Brumby government

Addition contributed on 12-2-2010

"IN SUMMARY
I would summarise the proposals set out in Modernising the Act as creating a parallel planning system. The changes proposed do not really modernise or upgrade our existing planning system. Rather, these changes create a new planning system the effect of which is to increase the Minister's powers and to partly privatise the planning system at the expense of the autonomy local government has traditionally enjoyed as both a planning authority for amendments and as the responsible authority for planning applications. The definition of state significant developments is so broad that the Minister will have little difficulty in justifying intervention wherever the Minister sees fit. There is little transparency or accountability to those impacted by such decisions.

We should reject this Review in total and recommend in the interests of democracy that you send it right back to the drawing boards.

Mary Drost
Convenor
Planning Backlash"

POINTS IN THE DRAFT PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BILL WHICH ARE VERY BAD FOR VICTORIA.

Find the draft bill and how to make a submission here at http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenpl.nsf/LinkView/300DEE310E06EC9FCA2574D60005024499FE6C07FF6B0199CA2572CF007BCEE9.

SECTION 1 OBJECTIVES OF PLANNING IN VICTORIA

Sounds nice words, but try those words in VCAT and they become meaningless. However they say the right things and we should certainly use them when defending our cases.
I hope that planning is for present Victorians rather than for these extra millions they want to bring here. In other words, to protect the present lifestyle and not cram us all in like sardines to make way for more.

SECTION 2 THE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT PROCESS

This must be opposed in its entirety.
In effect it is privatizing the Amendment Process.
At present only councils can initiate an amendment. This Review proposes putting this power into the hands of private persons, with the Ministers approval.
There is also the suggestion of fast tracking amendments.
This would mean that Councils and we residents would lose all control over changes in the Planning Scheme such as overlays like heritage, or landscape etc. Almost worse, developers could propose an amendment to the Minister to change an ordinary residential area into an Activity Centre.

This proposal has been objected to since the beginning by councils and residents alike and the Government seems blind and deaf to our wishes, so here it is again in the final draft. They give endless details about how it will work and how people are approved to be able to propose amendments. Naturally they propose a fast track method to get these amendments approved by the Minister.

They claim the reason they are doing this is because councils sometimes won't support an amendment, for instance if a developer proposes an amendment to the council the council can and does say NO.
They claim another reason is that councils sometimes don’t have time or resources so the government is trying to prevent delays.
THE TRUTH is that the biggest hold up of amendments is the Ministers office which will sit for up to 18 months on requests from the council to advertise an amendment and then again for months to have it approved after advertising it.

Council should be in control of amendments as they are responsible to their communities so must be the ones to adopt, abandon and approve an amendment to their planning scheme.

SO PLEASE IN YOUR SUBMISSION OBJECT IN STRONGEST WAY TO ALLOWING OTHERS TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE MINISTER.

It will be developers who want to do this to get rid of overlays that prevent them building what they want where they want, or making new Activity Centrrs for them to develop.

SECTION 3 THE PLANNING PERMIT PROCESS

Interestingly enough, in the earlier document that was put out for submissions last year, this section contained ideas about limiting the number and location of neighbours to be notified as well limiting those who could put in objections about a planning application. There was also talk about charging ordinary citizens to put in objections. Naturally these ideas drew strong objection. They don't seem to be here this time, but they might get sneaked in at some later stage. Be vigilant.

The proposed Code Assess system has many problems.
The Government want to bring in very prescriptive rules for development and if the application ticks all the boxes then the Council have only 14 days to assess it, there will be no notices to neighbours, no objections allowed and no appeal to VCAT, with the CEO the one responsible to decide on the permit. This is not good.

There are several further issues with Code Assess.

- If there are existing 173 agreements, they can no longer be considered.
- Also council, in its decision , cannot take into consideration a Structure Plan for that area that they have adopted if it has not yet been approved by the Minister.
- The section Objectives of Planning in Victoria which provides guidance for decisions are not able to be considered when dealing with Code Assess.
- it is the Minister who is to decide on the rules of prescription - this is very wrong. The Council and community should have the right to have input into the establishing of these prescriptive rules, not all in the hands of the Minister.

In normal applications, Council have the right to ask for more information in 28 days so this does not match the code assess rules of 14 days. Obviously 14 days is ridiculous, too short, should be at least 28 days.

The Process is very unclear. For example if Council considers something does not meet the predetermined criteria, do they just refuse the application or go through the normal planning process of advertising and getting objections etc?

THIS CODE ASSESS CONCEPT AS IT IS PRESENTED HERE, SHOULD BE OPPOSED.

SECTION 4 STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT

1. State Significant Sites should be clearly defined and not left to the whim of the Minister. This definition should include community and council participation, otherwise it is something that involves only the Minister and the Developer and has no transparency or accountability. The community should be asked for submissions about declaring a site to be significant.
There is the case where the Minister declared Tooronga 'Significant' against not only the council and the community but also his own panel and gave the developer exactly what he wanted and then allowed the developer to drastically amend the proposal after it was started because it was not economic.

2. Before a site is declared significant, the claim should be publicized and scrutinized and justified and the community able to put in submissions.

3. 'Call ins' by the Minister must be seen to be not just a reaction to what a developer suddenly wants. Here again the community and council should be consulted.

4. The Minister must at all times be transparent and accountable and show written justification for his decisions and this should be made public. The public are not impressed by the Minister constantly saying he is creating jobs when we have in our hands the lists of developments that have been approved and deferred or abandoned or on sold at great profit. These actions do not show good planning.

5. The Minister’s decisions must be subject to appeals in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). That would be democracy.

SECTION 5 OTHER MODERNISATION INITIATIVES

Two things jump out in this section.

1. 173 agreements are legal documents signed between 2 parties to give security and comfort, usually about a development. The developer or anyone, should not be able to go to VCAT to have this agreement amended or ended. That defeats the whole purpose of a 173 agreement. It would be very wrong to have this in the Bill.

2. Under "other technical changes." (This is really compulsory acquisition of land)

This would rate as one of the WORST ASPECTS in the Draft Bill and keeps coming back no matter what anyone says against it.
This time it does not spell it out as clearly as it did in the previous Draft of the Bill. This is to do with more power to the Minister for purchasing land.

This must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances.

In the previous Draft they made the mistake of mentioning to which part of the Act if referred and on looking that up it became clear it was compulsory acquisition of land. Now it is much sneakier and simply clarifying that the Minister has the same power as the council for purchasing land.

To make it clear - I spell out the possibilities for the department - worst case scenario but possible.
CASE STUDY
Camberwell Junction Principle Activity Centre - Madden puts in his Development Assessment Committee (DAC)
The developers want to extend the area of the Centre, it is very restricted by large slabs of Heritage housing really close by. They propose AN AMENDMENT to the Minister to get rid of the heritage overlays on these old Victorian houses on large areas of land (what a waste of space) which the Minister agrees to, but the irritating people wont sell, they like their stupid old houses, so the Minister uses his new Power for COMPULSORY ACQUISITION and they all get knocked over and decent 30 storey apartment and office blocks go up in their place. And my understanding is that in Victoria, compulsory acquisition does not have to be fussed about true values of takeovers. If any lawyers reading this disagree I stand corrected but that is what one young lawyer told me.

OTHER MATTERS

The main thing here that should be commented on is the time allowed councils for assessing applications. It is too short. Developers make use of this and often drag their feet when asked for more details, knowing the system and that when the time expires they can immediately go to VCAT where they hope to get a better deal. This timing should be worked out by council as to how long they realistically need for these big applications and should be allowed the appropriate time. Obviously when applications have to be advertised and go to council meetings, there should be at least 80 or 90 days allowed for the council to make a decision. It is far better to be slow and get a good outcome than a rushed one with a poor outcome.

"How thick can a political skin get?" writes Victorian wildlife ecologist, Hans Brunner.

Mr. Brumby's minister for the Environment, Gavin Jennings, turns a damning report by the Auditor-General on endangered species into receiving a “pat on the back”.

In a media report he welcomes the Auditor-General’s report and stating, “ The findings are a “pat on the back” as well as a remainder that we must continue working to protect Victoria’s unique plants and animals”, hence, nothing will change.

He has received this report with a poker face grin and treated it like water of a duck.

Here are some of the Auditor-General’s remarks:

• “ At the current rate of progress, with existing resources, it will take a further 22 years for the department to complete action statements for the 653 items currently listed threatened.”
• “ Of those threatened species listed as threatened, less than half had an action statement prepared”.
• “ The gap between listed items and items with action statements continue to widen.”
• “On the advisory list are 2249 species of flora and vertebrate fauna.”
• “ Listing decisions are compromised by a lack of reliable, up to date, scientific data and limited stakeholder participation.”
• “ The Act enables the department secretary to prepare formal plans to guide the management of threatened flora, or potentially threatening processes – NO MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED TO DATE.”
• “ This review concluded that the existing regulatory policy framework for the protection of threatened species is in need for a major overhaul.”
• “ There is no legal power to compel department or other agencies to complete the directions within action statements. Departmental staff who prepare and monitor action statements relay on GOOD WILL of other departmental and agency staff to undertake tasks in the action statements.”
• “ The full range of management processes and consideration and control measures available in the act has NOT BEEN USED.”
• “ The greatest human threat to other species is habitat loss. Accordingly, tools to protect ecologically significant areas of habitat are essential.’

The report also pointed out on numerous occasions on inefficiencies, duplications and limits of resources. What it missed to clearly highlight is that huge amount of time and money is spent on listing endangered species and the production of management plans but no further action is taken or enforced to properly rectify the problems.

A typical example is the under resourced and incompetent handling of the nationally endangered Eastern Barred- and Southern Brown Bandicoot. Further more, habitat loss is still continuing unchecked with no realistic offsets possible.

If this deserves “a pat on the back” for Mr. Brumby, ordinary, daily work would have to make him immortal.

Hans Brunner
Wildlife Ecologist, Victoria
(shown left pointing out bandicoot activity in the Frankston area, Victoria)

Photo by Brett CliftonText added by Sheila Newman

In a press release on
April Fools Day 2009,
Victoria's Minister for the Environment,
Gavin Jennings
interpreted as a 'pat on the back' a condemnatory report by the Auditor General on the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.[1] Jennings' response seems like a crude damage-control exercise. The report said "the government's lack of baseline data or output performance measures means that it is not possible to conclude whether or not the Act has achieved its primary objectives. The available data, which is patchy, indicates that it has not," and notes failure to use the conservation and control measures in the Act, inadequate listing of threatened species, failure to develop action statements, to monitor implementation of these, or to assess their effectiveness, and that penalties for offences under the Act have not been reviewed or updated and therefore are not an effective deterrent." The Minister and the Government should resign; they are a sad joke.

[1]The media release cited was from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, was dated Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, entitled, "Government welcomes auditor-general report".

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council has long said that Victoria lacks any framework within which our fauna are managed and has noted that there has never been a prosecution under the Victorian Fauna and Flora Act since it was created in 1988. Victorians who have looked and listened carefully have noted the silence in many forests once alive with song and movement, the deserted grasslands, and the corpses of kangaroos, koalas, wombats on our roads. Those of us who have tried to tackle the situation with Department of Sustainability Victoria (DSE) have also observed the avoidant, unassertive, endangered staff and ever-diminishing habitat of the biodiversity section of DSE and its encroachment by primary industries, find this comes as no surprise.

But will the backbenchers of the Bracks/Brumby government's aspirational classes come to their senses and stop chorusing on cue that Victoria is the "best place to live work and raise a family". Instead, will they stand up for their constituents on nature, justice and democracy and refuse to kowtow to hollow leaders more interested in commercially trading property and finance than good government?

Below is the summary of The Victorian Auditor General's report on the Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

1. Audit summary

1.1 Introduction

Conserving biodiversity is core to responsible environment and natural resource management and is fundamental to maintaining both quality of life and economic well-being, both now and in the future.

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the Act) is the primary Victorian legislation providing for conservation of threatened species and ecological communities, and the management of processes that threaten the sustainability Victoria's native flora and fauna. The Act establishes a listing process. Once an item is listed the Act sets out a range of management processes and conservation tools that can be implemented to protect and conserve species.

Since the Act was passed in 1988, 653 plant and animal species, communities and threatening processes have been listed.
The objective of the audit was to review the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s (the department) administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and to assess how effective the processes and actions developed under the Act have been in preserving Victoria’s native flora and fauna.

1.2 Conclusions

The full range of ‘management processes’ and ‘conservation and control measures’ available in the Act has not been used.
Action statements are the primary tools in the Act being used to protect and conserve threatened flora and fauna. However, the effort directed to listing threatened species and processes has not been matched by effort to develop action statements, to monitor the implementation of actions, or assess their effectiveness. The gap between listed items and items with action statements continues to widen.

The lack of baseline data and outcome or output performance measures means it is not possible to conclude whether the Act has achieved its primary objectives. The available data, which is patchy, indicates that it has not.

2 Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

1.3 Findings

1.3.1 The listing process

The department has invested most effort in listing threatened species. However, there is duplication of processes within the department and with the Commonwealth Government’s listing process. The time taken to list an item, while within the three year (156 weeks) timeframe specified under the Act, continues to exceed the department’s internal benchmark of 31 weeks. The internal benchmark is an optimum period that requires each stage to be completed as quickly and reasonably as possible. This benchmark could not always be met in part due to factors beyond the department’s control, such as the Scientific Advisory Committee requiring multiple meetings to consider a nomination.

Over 800 items have been nominated for listing and 653 have been listed under the Act. However the department’s ‘advisory’ list (a separate list not subject to the listing process), contains over 2 200 species of flora and vertebrate fauna. Many of the species on the advisory list are likely to satisfy the criteria for the ‘threatened’ list maintained under the Act.

The listing process while conforming with the Act is compromised by a lack of up-to-date scientific data and by limited stakeholder participation. The department’s information systems relating to conservation and biodiversity are incomplete and disjointed. Major system development and integration projects are underway to address current shortcomings.

1.3.2 Conservation tools

The various management processes, conservation and control measures available under the Act to conserve and protect flora and fauna are not being used, largely because of their perceived complexity and difficulty of administering these provisions.

The department has relied on provisions in other environmental legislation, strategies, policies and plans in preference to those available under the Act to conserve and protect flora and fauna.

While ‘action statements’ are mandatory, their development and finalisation has been protracted. There is no time limit in the Act for these tools to be finalised—‘as soon as possible’ is the time standard set. At the current rate of progress, with existing resources, it will take a further 22 years for the department to complete action statements for the 653 items currently listed as threatened.

1.3.3

The Act The Act was reviewed by the department in 2002. This review concluded that ‘the existing regulatory and policy framework for the protection of threatened species in Victoria is in need of a major overhaul.’ A number of recommendations to improve the Act resulted from this review, but no amendments to the Act have been made.

Audit summary Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 3 The state government’s April 2008 green paper, Land and Biodiversity at a Time of Climate Change, acknowledges the need for legislative reform (State and Federal) and the proposed white paper will identify the extent to which legislative change is required.

1.4 Recommendations The department should:

• review the internal timeframes it sets for listing, against the resources it applies and the processes it adopts, to confirm they are realistic

• continue to build its knowledge-base on threatened species, causes of their decline and how best to mitigate threats to them; and expedite the transfer of information held on manual files to the ABC system

• formalise its collaboration on conservation activity with the Federal Government and seek a joint agreement to eliminate duplication in the listing process (Recommendation 4.1).

The department should:

• assess the resources it applies to developing, monitoring and reviewing action statements and establish a prioritised action plan to address the backlog of listed items with no action statements
• include in new and revised action statements the processes by which it will monitor progress and evaluate the effectiveness of each initiative within the action statement • review the efficacy of conservation and protection tools available under the Act
• assess whether the listing process is the most effective and efficient means of protecting species and communities
• develop a suite of output efficiency and outcome effectiveness measures to monitor and assess its conservation efforts (Recommendation 5.1)."

The Report can be downloaded here

Angry landowners and Taxed Out supporters will rally against the Brumby Government’s Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) bill, currently before Parliament, tomorrow on the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne at 1.00pm.

The rally has been called by Taxed Out and will be supported by Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Planning Backlash and the Green Wedges Coalition.

Taxed Out committee member David Trenerry will act as MC and speakers will included: Michael Hocking (Chairman of Taxed Out Inc.), Matthew Guy MP (Shadow Minister for Planning), Greg Barber MP (Greens State Member for Northern Metropolitan Region), Julianne Bell (Protectors of Public Lands Victoria), Mary Drost (Planning Backlash) and Rosemary West (Green Wedges Coalition).

Messages of support from growth areas councils will also be read out.

Mitchell, Melton, Whittlesea, Hume, Casey and Cardinia Councils; The Victorian Farmers Federation; the Urban Development Institute of Australia (Victoria); the Australian Property Institute; the Property Council of Australia; Seniors Australia; the Housing Institute Association; Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Green Wedges Coalition and Planning Backlash are among the organisations who agree that the GAIC should only be charged at the point of development.

Ed. Note however that the Australian Property Institute, the Property Council of Australia, and the HIA are all profiting from and lobbying for the undemocratic population growth that is the cause of these new taxes. I hope some people carry some signs pointing this out. People should not be misled into thinking that these pro-growth organisations will put democracy ahead of their sectional interests. They are in fact the source of most of the problems in Australia today. They have the ears of government and one wonders what their purpose is in going to the steps of parliament, except perhaps to mislead the public into thinking they are friends of the people.

The current GAIC bill still targets the first sale of property after its inclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary despite the fact that much of the land will not be developed for 15 to 20 years or longer.

So-called “fairness measures” announced by the Government amount to exemptions that are in direct conflict with planning provisions; a deferment option that incurs a premium interest rate set by the Treasurer; and hardship provisions that apply to purchasers who buy in full knowledge of the tax but do not extend to landowners inadvertently caught up in the government’s UGB tax snare.

“We have a situation here where virtually no one agrees with the Government’s position on the GAIC and yet Mr. Brumby and Mr. Madden want to blindly forge on in the face of clear and overwhelming public opposition,” says rally MC, David Trenerry.

“That’s not the Australian way, it’s not the ‘fair go’ we all expect. It’s simply unfair, un-Australian and undemocratic. The simple truth is that Mr. Brumby and Mr. Madden have got the palms of their hands fixed firmly over their ears. They have stopped listening.”

MEDIA RELEASE

Monday 23rd November 2009
Media Contacts:

Michael Hocking 0400 248 099
Jeanette Laffan 0438 452 641
David Trenerry 0403 464 985

"My concern is that a DAC is being treated almost like a court, judging from the answers the minister has given -- that is, somehow one can show contempt towards the DAC and this is referred to as 'detriment'. Clearly the DAC is not a court. I would like the minister to elaborate on this point: what constitutes detriment, who makes this decision and will there be guidelines?" (Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) [Hansard] )
The Libs may defeat the urban growth boundary legislation in the upper house, but the passing of the Development Assessment Committee (DAC) legislation and the introduction of the "New Residential Zones" and the Review of the Planning Act, and the Transport Bill, are bad news for democracy and our quality of life: The Planning department will have almost total control and there residents or councils will have almost no say or rights.

It seems that the liberals are going to defeat the urban growth boundary legislation in the upper house. However the passing of the Development Assessment Committee (DAC) legislation and the introduction of the "New Residential Zones" and the Review of the Planning Act, and the Transport Bill, will result in much more medium and high density development in our suburbs. At the same time there will be almost total control by Madden or rather his department and there will be almost total loss of any say or power by residents or councils.

