Melbourne's overpopulation problem

This population workshop took place in Melbourne's strongly multicultural northern suburbs, at a Community house open day in Thornbury. It deals with Australia's population and planning problems from the point of view of socially and ecologically sustainable future. What is causing Australia's very high population growth? How to preserve Australia's established multicultural communities? How to limit growth. Democracy and planning. Relocalisation and planning. Interactive with audience. Mark Allen studied town planning at the University of South Australia and has worked as a planner in three states. His frustration at the planning system's inability to deliver sustainable outcomes led him to leave the profession in order to concentrate on spreading awareness about the important role that town planning can play in mitigating climate change, biodiversity loss and social isolation. Mark's approach to sustainable planning is heavily influenced by two of his mentors, permaculture co-founder David Holmgren and labor MP Kelvin Thompson who advocates for a slower more manageable rate of population increase.

Melbourne's population is increasing by 100,000 a year and the population of Melbourne as a whole is set to double in just a few decades. So how will this be managed? Will there be new Prestons and Fitzroys where you can walk to a local baker or cycle to the library? Will there be new ethnic cultural hubs like Footscray and Richmond whereby new migrants can express their culture in meaningful communities while adding to the rich tapestry of our multicultural society? No, these people will be scattered like ashes in the wind to far off housing estates while facing the prospect of increasingly longer daily commutes. Alternatively they will be crammed into tiny flats and squeezed onto an ageing and already over-stretched public transport network. This is because the same ponzi-economic scheme that demands a massive rate of population growth cannot provide resilient sustainable communities. A new permaculture/ urban ecology approach is required.

Mark Allen from Population Permaculture and Planning locks horns so to speak with West Australian Planning Professor, Professor Newman, over Melbourne's apartment proliferation, in discussion on the Conversation website relating traffic congestion to GDP rather than to population growth, and where the professor has suggested that increasing low cost, low quality, high density appartments would solve housing unaffordability. (If you wish to contribute on The Conversation site, please hit 'newest' on the 'Comments' section to read the latest dialogue at: https://theconversation.com/dont-panic-traffic-congestion-is-not-coming-for-our-cities-45154)

In a post in Mark Allen and Peter Newman's ongoing discussion Peter Newman has written that he believes that housing in-affordability created by urban consolidation can be solved "by building more high density housing at lower cost." He goes on to say that:

"Many people, perhaps you are one, prevent this as they only want to see high quality high density housing. They have been very successful at stopping high rise in Melbourne especially. This means the rich are moving in and the poor out."

So, does Professor Newman mean that if we build cheap low quality high-rise, we will solve all of our social inequity problems?

Mark Allen (Population, Permaculture and Planning) responded:

Very little of the massively overpriced high density in Melbourne is of high quality. Ironically the very few cases that I have seen of affordable housing have appeared at least, to be better quality, possibly because the architects had more to prove in terms of persuading planners and the community that affordable housing would not "detract" from the neighbourhood. If the standards of high density development in Melbourne were to be reduced any more, we would literally be building slums. Please do not assume that the high prices in Melbourne's apartment market translates into higher quality development. Property developers are using the urban consolidation mantra as an excuse to build high density, mainly for the overseas market and property investors. It is a build 'em quick, sell 'em high mentality. There is absolutely zero incentive for developers to market high density to people on lower incomes here in Melbourne and the investors that are being marketed to do not want prices to be brought down by cheaper units being built. Therefore I have learnt that urban consolidation can only work if a major component is, like you suggest, "social housing". I have also come to the conclusion that higher density development should not be constructed to such a scale that the character, heritage value and green spaces of our inner suburbs are adversely effected. I believe that greater emphasis should be placed on constructing European style medium-density town housing in the middle suburbs where many of the houses built in the 50's and 60's are coming to the end of their lives. There also needs to be a greater emphasis on increasing densities on the urban fringe by building TOD urban villages rather than low density suburbs (admittedly without the public transport but at least there would be an economic reason for it to come, even if it means waiting a few years). Finally we cannot ignore the issue of population growth. There needs to be an open and honest debate about how quickly our population should grow and whether slowing it would allow us time to plan more effectively as opposed to trying to keep up with accommodating ever increasing numbers. To promote urban consolidation as a magic bullet solution without looking at the wider context can therefore I believe, lead to really bad planning outcomes as is happening here in Melbourne.

Here is the full exchange:

Mark Allen

Thank you for the article Peter. I am concerned however that Australian cities do face an increased congestion problem. Here in Melbourne the population is increasing by around 100,000 a year. In fact our infrastructure will need to be doubled in the next 30-40 years. The government's solution is to house this growth by means of urban consolidation, in this case large amounts of apartments close to railway lines. The idea is that people will use existing infrastructure; utilise the train or tram on their doorstep and car usage will be greatly reduced. The reality is sadly a bit more complex. Every new apartment is provided with a parking space for at least one car and many people utilise that space because while having a train on your doorstep is handy for some trips, it does not cover all of them by any means. So by building transport orientated development we are increasing car- usage in the inner suburbs and ironically as the focus is on creating origins rather than destinations along the public transport network, (i.e apartments rather than facilities and places of recreation etc) more and more car journeys are going to be needed as businesses and places of leisure are displaced by apartment building.

Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University, in reply to #comment_739929">Mark Allen

Its not what happens. If you build up densities around stations the main thing that happens is that people use local services much more as well as the transit system. The whole area becomes more walkable and less car dependent. Transit services go up and more local economic activity comes to the area. The cars are mostly left at home and eventually some households get rid of them altogether. It would be much better to have fewer parking spaces available from the start but that is often driven by fearful councillors not wanting people to park on the street.

