates of title. The land may remain on the Register with outdated notations for an extended period, creating title uncertainty. Finally, the Act is not a repealing Act; it is an Act that contains a self-repeal of its own parts. The repeal of Part 5 (including section 25) might create a question: if section 25 is repealed, can the repeal of Parts 2 and 3 be undone? No, because the repeal itself had already taken effect; section 25 was operative when it was in force. But the repeal of section 25 does not revive the earlier provisions. This is a technical point that could confuse.

Compliance obligations under this Act are minimal and largely administrative, falling on specific state officials. For the Registrar of Titles, compliance is mandatory under section 23. The Registrar must take steps to ascertain which folios are affected by the revocation. For the Corio Bay land, the revoked land is described in Schedule 1 item 1 and shown hatched on the plan in Schedule 2. The Registrar must locate the current Register entries for that land and make notations that the reservation is revoked and the land is now unalienated Crown land. For the Shepparton Showgrounds Reserve parcels, similar updates are required. The Registrar must also record the preservation of the Sisters of Mercy Association’s interest; that interest continues to be recorded on Volume 09293 Folio 574. The temporary reservations in items 2 and 3 should remain as they were, so the Registrar must ensure they are not inadvertently altered. For the Swan Hill land, the Entry for Crown Allotment 2021 must be amended to show it is no longer reserved for public park and recreation. Any committees of management or trustees listed on the Register must be removed as having no further authority. The Registrar should also cancel any easements or encumbrances that existed solely by virtue of the reservation (though section 22 extinguishes them directly, the Register must be updated to reflect that). For all other persons, compliance is passive: committees of management must cease exercising powers over the revoked land; they cannot grant new licences, collect fees, or enforce reserve regulations. If they have records, they should transfer them to the Crown’s relevant department. Trustees must similarly step down. Any person who previously had a lease or licence from a committee of management should be aware that their rights are extinguished; they should seek new arrangements from the Crown. Landholders adjacent to the revoked land should check the Register to confirm title boundaries. Local councils may need to update their property records and rates databases if the land classification changes. For the Sisters of Mercy Association, no action is required except to ensure their interest remains recorded. For legal practitioners, compliance involves verifying the current title status by searching the Register and the deposited plans before advising clients on any transactions involving the former reserve land. The Act does not require any notification or reporting to the government; it operates automatically. However, prudent entities that held management roles should obtain acknowledgement from the relevant department that their role is terminated. There is no penalty for non-compliance beyond potential trespass or other civil liability. The key risk is acting as if the reservation still exists, which would be legally ineffective. Therefore, the main compliance step is to review the boundaries in Schedules 2-5 and ensure all internal records reflect the new status.