Baillieu Government

"I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed VCAT fee increases. I believe these fee increases will unfairly hurt everyday Victorian residents, by undermining access to, in the words of VCAT’s motto, ‘Fair, Efficient Justice for all Victorians’" (Kelvin Thomson MP to the Victorian Attorney General.)

[Letter from] Kelvin Thomson MP, Federal Labor Member for Wills
Tuesday 15th January 2012/ac

[To:]

The Hon Robert Clark MP Victorian Attorney- General Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Dear Attorney-General,

Submission to the VCAT Fee Review:
Let’s keep access to justice, fair, affordable & accessible for all Victorians

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the Regulatory Impact Statement for proposed Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Fees Regulation Review (VCAT 2013).

I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed VCAT fee increases. I believe these fee increases will unfairly hurt everyday Victorian residents, by undermining access to, in the words of VCAT’s motto, ‘Fair, Efficient Justice for all Victorians’ (VCAT 2013A).

By increasing the financial barriers for Victorians to access VCAT, the justice system will lock out Victorians who cannot afford large fees and assist those who do have the money to fight legal cases, namely property developers and big business.

I believe these fee increase proposals are out of step with community expectations, are out of step with a fair and equitable justice system, and will play into the hands of property developers.

I have outlined steps I believe the Victorian Government should consider in making VCAT fairer and more accessible, rather than engage in fee hikes.

Overview

The Victorian Government states that the previous Government failed to keep VCAT fees in line with the cost of running the Tribunal, and failed taxpayers. The fee changes aim to reduce the burden on taxpayers and reinstate a ‘reasonable balance’ between taxpayer and user funding. The proposed changes expand the two-tier model for major cases, which allows some users to pay more to have a matter heard faster (Hudson 2013).

In my submission, however, VCAT’s establishment never intended that fees should cover the costs of running the tribunal, but rather fees and red tape are limited as to not prevent Victorians from accessing affordable and efficient justice.

Since its inception, VCAT’s (2012:2) purpose has been to provide Victoria’s with a low cost, accessible, efficient and independent tribunal delivering high quality dispute resolution.

The proposed changes would mean that the cost of launching small claims, planning appeals, tenancy disputes, and many other matters would accelerate from March under a planned expansion of the user pays system. VCAT is expected to collect an extra $22 million over the next 3 years from proposed fee increases and new charges (Hudson 2013).

The Victorian Government states that it proposes to recognise the mix of public and private benefits of the activities provided by VCAT, consistent with the approach taken in setting Victoria’s courts, by setting cost recovery for VCAT at 45% on average, of current expenditure in government appropriation funded lists. Currently VCAT only recovers costs ot an average 14% in these lists (Jaguar 2012:5).

I understand that revenue generated by VCAT’s Planning and Environment List if these changes proceed, will be in the vicinity of 44%, with revenue from year estimated to be over $2.7 million, in year two $3.2 million, and in year three $3.8 million (VCAT 2013:7).

If imposed, the fee increases would be higher than any other Australian state, affecting up to 8,000 Victorians per year. Under the proposed increases;

• The cost of lodging small claims over faulty goods will increase from $38 to $160
• Planning applications would attract an additional $1,000 fee, up from $322.
• Cases heard over more than one day will attract a new $1,800 a day fee (Pakula 2013).

The proposed fee changes mean that from March, fees to lodge an objection with the tribunal would quadruple from $322 to $1,462 for a development costing between $1 million and $5 million. By 2015 the fee would rise to $2,014. Developments costing more than $5 million would increase from $1,290 to $1,462 (Tran 2013).

I am particularly concerned that fees for planning appeals are much higher than other forms of appeals. Why is this the case? The higher fees for planning appeals act as a barrier to local residents and communities being able to effectively exercise their right to decide what kind of neighbourhood or community they live in.

VCAT should not be about revenue raising. VCAT should remain as the low cost dispute resolution body it was always intended to be.

Impact on the Community

Pursuing justice will cost more from March and would skyrocket in two years’ time (Gough 2013). Fee increases of this magnitude will discourage future VCAT applications from lodging claims before the tribunal (Pakula 2013).

Many Victorians will be denied access to justice under these planned fee hikes. The whole point of VCAT is to be a low-cost, easy-to-use alternative for Victorians, to give them a chance when they’re dealing with dodgy traders or shonky businesses. It would be a terrible shame if Victorians can no longer enforce their rights because they are priced out of it (The Australian 2013).

Yarra Mayor, Jackie Fristacky, and Protectors of Public Lands spokeswoman, Julianne Bell, have raised concerns that fee increases would restrict the accessibility of the tribunal to individual residents and resident associations. High fees are likely to inhibit people from appealing, yet the cost of planning appeals is already prohibitive for residents (Price 2013).

Save our Suburbs President, Ian Woods, says groups with fewer objectors would be hardest hit. Developers continually tend to resort to using lawyers, meaning the tribunal’s legal system is becoming more costly over time (Tran 2013).

Demand for community and legal aid services, and access to justice, is on the rise, illustrating that Victorians need to be provided with fewer barriers, not more, to access justice. Victorian Legal Aid (2011-12) has reported a 2% increase in the number of clients contacting them for assistance, up from 89,255 in 2010-11 to 91,079 in 2011-12. There has been an increase of 2% in the number of clients they support with no incomes. Overall 3 in 10 clients of Legal Aid had no income, 1 in 2 were receiving some form of government benefit or pension, 1 in 5 were from linguistic and culturally diverse backgrounds, 7% were in custody, 1 in 8 were under the age of 19 years, 2% were homeless and 3% were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background.

Residents deserve to be heard

I am very concerned that the increase in VCAT fees will greatly benefit and assist property developers, by preventing local residents and communities from having their say.

VCAT (2013B) states that planning matters are often difficult and can involve complex legal or planning issues and can involve numerous parties and objectors. VCAT is currently experiencing delays between 8-10 months from commencement to hearing for planning and environment matters.

VCAT (2012:5) has reported that it received a 3% increase in the number of cases lodged, 89,470 in 2011-12, compared to 86,890 in 2010-11. Residential development proposals continued to be the subject of the majority of applications dealt with by VCAT’s (2012:32) Planning and Environment List, and in 2011-12 were have reported to have increased by 3% to 3,873 cases, compared with 3,775 in 2010-11 (VCAT 2012:5).

VCAT (2012:32) has reported that Planning and Environment cases are increasing in complexity due to the more complex and detailed policy framework. For example, planning strategies encourage high-density development close to activity centres which have resulted in more applications for large residential buildings in areas new to high-density living.

Applications involving developments worth approximately $6.39 billion were initiated in 2011-12. VCAT (2012:32) finalised 3,718 matters in 2011-12, a 6% increase in finalisations, with the list having a clearance rate of 96%.

In my own electorate of Wills, I have been supporting residents to oppose inappropriate developments in their neighbourhoods for many years. I believe that local residents should be given a meaningful opportunity to object and oppose inappropriate developments in their neighbourhood.