Mark Allen:

Its 'not what happens' in theory but there is a growing body of research to show that this is what is happening here in Melbourne. The high price of real estate is such that many of the services currently available in transport nodes are being displaced by residential development to the extent that walkability is being lost. I agree that nevertheless people living in apartments in the inner suburbs will and are making far less journeys by car than those in the outer suburbs, but when you take into account the large numbers of people living in these transport orientated developments, you are looking at an overall increase in congestion by the sheer increase in the volume of people. This is despite the fact that per capita car-use is decreasing. I am not against urban consolidation as long as it is not dictated to, as it is at present, by the market. There has to be a component of affordable housing in the mix or else the construction of new apartments only goes to gentrify the areas in which they are constructed. This forces people on lower incomes to the urban fringes where car use is almost essential. Also, 95% of new apartments constructed in Melbourne are one bedroomed and therefore aimed at a narrow demographic which puts additional pressure on the urban fringe for those people who want to start families etc. Unfortunately I believe that the "increased densities around stations" mantra is being exploited by developers (etc) precisely because it is too simplistic and that it hasn't been subjected to enough scrutiny. I recommend that you strike up conversation with Professor Peter Buxton from RMIT in order to learn more about Melbourne's urban consolidation woes. Thank you for your insights.

Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University

I am not talking theory I am telling you what we have measured happening. I am aware of the discussions in Melbourne and the fear of density being generated. I dont see anywhere that those fears have actually led to what you fear.

Mark Allen in reply to Peter Newman:

Professor Kevin O'Connor from Melbourne university recently made a damning assessment of the way urban consolidation is being carried out in Melbourne, citing the Docklands as a prime example. This follows in the footsteps of a similar assessment by Professor Peter Buxton. I am not talking about my fears here. I am basing my assessment on what academics in the field such as yourself, are saying. I understand that your claims are based upon measurements but the parameters are changing all of the time as the apartment boom continues to accelerate. Of course those parameters also vary massively from city to city.

Mark Allen

By coincidence, this article was published on the Domain website today: Low-income renters are being forced to Melbourne's outskirts with areas that were once affordable now out of reach.

Low-income renters forced further to the outskirts of Melbourne

"The biggest drops in rental affordability over the past five years in Greater Melbourne were in the east and south-east; in the Mornington Peninsula, Frankston, Latrobe and the Yarra Ranges municipalities, according to the Department of Health and Human Services rental data.

Melton, Casey and Greater Dandenong – areas traditionally seen as some of Melbourne's most affordable – also recorded a significant decline compared to the rest of Melbourne.

The analysis echoes a similar finding in 2013, which showed Frankston, Greater Dandenong and Casey registered the greatest decline.

The data from the DHHS March Rental Report shows that the majority of Greater Melbourne's 32 municipalities had less than 60 affordable rentals".

Because the apartment boom in Melbourne is aimed at people in the higher income bracket without any thought for affordable housing, suburban sprawl is accelerating. It is a massive oversimplification to say that increasing densities in the inner suburbs stops suburban sprawl. If it is developer driven, it increases it.

Peter Newman in response to Mark Allen:

The issue of affordability in TODs or redevelopment in general is a universal one. You can address it by requiring a certain proportion of social housing or by building more high density housing at lower cost. Many people, perhaps you are one, prevent this as they only want to see high quality high density housing. They have been very successful at stopping high rise in Melbourne especially. This means the rich are moving in and the poor out. It does mean that the rich are driving less, and this is why we are seeing peak car, but our cities are becoming less equitable due to the anti-high rise movement.

>

Mark Allen in reply to Peter Newman:

Very little of the massively overpriced high density in Melbourne is of high quality. Ironically the very few cases that I have seen of affordable housing have appeared at least, to be better quality, possibly because the architects had more to prove in terms of persuading planners and the community that affordable housing would not "detract" from the neighbourhood. If the standards of high density development in Melbourne were to be reduced any more, we would literally be building slums. Please do not assume that the high prices in Melbourne's apartment market translates into higher quality development. Property developers are using the urban consolidation mantra as an excuse to build high density, mainly for the overseas market and property investors. It is a build 'em quick, sell 'em high mentality. There is absolutely zero incentive for developers to market high density to people on lower incomes here in Melbourne and the investors that are being marketed to do not want prices to be brought down by cheaper units being built. Therefore I have learnt that urban consolidation can only work if a major component is, like you suggest, "social housing". I have also come to the conclusion that higher density development should not be constructed to such a scale that the character, heritage value and green spaces of our inner suburbs are adversely effected. I believe that greater emphasis should be placed on constructing European style medium-density town housing in the middle suburbs where many of the houses built in the 50's and 60's are coming to the end of their lives. There also needs to be a greater emphasis on increasing densities on the urban fringe by building TOD urban villages rather than low density suburbs (admittedly without the public transport but at least there would be an economic reason for it to come, even if it means waiting a few years). Finally we cannot ignore the issue of population growth. There needs to be an open and honest debate about how quickly our population should grow and whether slowing it would allow us time to plan more effectively as opposed to trying to keep up with accommodating ever increasing numbers. To promote urban consolidation as a magic bullet solution without looking at the wider context can therefore I believe, lead to really bad planning outcomes as is happening here in Melbourne.

Please hit 'newest' on the 'Comments' section to read the latest dialogue at: https://theconversation.com/dont-panic-traffic-congestion-is-not-coming-for-our-cities-45154

The Fairfax media sank to a new low recently in pushing its in-house pro-population bias (in The Age) by publishing commentary on this crucial issue from the Australian Population Institute.

Unfortunately, the article, ‘We should look to the west as our population swells’, by Jane Nathan, 16 July 2015, highlights the way in which the left-liberal establishment in Australia, including Fairfax, now sings from the same song sheet as free-market growth maniacs. While it may be claimed that the population-boosting rant presented in this article is the opinion of the Australian Population Institute and not Fairfax, Fairfax, of course, can exercise considerable bias in its selection of opinion piece commentary. It has a broad menu of pro-population vested interests to choose from. It is worth mentioning that material presented as commentary or opinion does not have to stand up to any serious standard of factual accuracy or rationality in the eyes of the Australian Press Council. Commentary, therefore, provides an opportunity to push an in-house view to extremes without being very accountable about it. Fairfax may respond that ‘balance’ will be struck over the longer-term with the subsequent publication of opposing views. Just when this may occur or whether subsequent opinion would directly address the inaccuracies and bias of commentary like this within a reasonable time frame remains unclear.