The following debate on the DAC's legislation this week is revealing and makes us wonder just how competent the Minister for Planning is. He admitted that he knew nothing about the involvement of his electoral office in the Brimbank scandal and he also admitted he did not know of his department's approval of the beer barn at Docklands.

Read the following and you will learn that he does not know much about how the DAC legislation will work either.

As we have said before, he sees nothing, he hears nothing and he knows nothing, and yet he has been given over-riding powers to do virtually whatever he wants.

Take time to read the following and be astonished, angry and sad.

Mary Drost
Planning Backlash

(Ed. Highlighting and headings have been inserted by the editor.)

Development Assessment Committee Legislation bill approved in the upper house this week -

Committee
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I ask the minister whether any activity centre zones have been gazetted so far.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I would have to check, but I do not believe so. However, I understand a fair amount of work has been done on the first batch. I would have to check but I think there are four or five of them; I think it is five. Basically there has been a process of consultation to delineate the boundary, and that has been to a panel. The panel has considered that and taken submissions in relation to the boundary for each of those activity centres.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! Can the minister check now, because it is a fairly specific question and the gazetting is the particular process?
Have any been gazetted? Yes or no.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I am pretty sure that one of those, which might be Manningham, has either been gazetted or is close to being gazetted -- on either side of the gazettal.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I take it from that answer that a number of the zones are more or less on exhibition to the extent that there is a panel which is viewing them. Have there been public submissions via the normal process for that exhibition?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I believe so.

Clause agreed to; clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I am just looking at the definition of 'relevant activity area', which is defined as those suburbs listed in the bill. If an activity zone has to be within a relevant activity area, I presume it means that for such a zone to be lawful it must be no bigger than the suburb?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I am not quite sure what the point of the question is, but I will try to assist the member. The general idea is that we nominated the activity centres. There is a zone around each activity centre. There is a delineation of where the zones start and finish -- in a sense boundaries. The zones are not overly large. The activity centres are located in particular suburbs.

Unless you go to the Melway and see there is some sort of subsection of a suburb with an identifiable name, I would expect that a zone would not extend over and beyond a particular activity centre in a broader way than a number of streets either side of the main street around that activity centre. I am speaking very generally in that sense.

Entire suburbs could fall under this regime

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- We have a definition of a relevant activity area which is defined as a suburb. I presume that means the state's standard definition of a suburb. We then have a relevant activity centre zone, which means a contiguous area designated in a planning scheme in respect of a relevant activity area as an activity centre zone.

It is my view that if he wanted to the minister could lawfully advertise an activity centre zone to be as big as but no bigger than an entire suburb.

It becomes important because we then say in the second definition that not more than one activity centre zone may be designated in a planning scheme in respect of each relevant activity centre other than Preston and not more than two activity centre zones may be designated in a planning scheme in respect of the Preston relevant activity area. My contention is that it does not matter because if he wanted to the minister could lawfully put on exhibition and ultimately gazette a zone that was the same size as a suburb, and therefore I think those latter provisions are fairly irrelevant.

That is all I have on that particular new section. I have other new sections within the clause that I want to move onto as well.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I will respond to that.

There is no doubt that the planning minister has the authority to use very broad and quite strong powers in particular circumstances in a very broad way, but that is not the intent of this bill. I know Mr Barber's scepticism on some of these matters implies that he might expect me to take over whole suburbs in terms of being the planning authority. That is not the intent of this. The intent here is to share the decision making and in a sense not have the minister make the final decision. It is to share that decision making based on local and state policy.

Currently there exist provisions under which the minister could call in or intervene or take up all of the powers in relation to particular elements of any planning scheme or planning matter, but that is not what we have chosen to do here.

We have chosen to try to share that decision-making model through the development assessment committees, and hence it is not our intention to make them broad sweeping or any more extensive than what we have described in the bill and what we have described as activity centres within other policy documents.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- My question is in relation to new section 97MCA where under subsection (1) it refers to the minister taking advice as to the classes of applications for permits that are to be decided on by the DAC (development assessment committees). I want to get an understanding from the minister as to what we are talking about when we talk about classes. In the planning scheme now we talk about certain uses. We also have overlays that are triggered when there are certain works. What do we actually mean by classes of application?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Could the member refer me to what he is speaking to?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! It is new section 97MCA, being inserted by clause 5 on page 9.

Section 97MCA(1) says:
Before making a recommendation to the Governor in Council under section 97MB or 97MC, the Minister must refer the matter to an Advisory Committee under section 151 for advice as to the classes of applications
...

Mr Barber wants to establish what the minister means by 'classes of applications'.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I will just get some advice from the technicians. The phrase is used in the sense of a category.

The category might be something like a particular class of building, which might be of a certain height, a certain floor space or a particular element of that class of building which is referred to. I suppose in a sense it is a template for other buildings.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I suggest that classes could be things we are more familiar with as uses. A billboard is generally viewed as a use; licensed premises are called a use. Is it possible that licensed premises could be a class which may be included or excluded from these particular consultations?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- There could be all sorts of classes of buildings or building types under particular classes. It is really a matter of just defining what those classes may or may not be.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- With respect to the five the government has on exhibition now, what are the classes of application that are proposed to be sent to a development assessment committee?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Just to give the committee a broader perspective on where we are with those other activity centres, in a sense the boundaries of those activity centres have come about before the actual delineation of the controls in those centres. We have been through a process whereby in consultation those local governments have determined the boundary for their activity centre in anticipation of an activity centre zone. There has been a view held by the department and a view by local government and broadly they have been the same.

In a few instances there have been very small additions to or deductions or omissions from that footprint which have been put before a panel for it to take submissions and make recommendations as to whether it is appropriate that there be adjustments to the footprint of the activity centre boundary. I understand that the Manningham council wanted it adopted as quickly as possible; it was enthusiastic about it.

In terms of the absolute controls in those locations I would have to check to see whether the controls have been set. The issue around the way in which the process has taken place to date as opposed to the processes contemplated in this bill is that you can set the boundary and you can set the controls later. The emphasis for the negotiations around this is to do those as almost one amendment as opposed to doing them as separate amendments or separate zonings or separate settings of controls.
That allow the mechanics of that process in this bill to work differently to what might have been the case prior to the introduction of this bill or the adjustments made to it.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I appreciate the generic-context-type answer the minister offered me, but I am asking a specific question.

In those zones that are on exhibition, the five of them, has it been determined which classes of application for permits would be included in the controls for that zone, or is that a piece of work still to be done?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- My understanding is that that is still a piece of work that needs to be done.

Just as background again, what I have said to local government in these circumstances is that I am very eager to work with councils to come up with what the thresholds, in terms of particular classes of building, might be.

An example I have often used is of there being some controversial issues in terms of local sensitivities around the height of some buildings in an activity centre. Let us say the council is happy with 5 or 6 metres, but there might be sensitivity about going above 5 or 6 metres. The council might also prescribe that nothing goes beyond a particular height, such as 12 metres. Then buildings or classes of buildings that are between 6 and 12 metres high could be the sorts of buildings that might be referred to a DAC.

However, we have not yet worked through that with local government because we are eager to see this bill pass before we progress the work around what the controls over particular classes of buildings might be and at what stage the threshold might be where a DAC would consider matters relating to particular classes of building. The emphasis on classes and buildings here is particularly around either density or height within some of those locations.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I find it interesting that this whole group of clauses refer to class or classes of applications. The orders that establish the DACs themselves have to describe the class or classes of applications that will be decided by the DAC; in fact the very function of the DAC is determined in terms of these classes of application. Also the minister is proposing an advisory committee where the question of what the classes are will be looked at. According to section 97MCA(2), the minister has to consult owners and occupiers of land that may be materially affected by the proposal -- that is, the proposal to determine the classes -- and as far as we can tell we are talking about 28 different suburbs, possibly leading to 29 activity centre zones.

I can understand the minister's interest in issues such as height and density, which may be a combination of floor area, but I am surprised that the house is prepared to pass a piece of legislation that refers to classes of applications when those classes could be almost anything under the sun. I refer in particular to applications for licensed premises which could be a class of applications. All types of planning permit applications, big or small -- an application for a toilet block to appear in a main street -- that could potentially trigger a permit are potentially a class of application that might get referred off to a DAC. I could say good luck to the minister, who does not have any clear view now of what classes he is interested in but will be consulting with owners and occupiers of land and public authorities across 28 different areas about what they think would be a useful discussion around the types of applications that might go to a DAC rather than an old-fashioned council planning meeting.

I do not want to belabour that any more, but I am interested in asking some more questions about proposed section 97MJ.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- In relation to those last comments, unless Mr Barber has been somewhere else for a long period of time in relation to many of these matters, he would know that the issue around development assessment committees, activity centres and boundaries is really about concentrating activity, and that activity is basically around business, retail services and housing, particularly multi-residential developments in these locations.

"Making the community feel confident" (Madden)

There is no secret that what the government is trying to do is highlight where it believes communities will feel confident and comfortable about having higher densities of dwellings in these activity centres to take pressure off the suburbs, particularly the green leafy suburbs where people are very conscious of their amenity, the housing type, the housing style and the setting of those dwellings.

We know we will need a greater number of dwellings across Melbourne into the future, and that is for the existing population, let alone any growth in population, just because of the ageing demographic. It is important to provide those housing options. We also know that the average household size is coming down, so there will be a need for a greater number of smaller dwellings in existing suburbs. The government does not want those dwellings to happen just anywhere in any suburb.

[Ed. Note that above Mr Madden appears to be having a bet both ways by excusing growth on supposed trends to smaller houses and catering to the aging population, presumably in case of a failure of the population growth scenario - upon which all this coercion is been based]

We are trying to locate them in the activity centres, and we are trying to give people confidence that these developments will occur in those activity centres zones. The emphasis is to make sure that these sorts of dwellings can be located with confidence in these areas so that people can access services such as retailing and even work in these locations without having necessarily to get in a car and drive some distance.

It is in a sense a slightly different lifestyle change to the traditional quarter-acre block. The government is trying to provide the mechanisms to locate these dwellings in these locations. To cut a long story short, the class of buildings is predominantly about dwellings and associated business activities, but the vast majority of them will be dwellings in multi-residential developments.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- With licensed premises on the ground floor of those buildings! The minister asked where I have been in recent years. Where I have been is right here in this place, and before that I was a councillor and mayor of the City of Yarra, which has five activity centres -- in fact they are all one big activity centre. My simple point is that while these sorts of ideas look fantastic from the umpteenth floor of Nauru House, when you have experience in implementing these sorts of decisions and dealing with these sort of permits you realise it is not as simple as separating out an issue, as the minister chooses to, of height density and residential development and suggesting that we now have a clear-cut framework for how DACs may operate.

I am happy to move on to proposed section 97MJ.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I know Mr Barber has a fixation about licensed premises, and I can understand the politics of why he may have that fixation. I know there has been public criticism of decisions I have made in relation to venues, but I do make decisions from time to time -- --

Mr Guy -- You said your department made them.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- Mr Guy did not let me finish. Or the department will make decisions about venues. I am not the minister for liquor licensing. The minister for liquor licensing has responsibility, as does the Liquor Licensing Commission, for the final issuing of any liquor licence. The house spent a great deal of time in the last sitting week debating the new licensing regime and the costs associated with it and the development of risk. Mr Barber may be concerned about a cafe located in an activity centre having a licence to serve a drink with a meal. Is that unreasonable? I am not sure; that is for Mr Barber to decide. If Mr Barber believes a large-scale venue is unreasonable in an activity centre, he may be being reasonable, but I make the point that there are differences between licences, there are differences between venues and there will be specific venues that people who live in these activity centres will want and that will make those areas attractive.

They are often described colloquially and light-heartedly as the cafe society. Some people want that and want to live close to that. They may not necessarily want a big venue, a tavern or any other venue, but those are decisions that will be made by the relevant authority.

The thresholds that members have talked about and that I continue to talk about in relation to development assessment committees and the most sensitive issues in these areas seem to be -- this is the impression I got from local government -- around height, particularly multi-residential developments. This is a mechanism to assist in objective decision making based on good controls set in a partnership with local government and state government to give clarity and, on more occasions than not, probably more prescription than has been the case around what can happen in the centres. It will then allow for those decisions to be made accordingly.

I would hate to think that Mr Barber is just trying to muddy the waters here today to scare people about something which, at the end of the day, will provide more dwellings and more opportunity for smaller dwellings, and will give people more confidence in what will happen in their local areas in advance rather than on an application-by-application basis.

Lack of clarity about classes of buildings included in the Minister's broad powers

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! I think this minister obviously has no height sensitivity! I think Mr Barber's line on the liquor licences was more of a throwaway line. What he was trying to establish was some clarity about the classes of buildings that were likely to be involved with the minister's very broad powers, as the minister himself described them. I think the issue is that this is very significant legislation and Mr Barber was exploring what was in and what was out as far as classes go and not at all being specific about liquor licences. I think that was a throwaway line.

.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- That is right, but if it assists, basically there will be widespread consultation about what classes of buildings will fall into these thresholds, what will come under the controls within a precinct and also the controls that will be established for the development assessment committees to make decisions on. Mr Barber might be concerned that they have not been finalised, but the intent is to consult broadly at a local level and also have those controls come through the Parliament through the negotiations that have taken place to resolve some of these matters in this new bill.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- Just on that last matter, how do these controls -- that is, the classes -- come to the Parliament?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- They will come through as planning scheme amendments which will articulate what takes place in these centres, where the thresholds for the activity centre controls lie and also where the thresholds for the development assessment committees in a sense cut in when it comes to certain types of decisions in relation to certain classes of buildings.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I am sorry, but I may be missing something here. The decision as to which areas will be covered by activity centre zones is made via the gazettal process. The decision as to which classes of permits are referred to a DAC under proposed section 97MCA comes into proposed section 97MB, which says the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, publishes an order to establish the DACs, and that order must specify:

(a) the class or classes of applications for permits to be decided on by the DAC; and

(b) the area or areas in a Relevant Activity Centre Zone or Zones for which the DAC is established and to which any such class of application applies.

.Why would it not be possible to gazette an activity centre zone, put out an order in Governor in Council that says, 'This is the DAC and this is the class of applications it would look at', and then, somewhere down the line, change the classes of application that are covered within that given DAC with its area? That was not a rhetorical question; that was a specific question for the minister.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- As I am saying, and have said on a number of occasions, the minister has other powers. If I wanted to go down the path of, in a sense, being ham-fisted I would not surreptitiously seek to do that. What would happen is that the minister would just intervene. At the end of the day, this is about a process of partnership in good faith with tests that we have been able to negotiate and put into this legislation. The minister has an enormous amount of power in relation to controls anyway if the minister seeks to intervene.

There is no logic, in a sense, in going the long way around when the minister can just step in and intervene if he really wants to and do it much more quickly.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- Yet here we are debating this bill -- I, like the minister, am wondering why, because with that answer he has basically confirmed that it is possible to bowl up an activity centre zone.

This Parliament looks at it and decides on balance that it will not disallow it, but then at a subsequent date we find out that the DAC is extending its reach and power to take over virtually every detail of how planning permits are issued. Up-front we might have looked at the list of classes and the area and said, 'That seems quite all right', but as we go along, we could find that the classes change.

I can give the minister another example if he is leery of licensed premises applications. Take car parking. Car parking might not be listed as a class of application, yet some whopping great big shopping centre could be developed with a DAC approval and then at a subsequent date it could seek changes to its car parking requirements: small or large, to expand, to contract, to do something different.

The DAC would not be able, nor would it be willing, to deal with those particular classes of permit, which could be very germane; they will then go back to the local council because they would not be of a class that could be dealt with by the DAC. You can see the risk there: the applicant makes an application that it thinks it can get past the DAC and then any hard stuff that is going to be too problematical for the members to deal with gets left off the application. The minute that is over, we go back and make another planning permit application, but this time it will not be the DAC that will have to deal with it; it will be the council.

We could go on for quite a long time on that particular question but I am feeling pretty happy that I have made my point with that one. It is proposed section 97MJ that I am interested to get involved in.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order!
If the minister has no further comment, please proceed.

Legal consequences for councils

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- Proposed section 97MJ says that:
A decision or failure to make a decision by a DAC on a DAC application is taken to be a decision or failure to make a decision on that application by the responsible authority.

I presume that what this is telling me is that for all legal purposes, a DAC decision is owned legally by the local council after the DAC has made that decision. I am familiar with a particular instance at the City of Yarra where a council planning decision was made that was not lawful; that led to legal action and subsequently the council had to undertake a number of actions in order to provide remedy. One thing was that it paid for some very expensive works to be undone that should never have been done.

The other thing was that everybody's costs at the end of a very long and tortuous legal action had to be covered, and there was some dispute as to how much of this was to be covered under professional officers indemnity insurance. Can I take it from the minister that with proposed section 97MJ(1), any future course of action -- legal and so forth --
will be subject to the council's own insurance or, failing that, its own risk?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I will not try to answer that directly only because it is in many ways a hypothetical question about something going off the rails, and I cannot comment on the indemnity insurance of a hypothetical off-the-rails incident if I do not know what the incident is.

This model is basically part of the council's decision making.

The DAC itself is in a sense like a subcommittee of the council; it makes the decision but it is a binding decision for the council made at arms length from the council chamber other than of course the representatives from the council who are at the DAC table. It is the equivalent of a decision of the council but it is not made in the council chamber around the council table; it is made away from that through the DAC. Councils will have to make their own decisions on their own matters, as they would have done anyhow in relation to the decisions that are made for or on behalf of councils. I am not going to labour over any hypotheticals, but the councils will have to determine those matters as and if and when they arise.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- The minister knows full well there is nothing hypothetical about council planning decisions going off the rails.

He has got a whole slew of them from a number of different councils, and he could provide many examples of where those councils' decisions went off the rails for a whole range of reasons. He is now attempting to unscramble some of those more famous examples. I think he confirms with his answer that the moral hazard of non-council members who make decisions under these DACs, and the minister's own moral hazard in appointing them to a DAC, is zip, because if they make bad decisions or if they even make unlawful decisions -- and we all know it has happened -- the council will have to wear the problem.

DACS has wide powers to close meetings to the public for 'confidential' discussions

I am interested in new section 97MTA for our next discussion. New section 97MTA(2) says:

A DAC may close a meeting to the public if the meeting is discussing confidential information or legal advice or any other matter that the DAC considers would prejudice the DAC or another person.

Why is that test so much weaker than the existing test under the Local Government Act?

By 'weaker' I mean providing much wider grounds for a DAC to close a meeting than would normally be permitted by a council.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I sort of understand what Mr Barber is getting at, but he might want to background me on what sort of answer he is seeking, as opposed to -- --

Mrs Peulich -- Get a bit of advice from the boss.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- No, as opposed to just trying to get an answer on what the definition of 'weaker' is.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- The Local Government Act sets a test for what sorts of meetings may be closed -- it is when councils are considering certain sorts of matters.

When he sat down to write this bill, the minister came up with a different test. I just want to know why.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I have got to admit I am getting a bit tired here, Chair. I am having a bit of difficulty concentrating as we speak, only because it has been a long day. I am not picking up entirely the point of Mr Barber's questions, but I will try to do justice to them.

Mrs Peulich -- You haven't got the ticker!

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I am not saying that. I ask Mr Barber to explain the point of his question one more time.