I support residents who approach me with genuine concerns about high density development proposals in their area, and fight for their voice to be heard in the planning process.

In July 2009 I lodged a detailed 30 page submission to the Victorian Government’s Melbourne at 5 Million Review, in which I specifically recommended that Melbourne’s population needed to be stabilised, and that the State Government and local councils should extensively consult with, and respect the views, of local communities on planning issues.

I have assisted, supported and lodged objections on behalf of residents in relation to numerous planning issues across Wills.
In some cases Moreland Council listened and respected the views of local residents, but in others residents continued their fight to oppose developments at VCAT. For those who did appeal decisions to VCAT, residents had to work hard to organise and raise money to support their appeals, through fundraisers, sausage sizzles and other avenues. For those who did not appeal unfavourable decisions, it was reported to me that existing VCAT fees were a significant barrier.

Property developers have the capacity to claim VCAT expenses as a tax deduction, in the context of their business dealings and operations. Residents, on the other hand have no capacity to claim any such expenses, despite the fact they are likely to be much more affected by a development than the developers.

Recommendations

The Government should not increase VCAT fees. It should work to make the existing planning framework and appeals process a great deal fairer for local residents, so that their views are proactively sought, listened and adhered to through planning and development decisions across the state. Property developers should not be given the green light to continue ramming down the throats of Victorians a proliferation of high rise, high density, concrete monstrosities that are clogging the arteries of Melbourne and increasing our carbon footprint.

I ask that you consider the information contained in my submission in the context of making Melbourne more liveable. I look forward to your consideration and response.

Yours sincerely

[Signed: Kelvin Thomson]
Federal Member for Wills
Cc: VCAT, The Hon Ted Baillieu MP, The Hon Martin Pakula MP, The Hon Daniel Andrews MP.

References

- The Australian(2013) ‘VCAT hikes will price out Victorians: Oppn’, published in The Australian 8/1/13 [Online] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/vcat-hikes-will-price-out-victorians-oppn/story-fn3dxiwe-1226549606147 [Accessed 9/1/2013]
- Gough, D. (2013) ‘VCAT fees set to rise’, published in The Age 8/1/13 [Online] http://www.theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=3937023 [Accessed 14/1/2013]
- Hudson, P. (2013) ‘Victorians may be priced out of justice as VCAT fees soar’, published in Herald Sun 8/1/13 [Online] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/people-priced-out-of-vcat/story-fnat79vb-122654916828 [Accessed 14/1/2013]
- Jaguar Consulting (2012) Regulatory Impact Statement; VCAT Tribunal (Fees) Regulations 2013. Prepared for the Victorian Department of Justice [Online]
b5af056866ea/risvcatfeesregs2013.pdf”> http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/resources/bbac26af-4d92-4c42-82d0-
b5af056866ea/risvcatfeesregs2013.pdf [Accessed 14/1/2013]

-Lee, J. (2012) ‘Minister sidesteps VCAT’, published in The Age 4/10/12 [Online]
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/minister-sidesteps-vcat-20121003-27031.html
[Accessed 14/1/2013]
- Pakula, M., The Hon. (2013) ‘VCAT Fees set to skyrocket under Baillieu
Government’, Media Release issues 8/1/13 [Online]

http://www.danielandrews.com.au/media/releases/vcat-fees-set-to-skyrocket-under-baillieu-government/ [Accessed 14/7/2013]
- Price, N. (2013) ‘VCAT fees not appealing’, published in Melbourne Leader 14/1/13 [Online] http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/vcat-fees-not-appealing/ [Accessed 14/7/2013]
- Tran, D. (2013) ‘VCAT fee hike eliminates ‘cheap option for appeals’, published in Dandenong Journal 14/1/13 [Online]
http://www.dandenongjournal.com.au/story/1229869/vcat-fee-hike-eliminates-cheap-option-for-appeals/ [Accessed 14/1/2013]
- VCAT (2013) Regulatory Impact Statement for proposed Victorian Civil &
Administrative Tribunal Fees Regulation Review (2013) [Online]

http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/the+justice+system/regulatory+impact+statement s/ris+for+proposed+vcat+fees+regs [Accessed 14/01/2013]

- VCAT (2013A) ‘Fair, Efficient Justice for all Victorians’ [Online]
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/ [Access 14/1/2013]

- VCAT (2013B) ‘Frequently asked questions re delays in Planning and Environment List’ [Online] https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/disputes/planning-and-environment/news/delays-planning-and-environment-list [Accessed 14/1/2013]
- VCAT (2012) VCAT Annual Report2011/2012 [Online]

http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/files/VCAT%20Annual%20Report%202011% 20-%2012.pdf [Accessed 15/01/2013]
- Victorian Legal Aid (2012) Annual report 2011-12 [Online]
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/annualreports.htm [Accessed 15/1/2013]

Kelvin Thomson MP Federal Labor Member for Wills

VCAT is proposing draconian fees on citizens who wish to protect their property and environment from undemocratic corporate backed development and overpopulation. Fees for a citizen lodging an objection to any development in 2012 were $38.80. For 2013 fees are proposed to rise to $731.80 (for developments costed at less than $1.0m) and to $1,462.30 for developments estimated at $1.0m or more. These fees would increase even more in 2014 respectively to: $869.60 and $1,737.90, and, in 2015, respectively, to $1,007.40 and $2,014.80. Add to this the cost of hiring barristers and this will make a complete mockery of democracy, which is already a laughing stock in Victoria anyway.Submission deadline is 5pm Friday 15 February 2013.

Victorian Government overdevelopment regime trying to price citizens out of their rights to object at law

The government is trying to act to protect the interests of developers and their overwhelming vested interest in unwanted population growth by restricting peoples access to their own courts and tribunals through the imposition of draconian fees. The fact is that so many 'developments' (multiple new structures with costly impacts) are being forced on the people of Melbourne and Victoria that their objections are clogging up VCAT. Although VCAT stands for the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, instead of heeding democratic objection and curbing this remorseless overdevelopment, the government is attempting to stop democratic objections by making them too costly for citizens to bring about. This is a total scandal and if the government succeeds in removing most peoples' ability to influence what happens around them to their environment, there will be very little left that it will feel that it cannot do. Making government for big business is a major part of fascism, as is removing access to the law for communities. The only thing lacking now is overt violence against citizens.

Source of fee details - Regulatory Impact Statement

Here is information regarding the proposed fee increases at VCAT (they want to cover part of their costs). Submissions are invited on the attached Regulatory Impact Statement no later than 5pm Friday 15 February 2013. Information on how to make a submission can be found here: http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/the+justice+system/regulatory+impact+statements/ris+for+proposed+vcat+fees+regs.

Go to the Regulatory Impact Statement, near the bottom of the page.