The opinion piece presents a one-dimensional account of booming population growth in the western suburbs of Melbourne, with no recognition, let alone discussion, of the potential short or long-term damage that rapid population growth may cause. It is unadulterated propaganda. Without any consideration of such challenges, the core message of the commentary is simple: rapid population growth is manageable and beneficial; the suburb of Sunshine in Melbourne’s west is an example to be emulated everywhere; and such rapid population growth is compatible with the creation and maintenance of thriving harmonious communities.

In advocating this mind-numbingly superficial view, a number of spurious assumptions are made. It is stated that the tertiary-educated population of Sunshine has increased from 21 to 50 per cent, and the number of women working has increased markedly. What are we to make of such claims in relation to the issue of population growth? The implication is that rapid population growth has the effect of spreading wealth around – that population growth has lifted Sunshine up from being a down trodden working class area to one of higher social status. The reality is that Sunshine remains one of the most socio-economically disadvantaged areas within metropolitan Melbourne. The 2011 Census showed that Sunshine remained in the bottom decile in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Index of Socio-Economic Disadvantage.

The implied linkages are logically flawed and factually feeble. Levels of tertiary education have risen across the board over time and would likely have risen in Sunshine to some degree, despite its low socio-economic status, in the absence of population growth. As to the number of working women in Sunshine, the growth is presented in terms of raw numbers and not rates. The cited numerical growth in employed women is likely to be a simple reflection of overall population growth and not improved labour market access for women in Sunshine. In any case, historically, the workforce participation rates of disadvantaged women in poor areas have often been high – out of necessity. The question should be -- what proportion of women in Sunshine has access to decent jobs? No matter how this question may be answered, the links to population growth remain tenuous.

Reference is made to the provision of new infrastructure in Sunshine, to serve the burgeoning population. The suggestion is that without population growth, we would not have such wonderful new infrastructure. Again, there is a worrying absence of balance and objectivity in this claim. It is widely accepted that rapid population growth in Australia, and particularly in Australia’s capital cities, has created a situation of chronic infrastructure shortfall in many essential areas. In this context, to simply say that some infrastructure has been provided in Sunshine, without any assessment of the remaining shortfall, and of the social and economic consequences of such a shortfall, is bewildering. The public deserves a much better standard of public commentary than this.

Just how misinformed the Australian Population Institute is may be gleaned from its website, where it is claimed that current levels of population growth will take Australia to between 25 and 27 million people by 2050, which it maintains is far too little. Where have these people been for the past decade! Current mid-range population projections from the Australian Bureau of Statistics point to around 37.6 million people by that year. That is roughly the equivalent of an additional three cities the size of Melbourne in a time frame of 25 years.

It may not be surprising that someone, somewhere, may hold such a silly, ill-informed view. But, that it should be shouted from the rooftops by Fairfax deserves greater scrutiny. “Centre-left”? Not likely. This is Fairfax at its hypocritical best and music to the ears of the growth maniacs who are constantly at the doors of our political leaders demanding ever greater levels of population growth to keep the gravy train of dumb growth rolling along. Don’t let Fairfax’s preoccupation with asylum seekers, human rights and political corruption fool you. On basic issues of the economy and economic democracy, Fairfax is far to the right of centre.

Contrary to the Fairfax’s in house view, population is not a politically neutral issue, whereby population growth may be reasonably advocated by either the left or right of the political spectrum. Unquestioning advocacy of population growth by ‘left’ intellectuals reflects an historic capitulation to the deregulatory, free-market right. This is particularly so in Australia where, because of decades of economic short-sightedness, the only way to keep Gross Domestic Product growth rates high in the absence of a mining boom is population growth and city building (given the serious structural impoverishment of the Australian economy – we sell dirt and a little agriculture to the world in return for elaborately transformed goods). In reality, the Australian economy’s reliance upon population growth is a form of crisis management, from which particular sectoral interests parasitically and disproportionately benefit (e.g. housing, banking and retail). For these sectors, any correction of the structural imbalance in the Australian economy would be perceived as a dire threat.

Reliance upon population growth is dumb growth writ large and Fairfax’s faux humanitarianism helps the free-market right along its way.

On April 4, 2015 the ABC and other new services reported on fierce 'clashes' as a newly formed organisation turned up in large numbers to oppose rallies in several states by a political group called Reclaim Australia.

"Organiser Mel Gregson [1] said No Room for Racism was formed with the express purpose of shutting down the 16 rallies across Australia planned by Reclaim Australia. The Reclaim Australia members, on their facebook page, describe their mission as "We as patriotic Australians need to stand together to stop halal tax, sharia law & islamisation.""

Gregson also campaigned against the Melbourne Tunnel Project.

Reclaim Australia.

So is Gregson, and all who support her, denying people the right to demonstrate peacefully about something they believe in, thereby displaying intolerance and bigotry? If she was at an anti-nuclear demonstration, would she cry "evil capitalism" if thugs hired by the nuclear power lobby turned up for a hostile confrontation against her?

Oxford Dictionary Definitions: (Additional observations in bold)

Racism:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Xenophobia:
Dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries. Does this mean the Aborigines who threw spears at the invaders of the First Fleet were xenophobic?

Does the banner "No Room for Racism" prejudge that Reclaim Australia is made up of racists without even understanding the meaning of the word? Is denying people the right to peacefully express a (non racist?) point of view in a public gathering analogous to autocratic imposition of martial law denying those people their rights?

This is not an argument about one side being right and the other side being wrong. This is an objective criticism of the motives and moral legitimacy of No Room for Racism.

No Room for Racism was chanting:
"The Reclaim members sang renditions of Advance Australia Fair, but the anti-racism protesters’ chants of “immigrants are welcome, racists are not” could also be heard throughout the CBD."

2014-15: Migration program set at 190,000 places; humanitarian intake 13,750 places. SOURCES: Department of Immigration; Australian Bureau of Statistics.

So is No Room for Racism not only confused about the meaning of the term racism but also confused about immigration and its impact on infrastructure expansion and the capacity to accept refugees in preference to relatively wealthy migrants? Isn't lack of population growth management driving the infrastructure expansion that Mel Gregson also opposes? Are Gregson and her supporters totally confused about the differences between refugees, mass migration and population growth management? Is this the kind of confusion that is endemic in Australian society as a direct result of the ABC (and other media) suppressing public policy debate of population growth management? Is this a form of confused "socialism" which is actually acting against global social equity by supporting exactly the same values as globalisation and right wing extremism?