DACS Powers of secrecy and silencing of dissent within DACS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! It is fairly clear.

Mr Barber has said that under the Local Government Act there are circumstances in which a local government authority, a council, can close a meeting and hold it in camera. Mr Barber is saying that those provisions in the Local Government Act are different to the provisions here. Indeed in this legislation a DAC would seem to be able to close a meeting and go in camera on a much easier basis than a local government authority. In other words, the test for going in camera for a DAC is considerably lower than for a council. All they really need to do is say, 'We think it is going to be confidential; we are going to be talking about a person or a corporation or such like in our deliberations. Therefore we will go in camera'. Mr Barber is trying to establish when the DAC would go in camera, if the minister can provide some greater definition of when the DAC would go in camera and what their obligations are implicitly and what their obligations are to be open and transparent to the public. I am sorry the minister is tired, but I think we have all been here the same amount of time.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I was not bemoaning being tired, it was just my ability to concentrate on Mr Barber's question in that instance. Thank you very much, Chair, I certainly appreciate your qualification. My understanding is these matters were accommodated and accepted by the Dispute Resolution Committee. The provision was deemed as warranted and acceptable in these circumstances.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I know you get it, Chair, because you have been a councillor, and so have I. Like the minister I have served in the role of responsible authority. The difference is all my decisions had to be made in public, whereas none of his ever are. He sits in his office and he makes these decisions all day long as the responsible authority. There is nobody looking over his shoulder.

I was surprised earlier today when we heard the Treasurer say, 'This government is not scared of scrutiny', and I am equally surprised that the coalition says it will be campaigning on the potential for corruption at the next election, because this is a measure that will allow the DAC, if it considers a matter would be prejudicial to the DAC or another person, to close a meeting. The reason must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting but, unlike a local government meeting, that is not subject to challenge because there are not those strong criteria.

New section 97MTA(4) says:

A DAC must give public notice of a meeting of the DAC if practicable.
Local councils have pretty consistent and regular time lines of meetings, and nobody would be terribly shocked that a council is having a meeting.

They may receive only a few days notice of what is on the agenda for that meeting, but councils generally have websites, so it is pretty practicable to provide the advice.

The Minister can make the rules for DACS and DACS must obey

I turn to proposed new section 97MU, which states:

(1) In addition to the procedures set out in this Division

-- which are pretty minimal --

a DAC must act in accordance with any procedures determined by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette from time to time.

This really means that the minister will set about writing the rules by which these meetings of a responsible authority will operate after the fact. Again we will have no idea how they are meant to operate.

With all that as background, I am interested in moving on to proposed new section 97MY.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! Does the minister have any response?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- No.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- How are the minister's tiredness levels, Chair, because we could always come back and do this tomorrow, which would give him time to get some answers for these other questions.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I was tired of the one question, basically.

Mrs Peulich -- You just did not want to answer it.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I was happy to answer it, but I was not quite clear of what sort of answer Mr Barber wanted. I am quite happy to try and answer Mr Barber as best I can, but the point here is that if Mr Barber wants to make rhetorical statements, I am happy for him to do that as well.

However, if Mr Barber wants to me to attempt to give him the answers he is seeking, I will do that. I think I have a proven track record of doing my best in seeking to give people the sorts of answers they are after, whether it suits me or not, in this chamber. I seek to do that in good faith, but if Mr Barber's aim is to belabour this point and try and score points by making rhetorical statements, I am also prepared to allow him to do that. However, I am not going to sit here and give Mr

Barber answers to his rhetorical statements in relation to what he does or does not like about the bill.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I turn to proposed new section 97MY and the definition of 'confidential information'. The bill tells us that confidential information is:

information provided to a member of a DAC --

(a) which was identified as being provided in confidence by the responsible authority or person who provided the information; or

(b) which the DAC has identified as being confidential.

My concern is that this is a much tougher test than the Local Government Act. Under the Local Government Act information is confidential if it was provided as part of a deliberation in a closed meeting, and closed meetings can only be closed under those criteria we were just talking about.

Here it seems that a vote of the DAC could be used to declare that certain information is confidential, even if other DAC members did not want it to be confidential, because there are two ways the information can become confidential.

One is that the DAC identifies it as being confidential -- that is, the DAC as a whole, and I presume it votes it to be confidential -- and the second is that either the responsible authority said it was confidential or the person who provided the information said it was confidential. As a councillor I would have legal duties, and that includes keeping confidential information that was properly designated as confidential.

However, I also have another duty -- that is, to inform my constituents about certain key issues, and in certain cases simply to go public, not as a whistleblower, but with information that has been provided to me that I believe the public should know about. I know council managers and staff love to pull out a big stamp and put 'confidential' all over everything, but it does not mean anything legally; it may give them a bit more comfort. Here the danger is even greater -- that is, that the DAC itself can actually close down other members simply by deeming the information as confidential.

As we get into later sections there are penalties associated with releasing confidential information that would leave me, as a member of a DAC, in jeopardy. That is the only point I wanted to make on that section. I have a point to make about the next section as well.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! Does the minister have any comment?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- No.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- Whatever they say is confidential is confidential. Proposed new section 97MZ is a close corollary of the relevant section in the Local Government Act. It reads almost the same, until we get to proposed section 97MZ(1), which states:

(1) A person who is, or has been, a member of a DAC must not misuse his or her position or former position --
...

(b) to cause, or attempt to cause detriment, to the DAC or to a responsible authority.

Can the minister indicate, apart from the legal responsibilities I would already have as a member of a DAC, how I would cause detriment to a DAC?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I assume Mr Barber means as a DAC member. Is that what he means?

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- Proposed section 97MZ(1) states:

(1) A person who is, or has been, a member of a DAC must not misuse his or her position or former position --

...

(b) to cause, or attempt to cause, detriment to the DAC or to a responsible authority.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Of course there are a whole range of ways somebody could be detrimental to a DAC, and it is not hard to imagine how that could or might happen. However, I am not going to prescribe or go into great detail of exactly what people might need to do. I suppose there are all sorts of ways they could do it, and that might relate to some of the comments Mr Barber made earlier about confidential information. It might relate to the way in which members of DACs do or do not conduct themselves in the role that they have in their position, or whether they seek to undermine the operation of the DAC in conducting its duties.

It would not be hard to imagine that one individual might seek to undermine the operation of the DAC because they hold a particular view which is contradictory to the DAC itself. Of course that would need to be determined. I am not necessarily the one to determine it -- it could be determined by the courts -- but with Mr Barber's experience in local government he would agree that it would not be hard to imagine how somebody might attempt to cause or cause detriment to the DAC or to a responsible authority whilst holding a position or having held a position in a DAC.

What unlawful acts could cause harm to a meeting? Seems wierd

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I genuinely am having a lot of difficulty understanding how in some sort of unlawful act I could cause detriment to a DAC. A DAC is nothing; a DAC is a meeting. How do I cause detriment to a meeting?

I could cause detriment to a responsible authority, and I could misuse my position in such a way that I know would cause monetary damage or damage to reputation or risk or whatever to the responsible authority, because that responsible authority exists as a legal entity with all sorts of elements to it. I just do not know what 'detriment to the DAC' means. The minister says he does not know and it would be for the courts to determine, but the minister writes the acts that the courts interpret. They would be interpreting what he meant when he wrote this, so I am hoping there is some further elucidation of what 'detriment to the DAC' would mean.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! Perhaps what the committee would like to know is, given that members will be appointed by local government authorities, if a member were to criticise the proceedings of a DAC, would they be bringing detriment to a DAC? Would this provision apply where a member of a DAC actually went out and criticised the process?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- That could well be the case. I am not going to say yes or no. It would depend on the circumstances. Like any position, if you elect to take up a position on the DAC itself and the DAC operates accordingly, one of the reasons for seeking to have a DAC is so that you do not necessarily have some of the difficulties that arise or may have arisen previously when councils need to make objective decisions in a council chamber and politics prevails.
As we know, politics can prevail in a council chamber as it can in this place.

The purose of DACS is to take politics out of local decision making: "Yes, that is the intention."

Mr Barber -- The purpose of DACs is to take politics out of local decision making.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I understand that, Mr Barber. That is the intention.
But if you had an individual from local government or state government or even an independent chair who misused their position and undermined the operation of the DAC from its intended purpose, which is to make objective decisions based on the controls and guidelines, then of course that individual or those individuals might be considered to be causing detriment to the DAC, and so decisions would have to be made accordingly.

I am not saying exactly what circumstance may or may not bring detriment or show an intent to bring detriment to a DAC. There are a plethora of things that people could do. I am not trying to avoid the question, but I am not prepared to prescribe exactly what fits or does not fit into that category. The DACs are being established to make decisions and resolve matters. Anything that might undermine that because it politicises the process in some way or undermines the public's confidence in the operation of that process or threatens the operation or outcome of a DAC of course would be a matter that could be considered to the detriment of the DAC, and no doubt decisions would be made accordingly and somebody would have to prove their case either way.

Madden, this is serious: The Courts look to the second reading and committee proceeding to interpret laws

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! I remind the minister again that the process of the committee stage is an extraordinarily important process in terms of the conduct of the Parliament. When legislation is enacted people rely on that legislation and its provisions. When the courts are considering matters brought about by legislation they look at two things. They look at the second-reading speech and they look at the committee proceedings to interpret what the intentions of the Parliament were in enacting particular clauses. It is frankly not good enough for the minister to say, 'This is my legislation but I am not going to discuss what this may or may not mean'.

The reality is that it is the minister's legislation, he is bringing it to the house and Mr Barber is asking legitimate questions in relation to this clause and other clauses that he has explored to establish positions that the public and in future courts and certainly local government and members of the DAC would need to understand the implications of. It is not enough for the minister to say, 'Well, there could be lots of things but I am not going to go into them'. If there are matters, then really this is the time to disclose at least some of the matters that are likely to be subject to the ramifications of this clause. I am happy for the minister to speak to that, otherwise I will let Mr Barber proceed with any further questions.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your guidance in these matters. I am not trying to avoid the issue here.

What I am trying not to do is pre-empt or prescribe a list of things people might do that could undermine the operation of or cause detriment to a DAC. There are a range of things I could describe but I do not want to limit the explanation to that either. I am seeking not to limit the explanation and I am seeking not to be too prescriptive because there are those who might want to use this to inflame the debate or the acceptance of DACs out there.

"Partnership arrangements" sound like private-public dictatorships

The general idea of the DACs is to give the decision-making process to a partnership arrangement and really take it away from the politics of the council table, to put it into a partnership arrangement where objective decisions are made away from the council chamber. We have seen, and Mr Barber has also referred to, matters where from time to time a council or two might politicise a matter to either an individual councillor's or a number of councillors' personal advantage and also seek to undermine the decision of their own local council by taking quite a vocal position of criticism against it.

That does a number of things. It undermines the confidence of the community in the operation of the council, particularly if it is done surreptitiously and particularly if it is done in order to undermine that decision. We know that from time to time an individual councillor might seek to undermine a decision that has been made by a council even though they are a councillor and have shared obligations around that council chamber.

Basically this clause seeks to at least give some direction that if you volunteer to be a representative on a DAC, you have an obligation not to undermine or cause detriment to the operation of that DAC. I am not going to describe how you might do it but I think it is very clear, Chair, that what I am trying to give reference to without describing it in absolute and exact detail is that if an individual volunteers to be on, or makes themselves available to be on, a DAC, then they must conform with the obligations of the DAC rather than seek to undermine it.

By undermining it they would cause detriment not only to the operation of the DAC or the public perception of it but to a whole range of other things in relation to the DAC. So it is particularly important to understand that if you make yourself available to a DAC, you do not want to cause detriment, you do not want to undermine it and you want to see that its operation succeeds.

If Mr Barber was not aware, in a sense this is flagging to those who might seek to volunteer themselves to a DAC that unless they enter into that position with an objective frame of mind in relation to the decision making, they might cause detriment to the DAC.

I advise Mr Barber that that is not unlike the Winky Pop decision that we have debated in this place in relation to decisions and positions that councillors take, so I would hope that those who volunteer themselves to a DAC would come to the DAC with an objective frame of mind, bearing in mind their own responsibilities and bearing in mind who they represent when they arrive at the DAC, but also given whatever decision the DAC makes, that post that decision they would not seek to undermine it or continue to undermine the operation of that DAC because of their individual view on the decision of that DAC.

Mrs Peulich (LIBERAL PARTY) on suppression of dissent in DACS

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- I have two questions. Does criticism of the DAC process therefore constitute undermining the DAC?

And, dare I say, if there is in particular anything that is untoward, I would have thought that it was vital for members of DAC to still have that ability. And secondly, in view of the emphasis that the minister has placed on coming to the DAC with an open and unbiased mind, does that mean that members of the Labor Party who are required to caucus will not be eligible to be DAC members?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- My comments in relation to the way people enter into the responsibilities of the DAC and also arrive at the DAC with an objective frame of mind goes for absolutely everybody, so there is no delineation between people's allegiances. They should come to that position in the same way that Liberal Party councillors or Labor Party councillors might arrive at that position.

Mrs Peulich -- They do not caucus. They are not required to by constitution.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I am not going to go into -- --

Mrs Peulich -- Just ignore it?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- No, I am not going to ignore it, but I am not going to get into a long-winded argument about what does or does not happen specifically based on political allegiances. What I would say is that people must come and make decisions with an objective frame of mind for exactly the same reason as in the Winky Pop decision that I have referred to -- that all councillors, regardless of their allegiances or what party they belong to, might belong to or have belonged to and regardless of whether they are independent or not, need to make planning decisions in an objective manner based on the information provided to them. I would expect that to be the case at a DAC when people volunteer or make themselves available to become representatives on a DAC. In relation to some of the other matters you raised -- --

Mrs Peulich -- Criticism.

Criticism which 'undermines the authority of the DAC'

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- Criticism, yes.

This is not to in any way undermine freedom of speech, because people would have the ability to no doubt share their views about their experience on the DAC. If they did not have a good experience, they would say, 'It might be the last time I go near a DAC'. If somebody wanted to say that, they could, but if it is a criticism that undermines, in a sense, the authority and the decision of that authority, that is slightly different. I am not going to give exact details of where the line of demarcation is between somebody's ability to speak freely and to limit what they might say because of having been on the DAC. I am not going to define that, but I am sure there are others who will define that, and the courts will no doubt define that as they do in other circumstances where people go a little bit further than they should when it comes to what they do or do not say under the banner of freedom of speech.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- Further to that, because I do not believe that the minister's answer provided any clarity to the question I asked, if there was anything inherently wrong in the DAC process, would members of a DAC be free to make their views known on that? I am not talking about passing informal and personal reflections on their experience. If they criticise the DAC process, are they undermining the DAC?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- If individuals think there is something not quite right about the operation of the DAC, then I would expect that first of all they would bring it to the relevant authority's attention -- whether that be the council or whether it be the minister. There are places to go if they feel that something has not been complied with in terms of the operation of the DAC, and they should go to those relevant authorities.

Sounds like 'Yes-men' only need apply for positions on DACS

But if they come out and make high-level criticisms of the operation of the DAC and do not follow it through but just go to the press, I think there would be some legitimacy in people questioning the bona fides of that criticism and whether that criticism was warranted on operational grounds or technical grounds rather than just being some politicisation of the operation of the DAC. This is an issue that we are very conscious of in the operation of the DAC. We are not trying to undermine the ability of local government to set controls. We want to enter into a partnership in good faith, but what we do not want is sceptics who are sceptical from the very beginning entering the process and just reinforcing their scepticism and then coming out the other end and undermining it because they were always sceptical about the process from the very beginning. If they are sceptical about it, do not do it.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- Could the minister clarify therefore the remedies for the different categories of members that he has alluded to; and secondly, does that mean that anyone who is not prepared to basically toe the line and accept the process and the outcome -- and I imagine our history has been full of regimes where speaking out is something that is not condoned -- they should not apply or they will not be considered?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- It is like any commitment; if you make a commitment to something, you make a commitment to something. If people are not committed, then there is no point in remaining there.

Mrs Peulich -- Leading to a bad result?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- What I am saying is if they are not committed, they should not necessarily remain there. The importance here is that they remain objective at all times, and they should enter with an objective frame of mind. If, because of their scepticism or cynicism, they arrive with a commitment that is not objective, then I think that those individuals need to question the legitimacy of the bona fides of that commitment. It is like any public office, and I expect that people who make themselves available to a DAC would do so in good faith, with objectivity and with respect for the operation of the DAC, and in respecting the operation of the DAC it would not be in their interests to cause detriment or certainly to undermine the operation of that DAC.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- The minister does not really need to lecture Council members on these DACs as to what is thorough decision making and what their responsibilities are to have an open mind.

However, in terms of the non-councillor member of the DACs that the minister will be appointing, what process will he go through to ensure that the members he appoints to these DACs both understand the principles that he has just laid out and also have a commitment to implementing them?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I certainly appreciate the question because it is a very good point. There is no doubt that in entering into a commitment to the DAC people have to be well informed of what their obligations and responsibilities are, and I would expect that we would have a protocol of ensuring that people are versed in their responsibilities and informed and versed in what their obligations are before, during and after the event in the sense of their role in the DAC. I would ensure that there is certainly supportive advice given to allow people to know what their obligations are.

In terms of those who are representatives, if they are not from local government, if they are either the independent chair or a representative of the state government or an individual with expertise, they would also need to be well versed. The comparison I make here is with Planning Panels Victoria, which has individuals who are highly trained. They are also experts in respective fields and well versed in what their responsibilities are. They are also reminded of what their responsibilities are by the chair of the DAC. It is important that the chair also continues to ensure that the obligations of the DAC are fulfilled, that that is done based on the information provided and that all of that information is also considered. I would expect it to be done after making sure all the relevant information has been provided and by having a protocol by which people are informed and recognise what their obligations are.

As well as that, one of the obligations of the chair would be to keep people informed about maintaining their commitment and their obligations, particularly in relation to the process but also the decisions that need to be made by that DAC.

What about duty to represent the best interests of the community?

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- I am mindful of the minister's emphasis on the requirement for members of DACs to be objective. However, councillors take an oath to represent the best interests of their community and they are obliged to be cognisant of the views of their community as well as of the council's strategic and planning decisions, processes and imperatives. In the minister's view, what is objectivity? Does it mean preparedness merely to embrace state government policy and positions?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Not at all, Mrs Peulich.
In a sense objectivity means that DAC members must hear the case by the proponent or the proposal on its merits and be free to give it objective consideration and determine their own position on the matter on the basis of the other relevant matters they need to consider. The other relevant matters that an individual and any other member of the DAC might need to consider are balancing local policy and state policy according to what is warranted in the face of the controls that are set in relation to the activity zone in a particular precinct, taking all of those matters into consideration and giving them appropriate weighting.

I would expect that local government representatives and some experts might give more weighting to local expertise. In a sense, I think that is why there has been consideration by the Legislation Committee about the mechanisms by which an independent chair is independent. The mechanics of having five people means that there is a significant potential casting vote ability by the independent chair or the chair, if it is warranted.

I would hope, though, that in the vast majority of cases the decisions of a DAC are almost unanimous and, as I have said on a number of occasions, unanimous in the sense that the emphasis now is on local government, and also state government, to make sure the controls almost help the DAC to make the decision itself. What we have often had previously is controls which are a little bit open-ended and somewhat vague because people have known at the end of the process that they have been able to use some discretion in the decision making about what the interpretations of those controls are. I would hope that this legislation creates a discipline and a rigour so that the controls are prescriptive to the point where people know what they do and do not mean and that those controls give clarity and direction to the decision-makers who then have to balance their decision in terms of the policies that the controls may or may not inform.