It could see an objection against a development valued at over $1m go from the present $38.80 to $2,014.80. Obviously a massive cost impost on any affected person objecting to a development

For example, page 13 0f the Regulatory Impact Statement, dealing with an increase in fees for the years 2012, 2013, 2014, & 2015:

1. If the proceedings are in respect of a development of any kind where the estimated cost of the development is less than $1 million

(2012) $38.8 (2013)$731.8 (2014)$869.6 (2015)$1,007.4

2. If the proceedings are in respect of a development of any kind where the estimated cost of the development is $1 million or more

(2012) $38.8 (2013)$1,462.3 (2014)$1,737.9 (2015)$ 2,014.8

To put these increases in percentages really highlights how out of proportion they are - an indication of how out of proportion population growth and overdevelopment are in Victoria.

Kelvin Thomson’s submission re this matter:

http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/Editor/assets/public_docs/2013/130114%20vcat%20kt%20submission.pdf

The Age article on the fee increase is here: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vcat-fees-set-to-rise-20130108-2cdtr.html.

The Herald Sun article on the fee increase is here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/vcats-win-is-peoples-loss/story-e6frfhqo-1226549124582

What we have here in Victoria - and the same thing is happening Australia-wide - is a small set of people who happen to have been able to get financial domination of institutions and land-use planning and who are now using the parliament and the law to get whatever they want by depriving all the other citizens of their democratic right to self-government and control over their environment. Another name for this power-elite is the Growth Lobby.

The consideration of the Planning Zones Review should have been referred to the Parliamentary Committee for Environment and Planning which has considerable resources to put the 2,000 submissions on the Parliamentary website and then record on Hansard the hearings of some of the submitters before the Parliamentary Committee.

Submission to Department of Planning and Community Services (DPCS) on Victoria’s New Planning Zones

Introduction: I am writing on behalf of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., a coalition of 80 community, environmental and heritage groups dedicated to protecting and maintaining sites of environmental and heritage significance.

Here is a statement made by Professor Michael Buxton of RMIT covering the significance and the impact on Melbourne of the new zone proposals. He gave permission for me to quote him. I am then making a suggestion as to the need for a Parliamentary Inquiry by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Planning in order for there to be proper consultation with the public.

Significance of Review of Planning Zones: The Victorian government’s proposed new planning zones are the most radical review of planning schemes in the history of Victorian planning. They will lead to fundamental changes in the way Melbourne operates, change the fabric of the city and its hinterland, and remove an extensive range of existing citizen rights. Every citizen will be affected.

The new zone proposals will
• Replace the three existing residential zones with three new residential zones
• Replace the Business 1, 2 and 5 zones with a new Commercial 1 zone, and the Business 3 and 4 zones with a new Commercial 2 zone
• Extensively alter the Green Wedge zone, rural Conservation zone, Green Wedge A zone, Farming zone, Rural Activity zone and Rural Living zone
• Change the existing Mixed Use zone, Township zone and Low Density Residential zone
• Change the existing Industrial 1, 2 and 3 zones.

The government recently released the report of the Advisory Committee into the Victorian planning system and its response to this report. Neither this report nor the government response advocated the changes to zones now proposed. No other justification or strategic context has been provided for the radical changes to the statutory planning system. Clearly, the government worked extensively on its changes to zones in a secret parallel process while the public was diverted to a public process which proposed only moderate change.

Impact of New Planning Zones: The major impacts will be the introduction of extensive commercial uses into residential areas, the destruction of Melbourne’s traditional strip retail centres, the dispersal of commercial activities to car based areas resulting in serious metropolitan wide traffic congestion, the de-facto removal of the urban growth boundary and the extension of a large number of urban related uses into green wedges. Resident rights of notification and objection will be seriously curtailed with many new uses allowed in these new zones without the need for permits.

In particular, the zones will:
• merge residential and commercial uses across urban zones, with an extension of commercial uses into residential areas and little difference between commercial and some industrial zones
• increase the price of commercial and rural land through the encouraging of land speculation
• lead to the growth of large numbers of out-of-centre car based commercial/retail developments including accommodation which will end the current functions of many strip retail centres and lead to substantial car use and increase road congestion across Melbourne
• increase the height of commercial/retail and mixed use developments.

The new zones constitute a largely deregulated land use planning system drawing from the reports and lobbying of market oriented bodies and development groups and growth focused government agencies. These zones, in effect, constitute unfair competition by attempting to allow a wide range of uses in many locations. Existing strip retail centres, for example, will have to compete against new retail development built on much cheaper land far from public transport; land traditionally used for agriculture and rural pursuits will become locations for urban related commercial development and accommodation facilities in unfair competition against higher priced urban land. The principle of unregulated markets also takes no account of their public economic, social and environmental impacts, for example, the impacts on congestion of dispersed commercial development and the associated costs in delays and road construction and maintenance.

The application of the zones and the use of schedules will be subject to ministerial approval. Councils may not be allowed to select zones they regard as appropriate to land in their municipalities.

The use of overlays and structure plans may not significantly reduce the impact of the zones. For example, the Heritage Overlay is increasingly ineffective in preventing development even under current zones, and the effects of structure plans depend on the content and the nature of their incorporation into planning schemes.

Melbourne will not be the same city if these new zones are approved even in a modified form.

Failure of the State Government to Consult Victorians Properly on New Planning Zones:

Here is my comment. This complex set of proposals concerning the new planning zones was sprung upon the public which was given only a month to comment. As commented above it appeared that the public was seriously misled as …“Clearly, the government worked extensively on its changes to zones in a secret parallel process while the public was diverted to a public process which proposed only moderate change.” A number of Councils held planning forums at which planning officers attempted to enlighten the public re detail of the changes. The public encountered difficulties when attempting to make submissions by the deadline last Friday when the DPCS computer crashed. The Planning Minister then gave the public an extension for a week. Our submissions will be referred to a small committee hand picked by the Minister. Members of the Committee cannot be said to be independent.

It is extraordinary that the Planning Minister did not refer the review which is of such great significance to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and Planning. This has not had an inquiry for the past month or so. Public submissions (to this Standing Committee) are put on the Parliamentary website and presentations to the Committee recorded in Hansard. As far as I am aware most members of the public regard this process as open and transparent where people are given a “fair go”. Even if members of Parliament are split on Party lines they can write a group dissenting report. Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc recommends that a proper Parliamentary Inquiry be held into the new planning zones.

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

Community groups are making submissions on the Reformed Zones in Victoria. The government's zoning aims to increase commercial areas into residential areas in a serial manner and to intensify activity in the green wedges. The Department of Planning and Community Development has appointed a Ministerial Advisory Committee 'to review all submissions and provide advice back to the government', but the Chairman of the Committee is Geoff Underwood, who is prominent in the affairs of the Australian Population Institute (APop), which is officiated by professional developers and has the primary aim of promoting a huge population for Australia. What chances do robust submissions have with APop defining the parameters of planning in Victoria? See Planning Backlash submission inside.

The zones in question have as their stated objectives 'to better manage growth' and to 'simplify requirements' and to 'allow a broader range of activities to be considered' and 'to ensure that they still reflect the aspirations of all Victorians'.