Is a valid conclusion that Australia should have "No Room for Duplicitous, Self-Righteous, Incoherent Bigots" whose confused logic is carefully nurtured by dishonest taxpayer funded ABC broadcasters?

NOTES

[1] Mel Gregson is a member of the Socialist Party of Australia. See http://fightback.org.nz/category/general/events/page/3/ and http://links.org.au/node/3095

The Intergenerational Report is used to claim that we don't have enough workers, and imply that we need more – either migrant workers or people working longer. The reality is the opposite. (Originally published on Kelvin Thomson's blog at http://kelvinthomson.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/victorias-record-underemployment.html.)

Victorian workers are struggling to find enough hours in record numbers, with our under-employment rate now at its highest level for almost forty years. 293,000 part-time workers are looking for and available to work more hours but can't get them. 9.5 per cent of Victoria's workforce is now classified as underemployed, the highest since the Bureau of statistics started keeping records in 1978.

So the real problem we have right now, not the imaginary problem we might have in the future, is nottoo few workers, but too many.

The Intergenerational Report's unsurprising and unremarkable finding that the population is ageing is used to claim that the workforce is constrained by the supply of workers, implying that there is work for all who offer themselves. As the figures above show, this is rubbish. It leads to a "blame the victim" approach in unemployment, welfare to work programs and job readiness training.

The Report is used to claim that population ageing in Australia will be a debacle. Will it?Helpfully, there are other countries with a noticeably older population than Australia, so we can compare our performance with theirs. The Queensland academic Jane O'Sullivan has done this in a chapter in the book "Sustainable Futures", recently published by the CSIRO.

Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland and the United Kingdom all have a much greater old age dependency ratio than does Australia. Between 2000 and 2010 Australia's population grew at three times the rate of Sweden, Denmark, the UK and Finland, twice the rate of Norway's, and Germany didn't grow at all.

So with our much faster population growth and our younger workforce, we would have outperformed those countries, right? Wrong. Germany and the UK had the same per capita increase in income in the 2000-10 period, and Sweden and Finland had much higher growth in per capita income. And every one of those five countries performed much better than Australia in terms of the percentage of income received by the poorest quintile. This is important – income inequality in developed nations is strongly correlated with worse physical health, mental health, drug abuse, imprisonment, obesity,violence, and teenage pregnancy.

As Jane O'Sullivan puts it, in stable populations like Germany, people retire with considerable savings, and give more to the next generation than they receive from them. Their retirement opens up recreational opportunities for them and a job opportunity for a young person. In contrast, the vibrancy claimed for a rapidly growing population is often that of the crowded market place with more buyers than sellers, where recreation is something reserved for elites and foreign tourists.

As said by William Grey, from the University of Queensland, growth is the problem to which it pretends to be the solution.

Planning Backlash reports that there have been some discussions with the Assistant Treasurer about the continued flouting of the FIRB regulations that contain exploitive overseas investment in the local property market. These breaches are resulting in driving prices for housing up to the exclusion of locals, adding to a rapid demolition of housing stock for new 'MacMasions', adding unoccupied houses to our neighbourhoods and resulting in buying tours from overseas which exclude local buyers. Here is how you can help:

Planning Backlash seek your help to identify specific examples of breaches of the regulations so we can give evidence in calling for enforcement of the regulations. Please contact Mary Drost by clicking on her name and using the contact form.

These regulations are in essence

1. Non residents can buy new houses for the purposes of residency associated with work or study whilst in Australia, as soon as this work or study finishes the property must be sold.

2. The houses must be occupied by the buyer or person for whon it was purchased

3. Non residents are forbidden from buying existing houses.

We want to know if you have evidence of houses bought through 3rd parties to facilitate demolition.

We want to know of houses that have been bought and have no permanent resident.

We want to know of evidence of buying trips out of SE Asia that exclude locals.

We want to know where overseas buyers have multiple properties in their own, or multiple family names.

Can you help?

Our intent is to see the law enforced and penalties imposed where it is not and so get fairness and equity back into the market.

As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes. They need your help today. You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?
Read all about it and take action. Originally published at https://orronggroup.wordpress.com/ as an article posted by Hootville, "Urgent: Council’s plan for parkland next to 590 Orrong Rd".

As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes.

They need your help today.

You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?

Read all about it and take action: As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes.

They need your help today.

You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?

Read all about it and take action:

Victory Square under threat, playground demolished, (yet) more cricket facilities planned. 

The words below come to us from members of a new group: No Confidence in Stonnington, many of whom live near “ground zero”. Not only have these residents been lumbered with the gross over development that is 590 Orrong Rd, they are facing compulsory acquisition of their homes – using money from the developer.

That money – which is obligatory by law – is supposed to compensate locals  for the massive impact of the development. Instead it seems that the money will be spent in ways that hurts locals more and benefit one very specific group in the community. If that’s not enough, the group has drawn our attention to a hideous new possible masterplan for the Victory Square space. It seems that people – dog walkers, parents, kids, older people, joggers, those that just enjoy a (tiny) open space – will be ignored in favour of powerful sports clubs. If what you read below upsets you, learn more and take action at their website.  

Stonnington Council proposes to place a Public Acquisition Overlay over three homes adjacent to Toorak Oval and Victory Square (Amendment C 197) (homes at 10 and 14 Aubrey St and 1aFulton Street). They have already spent over $1.4M quietly acquiring 1 Fulton Street in 2014. They are in a position to spend millions of ratepayers’ funds on potentially acquiring homes because of the developer contributions they will receive, by law, from the Lend Lease development at 590 Orrong Road.

The anticipated open space needs generated by this development should have been provided at that land. The local community should not be required to provide land for the public open space needs generated by that development and had understood the development contributions from that development would go to improving existing open space, not acquiring more land.