That is particularly the case in the difference between performance controls and prescriptive controls. I am inclined to want to see more prescriptive controls in activity centre zones so there is more clarity.

But where from time to time there may be performance controls, where there is a degree of interpretation of what is a performance measure that people have either arrived at or are close to; if that is where the margin is for the differences within a DAC, I would hope that people make that consideration based on policy, not only their own but of the other authority at the table -- the state policy and local policy balance -- and that is what the intention has always been.

What if any structures etc available for public scrutiny of DACS decisions and processes?

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- Further to getting a handle around the intersect between the requirement for members to be objective, the obligations that elected councillors have and the oath they take to represent their community, could the minister explain, firstly, how members of a DAC and their conflicts of interest are monitored and available for some sort of public scrutiny? Secondly, can he guarantee that Labor Party activists and Labor Party donors will not be appointed to DACs?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- When Mrs Peulich asks questions like that I am almost tempted to not even dignify them with an answer. Mrs Peulich might wish to make out that this is a conspiracy, but it is not; nor does it seek to be.

Mrs Peulich -- I was born under a communist regime where there were lots of conspiracies.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I know.

Mr D. Davis -- It is 20 years since the fall of the Berlin wall.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- That is right: we are now celebrating 20 years since the fall of the wall. It was not long ago; it was in our lifetime.
so I certainly appreciate that. I am very mindful of Mrs Peulich's request and I am very confident and happy to guarantee her that anybody who is appointed to these positions will be required to comply with the issues I have already mentioned about objectivity.

In relation to all those matters -- --

Mrs Peulich -- Objectivity? The question was about conflict of interest.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- Yes, objectivity, but if councillors or experts have a conflict or perceived conflict, they have to deal with those accordingly, because the issue around conflict of interest is for the individual themselves to be able to declare that and not for someone else to find it before, during or after the event. The important issue around conflict is not only should you not have a conflict but you should be seen not to have a conflict. I would expect that anybody who makes themselves available for a DAC would make public any potential conflict. But if they did have a conflict, then they would not make themselves available for that DAC. I think they would have to exclude themselves from the DAC if they had a potential conflict and potentially even if they had a perceived conflict.

Mrs Peulich not reassured

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- So members of the Labor Party who under their constitution are required to caucus on local government matters would not be appointed to a DAC because of their conflict of interest and their automatic allegiance to a set of policy positions and platforms that the Labor Party expects? Would the minister comment on that?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- The issue here is that they must be objective in their decision making, so that is -- --

Mrs Peulich -- How do you know when they caucus in secret?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I do not necessarily know either, nor will Mrs Peulich, but -- --

Mrs Peulich -- That is what you said about Hakki.

[Ed.] Madden refuses to answer reasonable question reasonably

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- If Mrs Peulich wants a serious conversation, I will give her a serious conversation, but if she wants to take cheap shots across the chamber, I will not dignify her questions with any answers.

Back to how a person might cause harm to a [DACS] meeting

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I am back to exactly where we started. I am wondering how a member of the DAC can cause detriment to the DAC. If I was the lawyer for the defence, I would say the DAC is not a person and it is not a body corporate. It has no financial interests and no other charter. I was kind of hoping the minister would simply confirm that you cannot cause detriment to a DAC, but he seems to have elucidated as we have gone along that what he is really talking about is criticism of the DAC or making some kind of decision that is meant to undermine that DAC's decision. I do not understand why that would simply be a question for a councillor member. The minister has suggested that members should not volunteer themselves, and he is referring to councillors. But the second part of section 97MZ(1) says:

(b) to cause, or attempt to cause, detriment to the DAC or to a responsible authority.

Can the minister give us a for instance where a member of a DAC could cause detriment via an action on a DAC to a responsible authority, which is the council in which this decision has been made?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Again Mr Barber is asking me to present a hypothetical on what could or could not happen, and I am not going to try to describe an incident that I have to make up or imagine to undermine it -- --

Mr Barber interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- It is not hard to imagine how an individual could, if they really felt aggrieved by the whole notion that they have to be at a DAC or they want to undermine the operation of DAC, come up with some convoluted mechanism to try to scuttle the operation of a DAC. That is basically what we are talking about. We are talking about individuals who get a decision they do not want, take their bat and ball and go home and then try to scuttle the decision of the DAC. That is basically what we are talking about.

I can describe to Mr Barber all manner of ways in which that may or may not happen, but I am sure Mr Barber would be better at describing that than I would, if he wished to, but I do not want to take up time by trying to present hypotheticals as to how somebody could undermine it.

In any operation where a group of individuals has to make a decision together and somebody might have a decision that is in the minority that they are not happy with, as we have seen in Parliament there are ways to do that. If you are on a committee in the Parliament and you do not like the decision of the committee, you write a minority report.

Mr Barber interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- That is what I am saying, but what I -- --

Mr Barber interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- Is Mr Barber going to listen to me or not? If he really wanted a productive conversation, he would let me finish what I am trying to say.

Otherwise he can just get up and talk for as long as he wants, and I will sit down and save my energy. I know Mr Barber does not like the idea of a DAC. I know he voted against it. I know he was not happy with the negotiations of the Legislation Committee to resolve this issue. He has already voted against this, so I understand he does not like the idea of a DAC. If he had his way, he would scuttle it. I suspect there are even members of his party who will volunteer to go on a DAC to try to scuttle a decision if it does not suit them.

Madden should answer Barber's question so that future courts can understand the law

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! The minister was asked a very specific question, and as Chair I think it was a fair and reasonable question.
The minister suggests that he does not want to go into a hypothetical.
The reality is that people who refer to this legislation will want to know what it means, and that is all Mr Barber is trying to establish. I suggest the minister take advice and come back with an example, as he has been invited to do.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- The prime example might be to volunteer to take up the position and then refuse to turn up or for two local government representatives to refuse to turn up, having sought to take up the position when other local councillors might have wanted to and had been prepared to turn up. That might be an example. But it is not necessarily the only way in which they might undermine it. I do not want to go into all the other ways they might, but I suspect there will be some very inventive minds seeking to come up with mechanisms that might undermine a DAC if they want to try to scuttle the decision of the DAC or the operation of the DAC.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! This is an appropriate time to break for dinner.

Sitting suspended 6.31 p.m. until 8.04 p.m.

Mrs Peulich: DACS not courts, but treated almost as such

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- We were talking about detriment, what constitutes detriment and the lack of clarity about who will decide what constitutes detriment. My concern is that a DAC is being treated almost like a court, judging from the answers the minister has given -- that is, somehow one can show contempt towards the DAC and this is referred to as 'detriment'. Clearly the DAC is not a court. I would like the minister to elaborate on this point: what constitutes detriment, who makes this decision and will there be guidelines?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- As I mentioned earlier, there will certainly be guidelines in relation to the operation of the DACs, the obligations of those involved and the expectations of how people conduct themselves and the way in which they make themselves available for the DACs. I would expect that is a critical component of how anything beyond that is then interpreted as being to the detriment of the DAC.

Again, I go back to the need for people to be objective, for people to ensure that the community can have confidence in the operation of the DAC, particularly if they are representatives of the DAC. That is critical. Representatives of the DAC should seek to fulfil their obligations in making themselves available for their role in the DAC. I would expect that there is nothing new in that. As I said before, if people make themselves available for various obligations and if they make a commitment, they are obliged to fulfil those obligations and uphold that commitment. When they do not uphold those commitments that is often not only to the detriment of the individual but will also be to the detriment of the operation of the DAC.

Most critical to that is the need for the DAC to be able to reach a resolution and a decision on what it is that it is considering.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- The minister still has not elaborated on who decides what constitutes detriment.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Just to give some background in relation to a member of a DAC (development assessment committee), the ability of the Governor in Council to dismiss a member of a DAC is important in order to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process and confidence in the decisions made by the DAC.

The Minister for Planning does not have the ability to dismiss a member; only the Governor in Council can do this. The removal and suspension provisions are intended to cover such matters as -- and these are probably the ones that go to the issue the member has raised about what is improper or is to the detriment of the DAC -- acting dishonestly, conflict of interest or acting inappropriately such as releasing confidential information. A three-month suspension period is proposed to enable an investigation of any allegations in relation to any of these matters.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I refer to another and different aspect of the same new section. This part is a mirror of the provision that exists in the Local Government Act. In that act the suspension under 'Misuse of position' says that you must not use your position either to gain or attempt to gain an advantage for yourself or for another person, nor must you use your position to cause or attempt to cause detriment to the council or to another person. But when we look at the provision in the bill it is not quite a mirror. If you like, there is a symmetry in the Local Government Act which says that you cannot cause detriment or gain advantage to a person whereas the bill says you cannot attempt to gain advantage for yourself or cause detriment to the DAC. I wonder why we are not making it an offence to cause detriment to another person, which is the provision which would apply to you if you were a councillor making the same decision under the Local Government Act.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I suppose there are reasons for and against it in terms of the absolute definitions of these things, remembering that we receive legal advice about the formation of the clauses we put into these bills. The advice I have received is that this is sufficient, and it should cover the incidences that I have referred to previously. We get that advice from relevant legal sources within the department and also from parliamentary counsel. My understanding is that the provisions are sufficient for what we are seeking to achieve.

Members of DACS could use position to cause persons harm with little consequence at law

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- It seems to me that if I am on a DAC, I can use my position to cause detriment to another person. I could cause them some harm -- it might be the developer or it might be the applicant. Never mind the detriment that I am apparently going to cause to the DAC.

The penalty here is 100 penalty units.

In the Local Government Act the mirror offence -- misuse of office --
also has a penalty of 100 penalty units. However, in the bill before the house to make amendments to local government offences, the proposal is to increase the penalty under the Local Government Act to five years jail. If that bill passes and this bill stays the same, we will be in a position where a councillor who misuses their position on a planning permit that does not go to a DAC faces five years jail, but if they misuse their position in relation to a planning permit while sitting on a DAC, the most they face is 100 penalty units. Can the minister explain why the offence in this case is so low, even if he cannot speak for the Minister for Local Government in regard to his changes?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Mr Barber might have to assist me again. Did he say the bill had been passed or was being considered?

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- It is the Local Government Amendment (Offences and Other Matters) Bill which is currently before the chamber and which I think we will be debating later this week.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I am unable to explain the inconsistencies there, but I am happy to seek to provide Mr Barber with advice on the reason for the inconsistencies. I suspect that one has been based on previous legislation, and of course the other one is waiting for a new lot of legislation to be passed. I also suspect, because this legislation has been a long time in proceeding through the Parliament, that it may well have been initially drafted prior to the most recent local government legislation.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- It could well be. It is just that I am pointing out that these are identical clauses. To all intents and purposes the title is 'Misuse of position'. The wording is almost identical except with regard to that little bit on the end, and it would literally be the case that if I were a councillor making a decision on a planning permit, I could face five years jail for misuse, but as soon as that planning permit went to a DAC for a decision I would be facing 100 penalty units.

In any case, since he will no doubt be assisting us at the table on the local government bill when we get to that, the minister will be able to provide us with an answer at that stage as to why there is that inconsistency. But I do not need to anticipate debate.
Just moving down, proposed section 97MZ(2)(e) refers to:
using public funds improperly or in an unauthorised manner.

What public funds is it that DAC members will have at their disposal under the bill? I do not understand.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- As I said previously, this is an instrument of a council, and because it is an instrument of a council no doubt funds for the day-to-day operation will be the council's funds.

It is really about the operation of the funding and how those funds are used and how they should be applied to the DAC and for no other reason.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- Is the minister saying that if I am a councillor and I am on a DAC, then I am subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act and this act, whereas if I am just an appointed member of a DAC, I am only subject to these provisions?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I am sorry but Mrs Peulich said something on the way through. I did not pick up what Mr Barber said because Mrs Peulich was interrupting him.

How might a DAC member have access to public funds?

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- First of all I do not understand how a member of a DAC has access to public funds that they can use improperly or in an unauthorised manner.

The minister said, 'It is to do with council funds', but that would apply to a councillor with respect to their responsibilities under the Local Government Act. What is going to happen here is that as a local councillor I am going to be subject to two different acts even though I am just continuing to do my duties as a councillor.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- It is not necessarily news that you might be subject to a number of acts at any particular instant whether it is in local government or in the community. You might be covered under a number of things, so I do not think that is so much the point as the point I suspect Mr Barber is attempting to make which is that in a sense potentially there is a higher degree of rigour at the local government end than the rigour for the other appointees. But the chamber should remember that there are no specifics about how these DACs will be funded over and above their operations.

If members of a DAC were to seek, say, some specific legal advice which required an advance from the council, because it is an extension of the council itself, but those funds were used improperly rather than for the operation of the DAC, then any one of the five members of the DAC -- if it was specifically one of those members who had asked for some advance
-- might in some way come under that provision.

The DAC is an extension of the operation of a council. It is a vehicle, a decision-making body, but of course there is always the expectation of a high degree of rigour in local government anyway. That does not change. The other members are certainly covered under that clause if they are not covered under the Local Government Act.

Do DACS rely entirely or mostly on using council funds?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order!

Can I just clarify this for the sake of the committee: it was my understanding that the government is also providing funds to the DACs process, so we are not just talking about local government funds here, are we?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- That is correct. We have made a commitment to provide some funds, and I know Mr Guy has been very conscious of this. But the mechanics of these things are, I would suspect, that the money is provided to council for the operation and the council would not come seeking any advance, in terms of the operation, from the state government. The money will rest with the council as an advance in some form for the operation of the DAC or as a subsidy or through some program arrangement. So I would suspect that the mechanism by which you get an advance would go back to council, because the DAC is a vehicle of the council rather than of the state government, even though we are introducing it under state government legislation.

There is no provision for funding DACS members for legal advice

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- The minister mentioned legal advice. If councillors want legal advice, they go to the chief executive officer and the CEO either gives them advice or determines that legal advice needs to be obtained. I have never had an instance where a councillor could order up legal advice, let alone in the middle of deciding on a planning permit. Is there some other arrangement proposed here where, by virtue of being a member of a DAC, a person will be able to order legal advice?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- No.

Payment for DAC members - no set figures, unlike council remuneration

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- What allowances are DAC members going to be paid?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- My understanding is that the members will be given the equivalent of a service rate of some description and that it will be not unlike -- but not necessarily the equivalent of -- the service rate or arrangement at Planning Panels Victoria. Of course the local government itself, depending on who it appoints to the DAC, will have to determine arrangements on that basis.

If you are a local government representative, you may not wish to receive that service rate -- you might forfeit that fee -- or it might be rolled into your allowance as a councillor or assumed to be part of your allowance. But if you were an appointee -- either an independent chair or a representative from the state government -- and if you were someone with expertise, you would probably receive a service fee of some sort, not unlike the situation at Planning Panels Victoria. There is not a set figure at this point in time.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- Council remuneration is set by the Local Government Act; councils are not in a position to vary the fees they pay to councillors in return for other duties. If what the minister is saying is that there will be allowances to DAC members and that those will be covered under the minister's regulations and paid to those people irrespective of their receipt of an allowance from the council, then I think that makes a lot more sense.

I am also uncertain as to how all the other operating costs of a DAC -- from advertising its meetings to requests for individual pieces of, say, heritage advice or design advice -- will be allowed for if the DAC is to make its own decision.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- In many ways there is no great variance from the current operation of a council considering a major matter.

Relevant parties who may have an interest or who might be involved in the process would no doubt be notified. That is not that much different from the way the council would operate in the circumstance of a matter of consequence. The DAC would operate locally. It is highly likely it would operate within the council precinct somewhere, so I would not expect there to be a significant cost in terms of the hire of a public space within a building. So if there are to be costs, they are not really additional administrative arrangements, because most of those would have been the administrative arrangements local government would have had in terms of making an equivalent decision anyway. Any additional costs are more likely to be with the non-council law members of the DAC, who will receive a fee for service of some sort.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I suppose we could quibble about that.

The minister would have heard me referring to an article in the Australian Financial Review which stated that the minister's New South Wales counterpart had made the commitment that where a council or members of a DAC had opposed a DAC's decision and that decision subsequently became subject to appeal, the state government would fund the court defence of that decision rather than forcing the local government to defend a decision which its appointed members did not support. Is that the same commitment the minister is making in Victoria?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- No, I am not making the equivalent commitment, because from time to time councils make decisions under delegation that sometimes councillors do not like themselves. They give authorisation to their planning staff to make decisions because of the controls that are in place in a particular location. Those controls themselves really determine what decision can and cannot be made.

I have been involved in a circumstance like that lately where the controls determined the decision rather than anyone using discretion over and above those controls in terms of the decision.

So it is not my expectation that we would make a similar commitment to funding what has taken place in New South Wales. In terms of the operation of the development assessment committee I will monitor very closely the situation where a council is not happy with a decision but needs to defend in some way, and I will see how often that occurs. I will seek to operate the system so that councils do not find themselves in that position on a regular basis when they have to stump up the money for a defence which they do not really feel compelled to invest in with any significance.

We know from experience that councils may often decide to reject a planning proposal even though their policy might advocate for the proposal, and then if the decision is challenged the council goes to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and does not defend it very strongly. The council may send a junior officer to represent it and is almost complicit in letting VCAT make the decision on the basis of the existing policy or controls within the council.

I am conscious that there are already in the system some reported instances where councils do not strongly defend decisions they currently make, even if they do not support or necessarily want to support the decisions. I am conscious of those points but do not make that commitment at this time, which is not to say -- without monitoring the situation -- that I may not come back with a different view at a later date.

Minister has power to suspend DAC member. Madden did not know how a DAC member might be terminated.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- Going back to an answer the minister gave earlier when he said the removal of a member from the development assessment committee would need to occur through the Governor in Council, if the minister became aware of a conflict of interest will he explain how he would deal with sacking a member of a DAC, what the process would be and how long it would take?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I mentioned in some of the detail I gave earlier that a member would be suspended initially and only after an investigation would a decision be made that somebody would be dismissed. A suspension may occur initially and then an investigation would take place and recommendations and a decision would be made after that. In the initial stage there would potentially be a suspension of the member if it was warranted.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- Would this decision be made by the minister?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I do not have the ability to dismiss a member of a DAC but I will check to see how that termination or suspension would occur.

I can only suspend the member. As would be the case with any decision I make on any planning matters in any area, I would only do it on the advice of my department, and there would have to be some independence over and above the department's advice to qualify it in some manner. I would expect that on the suspension further advice would be provided to me after an investigation of these matters.

There could be a range of mechanisms on which I would qualify the advice of the department with additional independent advice in relation to the matter, but I would expect the advice of the department alone would not necessarily be sufficient justification or reason publicly for the confidence and operation of the DAC. I would be looking for some external independence to qualify the advice of the department.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- I believe the minister is saying that natural justice principles would apply to the suspended member and that he or she would have the opportunity to defend their position in some way. Is the minister able to elucidate how that would occur?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- Absolutely. Suspension of a member could only be for a short time.

I would expect that during that period an investigation would resolve the matters and clarify whether there was some legitimacy for the dismissal of that person from DAC.