Despite the latter objective, the zoning, if it remains as it is, will increase the intrusion of commercial areas into residential areas in a serial manner and intensify activity in the green wedges. The government has appointed the Ministerial Advisory Committee to consider all submissions, but the Chairman of the Committee has been prominent in the affairs of the Australian Population Institute from its beginning. APop is officiated by professional developers and has the aim of promoting a huge population for Australia. Along with billionaire, Richard Pratt and Steve Vizard, it played a major role in ex-Premier Steve Bracks's 2002 Melbourne Population Summit which began the current campaign to institute population growth as a norm for Australians and used sophisticated propaganda techniques to do this. See /node/594#comment-981and http://candobetter.net/node/149

The members of the committee are:

Geoff Underwood, Secretary to the Victorian Branch of APop http://www.apop.com.au/who.html

Chris Canavan, QC, represented Hotel Windsor Holdings in their bid to get an extension in time for redevelopment, which had been denied them by this [Baillieu] government.

Joanna Stanley, Communications Consultant with the particular specialty of "Advocacy and influence through media and stakeholder relations," but who is better known as the media spokesperson at Brunswick Residents Unite.

Liz Johnstone, Planner, Planning Institute of Australia and Manager, Planning Policy & Projects, Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Planning Backlash's submission

Below is Planning Backlash's submission to the 'Reformed zones for Victoria' Ministerial Advisory Committee. It begins by thanking the Minister for his good work, because of his apparent receptiveness to the need for democratic input, however it then requests very challenging, but absolutely necessary, real reforms.

"Suburban - Residential

We agree with the proposed changes to residential zones as finally we can have the protections against inappropriate development that we have been advocating for since Melbourne 2030 was brought in and forced onto us by the previous government, in spite of our objections. The Residential Zones are excellent and we thank the Minister of Planning for his courage bringing these in, no doubt against the wishes of the DPCD.

However there are a number of points requiring amendment and the Minister has heard us voicing our concerns and has said he is open to change and is waiting for the report of the Review Committee. Our agreement to the whole zone concept is dependent on these amendments, because if these are excluded, the advantages would be seriously compromised.

List of Amendments that we request

1. The Minister will scrap the ‘within 100 metre’ of a commercial zone to prevent commercial creep into residential zones. This can in effect double the business area and has unwanted implications.

2. The Activity Centres will be Principal and Major also central, and must have fixed boundaries, and not extending out 400 metres.

3. Neighbourhood Activity Centres will be just local shopping strips.

4. There will be no population targets.

5. There will be no reduction in residents right to object and appeal.

6. Maximum heights must apply to all buildings in the zone.

7. The only uses not requiring permits in residential zones will be those not requiring permits now. Everything else requires a permit and residents retain the right to object. Current prohibitions must be retained with no dilution of present conditions. Rather, enhance the zones to provide the tools to enable the protection of neighbourhood character.

8. The Council working with residents can say where and how big the residential zones will be and the Minister will approve and the DPCD will not interfere.

9. If the Council wants mandatory heights the Minister will give it and the DPCD will not interfere.

10. No offices and shops as of right in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) or the General Residential Zone (GRZ).

11. No food and drink premises as of right in RGZ.

12. No medical centres as of right in RGZ, GRZ or Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ).

13. No place of worship as of right in any residential zones.

14. No changes in size of land where houses can be built without a permit.

15. No to nine metre building heights in NRZ areas as these areas are predominantly one and two storey houses, or in GRZ where it conflicts with the Neighbourhood Character.

16. Neighbourhood character must be considered and this could mean in areas of predominantly single story detached housing that ResCode is varied to suit neighbourhood character, allowing prohibition of boundary to boundary dwellings

17. Height limits must apply to all buildings and not just residential. "

NEW POPULATION BOOK HOLDS SOLUTIONS TO OVERPOPULATION & HABITAT DEPLETION: Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it. Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals."

On the ABC News radio this morning (9 Sept 2012) we heard that private coal companies are demanding compensation for carbon trading costs from the Victorian Government and apparently this is being taken seriously!

All the brown coal stations in Victoria belonged to the State electricity Commission of Victoria until 1994 when they were privatised by Jeff Kennett.
Now the current government is saying that it may have to compensate brown coal producers for their not being able to use it because it is too polluting and will be too costly under the carbon trading system.

Do we require further proof of how corrupt and unproductive privatisation is?
What gives when a government not only sells off our assets but then somehow agrees to retain liability for business risks?

You would have thought that the private corporations would have assumed responsibility for the debt.
They have profited from the privatisation over the years and are now crying poor and demanding compensation!
How about making the parliamentarians who agreed to selling off these assets personally financially responsible for any such compensation?

We've known of the dangers of coal since the 18th century. Our leaders should be held responsible for getting us into this mess.

The Green Wedges Coalition explains how Planning Minister Matthew Guy wants to turn 6000ha of Melbourne's green wedges over to development. The Liberal Government has a majority of one in parliament and this green wedges destruction is a foregone conclusion if the Libs all vote to support Matthew. CDB Editor says: Ask your government representative what he or she intends to do to prevent this abrogation of democracy and this insult to our natural environment and the wildlife it shelters. Let us know their answer. If you read this after the voting, then ask your MP what he voted for. You can look it up on Hansard too. Addition: The “Logical Inclusions” (6000 ha excised from the green wedges, taking habitat wetlands etc.) was passed by Parliament on 14/8. The new threat to Green Wedges – may be even worse as it affects the non-growth councils like MPSC as well as the growth councils – is the proposed changes to the zones which would allow a lot of urban uses into the Green Wedges.

Mathew Guy MP plans 6000 ha grab of our Green Wedges

In the latest assault on Melbourne’s green wedges, Planning Minister Matthew Guy plans to take another 6000 ha from the green wedges to give Melbourne more urban sprawl and to concrete over more fertile farmland and environmentally significant wetlands, grasslands and woodlands. This is subject to a vote in Parliament which will bring huge unearned windfall profits to landholders, developers and their lobbyists, including Liberal party donors and fund-raisers: an estimated $500 million for one 103 ha property (see the Age Liberal-donors-win-big-from-rezoning; Coalition policy is for another Urban Growth Boundary Review (UGB) review is due in two years, about the time of the next election.

This latest Green Wedge land grab will create continuing uncertainty around the Urban Growth Boundary by proposing 14 areas to be excised from the green wedges for urban growth and recommending a further 16 areas for “possible future review.” This signals that Melbourne will go on sprawling for as long as the Coalition Government stays in office. A further 20 green wedge areas were ruled out for urban development.

Overwhelming majority of Victorians are against this

This latest green wedge land grab is particularly deplorable as it is not based on any demonstrated need for more development land. The Growth Areas Authority recently estimated that the Growth Corridor Plans (for the 43,600 ha of land rezoned in 2010) would provide 20 to 50 years’ land supply for the continued urban sprawl which most of us don’t want. Every representative survey conducted, from Manningham’s in 2002 to Kingston’s in 2011, finds overwhelming majorities want green wedges protected for environmental conservation, agriculture, parklands, landscape value and recreation.