Another master plan for Toorak Oval and Victory Square

The existing master plan does not contemplate the expansion of the park area. However, the Council proposes to spend money on yet another master plan for Toorak Oval and Victory Square and preliminary plans indicate that they wish to spend ratepayers’ funds to acquire the three homes and turn them into cricket nets and re-allocated car parking spaces. Victory Square will be turned into a mini football/cricket oval and will see the removal of the much used playground. It is likely that it will not longer be accessible for the many dog owners, parents, children and seniors, who use the park all day, every day.

Object by Monday 2nd February If you agree that this is certainly not the best allocation of ratepayers’ funds, nor the best outcome for the wider community, not just the influential sporting groups, please object. More details and an objection form here.

It is believed that up until two weeks post election 457 visa workers from Spain and their families were still arriving to work on East West Link. However the latest news is that the Authority behind the East West Link is being disbanded by the Andrews Government. There are, however, still many issues left over from the Napthine Government and East West Link that need to be carefully monitored in the area of environment, democracy and heritage.

East West Link News: The good news received yesterday is that Linking Melbourne Authority responsible for the East West Link is being disbanded by the Andrews Government."Authority behind the East West Link ditched" by Clay Lucas. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/authority-behind-east-west-link-ditched-20150107-12jg0e.html

This spells the demise of this monster project which would have been an environmental, social and economic disaster for the State. Many seem to be in a state of disbelief at the news. Few have been commending the Andrews Government for the action taken to wind up the East West Link. In our view its a bigger win than the Franklin Dam victory.

One activist has asked "Now just what are we all gonna do with ourselves this year? " There is plenty still to do re East West Link and other issues. And any win is temporary, any loss permanent as David Suzuki has commented, so eternal vigilance is the order of the day:

Priority Issues Re Winding Up the East West Link :

1 Royal Park Heritage The former Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, included the Royal Park on the State Heritage Register but spelt out exemptions to allow the East West Link to be routed through the Park, thus - in our view - negating its heritage standing! Our organisation and the Royal Park Protection Group Inc. sought legal advice and were advised that this matter could be referred to the Supreme Court but the cost precluded us from proceeding. We hope to raise this issue with the Acting Planning Minister. We have raised it already with the Director of Heritage Victoria.

2 Status of New Sports Facilities in Royal and Princes Parks. As you might be aware the City of Melbourne received funding of up to $14 million to fast track development of sports facilities in Royal Park and Princes Park to compensate for the forecast loss of sporting facilities on the Ross Straw Field in Royal Park with the construction of the East West Link. We have been extremely alarmed over the loss of open parkland for passive recreation and informal sports and the addition of light towers to the Flemington Road sports ground next to the Royal Children's Hospital and in Princes Park. As far as we know, a memorandum of understanding between Linking Melbourne Authority and the City of Melbourne was signed but given LMA is being wound up and that the East West Link will not proceed, is this agreement still valid? We are fighting the installation of sports lighting. The light spill and the towers themselves would have a detrimental impact on the environment, on cultural landscapes, on heritage and residential amenity.

3 Zoo's Territorial Ambitions to expand its Parking in Royal Park. As you may be aware the Zoo had negotiated secretly with Linking Melbourne Authority to alienate a great slab of Royal Park after construction of the East West Link was completed for its parking. We propose to pursue this question with Zoo management to promote public transport and alternative forms of transport to the Zoo. This has already been raised with the Zoo Director.

4 Immigration of 457 Workers to Work on East West Link. Rumour abounds that as late as two weeks after the election workers from Spain and their families were still arriving under 457 visas to work for the East West Connect consortium on the East West Link. If any one has information on this subject can you let me know? Meantime see photo taken in Royal Park by Age photographer Paul Jeffers of the East West Link opponents grouped on the very spot that the tunnel was to emerge into Royal Park Park on the Ross Straw Field. Work was to start on this spot in January until the Andrews Government called a halt to the project. (See photo in Clay Lucas' article)

5 Supreme Court Cases re East West Link. Don't think we have forgotten the stand that Councils plus Tony Murphy took over the East West Link. We have yet to hear when the cases of Yarra and Moreland Council and Moonee Valley Council will be heard. It would be great to get a comment on the final decision on the Tony Murphy case in the Supreme Court.

Source: Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria

"In a country with baby bonuses, paid parental leave schemes and a high immigration intake, to argue that rapid growth can't be avoided is like claiming that speeding is inevitable while your foot is on the accelerator." (Melvin Bolton)

We so often hear about Melbourne's 'livability' according to the specious and self-fulfilling criteria of the 'Economist group' that it is nice to hear about "Another major liveability index for cities is produced by the American consulting firm, Mercer. "The Mercer Quality of Living Survey for cities is continually being updated and it ranks more than 220 cities on scores under dozens of different criteria of liveability. In this list Vienna has come top for three years in a row and Sydney has come in at number ten, also for the past three years. Melbourne doesn't make it to the top ten and the other nine have populations smaller than Sydney's." (Melvin Bolton)

Transcript from "Finding the Right Size"
Ockham's Razor, Sunday, 14 December 2014.

Robyn Williams interviews science writer, Melvin Bolton, who talks about the work of Professor John Burden Sanderson Haldane

Robyn Williams: J.B.S. Haldane has always been a hero of mine, mainly because he was bonkers, but also because he was seriously clever. I ran a poem of his in the Science Show a couple of weeks back: ‘I wish I had the voice of Homer, to sing of rectal carcinoma…’ or something like that. Yes, Haldane wrote a poem about his tumour. He also used to blow himself up during the war to test explosive atmospheres in ships and submarines because he wanted to make them safe for soldiers and sailors. Haldane was a sort of aristo, Eton and Oxford, but also, weirdly, the communist party and he wrote magnificent pieces on sciences. He was a great science communicator, writing classics, like the once you’re going to hear about from Melvin Bolton in Yeppoon in Queensland.