Two sets of laws might apply simultaneously to a councillor

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- It is all very confusing because it seems to me we have mirror provisions in the legislation and that for a councillor both sets of provisions would operate. If a member breached the Local Government Act the local government ministerial inspectorate would talk to the member, but now we are getting a hint of some kind of unit or process being set up within the Department of Planning and Community Development that would look at another act that seems to have the same wording. Before the minister goes any further on that, I have a series of questions around register of interests which start at proposed section 97MZN, and some of them relate to the same kinds of questions. I am indicating that I am keen to move on to that proposed section.

Register of interests, keeping of records - serious problems

There is a series of new sections within subdivision 6. First of all, members of DACs must register their interests. The secretary must maintain that register. The secretary must allow a person to inspect the register if they have written to the secretary and asked for permission to do so and if the application meets the requirements of the regulations, if any. The secretary has to maintain a record of the names of persons who have inspected the register. A member of a DAC can inspect the register. A person must not publish information derived from the register unless that information is a fair and accurate summary or copy of the information derived from the register. As soon as practicable after a person ceases to be a member or an alternate member of a DAC the secretary must remove all the returns submitted by the person from the register, but then the secretary must retain the returns of a member or an alternate member for a period of three years and at the end of the three years the secretary must destroy the records.

Never mind councillors, who will have to go through many of the same provisions anyway under the Local Government Act, it seems that if these DAC members -- and they could be all these planning consultants and architects and various people who the minister is going to decide are suitable people -- have any sort of expertise and professional involvement in this field, they are bound to have interests in the field. I for one would want to know which planning consultancies they work for so that I could determine if other clients of that consultancy may have an interest in the matter.

What we are told here is that I have to ask permission to see the register and the secretary may have regulations that deny me the ability to see it. I can be in trouble if I publish the information unless I give a fair and accurate summary.

The minute that person gets off the DAC, their returns are no longer available. They sit in the secretary's filing cabinet for three years and then they get destroyed. How is this meant to guarantee any probity in the process if the public at large cannot understand the interests of these people or even if that DAC member has to be investigated? It could be that they have made a pattern of decisions over a number of years which together trigger an investigation; however, on the day they quit that information is no longer publicly available. And if they do not get sprung for three years, the information itself is actually destroyed. It just seems to me that this is not really offering the opportunity for any person to make their own assessment of the probity of the process.

I do not think I have any particular question on the issue.

Having been through this issue when we did this with local government -- and in fact I had a private members bill which addressed these issues -- this seems to mean that the secretary is the only person who is likely to have free and unfettered access during the relevant period. For a member of the public to attempt to inspect the records is going to be quite difficult.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- On the same point if I may, in relation to the provision which requires that those records be kept for a period of three years after the person ceases to be a member of the DAC, clearly there is currently a flaw in the Public Records Act in that it requires documents to be kept for three years -- a length of time which has not been synchronised with the new terms of the state Parliament and local government. I actually have it in writing from the Public Record Office that this has been a failing. How does the minister explain the fact that the three-year period is enshrined in this particular provision? Is this again a replication of a flaw?

Should it not be corrected to reflect the four-year election cycle?

Secondly, public records management protocols should apply. Here there appear to be no protocols. I am concerned that the regime does not guarantee probity. Is the minister able to comment on that?

People would have to fall back on the omsbudsman!

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I suppose there is not a lot of difference in what is described here to what is currently the case in the expertise provided at Planning Panels Victoria in many instances in relation to the same way in which the interests of board members or members of panels are kept and stored -- there is not a lot of difference. I know Mr Barber has expressed concerns about if somebody has a consultancy or an interest connection and that people need to have confidence in that. I agree that there needs to be confidence in that process.

There are other mechanisms if people believe there is more than meets the eye. The Ombudsman exists in this state for that sort of reason. If people do have specific concerns about those individuals who are the experts who are taking up positions on the DAC, there are mechanisms by which they can make a request to the Ombudsman to follow that up.

Striking a 'balance' rather than guaranteeing probity (Madden)

The other issue is that individuals who have a degree of expertise might also have an interest in the degree of privacy around some of their personal matters which do not relate in any way to the DAC but might be listed on a register in some way. Of course if that private information is made publicly accessible without a degree of control for that particular individual, there are privacy issues there as well. Often the issue around an individual's privacy and the ability to access detailed information in relation to their position or authority has to strike the right balance, and we believe it does that.

There is also the ability for people to access that information and to report on it, but of course they have to report on it accurately, and that is the implication made and the direction given in terms of the legislation here: if people are going to quote from the register, they need to quote directly from it rather than describe it in some other fashion.

Privacy should be secondary to public interest in representative role

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) -- But if DACs members are fulfilling the role of what elected members should be doing, then protection of their privacy should be secondary to the public interest.

Therefore I cannot accept the minister's argument. I strongly suggest that the regime here is not sufficiently open and transparent. I do not believe it is corruption-proof, given that the three-year period for which records must be kept is not in sync with the election terms at both the state and local government levels. Is the minister prepared to change those?

Too bad for the public interest

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- We have a bill presented before us that has been resolved by the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Parliament. This is the bill which has been resolved, so there is no ability to change this bill as it is presented. Those issues no doubt will be monitored by all sides of politics.

Given Mrs Peulich's interest, I am sure she will pay a great deal of attention to this matter. If it is warranted, then we will look at making changes to the bill, but not only on this front.

As I said before, there are issues that we will monitor -- and I am sure the Parliament will monitor them -- and if there are changes that are warranted, there will be a chance to make changes to legislation by bringing forward other legislation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! Can I get a sense of whether we are nearly completed?

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- We are extremely close, Chair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! Thank you. I am very relieved.

Insufficient probity monitoring; high risk of corruption

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- My final concern is that the minister has admitted his department will have the responsibility of being the probity auditor for these people.

We are told that as soon as a DAC member resigns from the DAC all of their public returns will be removed, almost straightaway, from the register. The first thing a guilty person would do is quit. The next thing to happen would be that all of their register material would go missing. In any case, the material on that register is limited because it says what they would need to disclose. It is considered to be a conflict of interest or what they call in new section 97MZG(1) a 'conflicting duty' if the person:

(b) is a partner, consultant, contractor, agent or employee of a person, company or body that has a direct interest in a matter;

Unfortunately there is no requirement that a DAC member disclose on the register their employment, partnerships, consultancies or contractual arrangements with companies and bodies in the development industry, which they will almost certainly have. That is a real weakness.

It will make it extraordinarily difficult, even for the minister, to maintain probity, or for mindful members of the community to play any part in this either.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I have no further comments to make in great detail, other than to say the issue, as I raised earlier on, is for individuals to reveal where they may have a perceived, possible or potential conflict of interest in advance of that happening. There is an obligation on individuals to remove themselves from office if and when there is a potential conflict of interest. With these matters there is always a high degree of onus on an individual to know what those conflicts are. Even in registering potential conflicts there is a high degree of obligation on the individual to make them known on the register.

To cut a long story short, there is a high degree of obligation on the individual, and if they do not comply, then the individual is the one who will find themself in a very uncomfortable situation when it comes to the matters being investigated or followed up, particularly if they have a significant impact on the operation of or confidence in the DAC.

With many of these matters the ability of any one individual to manage those conflicts in a way which takes place across all sorts of areas of business and government is particularly important. Again, the onus falls very heavily on the individual to make sure that they have been careful.

Mr Barber interjected.

Madden's law demands public rely on reputation of appointees rather than proper checks and balances

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- It will always fall back on the minister. The reputation of the individual and the reason they are in these positions is because they are no doubt held in high regard.

They are seen as experts with a high degree of established and well-regarded reputation in their respective fields and professions. There is as much an onus on them to do justice to that reputation than to have it undermined, hence undermining the operation of the DAC.

Clause agreed to; clauses 6 to 10 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Source: Victorian Hansard, Council Proof, 9 September 2009

More action needed on the DACs. The dreaded Development Assessment Committees.

This article is about the dangers of passing a law to create these DACs, which have been fought off twice but keep coming back because the developers and their friends in government want them - not because they are good for the rest of us.


Mary Drost of Planning Backlash writes:

"The matter has not yet been debated or voted on in the Upper House. It will come back to Parliament on Tuesday the 10th November.

People who have read through the Bill say that it is even worse than they had thought.

"It really puts the power into the hands of the Minister to do whatever he wants in all Activity Centres. He appoints 3 out of the 5 committee members. The other 2 can be council officers or councillors who will in effect have no control. For example, is there street level parking in your shopping centre? They could take it over and build on it and there is nothing you or your council can do.

Put that together with the changes in the Planning Act that are coming through which will give any one, including developers, the right to put amendments to the Minister to changes protective overlays, such as tree protection or heritage overlays, so they can build whatever they want wherever they want.

Plus giving the minister increased powers of compulsory acquisition.

Think what real trouble we are in.

Then please take action again and send off emails to the opposition parties in the Upperhouse Libs, Nationals, Greens, DLP.
Names and addresses are on the #10;<p>We need to put the pressure on.">

What's going on?

In 2002 I completed a 100,000 word plus thesis called the Growth Lobby [in Australia] and Its Absence [in France], about the Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France. In this work I asked why Australia had such rampant population growth and France did not.

Why did I do this?

Because I was greatly perturbed by the amount of damage that was already being done in the name of population growth. To me it was obvious that, as well as costing the environment, this growth had a social cost - it was a threat to democracy. It was obviously destructive to democracy because it was going ahead by stealth and without consultation or approval by Australians. As the process has become more obvious and overt, the subtle bypassing of democracy has now turned to flagrant attempts to suppress democracy, through new laws.

I used a political science method for explaining why undemocratic, unpopular processes persisted without arousing public protest. The method predicted that, where you have focused [financial]beneficiaries of an unpopular process, those beneficiaries recognise the source of their benefits and organise to keep them coming. However, where you have 'diffuse costs' (as in the costs the public pay for population growth and overdevelopment) most people cannot identify the source of those costs, nor that others are also bearing them, and therefore they cannot organise against them. This is exactly what has been happening in Australia with the Growth Lobby, where a small group of people recognise that they are receiving concentrated financial benefits from population growth and infrastructure expansion, and lobby to preserve and enhance that advantage. (The opposite situation prevailed in France, with population growth and housing counted as a public cost and few opportunities for the private sector to benefit financially from population growth in the French system, which is quite different from Australia's.)

But the situation in Australia where the majority of the population are kept in the dark about why they are all paying more and more and losing everything to growth, can be preserved only as long as the ignorance can be preserved, generally by selective information dissemination in the mainstream press and government.

Whilst the internet made it possible to have an international global real-estate bubble of grotesque proportions never seen before, with private migration agents, conveyancers, solicitors and universities touting for overseas immigrant customers, and newspapers expanding into international real estate dot coms, all financed to the hilt by banks that charged us interest for financing this extravaganza, the internet has also made in possible for some of us to work to educate the public about what is being done to them in the name of Growth. And, gradually, groups have adapted to this knowledge and they are fighting back, saying in effect, "We are not going to pay with our lives and freedom for beneficiaries of the Growth Lobby to get rich and walk all over us. It may have taken us some time to figure out what was happening, but that doesn't mean we are stupid."

Who defends the DACs?

Below I make a belated response to an article by Jennifer Cunich,
"Opposition to planning reform will halt development", Thursday, 11 June 2009

Jennifer Cunich is a Property Lobby Australia spokesperson and blogger, as you will see if you visit the site-link above. Quotes from her article appear here in bold italics. My responses appear in ordinary font.

MS CUNICH: The government is under attack from community groups, councillors and NIMBY’s rallying in Melbourne against proposed planning reform.

I think that the people Ms Cunich calls NIMBY's are actually citizens with a democratic right to object to planning 'reforms' that they don't want. Ms Cunich does not seem to understand that citizenship carries rights to democracy. She seems to think that governments are there to tell people what to do, rather than the other way round. Her attitude mirrors the government's, but the government is a dictatorship and the attitude is a bad one.

MS CUNICH: Around 300 local activists staged an anti-development rally against on the steps of Parliament House on Wednesday 10th June.

Just on the numbers: Planning Backlash estimates somewhere around 600 people because there were three hundred balloons involved, one per person, and many people demonstrated without balloons - perhaps as many again as the 300 that had balloons.

MS CUNICH: Campaigning on a range of planning issues, from the introduction of Development Assessment Committees through to green wedge politics, local community groups are trying to polarise the community.

MS CUNICH: The Property Council has been a vocal supporter of the government when it comes to making tough decisions that speed up our planning system.

I have often wondered what happens to the Government when it tries to resist the Property Council. I would like to know the identiy of all the members of the Property Council to see how they are placed to pressure the government. For instance, is there a relationship, formal or informal, between the mainstream media corporations and the Property Council? Because sometimes it looks to me as if, whenever property developers fear they will be contraried by the government, the newspapers and other media, start badmouthing the government.

MS CUNICH: While DACs do not go far enough, they are a step in the right direction and will go a long way to easing the planning bottlenecks our Victorians face daily.

This strikes me as a hidebound statement. We are having bottlenecks because the Property Council and similar growth lobbyists have prevailed upon successive governments to deliver more and more population growth. So our numbers are overwhelming the current infrastructure. DACs seem to be just a way to force development through despite objections. What is the point in having a vote if your government and big business can do that to you?

MS CUNICH: The debate has been skewed toward a vocal minority, arguing all proposed planning reforms will take away residents democratic rights.

How does the writer establish that the people arguing against planning 'reforms' are a minority? I would argue that I established some time ago that the people arguing for the 'reforms' are in the minority - the minority that benefits financially from population growth and infrastucture expansion, because they own land banks, engineering plant, housing finance institutions, shares in banks, building materials etc.

I would argue that calling the protesters a 'minority' doesn't make them one. And what, pray, is wrong with defending residents' democratic rights? The alert reader will ask, "Who derives the greater financial benefit? People rallying for democracy in the cold? Or developers lobbying the government for growth and fewer taxes? And from that, whose word would you trust on democracy?

MS CUNICH: We do not understand why the DACs are being met with heavy opposition. DACs are independent panels, with representation from both levels of government, state and local, making decisions in line with local policy, how much more democratic can that be?

Well, Robert Clark put it quite well in Parliament the other day. Here is a quote:

"Once created, the new DACs will act in lieu of the responsible authority for all developments within their deemed operational areas, as determined by the ministerial order. The order will specify the class of development to which it applies and the areas it covers.

Each DAC will consist of five members. Three, including the chair, will be appointed by the Minister for Planning, and two will be nominated by the relevant municipal council from a group of five persons who are councillors or members of staff of that council.

The even greater half of the problem is the extraordinary price at which it comes in terms of intrusion on local communities, the diminution of the capacity of local communities to have a say in their own destiny, and the undermining of the role of local government councillors. The government appears to be treating local government councillors with disdain and disregard.

The government has the nerve to call this bill a partnership with local government, whereas in fact it will take away the existing responsibilities of local government to make decisions on planning permits and offers councils only two places out of five at the table of development assessment committees. The government is doing that on an extraordinarily limited and constrained basis.

To start off with, because councillors will have only two places out of five they will always be at risk of being outvoted. The second-reading speech claims that there is going to be an independent chair, but when members look at the bill they will see there is nothing of the sort — the chair is to be appointed by the minister as are the two other non-council nominees.

The local community representatives can be either councillors or members of staff. I think it will be highly likely that councillors will find it virtually impossible to become involved with a DAC. If they do, they are certainly going to be under extraordinary constraints.

There are confidentiality provisions governing members of DACs. The councillors who take part in them are almost certainly frequently, if not always, going to find themselves outvoted. They are then likely going to come under attack from the local community."
Source: Robert Clark, Member for Box Hill inVic Planning Legislative Bill enslaves Victorians to Growth Lobby

MS CUNICH: More and more councils are influenced by groups, such as Planning Backlash, that advocate the BANANA approach – building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.

Well, gee. We can all indulge in name-calling:
And more and more growth lobby groups advocate the BEDD approach - Build Everywhere and Damn Democracy.
Of course, BBOUPUDs - Big Beneficiaries of undemocratic processes undermining democracy - would see people who fight for democracy as bananas, wouldn't they?

Thank heavens Planning Backlash, Concerned Councillors, Protectors of Public Land and others are having some effect. If they were not then we would all be at the mercy of the Property Council of Australia, which the government is a member of. Ms Cunich might think that this is a good idea, but she is in the minority - the one that benefits from growth.

MS CUNICH: Developers and the community seek certainty in the planning process. Councillors should work with their local communities to develop sound policy, ensuring everyone knows what the rules are from day one.

Hmm, let's see: "If they cannot have democracy, let them have certainty", said Marie-Antoinette, referring to the angry peasants.

MS CUNICH: The rally also attacked the governments plan to expand the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

MS CUNICH: The Property Council has consistently argued the UGB needs to be flexible to ensure Victoria continues to deliver an affordable housing product and maintains its competitive advantage.

MS CUNICH: The Property Council has however expressed concern about the new Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) and its implementation. The GAIC appears to be intrinsically linked to the expansion of the UGB. The Property Council gave in principle support for the levy in 2005 and whilst the amount is not in question, the implementation is.

MS CUNICH: The development community and the community at large are sick of waiting for major infrastructure projects to be delivered.

MS CUNICH: As stated, we have growing concerns around the implementation of the new Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution and are eager to make sure that the infrastructure delivery meets the needs of local communities but does not cripple the residential development sector.

Surely it is up to the local communities, rather than a distant body of commercial speculators, to decide what they need and what they don't need. How could the Property Council, apparently with so little interest in the rights of citizens, presume to direct them like children?

MS CUNICH: The Property Council is urging the government and the Growth Areas Authority to work closely with the the Property Council in determining how the funds from this charge will be delivered directly to those communities in the Growth Areas.

MS CUNICH: Growth is not a dirty word. Growth means more employment opportunities, more revenue to provide much needed community infrastructure, and more choices for Victorians. However, growth must be managed in a sustainable manner and be shared by all Victorians. It is time the community supported the government in its attempts to keep Victoria moving and encouraged

Growth IS a dirty word when growth costs most people a heck of a lot more pain than it delivers benefits. Growth, particularly in property development and housing, is the process that has led to the global depression, loss of jobs, homelessness, constant disruption and destruction of democratic processes. Growth has driven up land for housing and agriculture costs and water costs. Because these have gone up the costs of everything else have gone up. Wages - if you have a job - cannot keep up with these rising costs. Business cannot keep up with them either, because, as well as wages and dividends, businesses must also pay for rent, fuel, power, water and all the things that require land. In the growthist economy advocated so constantly by the Property Council of Australia and similar powerful entities, basic costs render manufacture uncompetitive. In the end even the corporations - the financial institutions and the developers have to go under as all of their customers do. That is what is happening to Australia and the English speaking countries particularly. Furthermore, why should people settle just for jobs? They should be entitled to as of right to land for food to supplement their incomes. But now, even as every price is set to rise inexorably and we are told, furthermore, that this is only what we deserve, the possibilities of growing food are daily diminishing with land-inflation and planning ideology outlawing back yards.

Nothing about benefiting the public here:

"http://www.youtube.com/propertyoz
Our Vision
The Property Council's vision is to become an integral business ally of members.

Our Mission
The Property Council's mission is to champion the interests of the property sector."
And to think that Mr Brumby joined the government up last year! See "Living in a destruction zone".

The following article is based on a submission to George Seitz, Committee Chair of the Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee, Victoria, and was submitted on 19th October by Protectors of Public Lands. Headings inserted by Candobetter editor are preceded with “(Ed.)” Illustrations are from candobetter.org . The rest of the article, unless otherwise marked, is the original text.

