18 November 2010 File No: C/10/4771 
Mr Brian Walsh 
President 
Kew Cottages Coalition 
22A Fellows Street 
KEW VIC 3101 
Dear Mr Walsh 
Thank you for meeting with me and Mr Ian Killey, General Counsel, on 3 
November 2010. I trust that you left the meeting with a better understanding of 
our position in relation to the redevelopment of the Kew Residential Services 
site. 
At that meeting, I undertook to examine the file dealing with your ongoing 
concerns about the Kew redevelopment and to seek further briefings from staff 
on the matter generally and your particular concerns. I have now concluded 
my review. 
Firstly, I need to clear up any misunderstanding in respect of the reference in 
the report of the Ombudsman investigation into the probity of the Kew Residential 
Services and St Kilda Triangle developments to 'the Kew residents and their 
families believed it represented an opportunity for better living conditions'. 
That reference was not meant to suggest that the Kew residents and families 
favoured the Government's stated objective for the site; rather that the 
government's decision to redevelop the site provided an opportunity for a 
better outcome for the residents. This was certainly the view of many involved. 
I trust that this clarifies the matter. The fact that you remain at odds with the 
government about its chosen policy position is not something for this office to 
consider. 
I refer to the other issues which you raised with us and which Mr Killey 
summarised in his letter to you of 5 October 2010. I have considered these in 
the context of the Ombudsman's investigation; other issues discussed in that 
report; and where this matter now stands. As I explained to you at our 
meeting, the investigation which this office completed in June of this year was 
in response to a referral from the Legislative Council under section 1.6 of the 
Ombudsman Act 1973. The focus of the investigation was on the 'probity of the 
Kew Residential Services development tender process followed by the State 
Government'. The investigation examined numerous matters, including those 
raised through a close examination of all papers related to the development 
which were made available to us by the various departments, agencies and 
private sector organisations involved in the project, and those brought to our 
attention by witnesses. The report highlighted many of these issues and made 
recommendations concerning a number of them. The investigation concluded 
that there was no evidence of any inappropriate involvement or influence in the 
tender process. 
Given this, I can see no benefit in examining issues dating back some years, for 
example your allegation that the Executive Director, Heritage Victoria failed to 
advertise the application by Department of Human Services for Heritage Permit 
PI0367 under section 68 of the Heritage Act 1995. It is too late to change those 
events and there was no evidence identified during our investigation of any 
untoward involvement in the decision. Indeed, it is not common for this office 
to undertake investigations in relation to matters more than 12 months old 
unless there are very good reasons for doing so, especially as in this case, the 
Ombudsman was satisfied with the probity of the Kew tender process. 
It is also not our policy to become involved in matters where the agency 
concerned has not had the opportunity to address the issue itself in the first 
instance. Both your concerns about the Kew Residential Services Development 
Agreement (Deed of Variation) and Kew Cottages Stage 3B Heritage Permit 
Application PI5955 would appear to fall into this category. If you wish to 
pursue these matters, you should raise the former with Major Projects Victoria 
(MPV). It may be that MPV has an explanation in relation to the issues which 
satisfies your concerns without any further involvement by this office. It 
appears from the papers on file that you have already written to Heritage 
Victoria (HV) about Permit Application P15955. If you are dissatisfied with the 
response from HV, or the one from MPV, then you are welcome to write to me 
with a copy of your complaint, the agency's response and the reasons why you 
consider your concerns have not been adequately addressed. Should you do so, 
I undertake to ensure that these are examined promptly at a senior level in this 
Page 2