Melvin Bolton: Many years ago, in England, I was trying to find my way in the dark round the back of a building, when I tumbled into a pit that led to a coal cellar. I came out in nasty bruises and had to walk with a stick for fortnight, but it occurred to me that if I'd been a much heavier person I would not have got off so lightly. It really is true that the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

I had this in mind at the time because I'd been reading an essay On Being the Right Size by J.B.S. Haldane. Haldane was a mathematician but he was so brilliant he could turn to whatever he liked in science and in 1933, after teaching biochemistry at Cambridge, he became professor of genetics at University College London. Haldane was one of the pioneers of genetics. It was he who came up with the word 'clone' in the sense that we know it today, and some of his predictions were taken up by his friend, Aldous Huxley, and worked into the novel Brave New World.

In that essay on being the right size, Haldane pointed out that if a beetle fell into a mineshaft, a kilometre deep, it would be none the worse for it. Even a mouse might get over the shock if the ground wasn't too hard, but a rat would be killed, a human would break up, and a horse would splash.

This is because the resistance to falling through air is proportional to the surface that meets the air to cause friction. And as volume and weight are scaled up, the surface area gets relatively less. A horse might be a thousand times heavier than a rat but would have only about a hundred times the surface to slow its fall.

The relationship between weight, or volume, and surface, largely accounts for all the sizes and shapes that we see in nature because things can't just get bigger and keep the same shape. It would be impossible, for instance, to have a rhinocerus shaped like a gazelle. A rhino might be four times the length of a gazelle but if the gazelle were scaled up to be four times as long, it would be 64 times heavier—its weight would increase from 30 kilos to nearly two tonnes. On the same-shaped legs it would lie in a heap, unable to stand up.

Nature can never break the laws of maths and physics so has come up with ways of working around them, just as engineers and planners do, but I'll come to that in a minute. I first want to make the point that big animals and plants are more complicated than small ones because they have to be; it's a consequence of being bigger. Single cells, like bacteria, were the only form of life on Earth for more than a billion years, and they are still highly successful but they must stay small. All exchange with the outside world has to take place through the surface, and the centre of the cell has to be close enough to the outside for gases and liquids to move adequately, just by diffusion.

When cells join together to form bigger forms of life, the surface gets proportionally smaller, the centre gets further from the outside, and there needs to be some sort of transport system such as blood or sap that can deliver the necessities of life a lot faster and more efficiently than can happen by simple diffusion.

In nature, there is often a need for bigger surfaces in places that can't be expanded any further—such as inside heads or intestines. In a bird's head the brain is quite smooth on the outside but a chimpanzee has to pack many more neurones around its brain so the surface has a lot of folds or convolutions—which increase the area without making the head any bigger. This is a process that's gone furthest of all in humans.

A small Intestine needs a huge surface to deal with digestion so the lining has projections, like the pile on a carpet. This increases the surface enormously. It varies between individuals, but an adult small intestine has a surface area of thirty to forty square metres—which is close to half a badminton court.

In a final example, let's take a simple shape like an egg, no projections of any sort. Inside a bird's egg the developing chick has the equivalent of a placenta close to the inside of the shell. The chick gets all its oxygen and gets rid of carbon dioxide through tiny holes, or pores, in the shell. and that presents a problem with bigger eggs. An emu's egg is about six times longer and wider than a sparrow's egg but it weighs about 250 times as much. The shell has to be twelve times as thick and a thick shell is a huge barrier to the passage of gases. The problem has been solved in birds by having the pores closer together, and with a much bigger diameter in thicker shells.

Evolution is essentially a numbers game and nature is made up of compromises that have evolved, step-by-step, minute by minute, through mutations and the filtering effects of natural selection over millions of years. The best compromise emerges because everything that's exposed to natural selection is weighed in the balance for such long periods of time.

Engineers, and others who build things and create new materials, are working with exactly the same constraints set by the laws of physics and maths, and they sometimes get their ideas from nature.

Professor Haldane, in his essay on size, did not get into the topic of deliberately trying to copy nature, but he did make the point that just as there is a best size for every animal, so there must be for every human institution. He pointed out that in ancient greece all the citizens could listen to a series of orators and then vote directly on matters of legislation. So philosophers at that time had reason to believe that a small city was the largest possible democratic state.

New methods of communication had changed things a lot by Haldane's time and they've changed a lot more since then. Although when you look at all the duplications of our old federal system you might think that the tyranny of distance is still a major problem in Australia.

So is it still true today that there is an optimum size for human institutions, for nations, for cities? We hear political leaders on all sides of politics declaring that they believe in a big Australia. They don't say how big, though they can't possibly think we can keep making things bigger and bigger indefinitely. They just say they believe in a big Australia as if it is a matter of belief; an article of faith.

Why do they believe it? Usually they say it's because it will produce a better quality of life for all Australians. Is that likely? How many Melbournians think that life will be better in a Melbourne that's twice the size it is now, with twice the number needing housing, services and transport?

Is there any evidence for thinking either way? Well, we can start by looking at the Human Development Index. This is published each year by the United Nations Development Programme and it ranks the UN member countries according to how well their people are doing in terms of health, education, lifespan and general standard of living.

For the past few years, Australia has come second after Norway, with Denmark third. Another index, that goes further than the United Nations one, is put out each year by the Economist Intelligence Unit, based in London. Originally called the Quality of Life Index, it's now known as the Where to be Born Index, which I suppose makes it sound more foward-looking for prospective parents as well as investors. In addition to all the basic welfare issues of health, education, security and so on, it factors in people's feelings of satisfaction with life, based on scores derived from Gallup polls. It even takes climate into consideration.

And with all that, the interesting thing is that it places exactly the same countries in the top ten that the United Nations comes up with. They are in a slightly different order; Australia comes second, with Switzerland first and Norway in third place, but the same ten countries top the list. Six of those top ten countries have smaller populations than Australia.

We can look at cities in the same way. Every year, the Economist Intelligence Unit produces liveability rankings for cities around the world. These are based on scores reached under headings that include stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure. In the most recent report, released in 2013, Melbourne came top of the list of 140 cities, followed by Vienna and Vancouver. Of the top ten cities, seven were smaller than Melbourne.

Another major liveability index for cities is produced by the American consulting firm, Mercer. The Mercer Quality of Living Survey for cities is continually being updated and it ranks more than 220 cities on scores under dozens of different criteria of liveability. In this list Vienna has come top for three years in a row and Sydney has come in at number ten, also for the past three years. Melbourne doesn't make it to the top ten and the other nine have populations smaller than Sydney's.