Submission to Parliamentary Outer Suburban Interface/Services and Development Committee Inquiring into the Impact of State Government Decision to Change the Urban Growth Boundary

...

Introduction:

I am making a submission on behalf of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC.) I should by way of introduction mention that our organisation, established in 2004, is a State wide coalition of over 80 environment, heritage, resident and parks groups across Victoria. We are dedicated to keeping public lands in public hands and to protecting and conserving iconic heritage places and environmental sites of significance.

Summary of Grounds of Opposition: In addressing the terms of reference we are considering “The impact of the State Government’s decision to change the urban growth boundary on landholders and the environment…” PPL VIC draws the Committee’s attention to the failure of the State Government in strategic urban planning over the last 10 years and in encouraging uncontrolled entry of settlers to Victoria without examining sustainable population levels. We object to creation of growth areas outside the existing boundaries as extending and creating urban sprawl; alienation of established Green Wedges; destruction of the environment and wildlife; loss of biodiversity; creation of “dormitory” settlements without infrastructure and services; likely social alienation of youth; loss of arable land for food production; increasing car dependency; worsening Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to climate change with land clearance, unsustainable housing and reliance on road transport; plus knowingly approving the building of new settlements in fire-prone areas. Additionally we deplore the imposition of a vendor tax on landowners in order to fund the infrastructure of the new settlements and the impetus given to land speculation and “land banking.” PPL VIC supports the submissions made by our colleagues from the “Green Wedges Coalition” and “Taxed Out”.

The grounds of our submission are as follows:

New Growth Areas = Future Urban Sprawl = Major Failure of Strategic Urban Planning:

The Bracks Government guaranteed in 2002 that, under a Labor Government there would be no changes or amendments to the Urban Boundary or to the Green Wedges corridors. The fact that there are now radical changes represents a serious breach of faith with the electorate by the Brumby Government. Melbourne 2030 was considered to be the blue print for future development and was expressly intended to contain future urban sprawl; to prevent urban incursions into rural land; to concentrate residential growth into areas served by high capacity public transport; and protect sensitive environmental zones around the city. Many planners have pronounced Melbourne 2030 dead in view of recent radical departures from the plan.

Before the 2002 election the State Government announced protection of Melbourne’s green wedges from subdivision and inappropriate urban uses. There was bipartisan support - the Opposition supported the green wedge protection legislation when it passed through the Legislative Assembly before the 2002 election.

(Ed.) Path to unsustainable growth paved with broken promises

The Government has additionally broken a 2005 promise when 11,500 hectares was excised from Green Wedges land that there would be no further changes until 2030. The community accepted the excision on this proviso. Apparently, the Minister for Planning gave a number of assurances right up to the announcement of the review of the Urban Growth Boundary that there would be changes to Green Wedges. .

The State Government announced its review of the Urban Growth Boundary in December 2008 when it released the Melbourne @5 million, an update to Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Development. This signalled the State Government’s plans to open up at least 23,000 hectares – including land in Green Wedges areas - for urban expansion to allow for construction of 600,000 houses with 284, 000 of these to be located in growth areas. It was only apparently belatedly realised by Government advisers and planners that Victoria needs to accommodate another 1 million people before 2025. By 2036 Melbourne is predicted to have a further 1.8 million, twice the number forecast by Melbourne 2030 planners. By anyone’s reckoning failure to predict this massive population boom is a monumental blunder in strategic planning (See also comment under population)

(Ed.) Incremental excisions of natural amenity, wildlife habitat and agricultural land

We can see no improvements under the current Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities (DMNSC) report on the Urban Growth Boundary Review released in June 2009. PPL VIC was alarmed to see that according to the Green Wedges Coalition the report proposes to excise a further 41,663 hectares from Melbourne’s Green Wedges, nearly twice the area estimated to have been needed in last December’s Melbourne @ 5 Million report.
Minister Madden has added to proposals by announcing on 6 October 2009 that new “Precinct Structure Plans guidelines” were to be added, a kind of overlay for suburbs of 3,000 dwellings or more. These guidelines were drawn up to try to ensure developments avoided becoming isolated, so called “dormitory” suburbs - places where there is nothing to do but sleep. The Age article of 11 October 2009 “Sprawl of the wild” by Melissa Fyfe says “The Victorian Government has discovered sustainable communities. Pity it’s 10 years late.”

On 16 October 2009 Planning Minister Madden announced the draft legislation for Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution Bill. We have only been given time to make comments until 2 November 2009. (It is not known if the legislation will be introduced to Parliament before this Committee has reported.) The problem is that arrangement to levy the GAIC have been changed or significantly amended. Michael Hocking of Taxed Out says on his website:

“This is taxing the landowner by stealth. The tax is still applied at a flat rate regardless of the sale price yet the land may be twenty years from development. A property owner needing to sell in the short-term will find it virtually impossible to find a purchaser who is prepared to accept a GAIC liability when he sells, meaning the only likely purchaser is a developer not interested in the value of the dwelling and not interested in paying development prices for land that won't be developed for decades.

The Growth Areas Authority assumptions relating to value uplift remain fundamentally flawed and Taxed Out Inc. intends to expose these issues at the Parliamentary Inquiry…In many respects this situation is worse than that originally proposed.”

PPL VIC deplores the fact that the State Government appears to have attempted to mislead affected landowners. We also point out that this debacle over changes to the GAIC further illustrates that our contention that this is planning on the run.

What is a Sustainable Population for Victoria?

The whole rationale for extending the Urban Growth Boundary is to accommodate the unprecedented flood of population to Victoria. It is instructional to Google the “Population Clock” of the Bureau of Statistics. This shows the resident population of Australia which increases by one person every 1 minute and 12 seconds. This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 31 March 2009 and assumes growth since then of:

• one birth every 1 minute and 44 seconds,
• one death every 3 minutes and 39 seconds,
• a net gain of one international migrant every 1 minutes and 53 seconds leading to
• an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 12 seconds

(Ed.) Process of loss of Green Wedges and Agricultural land will be endless

PPL VIC considers that the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary is really the thin end of the wedge. As there are no plans to stop the present high rate of population growth (mostly from immigration) the process of loss of Green Wedges and agricultural land is endless. There will be another extension when the proposed boundaries are seen to be filling up.

The extension of the Urban Growth Boundary does not save private or public open space in the established suburbs - the rate of population growth is so high that Melbourne is getting more urban densification daily as well as urban sprawl. As we have pointed out the State Government is devoid of coherence in these planning matters and its approach to endless population growth.

PPL VIC considers it imperative that the Victorian Government hold a forum to determine the population sustainable for Victoria, especially in view of water shortages and the likelihood of future droughts. (Excuses used have been “immigration is a Federal matter” but State Premiers have influence in Canberra.) At a rally on 14 July 2009 protesting over Planning Minister Madden’s “Cash for Chat” with developers, PPLVIC and allies delivered a set of resolutions to the Minister including the need for a population forum. There were over 500 people at the Rally which indicates the strength of public feeling concerning the issues raised here.

I have a quote here from Mr Kelvin Thomson MHR, Federal Member for Wills who says that:

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate. We must implement a strategy to control population growth, urban expansion and development. Our way of life, open spaces and infrastructure cannot be sacrificed on the altar of ever expanding population. We have a responsibility to secure our city’s future by thorough, thoughtful and detailed planning. This planning should not include an expanding Melbourne waistline.” (Source: “Five Million is too many: Securing the Social and Environmental Future of Melbourne” Submission to the Urban Growth Boundary Review July 2009.

Destruction of the Environment and Green Wedges:

The Government must abandon the Green Wedge land grab as destructive of the environment, a threat to wildlife, including endangered species, and as a major contributor to Green House Gas Emissions. Around the urban fringe we have a concentration of some of the most endangered eco- systems in Australia including the Western Basalt Plains Grasslands and Grassy Woodlands in the Darebin, Jackson and Merri Creek valleys, with 400 year-old red gums, and plus loss of habitat for a range of threatened species (e.g. Southern Brown Bandicoot.) PPL VIC supports the submission of the Green Wedges Coalition as being an excellent detailed statement of the threats to significant landscapes, endangered species and wildlife plus indigenous vegetation.

The 15,000 hectares of grassland reserves to be provided over 10 years as a trade-off for grasslands is apparently of poorer quality than the kangaroo (themeda) grasslands to be destroyed

The removal of environmental protection from all areas within the Urban Growth Boundary would seem to indicate that areas such as significant parts of the Merri Creek Catchment will not be protected from environmental damage or even clearing.

Areas for development are clear felled by developers. The loss of trees and other vegetation for housing adds to global warming effect. Is there any provision for conservation?

The proposed high density, low open private space in these outer suburbs means they will be hotter - urban heat island effect - from the lack of the cooling effect of vegetation/transpiration - low ratio of vegetation to concrete and other hard surfaces.

What provision is made for public open space? There is no mention made of public open space for passive recreation as well as sports fields and recreation areas.

(Ed.) Cruel failure to create or maintain wildlife corridors spells slow death for native animals

On past performance, no allowance will be made for wildlife in outer suburban development. PPL VIC has had experience with kangaroos of Somerton and Morang where animals get trapped in developed areas and just left to get killed on roads. The outer suburban interface is considered terra nullius it seems. What of smaller animals/birds what about the grasslands and inhabitants? There appears to be no consideration given to the creation or maintenance of wildlife corridors.

(Ed.) McPhail Report – State of the Environment

The State Government appears to have taken little notice of report by the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Mr Ian Mc Phail, in “The State of the Environment Victoria 2008”. In it he comments:

"Victoria's population growth, increasing affluence and the expansion of our cities and towns has contributed to unsustainable levels of resource consumption and waste production. This has direct environmental impacts through changes in land use from conservation and agriculture to cities and towns. To supply our cities and towns, we harvest water for residential and manufacturing purposes, changed river flows, discharge wastes to land and sea, remove native vegetation and send damaging gases into the atmosphere." (Refer in the report to A Culture of Consumption. Drivers of Change – Population, Change and Settlements Page 9)

The report continues:

“Continuing growth of Victoria’s population will increase demand for land, as well as housing and transport services, potentially leading to more waste and pollution. Extra demand for water is particularly pertinent given the predictive effects of climate change on already depleted water storages.” Mr Mc Phail concludes on a depressing note: "It is currently cheaper to protect the environment to than to restore it but it is even cheaper to degrade it…”

Urban Growth Areas in Fire Prone Areas:

Whether it is advisable settling thousands of people in outer suburban fire prone areas does not appear to have occurred to the Government. These are the outer suburban areas classified as "Growth Areas": Beveridge, Bulla, Devin Meadows, Cranbourne East, Clyde North, Diggers Rest, Donnybrook, Kalkalo, Melton, Mt Cottrell, Officer, Pakenham, South Morang, Sunbury, Tarneit and Truganina.

Councils opposed to the extension of the Growth Areas Boundary and the imposition of the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution are Melton, Casey, Cardinia and Mitchell. Wyndham refuses to comment.

It is apparent that these areas are either under resourced by fire services or not serviced at all. We assume this also goes for ambulance and police. Would the State Government be liable if fire services were not provided and a fire went through the settlement?

The Age reported on 4 July 2009 (Lessons to Learn) on the proceedings of the Bushfire Royal Commission and pointed to urban sprawl as one of the “fatal confluence of factors” that led to Black Saturday.

Cost to Victorians:

The cost of building new homes in the rural fringes of Melbourne is double that of constructing infill dwellings in the inner city. This is the hidden cost of suburban sprawl. This is an unacceptable financial burden for Victorian tax payers to shoulder. The added costs include extra infrastructure such as power, water and transport, as well as higher health costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

The report, commissioned by the State Department of Planning and released in July, cites research that found "for every 1000 dwellings, the cost for infill development (in existing suburbs) is $309 million and the cost of fringe developments is $653 million".

It has been stated by Minister Madden in Parliament (and reported in the Sunday Age 11 October that the funds to be raised by the $95,000 hectares Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution will cover only 15 per cent of total infrastructure costs. The Minister is prepared to sacrifice Green Wedges land that makes Melbourne “livable” and to destroy the livelihoods of many small landowners and farmers for this minor financial return.

Unfair Tax on Land Vendors: The Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution is an unfair, discriminatory tax on family farms and small landowners, even after amendment by the State Government in draft legislation. As we have consistently maintained, the tax needs to be withdrawn and any charges levied at the point of development, consistent with the approach taken in other Australian states. PPL VIC supports the campaigns of “Taxed Out” and as mentioned above held a joint rally on 14 July 2009 to protest against the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution.

Perpetuation of Car Dependency: The plans to construct major freeways/ring roads and the absence of plans for extensive rail networks to serve the new suburbs spells out that the population of Melbourne will remain dependent on cars despite the uncertain future of oil. We are particularly concerned over plans to build the E6 freeway through Woollert. The roadway appears redundant.

Reduction of Arable Land: Given our population crisis and likely food shortages with the drought it is unthinkable that the Government can even be contemplating turning over arable land for housing development. The loss of vegetable farms including prime market garden land in the Westernport Catchment will increase food miles for our produce.

Increase of Green House Gas Emissions: Climate change is the most important moral question of the age and must be at the forefront of our public policy. The State Government appears to have its head in the sand. Compared to other cities in the world Melbourne has one of the highest rates per capita. Our private vehicles and public transport were recently recorded to generate 11 million tonnes of carbon monoxide a year compared with 8.5 tonnes in London. The increase in urban sprawl will worsen our figure.

Accommodation of Population within Existing Urban Growth Boundaries:

No examination has been undertaken of how the increased population can be accommodated in Metropolitan Melbourne.

Suggestions have been made that an inventory should be conducted of development applications which have already been approved by Council within the Urban Growth Boundary but which have not yet been built. Utilizing existing approvals might go some way to addressing the issue.

An inventory also needs to be undertaken of brown field sites and land which could be available for residential development – former transport depots, rail sidings and Commonwealth Government sites eg the Maribyrnong Defence site.

(Ed.) Developers prefer Greenfield Sites because they are cheaper

It is most unfortunate that the practice of “land banking” by developers appears widespread throughout the city. Take for example land on the former Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital site in Parkville which was given to Australand and the Citta Property Group to build a residential development then used for 2 weeks for the 2006 Commonwealth Games Village. The original plans showed a wall of 700 units in a 9 storey block along City Link. The land is still vacant and there have been no attempts to commence building. The developers are said to be waiting until the “market is right.” The truth is that developers prefer green field sites and are unwilling to invest in developing brown field sites.

Request to Committee: PPL VIC urges the Committee to reject approval of the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary and the iniquitous Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution and to develop recommendations for accommodating increased population within the Urban Boundary plus arriving at consensus for determining a sustainable population for Melbourne.

Submission details

This submission was addressed to:

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

Mr George Seitz
Committee Chair
Outer Suburban/Interface Services & Development Committee
C/- Parliament House
Spring Street, Melbourne
VIC 3002

on 19 October 2009
by

Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052

[email protected]

(Grayling; Photo from Wikipedia commons)

Tim Holding, Minister for Water and Tourism, didn't learn much from his brush with death recently, or about the forces of Nature.

Tim Holding fantasised about pizza in freezing wilderness when he got lost recently.

The Thomson River is already stressed under the impact of drought but this plan will go ahead despite Mr Holding conceding that the extra extraction did pose a risk to the health of the river.

Mr Holding acknowledges the extraction could harm the river's Grayling fish population. He is happy to rob more water from the environment by taking from the already flow-stressed Thomson River, risk the viability of endangered native fish stocks and Gippsland's Lakes.

These grayling are listed as threatened species already and listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

The Thomson is a flow stressed river. Diversions for urban and irrigation use have
reduced flows by 50% (Victorian Stressed Rivers Program; CRC 1999) and sometimes
flows in the lower Thomson cease completely in summer (EPA, 2002).

Four of six reaches of the Thomson are rated by the Index of Stream Condition as poor or very poor.

Instead of robbing water from the environment, risking the loss of biodiversity, and the expensive and environmentally threatening desalination plant, we should be limiting our population growth.

The plan for a desalination plant at Williamsons Beach near Wonthaggi, together with water drawn from the Murray-Darling Basin via the Goulburn Valley pipeline, is intended to "drought-proof" Melbourne.

Thomson dam was finished in 1983 and, when full, stored more water for Melbourne than all of the other reservoirs combined. It was to "drought-proof" Melbourne. However, Melbourne's population has already exceeded the level its dams were intended to cater for. No extra catchment areas remain available to be plundered.

Victoria’s population increased by over 92,000 in 2008. According to the DSE,
Victoria’s population is projected to grow to 7.395 million by 2036, or 42 per cent from 2006. The number of Melbourne households is projected to increase by 51 per cent between 2006 and 2036.

Almost one quarter of migrants coming to Australia settle in Melbourne. It is not about the country they originate from, but the fact that they are coming here to live. This is clearly irresponsible and risky and the only people who benefit are big businesses and land developers! The costs of unsustainability are being passed onto the public with soaring costs for water, power, rates and climate change.

Water Minister Tim Holding refused to rule out introducing stage 4 water restrictions as early as Christmas. This would mean no watering of gardens! Melbourne used to be the "Garden City"!

How many times are schemes to "drought-proof" for Melbourne to be revised? We are being dictated to by corporations that want increasing numbers of customers.

For health and safety reasons, if a venue is full then ticket sales should cease!

Surely, if Tim Holding admits that our river systems are stressed, and that our water supplies have been low due to 12 years of drought, we should stabilise our population!

Tim Holding may endanger his own well-being with his private escapades, but surely his risk-taking should not include the public, or our life-supporting ecosystems.

Through incompetence and neglect 110 ha which was recently added to the Pines Flora and Fauna reserve was mismanaged by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability Victoria to the point where nearly all the species it contained have become extinct. Now this land is due to be separated by a huge tollway from the rest of the reserve, despite many bitter protests and submissions from residents and other concerned people, whose hearts are nearly broken. See also related articles

The death of the DARA land.

110 ha of land once belonging to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, known now as 'the DARA land" was recently added to the Pines Flora and Fauna reserve. Through incompetence and neglect it has been mismanaged by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability Victoria to the point where nearly all the species it contained have become extinct. Now, in a crowning act of environmental vandalism,[1] this land is due to be separated by a huge tollway from the rest of the reserve. This is to go ahead, despite many bitter protests and submissions from residents and other concerned people who do not want it.

Here Hans Brunner describes the process by which the species became extinct and pleads for the area to be rehabilitated. It is the least that the State government and SEITA (now renamed the Linking Melbourne Authority) can do. This time there should be transparent aims to increase the fauna species representation to its optimum and reproducible methods to test the success of the operation, so that the public may monitor the effectiveness of it.

Hans Brunner sends a plea to Department of Sustainability and Environment and to Parks Victoria to bring the Dara land back to life again. It can and must be done.

The future of the DARA land can be so much brighter than its past

The Dara land is the 110 ha that has been added to the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve. It borders on Ballarto Rd and McClelland Drive and joins on to the golf course, North-East of the original Pines. The proposed Bypass will separate the two parcels of land.

Some twenty years ago the Dara land, then occupied by the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, was teaming with wildlife. There were large colonies of Swamp Rats, lots of Bandicoot diggings everywhere, there were Wallabies, Ringtail- and Brush-tail Possums, Echidnas, an occasional Koala and Sugar Glider and only a very small number of Rabbits. This was the result of regular poisoning of foxes and rabbits and the total absence of dogs. Boundary fences were inspected weekly and repaired immediately.

