Councillors thwart bid for Ballarat's fast-disappearing Chinese heritage

Councillors Mark Harris, Des Hudson, Tracey Hargreaves and Peter Eddy voted against heritage protection for 'Victory' at 742 Geelong Road, defeating a motion to refer the 120-year-old home to the state's Minister for Planning to exercise her power of Ministerial Intervention and apply an Interim Heritage Overlay.

Councillors Ben Taylor, Belinda Coates and mayor Daniel Moloney voted for the motion, while Crs Samantha McIntosh and Amy Johnson were absent. The motion was thus defeated 4-3.

An extensive report on the history of the property and its importance to Ballarat was prepared by heritage expert Dr Robyn Ballinger for councillors.

'Victory' was built in 1902 for the Yung Chung family, who have played a significant, ongoing role in the history of Ballarat in Chinese culture and trade unionism. Six generations of Chungs lived in the house before it was sold in the early 2000s.

While the roof was altered 100 years ago, the interiors remain as they were when the family first moved in.

"The (cultural) association (with the property) goes back over several generations and relates to the influential Chung family who opened their home as a regular informal and formal meeting place for local residents of Chinese and mixed cultural backgrounds at a time when racial prejudices in the broader community often led to suppression of language, culture and traditions," Dr Ballinger wrote.

Despite this assessment, Cr Harris was unmoved.

"The building itself has got no architectural merit or connection other than that social connection," Cr Harris said in the meeting.

"[The site's history goes to] social and somewhat family issues, which is fantastic, but it makes me shiver that this kind of stuff could come up continuously in a 1903-type house in Ballarat."

The other three councillors opposing the decision remained silent, Cr Hargreaves reading her phone while casting her vote.

Cr Ben Taylor, who supported the motion, nevertheless qualified his view.

"I don't like it," he said.

"Heritage overlays on individual properties cause a whole lot of issues, and it's sad someone can go buy a property in good faith and then find out after other controls have been added over the top and stopped whatever plans they had in place. But I understand the reasoning. I would hope that we have a report come back in a couple of months' time so we can actually determine whether it is viable or not."

No alternate motion was put to the meeting, giving an indication the councillors' decision had little if any forethought and was instead a spur-of-the-moment reaction. The rejection leaves council officers in the invidious position of having to now act on a proposal to demolish Victory.

Crs Harris and Hudson, despite their many years as serving councillors, appeared to lack comprehension of council's meeting procedure, Cr Hudson querying if an alternative motion could be filed under general business at the meeting's close.

"Unfortunately, once an item has been declared, once a vote has been made, no further debate can be had unless there was a foreshadowed item," council's executive manager of governance and risk Cameron Montgomery told the councillors.

Answering questions on his decision to oppose preservation by The Courier, Cr Harris, who along with Cr Hudson was a leading proponent for the demolition of Civic Hall, said he would always give preference to a property owner over an outside entity such as Heritage Victoria in matters like conservation.

"I'd still be empowering owners in many cases, and some people wouldn't want that," Cr Harris said.

"I mean Sam(antha McIntosh), she'd be very keen to preserve most things of age. A lot of people believe that. I don't myself.

"I wouldn't like (this matter) to spin out to be bias. But you know, I suppose it can be. I don't feel, myself, racist about it. It's the Chinese heritage, which is dear to me where I live in Ballarat. It's about the fabric of the house. My feeling, and I guess the other councillors as well, is the fabric of the home probably wasn't that important. The story plainly is, but I'm just not sure about preserving the house."

Questioned about the narrow definition of 'architectural merit' versus the historic or social history merit, Cr Harris said he read the expert's report into the building's importance, "but was taking a different view."

"Most all of us in Ballarat live in houses probably that (old) or older. I'd still rather empower the owner."

Michael Trembath was one of the fifth generation of Chung descendants to live in the home. He was scathing of the councillors' decision, and any argument the decision was not based at least in part on race.

"It's an attempt to whitewash Ballarat," he said.

"This is one of the times where a place of Chinese significance and Chinese contribution doesn't fit the white narrative. What do you say? It's incredibly disappointing for us, because it wipes our family and our existence away, our contributions away, substantial contributions to the city.

"This is a chance to have a significant building, to make an investment in changing the idea of Ballarat, it not just being a place of gold and white rebellion. It was a far more complex story. The Chinese people helped build Ballarat - something that is not acknowledged, outside of an ersatz museum charging you 50 bucks to look at a bloody plywood joss house.

"Six generations of people of Chinese heritage - Charlie's parents, Charlie, my grandmother, my mother, me and my niece - have family tied to that to that house, are able to celebrate their Chinese heritage through that house, which is a signifier of the way our family works in the community.

"To put up just another faceless set of flats, to take something significant, that has the history of a Chinese family still alive and able to talk about their experiences... those people are told once again: 'Chinese heritage doesn't matter. It's not significant. You do not matter as much as a faceless block of generic flats.' It's not even insulting; it's just colonial dismissiveness."

Councillor Peter Eddy also voted against the nomination, saying his views changed during the meeting.

"My expectation is to go in and listen to the debate and to listen to questions raised to see what comes from the meeting, as well as the very thorough report we did have beforehand, Cr Eddy said.

"At the end of the day I was swayed by the views around the significance of the building, as opposed to the significance of the cultural aspects of the environment, as outlined by Councillor Harris."

Asked if the house had been significant to the Indigenous or Jewish community, Cr Eddy said his decision have been the same.

"I don't think there would be any difference," Cr Eddy said.

"It was more a matter of the the house, irrespective of what culture or community was represented."

Informed of the views of Mr Trembath and other members of the Chinese said regarding what they considered the paternalistic approach taken by councillors, Mr Eddy took umbrage

"I think the very first statement you've made - would I have made the same judgment whether it was Chinese, Jewish or Indigenous, in itself reflects you probably don't have the highest summation of my values as a councillor. I find it a little insulting that you lead with that question. But I respect the views of the Chinese community; I regret the fact they think that it is an older white person's view."

Questioned further on why, when the councillors had a full, detailed expert report guiding their decision, the four councillors chose to reject it, Cr Eddy said it was not ignored.

"I don't think the report was ignored. I think every councillor who was present last night would have read that report. As I said, my final decision was based on the reports and the conversations and questions on the evening."

John Smyth is an Emeritus Research Professor at Federation University. He says the decision to reject the motion is narrow-minded.

"It is not the case as is alleged to have been asserted by Cr Harris, that historical significance can be advanced by the demolition of important buildings, Dr Smyth told The Courier.

"This is not the kind of action likely to earn Ballarat an enduring reputation as a place of international heritage importance, as Council itself is seeking to advance - indeed it produces quite the reverse. Council should be condemned in the strongest possible terms for supporting an act of demonstrable wanton destruction."

Ballarat Trades and Labour Council secretary Brett Edgington says the decision completes Ballarat's erasure of real Chinese history.

"We've seen the wholesale destruction of Chinese heritage along Main Road now for decades, going back to when the Chinese temple was demolished. Some panels ended up at the Gold Museum but the rest was lost and ignored. A marginalised community was further marginalised and wiped out of the story of Ballarat."

Councillors Hudson and Hargreaves were contacted for comment. They did not respond to The Courier.