Now, these league tables may not prove anything but they certainly don't offer any support for the belief that getting bigger and bigger will do anything to improve the quality of life for all Australians. They suggest, if anything, that Melbourne and Sydney are doing well despite their size, not because of it.

And such evidence as there is from surveys here in Australia indicates that most Australians are putting up with high population growth rather than wanting it. Why we are putting up with it is another question entirely, and your guess is as good as mine.

When Big Australia believers are quizzed about their reasoning, some of them back off and say simply that our growth rate is unavoidable so we just have to keep on accommodating it—building upwards, over farmland, making more flyovers, freeways, by-passes, tunnels, whatever it takes to cope with centres getting further and further from peripheries and all the other complications of increasing size.

But in a country with baby bonuses, paid parental leave schemes and a high immigration intake, to argue that rapid growth can't be avoided is like claiming that speeding is inevitable while your foot is on the accelerator.

Professor Haldane, in case you are wondering, died in 1964 at the age of 72. His full name, incidentally, was John Burden Sanderson Haldane and he died in India, having emigrated there eight years earlier. He had also taken to wearing Indian dress, remarking that "sixty years in socks is enough." I doubt that he really did have a problem with socks, although, if there was a lot of stretching and shrinking ... no, surely not.

Robyn Williams: Maybe not Melvin, but I’ll tell you one thing that happened when Haldane went to India: Everyone expected him to turn up with tons of shiny apparatus. Instead he gave the Indian scientists pencils and paper and asked them to count the leaves on trees. As a result they found that there were two crop species instead of one. Selecting the best enabled them to double the yield. Yes, Haldane was a genius, if nuts. Melvin Bolton comes from Yeppoon in Queensland.

Next week Ockham’s Razor comes from Western Australia where Dr Peter Underwood tries to corrupt his grandson. That’ll be in Science Extra.

Rapid population growth is political poison, and has brought down a second Victorian Government in four years. In the past decade Australia's migration rate more than doubled. The greatest consequences of this dramatic increase have been in Melbourne, which started growing by more than 200 people a day, 1500 each week, 75,000 each year.

As I pointed out at the time, the adverse consequences of this growth for planning, transport, the environment and the cost of living were crucial in bringing down the former Labor Government. Article originally published on Kelvin Thomson MP's site.

But the incoming Liberal Government did not understand why it had won, and fell for the trap of believing its own propaganda. Melbourne's population growth continued apace, and Ted Baillieu said strong population growth was vital to the state's economic future. He did not last long.

His successor Denis Napthine did not last much longer. How he must be wishing he had put money into Victoria's emergency services and TAFE, instead of allocating billions to a new tollway to try to fix population driven traffic congestion.

I congratulate new Premier Dan Andrews on his remarkable win, defeating a first term government for the first time in sixty years. He showed great courage and foresight in supporting public transport approaches to Melbourne's traffic chaos, such as Melbourne Metro and removing level crossings.

The Federal Liberal Government must also accept its share of responsibility for this defeat. Both Denis Napthine and Dan Andrews have been professional, predictable and measured in their actions and campaigning. Tony Abbott has stomped into this relatively tranquil environment like an out of control Tyrannosaurus, attacking students and pensioners, cutting health, education, and the ABC, and trying to cut the Renewable Energy Target.

Prime Minister Abbott is out of touch with Victorians. Victorians want action on climate change and support renewable energy. Victorians support higher education and don't want to see a university education become unaffordable. Victorians support manufacturing industry and are dismayed at the Federal Government's contempt for the car industry and for SPC Ardmona. The result in Shepparton bears that out.

If the Prime Minister does not change, he too could lead a one term government. He should demonstrate that he is prepared to listen by abandoning his calls for the East West Tollway to proceed. This is an incitement to the new Labor Government to break its election promise on this. There was a time when Tony Abbott was very big on keeping election promises, on honour and trust in politics. He needs to remember what he used to say, and work with the new Government to implement its election commitments such as Melbourne Metro and the under grounding of level crossings.

SavingVictoria: Invitation to Green Wedges Coalition AGM & election forum next Tuesday 28 October; Wildflower walks in the western grasslands, PPL rally vs the EWL.

1. Please consider the Green Wedges when you vote next month. With this in mind, the Green Wedges Coalition is hosting an election forum at our AGM, at 1pm on Tuesday 28 October, in the Legislative Council Committee Room at Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne.

The Labor and Greens Planning Spokesmen, Brian Tee and Greg Barber have agreed to address the AGM The Minister, Mr Guy, after initially indicating that he would address our AGM, has declined: we have asked him to send a representative. Professor Michael Buxton will also attend and speak.

NBNB: If you are able to attend, please can you RSVP to [email protected] by Monday 27/10?

The Green Wedges are still under threat, though we have been quieter than the turbulent days of the "logical inclusions", "anomalies" and the rural zones review. We are still picking up the pieces, but fortunately there is still a lot of land protected in the Green Wedges.

The threats this year are not as overt as they were before the 2010 election, but they are still there. With 50,000 ha of Green Wedge land rezoned for Urban Growth - and likely to provide up to 50 years of urban sprawl, all three parliamentary parties are now committed to protecting green wedges. Plan Melbourne provides for a permanent urban boundary, but read the fine print and you will see that the Metropolitan Planning Authority, which seems to be just the Growth Areas Authority in sheep's clothing, has responsibility for implementation, with input from Councils.
Minister Guy says this does not herald a new round of rezoning bids and we certainly hope he is right.

Apart from this, the main threats to the Green Wedges now consist of:

* Changes to the Rural Conservation Zone. as a result of the Rural Zones Review. Once the most sensitive zone for protecting the highest conservation status land, a number of tourism and urban uses have now been permitted (or have had the rule that they must be in conjunction with agriculture, wineries or other green wedge uses, removed) so that there is now less protection for RCZ, particularly in the rural areas, than there is for GWZ and GWAZ. See list below.

When Green Wedges last met with Minister Guy in June, he said he would restore the protection provisions, which he
fortunately chose to retain for the GWZ and GWAZ after initially proposing to make the same changes.