Even Victoria's rotten environmental laws don't condone this

It appears to breach federal requirements that environmental strategies to protect endangered species including Southern Brown Bandicoot, Growling Grass Frog and Golden Sun Moth must be finalised first and that urban development plans must work around them. None of these environmental strategies have been finalised and the SBB strategy has been postponed for six months. Meanwhile land that spans a proposed bandicoot habitat corridor in Casey has been approved for excision from the green wedge. See VNPA media release.

What is Mathew Guy in parliament for if not to listen to the electorate? That is the question.

We are calling on Matthew Guy to listen to communities, abandon plans for illogical incursions and return to policies to protect the green wedges. This may disappoint the developers and property consultants, but will please everyone else.

Source: Much of this article (but not the headings) was based on a statement from Rosemary West, Joint Coordinator, Green Wedges Coalition. Predominant Source of this article: Green Wedges Coalition - a vision for Melbourne, 16 June, 2012, Media Release. Local details have been dropped off this article because some of them have changed.

This superb document establishes a history of concerted public demand for protection of the green wedges and a host of reasons for that public opposition to Matthew Guy's six new suburbs. It represents more than 80 groups of Victorians - (Ed. Candobetter.) "The whole rationale for extending the Urban Growth Boundary is to accommodate the unprecedented flood of population to Victoria. 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 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..." Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Land, VictoriaJulianne Bell, Protectors of Public Land, Victoria.

The superb document below establishes a history of concerted public demand for protection of the green wedges and a host of reasons for that public opposition to Matthew Guy's six new suburbs. It represents more than 80 groups of Victorians protesting against Victorian government population growth and development policies for reasons that damn Matthew Guy's extension of the Urban Growth Boundary. These extensions are even worse than those planned by the preceding government, however the preceding Kennett, Bracks and Brumby Governments created the planning precedents and undemocratic conditions that give the Baillieu Government the delusion that it has the right to ride over citizens rights' to conserve public land and wildlife habitat from private greed.

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

19 October 2009

Dear Mr. Seitz,

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.
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)
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
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.” (“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.

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.

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.

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.

Yours sincerely

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

0408022408
jbell5[AT]bigpond.com

Growth, the ultimate dictator: "There seems to be no language that get’s through to our governments in Australia who, it seems are addicted to growth. It’s as though growth is all we can do. We may know of nothing else."

Matthew Guy's plans for Melbourne's Green Wedges

In this land where once many of us enjoyed bushwalking, helping our neighbour, and didn't like pretension, we are now ruled by bodies with surreal names like "Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee" and "Growth Areas Authority," which have replaced the local governments that once answered to residents and citizens. The department of planning and its committee offshoots are peopled by petty privately remunerated bureaucrats, with little apparent loyalty or feeling for this country or its people. Melbourne and Australia are becoming like the movie, Brazil.

It's slash and develop for the foreseeable future if the global economic tidal wave of doom fails to save us from what Matthew Guy announced today in his two press releases, "A logical approach to planning for Melbourne's growth," and "Managing Melbourne's Growth." (on 12th and 13th of June)

"Couched in terms to minimise the full and bloody impact on wildlife and the repressive consequences for democracy, the Minister for Planning's department was keen to portray its planning decisions as politer and more careful than those of its similarly destructive predecessors, the Bracks and Brumby governments. The truth is that, if the Baillieu Government had really been different, it would not be going ahead with plans to massively enlarge Melbourne and to continue unwanted and unsustainably high levels of immigration. It would simply put a cap on building permits and thereby stop permanent moves to Melbourne.

We are to have six more suburbs in places where agriculture or nature currently reside. What is this madness?"

Sustainable Population Activists Australia (SPAA)

How far will this dumbed down developer economy drag us down?

"The Liberal Government, like the Labor Government before them, seems bereft of any policies to enhance quality of life. Victoria needs sustainable economic development based on productive innovation and diversity of economic opportunities. All the Liberal and Labor parties can offer is a dumbed-down economy reliant on evermore short term housing projects that degrade our environment. Where does Mr Guy’s overdevelopment and sprawl end?"

William Bourke, National Convenor, Stable Population Party
www.populationparty.org.au

Tragic

"Planning Minister Matthew Guy in 2 of his Media Releases today (Managing Melbourne’s growth and “Growth Corridor Plans to Manage Long Term Growth) waxes enthusiastic about yet more urban sprawl. This time, it seems it will be “sophisticated” “attractive” with “great town centres” “services” offering employment, and access to local jobs etc. etc. and will see us through “the next 30-40 years”.

The message however is really sad. There is no end to the plans for Melbourne’s growth and because of this there is no guarantee at all of Melbourne’s continuing “livability”. Livability depends on access to open space which is being systematically and inexorably taken from the people of Melbourne both in the established suburban areas and at the fringes where we used to escape on weekends. It’s getting to be a long drive to the edge of our city and set to increase.

Under endless new housing to accommodate a greater and greater population, our precious farmland and wild life habitat will continue to be annihilated.

The continuing growth of our population is presented as an inevitability and that our city will continue to grow. It is presented as though we have no choice in the matter. In fact we could stabilize our population over the next few decades instead of setting in place continuous growth.

Imagine if we were to set that in place! We could see the outer limits of our very large city and have some certainty of its final girth. Conflicts between residents and governments, councils and government authorities would be vastly reduced. There may also be some future for our environment. We may have some hope of coping with oil and other resource depletion. There seems to be no language that get’s through to our governments in Australia who, it seems are addicted to growth. It’s as though growth is all we can do. We may know of nothing else."

Jill Quirk, President, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian Branch

Asset speculation masquerading as economic development

"This form of asset speculation masquerading as economic development just does not work anymore, not even for its proponents. All it does now is disable genuinely sustainable planning options by creating a herd of white elephants that have permanent common law entitlement. Beyond being further trampled in the final death throes of this zombie herd, how do we annul the entitlement?

When will 'decision-makers' begin serving today and the impending future rather than a part fantasy world that ended with the GFC and which will be kept permanently in the past by the realities of Peak Oil?"

Greg Wood, Environmental campaigner

NOTES

Thanks to the Habitat Advocate for the good picture.

Sheila Newman will interview Jenny live 19 April between 12 midday and 1pm at 3RPP. You can listen live here. What next? Will they sell the people off as slaves? Will the remove access to our bank accounts overnight? Will they raise the cost of electricity so high that the companies take our houses to pay for them? Our Parliamentary system is beyond democratic control. Our economic system is a bad joke. Our taxes are used to pay for educational institutions which are then set up to profit private enterprise and investors and users overseas. And now, under Ted Baillieu, there is this proposal to sell Port Melbourne... (No, this is not an April fools joke.)