After a large wildfire, it took about two to three years for these animals to recover to their original numbers, but they did so with the help of ongoing fox and rabbit control and the absence of dogs.

After Dept of Agriculture left, Parks Vic and DSE allowed ferals to run amuck

After the Dept, of Agriculture vacated the Dara land Parks Victoria was appointed to manage this land. Immediately fox and rabbit poisoning stopped, a number of gates were erected to allow people with their dogs to enter as well as foxes and cats. The bandicoots were the first to suffer. It took only about twelve months for them to totally disappear from the whole of the Dara land. Where there were once large colonies of Swamp Rats one could find only the mounds of soil where they used to be. Rabbit numbers increased and fox and dog foot prints became prevalent not only along the walking tracks but also throughout the bush land off the tracks.

20 yrs ago foxes' and domestic dogs' scats revealed diet of endangered fauna

During my many visits, I collected scats of foxes, cats and dogs containing hairs and identified them in order to determine the prey species.

Since we know already too well what foxes prey on I concentrated on dog scats with hairs of prey species. It is well known that some people encourage their dogs to hunt for rabbits in the Reserve and the dogs will than go for anything that moves including native animals. Bandicoots are especially vulnerable to predation as they have to dig deep holes to get to their food and then can easy be ambushed while doing so. They also have not got large ears like the rabbits have to hear predators approaching. Subsequently I established what the contents were of twenty four dog scats. Of these, 8 had Rabbit, 4 had Wallaby, 4 had Bandicoot, 3 had Brush-tail Possum, 3 had Ring-tail Possum and 2 had Swamp Rat. Fox scats had a higher proportion of Rabbits but preyed on all the other animals as well and included some Sugar Gliders and lots of lizards.

Now the same scats show diet of mostly rabbits

Fox and dog scats now contain manly rabbit and a few ring-tail possums as all the other small native animals have almost totally disappeared.

This was not helped when Parks Victoria control burnt a large area of prime bandicoot habitat and before this area could recover an adjacent area was also burnt. This resulted in the absence of all the animals that used to live there and consisted of about fifty percent of the whole Dara bush land.

Active fox dens are now distributed throughout the whole area and there is no hope for the native animals to become re-established again.

The ultimate blame lies with DSE and PV

The ultimate blame lies with DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment)[2] and PV (Parks Victoria)[3]. They both were unwilling to protect the nationally endangered bandicoots and with it all the other native mammals, birds, lizards and frogs. How can they completely neglect and mismanage this prime habitat for not only this rare bandicoot but also for Koalas, Sugar Gliders, Swamp Rats, Echidnas, Brush- and Ring-tail Possums and all the other native wildlife! We have to urgently go back to the way the Dara land was managed by the Agriculture Dept.

In the absence of dogs, the control of foxes, cats and rabbits could than be carried out completely un-restricted and efficiently.

I plead with the DSE and PV to bring the Dara land back to life again. It can and must be done. If I had time, exactly the same story could be told about the Western half of the Pines where beside the predators and rabbits motorbike riders cause havoc to Wallabies, birds and other wildlife.

Hans Brunner

[1] Works undertaken by the Linking Melbourne Authority (once called SEITA) with the support of the Brumby government and your taxes.

[2] The Department of Sustainability and Environment has almost no staff devoted to actively protecting and sustaining healthy biodiverse fauna populations. DSE seems to be far more interested in pushing human population growth by stimulating high immigration, providing land to developers and pushing through infrastructure programs to the detriment of our indigenous fauna and the loss of green spaces. DSE is dominated by agriculturalists and property development oriented planners and technicians.

[3] Parks Victoria is a public authority (akin to a government department), funded from three major sources; payments from the State Government Budget (your taxes), an annual charge based on a property rate levied on all metropolitan properties, and user fees.
It is managed by a board with the following members:
Rob Gerrand, BA, FAMI, FAICD
Lois Appleby
Clarice Ballenden, BA (Hons) M.Ed.
Damien Bell
Rod Gowans, PSM.
Ken King, Dip. For., B.Sc (Hons)
Noel Harvey, OAM, MAICD
Jennifer Labourne, B.Bus, FCPA
Jan Mahoney BA, PhD, FAICD

What are these people doing with our money?

VicForests sued for illegal logging Tuesday 25th August 2009

Today, Environment East Gippsland commenced proceedings against VicForests in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

A writ was filed with the court this morning and has just been served on VicForests.

“We ask the Court for a permanent injunction to stop VicForests from logging Brown Mountain” said Jill Redwood, Coordinator of EEG. “We also ask the Court to declare that the logging of Brown Mountain is unlawful”.

Brown Mountain is known habitat for at least five species of wildlife listed as vulnerable or threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

The Court has not yet set a date for the hearing of the case.

Greg Barber: Disallowed Bulk water Entitlements lack detail, provide no environmental warranty

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- It is very clear to me what the impact of this motion being passed will be, and that is nil. The Greens' only interest in this particular resolution is to attempt to get the government to the negotiating table to deliver on some of the rhetoric that was promised at the beginning, and for that matter to deliver an outcome for the environment.

"Lip-service to the environment has been the defining characteristic of this entire debate."

This project started as a duplicitous political exercise and it is going to finish the same way, and everything that the coalition and government speakers have said today just reinforces that. We are in an environmental crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin, and lip service to the environment has been the defining characteristic of this entire debate. What the Greens are trying to achieve here is a skerrick of improvement in the Murray-Darling Basin's current ecological state.

If the government in its initial promises was going to be delivering on that, it would be delivering it here today chapter and verse in the text of this agreement. It is clear it is not because aside from some nebulous words -- 75 gigalitres to the environment -- there is no environmental warranty here, and I will spend most of my contribution describing why that is the case.

Government is refusing to make its 'business case' available for scrutiny

Certainly, though, this issue does deserve financial scrutiny. I have already moved a reference to a parliamentary committee whereby that can occur, but the one thing we need as legislators, and the one thing that every Victorian should have access to, is the business case -- the government's fundamental decision-making document -- for this project, and it is the one thing that government will never, ever hand over.

Desal plant and North-South Pipeline related

We saw that yesterday where the government, in record time, turned around a request for the business case relating to the desalination plant, and since both this project and the desalination plant are feeding into the same group of water users, the business case for one and the business case for the other relate directly to each other. That is obvious and fundamental. In fact, it is the entire basis on which water policy, in its requirement to be commercial for water users, is founded. But as long as the government point-blank refuses to tell Victorians what this project costs and what it will deliver by way of water dollars per megalitre, we cannot even begin to have that debate.

Destroying farming communities

The social impact is important. It is unfolding before our eyes across the Murray-Darling Basin. The social ecology of irrigation farmers is in turmoil as much as the other environmental values that the Greens would frequently speak of. But again this project is but one driver of that.

How it is occurring is not something that was examined up-front, nor is there a single source to understand that if you are concerned about the social impact of this project, which we are. The social impacts of this and the effects of climate change together are profound.

Environmental costing of project avoided and no responsibility taken - "Suck it and see"

I will turn back to the environmental question which has bobbed up and down in the political debate as we have gone along and never once has been definitively nailed down. What is the environmental cost of this project? This represents a new low for the government in the way it is willing to treat the environmental issues surrounding a project. The best illustration of that is in the Minister for Planning's decision under the Environmental Effects Act where he gives his reasons for not requiring an EES. It states:
“Any impacts of modified hydrological regimes on aquatic and riparian ecosystems are unlikely to be amenable to detailed, predictive studies (such as which might form part of an EES), but are instead suited to mitigation through adaptive management of water flows to maintain ecological values.”

There is a lot of jargon there. To break it down for you: 'We have no idea about the impacts of this project; therefore, we will track them as we go along. Therefore, why bother doing an EES?'. That is a process issue, but it is major concern to the Greens in the Parliament because we are here to legislate and when the legislation we deal with and rely on allows that kind of behaviour by a government, the process issue is very important.

Approval from Federal Government still not granted

Secondly, this project has not yet received approval from the federal government.

As with a number of other projects, the government likes to get the thing under way, sign the contracts, do every other approval it needs, get the guy sitting on the back of the bulldozer with the engine running, and then say, 'Let's get approval from the federal government for matters of national environmental significance'.

The reason I say this one is a new low is that they have gone past that and have already started the works, and they are arguing, perhaps correctly, that the works per se -- the lining of the channels, the installation of meters and so forth -- in and of themselves have no environmental significance, or minimal environmental significance; it is how we use the water operationally afterwards that has the environmental significance. The government has used that with a compliant federal minister to say, 'We are going to build the thing and then we will ask for environmental approval from the federal minister'.

Government jugganaut designed to dishearten and overwhelm democratic objection

This is all designed to keep the politics rolling, to keep pushing the thing along to overwhelm everybody else, to dishearten anybody who might want to put a contrary view, to fight this issue, to stand up, and that is why I say the politics here are absolutely duplicitous.

The Coalition needs to come clean as well

But they are equally so from the coalition. With the greatest respect to my next-door neighbour here, Mr Hall, who was sincere in the statements that he made, he almost completely ducked the issue of what the coalition would do. He hinted at one point that if there was a genuine audit of the savings and the savings were found to be real, then maybe they could be shared 75-75-75 amongst the three users.

Mr Hall -- Simultaneously.

Mr BARBER -- Simultaneously. He did not say, 'That is the coalition's position'. We just sort of sensed that that might be a good idea. That is not good enough because we are in the run-up to the election now.

He talked on a number of occasions about promises that the government had made and broken, but he did not take the opportunity to make any himself.

This is the opportunity to do that because we are putting together in this document the bulk entitlement which controls the allocation of water in this basin.

It is simply not enough for the wannabe, alternative government -- the opposition -- to say the government has broken its promises. Here it should be saying, 'This is the bulk entitlement. This is the alternative bulk entitlement that we will move if we are the government in 18 months time'.

The Real impacts

I now turn to the real impacts. There is more than enough information in the proponent's documents -- that is, the Northern Victorian Irrigation Renewal Project (NVIRP) documents -- to start to shine a light on the real environmental impacts. Some aspects of that document give us a real and scary picture of what might happen.

Other documents simply attempt to model it, fail, say data is insufficient and gloss over it.

The Minister for Planning's conditions then reflect this by saying, 'We will suck it and see with this project'.

For example, we know a large part of the savings that are meant to be generated here are from outfalls -- that is, situations where water is going down an irrigation channel and for various reasons cannot go to the place it is supposed to go. It gets to the end of the channel and overflows into what is normally a low point in the district, which in the past has often been a natural wetland. It has also been a river or sometimes a drain that has been constructed -- those drains go somewhere and sometimes they end up in rivers or wetlands. On other occasions the water is sucked out of the drain and used for some other lower value agricultural use -- that is, an agricultural use that requires a lower value or reliability of water.

The document details specific instances where these so-called savings will in fact be savings at the expense of the environment. The government is taking water from the environment and then saying, 'We are great guys. We are giving 75 gigalitres to the environment'. While that might work nicely as a book exercise and may not be able to be interrogated terribly well through a question without notice -- and I have asked a number of those over a number of years seeking data on this project as we have gone along -- it does not stand up when you start to look at some hard data.

Consider Lake Elizabeth in the Kerang Lakes which prior to this investigation was receiving outfalls of 400 megalitres a year, according to the estimates available. That is 400 megalitres of real water; that is measured water. Remember when we talk about 75 gigalitres, we are talking about a 75-gigalitre entitlement. So far this year, from what I can see on Goulburn-Murray Water's website, entitlements for every system are shaping up to be zero.

With the traditional irrigation season having already started, allocations for the Murray, Broken, Goulburn, Campaspe, Loddon and Bullarook Creek systems are zero. A 75-gigalitre entitlement times 0 per cent allocation equals zero water. The practical effect of this bulk entitlement being passed now for this coming season is zero. That is why the Greens are opposing it: in practical terms, leaving out the process issues I started to address, it makes no difference right now. The government, if it wanted to, could stand up right now and move a motion to defer this debate and enter into some negotiations with the Greens to achieve a genuine environmental outcome and even a better outcome than envisaged.

By the way, it is interesting to look at historical seasonal allocations for different water systems because as recently as 2001-02 a number of these systems were getting 200 per cent of their water allocations. As recently as 2005-06 systems were receiving 170 per cent of their water allocations.

In the last two years -- taking the Goulburn and the Murray as the two biggest systems -- the Murray allocation has fallen from 144 per cent to 95 per cent to 43 per cent to quite possibly 0 per cent this year, while the Goulburn allocation has fallen from 100 per cent to 29 per cent to 57 per cent to 0 per cent as far as we know. That is how fast, from an irrigator's point of view, this problem appears to have snuck up on the government. From an environmental entitlement point of view, the problem is just as bad if not worse because environmental entitlements, even when they are high security, suffer the same effects. All the existing environmental entitlements that are sitting there as accounting entries, if you like, in Lake Eildon and other lakes are about to get zero allocations.

Coming back to Lake Elizabeth, it is interesting to note that the outfalls that were historically occurring into Lake Elizabeth had started to be withdrawn by Goulburn-Murray Water even before the NVIRP arrived. In a number of places in this document the NVIRP proponent notes that the impact from reduced channel outfalls as a result of its project is less because Goulburn-Murray Water has already been quietly withdrawing that water. That really got me going, so I invited Goulburn-Murray Water to our Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration inquiry and put to it that for a number of years now it has been doing projects similar to NVIRP but not as large. I asked if it had ever sought environmental approval from the federal minister. 'Absolutely', it said, but when it went away and checked, it turned out it had not.

It turned out it had written to the federal environment minister saying, 'This is what we are intending to do', and he said, 'Well, if you do not do a formal referral, it is your risk. It is your risk that your project could be found to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance and therefore you would be in trouble'.

I then went away and did an FOI request on this so-called strategic measurement program that Goulburn-Murray Water had been running prior to NVIRP coming in and introducing its program. It was able to give me details of the water that it had been measuring since 2006-07 for dozens of different outfalls. In some cases we were able to match those outfalls to wetlands, particularly those with high environmental values. In other cases they go into rivers and may form part of the environmental flow of rivers. In yet other cases it is not clear where they go.

When you tot it up, it turns out that 14 gigalitres of water was going out of the system when Goulburn-Murray Water first started monitoring these outfalls. Through monitoring and other activities that Goulburn-Murray Water has done, it has got that down to 5 gigalitres. When it added more monitoring in another set of outfalls, it found 17 gigalitres going out of an outfall; as I said, it has reduced that down to 5 gigalitres.

Something like 11 gigalitres of water has already been withdrawn from wetlands, rivers and possibly other parts of the environment without federal environmental approval. It was a precursor. It was a pilot project to this NVIRP project, if you like, and it was done on the sly. We have to remember when we are talking numbers like this that this is 11 gigalitres of actual water. Depending on which system it was in, if that system at that time was on 50 per cent allocation, it could have been double that amount in terms of allocations if we are trying to compare that to 75 gigalitres.

No Federal Environment approval but trying to operate anyhow

I think it is a deadly serious issue to have a government entity operating out there without federal environmental approval and just thinking it can do things on the quiet. It is only because this NVIRP project, which is much bigger in scale, came along that Goulburn-Murray Water started to get touchy about federal environmental matters.

However, as I said, the federal minister has not yet received a referral for this project. Nonetheless the government wants the Greens to pre-approve the water. It will do the EES later. It will not even be a state EES; the government will just measure it as it goes and provide some water for those wetlands -- in fact, the government will not even assess environmental values right now.

No structure appears to be in place to meet Min for Planning's conditions

The government could have, through its lead speaker, jumped up and said it is doing a number of things that the Minister for Planning required it to do. I quote from his conditions:

“Before operation of relevant works commences, NVIRP must prepare a framework for protection of aquatic and riparian ecological values through management of water allocations and flows ... having regard to written advice to be sought from the expert review panel ...”

I cannot find any evidence that that panel has been created. It may have been, but its outcomes are not available to us. It is not on the NVIRP website, and I cannot find it anywhere else. The conditions continue:
“... and following consultation with the Minister for Environment and Climate Change.”

The minister was sitting in the chamber a minute ago, but I did not hear him speak on this matter.

The following condition is the kind of thing that might start to encourage us that there is an environmental outcome here. It requires:
“A statement of environmental commitments or performance requirements in relation to managing the ecological consequences of hydrological changes arising from implementation of NVIRP, including to avoid any contribution to diminishing ecological values in waterways and wetlands. This statement is to describe arrangements for the sourcing, allocation and management of water required to mitigate the project's potential ecological impacts.”

That is the statement I would like to see, but I do not think it is there. If it were, we would be specifically embodying its outcomes in this bulk entitlement.

Elsewhere in the bulk entitlement there are some very specific provisions relating to matters that we are not contesting here today. One says that savings from the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline will be allocated to Little Lake Boort via the Waranga Western Channel up to a total of 300 megalitres during May to September inclusive every year. That is a very specific entitlement that will pass today because it is not part of what we are attempting to disallow and it is designed to protect Little Lake Boort. We have no such guarantee for Lake Elizabeth.

Those who are interested in Lake Elizabeth might be aware that it was originally the home of a particular fish which is a favourite fish of Mr Drum's -- the Murray hardyhead. This fish became locally extinct in Lake Elizabeth a couple of years ago, around about the same time that Goulburn-Murray Water was withdrawing water. It continues to withdraw this water, and this project proposes to continue this without the guarantee of putting water back.

From thousands of wetlands to only 23 and these are not even guaranteed

We could go through every one of these high-value wetlands -- these 23 priority wetlands, as they call them -- but

we have to be aware that this assessment itself started with thousands of wetlands across the whole Goulburn-Murray area. The government then rejected most of them for further study by saying, 'We will just look at the high-value wetlands', and reduced the number to under 100, and then it ditched a bunch of others and said, 'There are really only 23 that are affected in this way, so what we will do is come up with these environmental watering plans afterwards'.

Government members have come in here and asked, 'Don't you know we are giving 75 gigalitres to the environment?'. No, I do not know. This bulk entitlement reads more like a press release. It simply gives out shares -- 75 gigalitres to Melbourne, 75 gigalitres to the environment and 75 gigalitres to irrigators -- and says, 'Trust us. We will do the right thing' ex post facto.

Every reason to distrust this government on water

If you were going to trust the government on this, you would go back to an earlier issue -- Ms Broad has quite a history on this -- and that is the Snowy. Does Ms Broad remember that promise? It could not have been a more high-profile exercise. The promise was that 21 per cent of the Snowy River's flow would be restored. The then Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria, Bob Carr and Steve Bracks, went up to the headwaters, had their photo taken, jumped over the river, opened up the sluice gates -- even the Man from Snowy River was there. It could not have been a higher profile exercise. The promise was that 21 per cent of the Snowy River's flow would be restored. The experts' request was for 28 per cent as a minimum -- as usual, you get even less than what the experts say is a minimum. What are we getting today? A few per cent. You have to scratch your head. How can an exercise like that, which attracted so much fanfare, deliver so little 10 years later? Think of the Snowy when you hear that claim about 75 gigalitres, because this measure will be about as effective.