"It’s insulting that Spring Street might value the Port of Melbourne at only $2.4 billion (Baillieu flags state asset sales 23/3). Taxpayer shareholders recently spent around $1 billion on channel deepening and subsequent maintenance dredging to “prepare the Port for the future”. And, it’s a small fraction of the current estimate of $10 billion to develop the Port of Hastings – a project recently identified by government as urgently needed infrastructure. Taxpayers have invested in the Port of Melbourne for over a century and now we are expected to support its hand over to the private sector and then pay again to build Hastings port. It’s time to join the dots. Dumping the Port of Melbourne and developing Hastings is about catering for Baillieu’s pet projects for Gippsland: export of brown coal, woodchips and coal seam gas it he can find it. Topped up with Ports Minister Napthine’s proposed driverless trucks trundling up the Westernport Freeway from the Port of Hastings with assorted imports and we are approaching dystopia indeed."(Jenny Warfe, Blue Wedges) Sheila Newman will interview Jenny live on 19 April between 12 midday and 1pm at 3RPP. You can listen live here.

Sale Plan to pay for port

(Originally published March 27 2012 on 3RPP as "Sale plan to pay for port."and in Western Port News, 27 March 2012.)

March 27 2012

THE state government could sell the Port of Melbourne for $2.4 billion and four water authorities to fund five priority infrastructure projects including development of the Port of Hastings.

The other four projects are the east-west tunnel (linking the Western Ring Rd and the Eastern Freeway), rail links to Avalon airport, duplication of major freight highways, and a rail tunnel from Caulfield to Footscray.

Last financial year the port paid a dividend of $13.4 million to the government and earned an after-tax profit of $39 million.
Melbourne’s four water authorities are Melbourne Water, City West Water, South East Water (which services the peninsula) and Yarra Valley Water.

The revelation of the go­vernment’s plans for possible asset sales has already drawn criticism from disparate sources including award-winning economics and public policy commentator Ken Davidson and environmentalists.

Mr Davidson wrote on Monday that it was “silly to prioritise the port at Hastings while Australia’s number one port at Melbourne has serious problems that inhibit Victoria’s development”.

Industry groups, including the Australian Peak Shippers Association, have warned the Port of Melbourne would face major bottlenecks from 2015 onwards as it reached capacity.

This has seen the government, led by Ports Minister Denis Napthine, to promise fast-tracking of Port of Hastings development (‘New port start five years away’, The News, 31/1/12).

In January Mr Napthine and Port of Hastings Development Authority board chairman Yehudi Blacher told The News Hastings was well suited to become Victoria’s second container port within 10 to 13 years.

“Container movements are estimated to quadruple over the next 30 years and it is critical that we begin planning for this growth now,” Mr Napthine said.

But Mr Davidson says development of Hastings could wait until 2035 when Melbourne’s population was expected to be five million.
Until then, the Port of Melbourne could be improved by redeveloping the Swanson/Dynon precinct, he said.

Other suggestions have included developing Webb Dock.

The pressure on Port of Melbourne has further increased following claims by government sources, port figures and shipping and automotive industry groups that the government is set to abandon its plan to move all automotive shipping from Melbourne to the Port of Geelong.

Port of Hastings has been touted as an alternative port for exporting and importing vehicles, especially with the closure of BlueScope’s hot strip mill, which saw the Iron Monarch bringing slab steel from Port Kembla weekly.

The Iron Monarch’s last voyage of slab cargo arrived at Western Port on Tuesday 4 October and the BlueScope jetty is underutilised.
Selling the Port of Melbourne and developing Hastings was about cater­ing for Premier Ted Baillieu’s pet projects for Gippsland – exporting from Western Port brown coal, woodchips and coal seam gas, Blue Wedges Coalition president Jenny Warfe told The News on Monday.

Ms Warfe said it was insulting the government valued the Port of Melbourne at only $2.4 billion.

“Taxpayers recently spent about $1 billion on channel deepening and subsequent maintenance dredging to ‘prepare the port for the future’, as port authorities claimed,” she said.

“The current estimate to develop the Port of Hastings – a project recently identified by the government as urgently needed infrastructure – is $10 billion.

“Taxpayers have invested in the Port of Melbourne for more than a century and now we are expected to support its hand over to the private sector and then pay again to build Hastings port?

“It’s time to join the dots. Dumping the Port of Melbourne and developing Hastings is about the premier wanting to export from Gippsland brown coal, woodchips and coal seam gas, if he can find it.

“With massive trains hauling this cargo through our green wedges to Hastings – and Ports Minister Denis Napthine’s proposed driverless trucks trundling up the Western Port Freeway from the Port of Hastings with assorted imports – we are approaching dystopia indeed.”

The government last month introduced laws forcing the Port of Melbourne Corporation to pay an annual $75 million ‘’licence fee’’ that would increase each year with inflation and generated about $1 billion over the next decade.

The Port Licence Fee will add $8000 to $10,000 to the cost of bringing a ship into the Port of Melbourne.

The fee cuts both ways as the Victorian Farmers Federation says it will add $10 million to the cost of exporting Victorian farm produce. It has dubbed the fee a “tax on trade”.

Melbourne has the last publicly owned major port on the eastern seaboard following the Queensland government’s sale of the Port of Brisbane for $2.1 billion and a NSW government plan to privatise Port Botany.

Research has shown that grazing has had a substantial impact on the composition, structure and condition of all the major vegetation types eaten by livestock, on virtually all of the Bogong High Plains. We don't need any more research in the Australian Alps on cattle grazing.

The Baillieu government has been trying to blackmail the University of Melbourne into overseeing its controversial alpine grazing trial by threatening to withdraw millions of dollars in research funding.

Associate Professor Dr Bossinger of the School of Land and Environment said previous studies had found the incidence of fire in the high country was not cut by cattle grazing. The School was basically being blackmailed to give the research results wanted.

There is no need for more research on the impact of cattle on the Australian Alps. They, including the Bogong High Plains, have been used for the summer agistment of domestic livestock for nearly 150 years.

Stella Grace Maisie Fawcett (1902-1988) an Australian Botanist played a central role in demonstrating the effects of overgrazing on Australia’s high plains. She headed a study by the Soil Conservation Board to measure the toll that cattle and sheep were having on the landscape.

Fawcett (later Mrs Carr), an ecologist, was appointed by the newly formed Soil Conservation Board in 1941 to assess the effects of cattle grazing in the vegetation of the Bogong High Plains.

During the summer of the severe 1902-03 drought, 40,000 sheep, in addition to large mobs of cattle and horses, were grazing on the Bogong High Plains. The late 19th century and the early 20th had the peak number of livestock grazing there.

The results were devastating to the environment. In many places the soils and vegetation were damaged severely and in some places stripped entirely, and stony erosion pavements resulted. Alpine soils are extremely low in nutrients, and are easily disturbed by erosion. This means a short regrowth season, and regeneration is slow.

'Alpine grazing reduces blazing' is a widely and strongly held view concerning the effects of livestock grazing on fuels, and therefore fire behaviour and impact, in Australia's high country landscapes.

"...it can be concluded that protection from grazing and absence of fire results in (a) the development of luxuriant vegetation which provides adequate cover for the soil surface, and (b) promotes an improvement in soil structure and presumably in the hydrological characteristics of the mossbeds and their catchments."' Carr, S.G.M. (Maisie Fawcett) Report on Inspection of the Bogong High Plains, 1977.

It is of significance that the majority of fires in these areas were actually lit by the graziers themselves in an attempt to obtain better quality pasture in the short term.

Studies have shown that free-ranging cattle affect alpine plant communities by grazing selectively (e.g. by preferring herbaceous vegetation to shrubby vegetation) and by trampling the vegetation.

In 1946 the government departments and graziers acted together to make sheep, horses and burning off banned. The length of grazing season limited and cattle numbers held at then current levels.

Wetlands occur where drainage is impeded, and water remains near the soil surface for more than one month per year. They are vital to water catchment protection, soil conservation, and maintenance of nature conservation values. They have been listed under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

Few grazed wetlands on the Bogong High Plains are in good condition.
Analysis of the decades of data showed that grazing did not reduce blazing as the cattlemen had argued.

Research has shown that grazing has had a substantial impact on the composition, structure and condition of all the major vegetation types eaten by livestock, on virtually all of the Bogong High Plains. Cattle grazing, by increasing the occurrence of bare ground, also has the potential to cause and exacerbate soil erosion, and can facilitate the invasion of grassy patches by shrubs and exotic species, including weeds.

There is no necessity for further research on the impacts of livestock on alpine ecosystems. This present "research" is a political decision and shows that our State government has little experience in environmental matters, and not being able to say "no" to rural voters

Victorian National Parks Association

Alpine National Park - or cow paddock?

Is Portsea preparing for invasion? Yes, by sea. Much of the beach has disappeared and the overhang has been sandbagged to prevent businesses from following it. Where did that $38m given to Parks Victoria go? This article also looks at Ted Baillieu's plans to continue development plans (cost $9.4b?) where Brumby left off, plus some comments from the Ex-Ports Minister, Tim Pallas.

The Department of Sustainability (DSE) and the Office of Environmental Monitor (OEM) probably had hoped their problem of disappearing iconic Portsea beach might have gone away. Well their problem hasn’t gone, but the beach has!

Disappearing beach

Sadly for them and thousands of holiday makers who once loved Portsea, the $millions of taxpayers’ funds thrown at months of beach works at Portsea have done nothing to solve the problem of the disappearing beach. In fact the supposed solutions - the sandbag wall and huge rockwall are already failing, with the sandbags nearest the pier breaking apart and slumping into the water. The DSE and OEM have been left to defend the channel deepening project long after the disappearance of its champion Mr. Brumby -who is a distant memory – leaving some unwanted legacies such as at Portsea with its sad and near useless beach and a massive sign erected by the Brumby regime spruiking how their plan to build a massive sand bag wall and dump some rocks near the pier would restore the beach.

Portsea Beach 2011, view from pier to beach looking south east. Once there was sand and trees. Fossickers with metal detectors were the only Portsea beach goers on this 2011 Summers day.

Damage obvious, say local papers

Local papers report that the damage is obvious.

Portsea businesses, including the Portsea Hotel owned juice bar claim that their takings are down 50% since the Entrance was deepened and the beach started to disappear. See: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s939575.htm

Divers report marked increase in tides, currents and swells

Dive businesses too continue to report that tides and current speed have increased markedly whilst ocean swell now regularly pounds the beach and pier – making boat operations extremely difficult. (We recently were swamped trying to land a dingy on Portsea beach on an otherwise calm day but with a massive swell – it was like riding the rapids. Ed)

Ted Baillieu taking over where Brumby left off

It seems electing Mr. Baillieu in the hope of a fresh approach on environmental matters might be a dismal failure. He’s been silent on the damage to Portsea – in spite of his connections to the area, and within weeks of being elected, it’s more of the same for Port expansion plans with the new Mr. B announcing that he would fast track the development of the Port of Hastings within the next 10 years … …..That’s even faster than Mr. Brumby was intending! Sadly it seems our elected representatives are merging into a coalescence of business as usual dinosaurs when what we really need is some serious planning for a very different future.

Ex Ports Minister, Tim Pallas, now in opposition, changes tune, warns of $9.4 billion costs for Hastings Port development

We were amazed this week to hear Tim Pallas (previously the Minister for Ports and now Opposition spokesperson for Ports) sounding the alarm on how costly it might be to develop the Port of Hastings. See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cost-of-hastings-container-port-put-at-94bn-20110227-1ba1l.html

Mr. Pallas warns us it would cost $9.4 billion to develop Hastings Port, suggesting that it may not be money well spent……..Mind you he was singing from a different song book when as Minister for Ports he visited Hastings in 2009 to launch his Port Strategy – we were there - to hear his “vision” for a “green” port ….whatever that is. See: http://archive.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/7997.html and although he didn’t actually name a $ amount for his vision back then, it involved about the same amount of road, rail and portside works as he is now warning would be a $9.4 billion folly.

Projected huge container loads

The plan for Hastings Port[1] involves it handling almost 4 million containers some time in the not so distant future….that’s TWICE the current throughput of the Port of Melbourne. At the same time it is envisaged that the Port of Melbourne would be handling up to 8 million containers by 2030….QUADRUPLING it’s current throughput. Yes- that’s almost 12 million containers per year through Victoria compared with our present approx. 2 million per year. Hastings would look, feel, sound and smell like Port Melbourne.

And don't forget coal...

Note also new proposals for brown coal being mined in future from around Mirboo North.[2] Presumably that would be shipped out through Westernport!

Oil depletion will dramatise the insanity of planned expansion of Hastings Port

Where would we put all that stuff and how could we possibly afford it? Perhaps our only saviour might be skyrocketing production, shipping and trucking costs in future as oil runs out, demanding a re-think on what’s essential and what past follies can be done away with. We’ve been feeding the machine at the expense of our natural systems for way too long just to keep the creaking old system on the rails for longer than it should have been.

Auditor General's report on failure to protect marine environments: Where did the $38m go?

Anyway – a voice of reason was heard in the Victorian Auditor General’s Report "Environmental Management of Marine Protected Areas" tabled yesterday (March 2nd) in Parliament. The audit reveals just how ineffectively marine protected areas have been managed to protect biodiversity. It assessed the roles of Parks Victoria and the Departments of Sustainability and Environment and Primary Industries, finding that Parks Victoria could not show that marine biodiversity is being protected. Only 10% of the $38 million allocated to protection of marine biodiversity could be shown to have been appropriately discharged.

Just what was the rest of the money spent on then? Certainly not in protecting Port Phillip Bay from the damage we see to the Portsea coastline or protecting it from the massive unregulated toxic dump we now have in the middle of the Bay compliments of the Port of Melbourne!

The Auditor’s report can be downloaded from: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports__publications/reports_by_year/2010-11/20110302_marine_parks.aspx

The report also warns that Government is failing to protect coastal waters from invasive pests and diseases, and recommends the development of a marine pest biosecurity plan. Now that’s an issue which shipping and ports have a LOT to answer for.

400 invasive pests in Port Phillip and growing

Port Phillip Bay with its thousands of ship visits per year currently has over 400 invasive pest species and growing, whilst Westernport Bay with its approx 200 ship visits per year has only a very small number of invasive pests – around 10 when we last checked. Ships ballast water and the hulls of ships are the main vectors for invasive marine species, but the shipping industry isn’t very interested in spending the money to address the issue. So, Mr. Baillieu’s port expansion plans would likely mean an explosion in marine pests in Westernport.