Coalition needs to stop treating this as a political football: the issues are momentous

There are issues about the calculation methods and how the savings are derived. Again it is all ex post facto. It is not clear up to this point whether the Minister for Water himself has actually complied with the conditions for approval of the Minister for Planning, let alone the conditions that the federal government might have. It is certainly not clear to me what alternative the coalition is offering. It could have announced another policy. It could have given someone an exclusive last night, and then this morning we would be coming in here and saying, 'This is how the coalition will have the bulk entitlement so as to make future provision for water coming down the north-south pipeline'. According to Ms Broad, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mr Baillieu, said, 'In a crisis, we look at all options'. It would be possible to write this bulk entitlement to include triggers whereby the water could be used in a particular crisis, but we do not have any details about this.

It is not good enough in the run-up to an election to simply treat this issue as a political football with the two alternative governments trying to wedge each other, then getting wedged and then trying to wedge again, because I have seen those exercises before. The people who get wedged are the people in the wider community -- and the environment, but the environment rarely has its voice.

What is being debated here is not the whole story. It will not solve the problem. Neither option offers any warranty to the environment or, for that matter, the livelihoods of people in towns and communities who depend on water. Neither option guarantees a future for the Goulburn Valley nor offers hope or a way forward

For that reason the Greens will support the disallowance of particular sections of the bulk entitlement. Members of the coalition were well aware that the Greens would have moved this motion if coalition members had not. However, neither that outcome nor what the government is offering is satisfactory; neither option offers any warranty to the environment or, for that matter, the livelihoods of people in towns and communities who depend on water. Neither option guarantees a future for the Goulburn Valley nor offers hope or a way forward, even in the sense that it will be a difficult crisis but we have a direction for a way through. I get the sense this issue is not over.

North-South pipeline is more a political project than a hydrological one

The government had the option to sit down with the Greens and go through these issues. We have requested information through freedom of information, we have asked questions without notice, we have raised matters in the media, we have written to federal minister Peter Garrett, and we have been actively engaged in this issue. But because it is a politically derived project, there was never any sense that anything was going to stop it; it was just bound to keep going.

Government members have made it quite easy in some ways for the coalition -- and maybe for the Greens, and for Mr Kavanagh; I do not know -- because they have already said,

Government: 'We will simply issue a section 51 licence from another section of the Water Act'. There is no doubt that that explains why government members are not the least bit interested in addressing our concerns. It is because they think they can get out of it through another legal avenue.

However, it is interesting that in that section of the act the matters the minister must consider before issuing the licence are the same matters that must be considered before gazetting a bulk entitlement.

Maybe we won't get answers until downstream the project lands itself in court

Licences issued under that section are subject to appeal, so it will be interesting to see if the exact matters we have argued through the legislative process end up being argued in a court somewhere, where perhaps some of the facts we have been so desperately trying to expose can for once be tested. Perhaps the people in the community can be offered not just an environmental and social future but some answers to the questions they have been so regularly and constantly asking.

Source: Bulk water entitlements disallowed
Bulk Entitlements lack detail, provide no environmental warranty

Greens, Greg Barber MLC
12/08/2009

Order would have breached committments regarding Foodbowl Modernisation Project

(The Foodbowl Modernisation Project has problems of its own - see articles.)

The Victorian Liberal Nationals Coalition has successfully moved to disallow parts of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Further Amending Order 2009 that would have breached commitments the Brumby Government made to the community regarding the Foodbowl Modernisation Project, according to Member for Northern Victoria Region Wendy Lovell.

Ms Lovell, who is vehemently opposed to the north-south pipeline, spoke about the disallowance motion in the Legislative Council after it was introduced by the Coalition this morning.

The Coalition’s motion disallowed parts of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Further Amending Order 2009 because it breached three key commitments the Brumby Government made to food producers, the environment and Victorian communities.

To go ahead would break promise to protect health of Snowy and Murray rivers through the Water for Rivers Agreement

“The Brumby Government would have broken its promise to provide savings from the Central Goulburn 1234 Modernisation Project to protect the health of the Snowy and Murray rivers through the Water for Rivers Agreement,” Ms Lovell said.

“According to the Order, Brumby Government has also reneged on its commitment to split savings from Stage 2 of the Foodbowl Modernisation Project 50/50 between farmers and the environment, and will instead distribute savings ‘based on future negotiations with the Commonwealth.’

Inadequate auditing of 'foodbowl modernisation process'

“The Order also failed to establish a proper measure and audit process for water savings made from the foodbowl modernisation process.

Instead of an independent audit, the Order bizarrely stated water savings would be calculated ‘in accordance with calculation methods approved by the Minister for Water’, therefore at the Minister’s discretion.

“The Order clearly breached commitments the government made to the environment, food producers and Victorian communities and shows the Brumby Government is prepared to place the future of farming communities and our rivers in jeopardy for the sake of sending 75 gigalitres of northern Victoria’s water to Melbourne."

Yet more unforgivable promise-breaking

(For another unforgivable Brumby-whopper see "The Battle for Brown Mountain is on")

“The Brumby Government has already broken the ultimate promise, which Labor made in 2006 when it said it did not support taking water from north of the Great Dividing Range to meet Melbourne’s future needs, and the Coalition will work diligently to hold the government to its promises to the environment and northern Victorian food producers,” Ms Lovell said.

Source: BRUMBY’S BULK ENTITLEMENT FOR NORTH-SOUTH PIPELINE DISALLOWED
Wendy Lovell Liberal Leader of the Upper House
Wednesday, 12 August 2009

Suez Environnement estimates the Victorian desal plant will generate more than $2 billion in revenue over the next 30 years. With ADF Suez’ existing record of environmental destruction in the Amazon, their submission should be dismissed.

The Age - Desal firm logged the Amazon

GDF Suez's majority is owned by Energia Sustentavel. Energia Sustentavel is building a 3,300 megawatt hydroelectric dam in Brazil. The project is part of the government's Accelerated Growth Program and has had its share of false starts since receiving its environmental building permits earlier this year. Local farmers have been blocking access to the road leading to the construction site since early Monday morning (27th July), impeding workers from entering the project

This globalisation of our water supplies will be funded by the users, Victoria's citizens.

Our capitalistic "growth is good" mentality needs to be given a reality check!

With no discussion of limiting growth, it will mean that our pockets will continue to be raided to pay for one of life's essentials - water. More coastline sites will need to be acquired and developed, greenhouse gas emissions will soar and marine ecosystems could be irreversibly damaged.

It is us, the customers, who will be paying for the demands of our growing and thirsty population.

The massive Thomson dam was finished in 1983 and was supposed to "drought proof" Melbourne. Our population has already exceeded the level its dams were intended to cater for and is still being increased, despite our environmental and our natural resource limitations.

Household water bills are expected to more than double over the next five years, and along with ETS, utilities will continue to rise as our natural resources become more expensive to produce.

1.2 million tonnes of greenhouse gases will be emitted each year once it starts boosting Melbourne's water supply. Limiting greenhouse gases is just given lip-service!

The plant will take in 480 billion litres of seawater and pump back 280 billion litres of saline concentration each year. The effect of this pollution on the marine environment and biodiversity is unknown.

The cost of the plant and the ultimate clean-up will be passed onto consumers, and the benefits of continual population growth will be reaped by our State government. More people means that more taxes and charges can be elicited, and businesses and developers will continue to thrive!

With common sense, conservation, mandatory water tanks and more recycling, we could survive on our present water harvesting schemes but not if we continually push our numbers past natural limits.
However, logic is lacking in our present leaders!

Visit Watershed Victoria's website.

Protectors of Public Lands. When governments fail democracy, you need organisations like this one. Please consider joining to save your state from developers, more debt and worse.

Victoria's urban growth boundary extension and demise of green wedges.

Julianne Bell, of Protectors of Public Lands writes:

Here is some information which you might have already seen on the Urban Growth Boundary Extension.

This will involve requisitioning 50,000 hectares for residential development and new roads with extraordinary implications for environmental damage and destruction of wildlife, loss of western grasslands, increase greenhouse gas emissions, loss of arable farm land, destruction of green wedges, compulsory acquisition of land, increased tax burdens and the go-for-growth-at any-costs philosophy. Also the erosion of our democracy when the elected State Government bypasses Parliament and local councils over planning and environment issues.

Why you should make yet another submission

We urge you to make a submission to the Growth Areas Authority. We should not have to do this but sometimes it is worthwhile.e.g. the Eddington Review on the East West Link through inner Melbourne and prime parkland. There were over 2,300 submissions mostly opposing the road tunnels/freeways and advocating public transport funding. (The Government was stunned at the response) Note that the EW Link was dropped from Victorian Transport Plan.

The "public information sessions" are drop in times to get information. I rang 1800 090 789 for information and hope to be sent a DVD with the information. Google Department of Planning and Community Development, Growth Areas Authority or Urban Growth Boundary.

The Government is seeking public feedback on the following proposals:

* Melbourne's revised Urban Growth Boundary and land designated for development.
* An alignment for the Regional Rail Link (west of Werribee to Deer Park).
* An alignment for the Outer Metropolitan Ring / E6 Transport Corridor.
* The boundaries and management of proposed grassland reserves in Melbourne's west.

Public feedback is also sought on the findings set out in the Strategic Impact Assessment Report for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

According to instructions there are three ways you can provide your submission:

* Make your submission online (http://www.vic.gov.au/planningmelbourne); or
* Send your submission by post to the Growth Areas Authority, at PO BOX 1166, Carlton, Victoria 3053
* Hand deliver your submission to the Growth Areas Authority at Level 6, 35 Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000

Submissions close at 5:00 pm on Friday, 17 July 2009.

All submissions will be considered by the Victorian Government before it makes any decisions. (!)

Candobetter Editor: Protectors of Public Lands needs more active hands on deck. Please consider joining, because only through organisations like this, can Victorians organise to combat the evil Victorian Government's abject railroading of our taxes to supplement the style of living to which the Growth Lobby developers have become accustomed, at the expense of nature itself.

The Age, June 25th

Planning Minister Justin Madden should consult the people of Victoria if he wants a planning strategy with the needs of individuals and Victorian families at its heart. He would discover that a bulging Melbourne population is not in the interests of Victorian families at all, and adding to our urban obesity without considering what the people want is actually snobbery on his part! Why isn’t there a debate?

With 2000 new people entering Victoria each week, "sustainability" has become a throw-away word with no meaning, and “affordability” is something that most families are struggling with!

A burgeoning population will not bring "economic benefits" to the average person. Most people know that the contrary is true. As natural resources become increasingly scarce, they also become more expensive. Land and housing prices have soared, and water prices are set to sky-rocket.

We already have had the fatalities due to people choosing to live in more open outer suburbs, close to Kinglake National Park! Most people don't want to live in sterile and car-dependant outer suburban housing estates, and high density living is not "family friendly". Our parks and reserves are under threat from human impacts and fires due to the urban sprawl, and people seeking more open spaces.

Fertile farming lands closer to Melbourne are being consumed for housing, and vulnerable wildlife and biodiversity habitat will be become more threatened. Our connection with Nature will further diminish, and so will our ecological life-support system!

Adding more people to Victoria will not solve one problem , and the growth will continue to destroy our biodiversity and remaining wildlife habitat. Population growth with not stop at 5 million but will keep blowing-out to 6, 7...10 million!

Marvellous Melbourne, one of the most "liveable places in the world", under our Brumby's Melbourne@5Million plan, is under threat! Justin Madden’s accusations of “cultural snobbery” are because he wants to grow Melbourne boundaries, and our suburbs, as resources for land developers and the building industry, guaranteed Labor supporters!

Word is that Melbourne is getting its 1 million more ten years early and that the Vic Government is in a panic because it has no idea how many permanent new guests have taken up its foolhardy invitations to come and stay. Who the hell is responsible?

Melbourne 2008: Living in a destruction zone

Once Melbourne number plates bore the motto, "The Garden State."
Then we got Kennett's formula, "Victoria on the Move." It sounded like some kind of unnecessary laxative, prescribed by a mad surgeon. Kennett tried to beat population up and, unfortunately for us, stopped the Victorian diaspora to Queensland. I guess he prepared the way for what Bracks did to Melbourne. Him and the editors and senior writers of the Fairfax and Murdoch press, who nagged shamelessly for population growth.

Since the Bracks Population Summit (2002) the Victorian government have ranted continuously and illogically about how we 'have' to have 1 million more Victorians. For local councils, population Projections exist in two forms:

Council data only go to 2011
ABS "Victoria in the Future" (VIF) series go to 2031.
But ...
The ABS has just discontinued VIF figures in circumstances which could mean that Victoria's actual growth has overshot both target and projections and has shot into the stratosphere. The word is that we are getting our 1 million more ten years early and that the Victorian government is in a panic because it has no idea how many permanent new guests have taken up its foolhardy invitations to come and live here.

This is almost certainly the reason for the hasty attempts to introduce draconian new "no-go", "slow-go" and "go-go" residential areas (now described as "areas of 'limited change', 'incremental change' and 'substantial change'.

“What I tell you three times is true.”
(Lewis Carrol, The Hunting of the Snark)

One of my most difficult tasks in writing about these matters is to overcome the propaganda which says that we must have economic growth and that for economic growth we must have population growth.

The Federal and State governments and the news-media repeat this all the time, despite much contrary evidence, and most people believe it because they have no other source of information.

On the one hand the State Government actively seeks to attract more and more immigrants to Melbourne.

On the other, it pretends that population growth is some irresistible force over which it has no control and for which we must all make way no matter what the demands.

Verify this by going to the Victorian Government’s immigration pages at http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au
Here's a sample of www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au:

and there is a special page to assist private immigration agents.

Yes, your government is really working overtime to overpopulate this country.

Alice in Victoria

Asking the public to accept massive intensification of infrastructure, huge cost increases, and loss of rights and space, and nature, on the grounds of a responsibility to reduce greenhouse emissions whilst bearing government imposed, unnecessary population growth is an Alice in Wonderland task.

Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (Alice in Wonderland.)

But the Government is asking of the public to believe impossible things through the Melbourne 2030 program. Even the so-called independent auditors of Melbourne 2030 keep up the ridiculous charade:

Whilst recognising that almost everyone except developers hates Melbourne 2030, the ‘auditors’ of it write in their ‘independent report’:

“At the same time, local communities must be prepared to take a broad metropolitan view that recognises the necessity of urban consolidation,” they write, giving the reason as:

“(…)the urgent housing need resulting from unprecedented population increase and the need to reduce travel and greenhouse emissions to meet our responsibilities towards climate change.”

But even the Auditing Committee shows some unease, although not enough to save Melbourne or to question all the growth. They wrote:

“The recently released report of the Ministerial Working Group Making Local Policy Stronger (June 2007) and the subsequent State Government Five Point Priority Action Plan recognised community concerns in relation to existing residential zones. It proposed a way forward by enabling the identification of ‘no-go’, ‘slow-go’ and ‘go-go’ residential areas (now described as areas of ‘limited change’, ‘incremental change’ and ‘substantial change’) (...)”

“We would caution strongly, however, that the implementation of the five point action plan will not ease community tension unless local communities play a significant role in the application of new zones.”

Is conning the public going to make up for oil depletion and water scarcity?

Analyse the problem:

• Growing the population and expanding infrastructure will increase the number of car trips and the distance travelled.
• Modern high-rises are power-hungry.
• Building upwards increases the electrical power requirements for air conditioning, heating, drying clothing, moving things and people up and down in lifts and pumping water upwards.
• It is harder to cool and heat high-rises and it is harder to cool large, dense cities.
• Reducing vegetation reduces rainfall and cooling.
• Reducing access to land deprives people of access to vital resources when governments fail (as they invariably do.)
• Our Victorian government has already failed us by overshooting our water supply. It has attempted to supplement that supply by costly, power-hungry technologies, notably desalination. It has undertaken in ignorance an impossible promise to deliver these with alternative technologies.

Analyse the propaganda

We are running out of water, fuel, and affordable food; native flora and fauna are threatened, and democracy has been sacrificed to growth.

Driving these problems is Melbourne 2030 in its role as a vehicle for imposing massive population growth.

But what is driving Melbourne 2030?

Population growth via immigration is not, as we are led to believe, a kind response to the starving millions of the world.

And it is not to create a better world for the rest of us.

• Apart from a small number of refugees, the immigration program is actually all profit-driven by big business in Australia. The profit goes to a corporate and investor caste well out of the reach of the middle and the working classes.

• The number one profiteers in population growth in Australia are international property developers, which include Finance, construction, real-estate, engineering.

The 2002 Bracks Population Summit …

…was largely auspiced by Property Developers, in APop (The Australian Population Institute) and mortgage financiers. As well as Australia’s mainstream Press – Fairfax and Murdoch - which own www.realestate.com and www.domain.com.au, Mr Richard Pratt and Mr Steve Vizard, both involved in criminal activities for financial gain, were very prominent in this event.

Perhaps the two biggest peak bodies currently coordinating government lobbying on population growth to advantage the industries they represent are:
• The Property Council of Australia
• The Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (working with the Scanlon Foundation and the Australian Multicultural Foundation.

Here are the main aims of the Property Council of Australia, from their own document, "Powerhouse 2010 Update" downloadable as a powerpoint file here

Don't you love it! Melbourne - and the rest of Australia - under permanent construction.
Ah, the excitement of choking traffic in the mornings; the challenge of breathing in that dust.
The joy of watching your favourite piece of nature paved over.
The engagement of foregoing sleep to write useless submissions to your local member and state government.

Gee, our taxes at work! 33% of my wages. And then, on top of that, there are those rising council rates, that burgeoning homelessness, those skyrocketing rents, those outrageous property prices, that choking traffic...

And, here is their latest 'branch' member - the Victorian Government.

The Problem: Organising against population growth, dispossession and life-threatening hardship as oil and water deplete.

The mainstream media and government are corporatised and represent the interests of the corporate world. We cannot rely on them for information, guidance or to organise. We need to communicate outside of them: Internet, word of mouth, books, films, meetings and markets.

Organising requires comunication between neighbours and kin and power at a local level.

Default human social structure is along kinship lines of family and clan.

• Local Communities with a history together and especially with intact or strong kinship structures have the best chance of organising to survive well.

• Current land-use planning and population programs structurally split- up communities and prevent them from organising.

We need to challenge local laws that stop us having livestock and water for growing food.

• We need to re-design our communities so that we can grow food and keep domestic animals.

• It is vital to get back and conserve full use of suburban land and water. So look out for ways to do this.

The government is public-private corporatising rural land and giving more and cheaper water to their agribusiness program. Agribusiness does not care about you and me; agribusiness quotidienly watches people starve. That is why we have to fight government attempts to retain our water for other uses. We need it.

Laws should be primarily for benefit of local communities, then integrated into region and continent

Inheritance and Land-tenure systems need reform along Roman-law lines, like Western Continental Europe.

Roman-style laws
• Preserve land within families
• Share land equally between men and women
• Minimise land fragmentation and speculation

Basically this means that our inheritance system and land-use allocation and planning system need reform towards:

• male and female equal inheritance,

• prohibition against disinheritance of children (legitmate or illegitimate), and

• leasing to substitute for land-sales

Remember:

Cheap goods are the baubles to seduce and distract today’s indigenous populations.
Today’s indigenous populations are us.
We who were born here.
Let us not be distracted by beads and baubles.

• Land with water and a stable population and society are what counts.
• Land speculation is a mug’s and a con-man’s game.
• High profits in any field are not sustainable in the long term.
• No society that encourages one class to profit at the expense of all the other citizens is sustainable.