A very interesting and alarming report on ballast water is at ABC Science Show: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1232619.htm and how trade facilitates the movement and impacts of invasive species at in this 2003 Earthbeat transcript at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s939575.htm

"A staggering 120 million tons of foreign ballast water is dumped into Australian ports each year - that's a quarter of the volume of water in Sydney's famous harbour. Professor Gustaaf Hallegraeff believes it's crucial that something be done, because the discharged ballast water can - and does - transport bacteria from one part of the world to another.

"[Professor Gustaaf Hallegraeff] [...] tracked the spread of nasty micro organisms around the world. Dinoflagellates, which poison shellfish, weeds, even cholera, would you believe, carried in the ballast water of shipping. The story and its implications are really incredible."
[...]
"Gustaaf Hallegraeff: There would not be a ballast water problem if for example a Japanese ship that comes now to Hobart to pick up woodchips, if that ship would for example deliver Japanese cars. Then it comes to Hobart, it picks up woodchips, changes the cargo and it takes the woodchips back. If a ship always carries cargo there is no problems, but somehow dedicated ships became designed that only pick a particular types of cargo and therefore they travel in one direction without a cargo, and that is where they need to fill up the whole tanks - sometimes up to 100,000 tonnes of seawater."

NOTES

[1] Sources: PoMC’s Port Development Plan 2006-2035 and PoH Land Use and Transport Strategy 2009
[2] Royce Millar, "Baillieu coal export push," 3 Mar 2011, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/baillieu-coal-export-push-20110302-1bexa.html

By Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and Jill Quirk, Sustainable Population Australia Inc. (Victorian Branch)
Planning issues dogged the Victorian ALP Government, although the ex-Planning Minister seemed remarkably unconcerned about community angst over high rise, high density development. Probably millions of dollars of the community's money and thousands of hours have been spent opposing unwanted, inappropriate developments especially in the established suburbs of Melbourne.

State ALP lost right to govern over population growth

From a quick analysis of the results of the Victorian State election it seems that the ALP lost its right to govern as a result of the direct and indirect effects of extremely rapid population growth in recent years in our State. Former Premier Brumby and his Cabinet failed to recognise the elephant in the living room - population growth. This was confirmed by Daniel Andrews, newly elected Opposition Leader, who attributed Labor's defeat to their having "not kept pace with growth" nor having "stayed ahead of the unprecedented (population) growth in the last few years." (3AW and ABC Stateline 3 December 2010.)

Unrealistic state policy

We submit that, as recent projections indicate Melbourne's population will almost double and reach at least 7 million by 2050, there is no way that the Brumby Government could have kept pace with provision of adequate services and affordable housing for Victorians. The same will be the case for the Baillieu Government if the present population intakes to Victoria continue. Any Government would simply be playing "catch up" and so it is inevitable that the community's living standards will fall further and further behind.

A rough overview of the demise of the Brumby Government follows.

Pipeline another cost of population overgrowth

The ALP was able to hold onto most of its non-metropolitan seats with the exception of South Barwon and Seymour. Constituents of the seat of Seymour were extremely disaffected by construction of the North South Pipeline (also known as the Sugarloaf Pipeline.) This piece of infrastructure was hurriedly installed to provide water for Melbourne's growing population. As it has turned out, it has not been needed as the drought has broken, but the intention was to siphon water away from the northern rivers of Victoria as required to supply Melbourne and hence the community in the seat of Seymour were the losers from population growth. The seat has gone to the Coalition with the help of preferences from independent candidate and Plug the Pipe member, Jan Beer.

Overpopulation-related erosion of living standards

Moving in towards the vortex of Melbourne, the outer suburbs suffered from an erosion of their living standards and financial stress from increases in council rates due to the rising cost of land and cost of infrastructure required by a rapidly growing population and so the ALP seats of Gembrook, Mt Waverley, Mitcham and Forest Hill were lost.

Public transport fiasco another cost of overpopulation

Turning our attention to the sand belt electorates; the seat of Carrum was unexpectedly lost to Labor, then Frankston, Mordialloc and finally Bentleigh became the last ALP domino to fall in the State Election. Constituents reported that they have suffered, amongst other things, from unreliable, unsafe and crowded train services which, in our view, were primarily due to increased pressure of population and failure of the Government to fund public transport. It was particularly aggravating that the Government splashed out on the Peninsula Link freeway which, reputedly, will soak up $2.8 billion of taxpayers' funds by the time it is completed.

Traffic congestion another cost of overpopulation

Focusing right in, the clearway issue due to traffic congestion from increased population and inability for our local streets to cope with traffic volumes even outside normal "Peak Hour" was a very sore point in inner southern suburbs of Melbourne, especially Malvern, Richmond and Prahran. The anger over this was expressed at a rally "Make Brumby History" on Parliament House steps, just before the election. The rally expressed a multitude of citizens' concerns but the impetus came from those opposing clearways.

Planning problems & protests caused by overpopulation

Planning issues also dogged the ALP Government, although the ex-Planning Minister seemed remarkably unconcerned about community angst over high rise, high density development. Regular rallies were held at Parliament and in the inner city, for instance, over the extension of the urban growth boundary; the destruction of the Windsor Hotel with the addition of a 92 metre tower block; loss of other iconic heritage properties in Melbourne; and his ALP fundraising ("cash-for-chat") lunch with developers. Probably millions of dollars of the community's money and thousands of hours have been spent opposing unwanted, inappropriate developments especially in the established suburbs of Melbourne.

No winners in this endless catch-up game

Unless the Baillieu government recognises that it is impossible to make life better for Victorians if population growth continues, as in the last decade, it too will fail to deliver as Victorians suffer anew. With continual rapid population growth, any state government will spend most of its energy just trying to cope with ever increasing demand for all services and housing and fighting escalating costs.

Dire environmental costs of overpopulation

The most serious long term problem that has been brought about by population pressures is the effect on the environment. The areas of concern - waterways and wetlands, water supplies, biodiversity, coasts, estuaries and the sea - detailed in the 2008 State of the Environment Report show our precious and fragile environment to be in a parlous state and this report should be a warning to any government taking the reins in Victoria.

Baillieu government faces same destiny if does not change course

Unless the Baillieu government faces the limitations firstly of our environment and secondly of the capacity of our society to provide requisite infrastructure, it will have little hope of outperforming the last government. The rate of population growth is, to a large extent, a choice made by the Federal Government which holds the actual keys to the immigration gates. We consider, however, that the Baillieu Government should create state history by establishing a joint Parliamentary committee of enquiry to examine just what is a sustainable population for Victoria, in order that our standards of living can be maintained and our environment rehabilitated and protected for future generations.

Jill Quirk is the President of Sustainable Population Australia Inc. (Victorian Branch)
P.O. Box 1173 Frankston 3199.

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