* Decisions by Kingston Council to rezone or otherwise pave the way for urban-scale subdivision (potentially) almost all of the privately owned land in the Kingston section of the Green Wedge. (For details, see the Defenders of the South East Green Wedge bulletin (below) and petition (attached).

Planning Minister Guy has said publicly that he will not rezone the Green Wedge for residential development, but neither will he restore certainty by refusing these proposals outright. Instead, uncertainty is allowed to fester, and no doubt not only in Kingston's part of the South East Green Wedge but no doubt developers and their friends in other councils are
waiting to see what happens in Kingston. The petition was presented on the last day of the parliament.

Please ask your MPs and candidates where they stand on Green Wedge protection in general and these issues in particular.

2. If you would like to take a tour of the wildflower meadows in the western basalt plains grasslands, google wildflowerwalks.org.au" and that will give you a link to Wildflower walks out West. Thanks to Colleen Miller and to Andrew Booth for the advice: he warns that when he put the address straight into the address bar it didn't work). We have invited the three parliamentary parties' planning spokesmen to take one of these tours, in the hope that whoever is Planning Minister in December will protect at least some more of the 5000 ha of high quality grasslands to be cleared as a result of the 50,000 ha of Green Wedges land cleared since 2010.

3. We helped celebrate the end of this parliamentary term on Thursday by taking part in a PPL rally against the East West Link on the Parliament steps last week. (See pics attached). We had an impact beyond our numbers thanks to Micj Connolly's beautiful placards. Thanks to Julianne Bell for her fantastic efforts to stop the EWL and to save Royal Park. As Kahn said at the last rally, if we support their rally, we hope they’ll support ours. And they certainly did in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

GWC was asked to briefly present a message of support for PT and opposition to EWL. and I read out the same message as the PT not tollroads rally last year: Green Wedges Coalition supports the campaign against the East-West link and for the rail. Building another big road only encourages more sprawl outwards (and sideways) into our green wedges. (thanks to Ann McGregor of Friends of Merri Creek for the words)

Rosemary West
joint coordinator
Green Wedges Coalition
0418 554 799

Audience with open microphone, commenting and asking questions of Kelvin Thomson and Mayor Doyle at the "Big Population Debate" on 13 October 2014 at Deakin Edge, Federation Square, which attracted well over 200 people from peak ratepayers, planning and environmental groups. It culminated in a call by Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash, for a referendum on Australia's population growth. Both Kelvin Thomson and Lord Mayor Doyle agreed that this was a good idea.

Video inside: The Big Population Debate at the Deakin Edge in Federation Square, Melbourne, on October 13, 2014, between Kelvin Thomson and Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, was a fantastic success in terms of numbers and outcome. Given the utter inertia of political process in responding to this democratic emergency, Mary Drost's call for a Referendum on Australia's Population Growth was a great idea to go forward. With both Kelvin Thomson and Mayor Doyle agreeing that a referendum on population is a good idea, Victorians and other Australians have something concrete to go forward with. The film here is of the debate. The referendum is on the open mike section, which is the next film that will be published. The debate embedded here showed that Mayor Doyle really doesn't have a handle on the issue at all, except as a loyal servant to the business end of growth. Kelvin Thomson's ability to debate the subject would make him a world leader in this area. This is a very important and historic record. Congratulations to Mary Drost of Planning Backlash for making it happen. Sheila Newman produced the video.

Video and Transcript inside: Federal Labor Member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, spoke in Parliament against the signing of contracts and the construction of the East West Link Road Tunnel, also known as the Royal Park Freeway. Before the election the Liberals were in favour of independent cost benefit analysis for major projects, yet now in government, they are avoiding undertaking one for the East-West Link in Melbourne, the freeway through Royal Park. Mr Thomson wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and his Parliamentary Secretary on 27th August, to seek appropriate and publicly transparent economic modelling, environmental assessment and community consultation before tens of billions of dollars are spent on a tunnel that makes no economic sense, will damage our environment and which will hurt local communities. (23/9/14). Note that Kelvin will be publicly debating Victoria's population growth policy with Melbourne Mayor Robert Doyle on 13 October in Melbourne at Deakin Edge in Federation Square from 5.30-7pm.

[Candobetter.net editor is responsible for the insertion of all headings and emphases ]

It is deeply ironic in this debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Measures) Bill 2014 that we should get a lecture from government members opposite about the virtues of independent cost-benefit analysis for major projects when in my own area they are running a mile from undertaking one for the East West Link in Melbourne—that is, the freeway through Royal Park.

I wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and his parliamentary secretary on 27 August seeking appropriate and publicly transparent economic modelling, environmental assessment and community consultation before we get tens of billions of dollars spent on a tunnel that makes no economic sense, will damage our environment and will hurt local communities.

The coalition government has spent $1.5 billion for both stage 1 and stage 2 of the East West Link project to connect the Eastern Freeway to CityLink with the idea of connecting the link to Melbourne's western ring road and western suburbs. Both these stages are reported to cost between $8 billion and $10 billion.

Huge, unjustified cost to taxpayers

These are huge sums of taxpayers' money that ought to be carefully considered in the context of the need for governments to live within their means. We often hear from those opposite about the need for government to live within its means. We constantly get lectured about fiscal responsibility. One would expect that a carefully thought out economic analysis would have been undertaken and released to verify the need for the East West tunnel project and the need for large sums of taxpayers' money; however, this is not the case.

Illusory economic modeling

Media reports based on FOI and leaked information have indicated that such economic modelling that has been carried out has been based on false assumptions regarding petrol prices, incomes, car running costs and inner-city parking. Against that background, I welcome and congratulate the Victorian Labor opposition leader, Daniel Andrews, for his leadership on infrastructure issues. Back on 11 September he stated that the forthcoming election in November in Victoria will be a choice of either better public transport and local roads or the $8 billion dud East West Link road tunnel.

No certainty that any contracts for the East West Link are legally binding

Victorian Labor has obtained legal advice which states that any contract that is signed before an election for a project that is facing a Supreme Court challenge cannot be entered into safely. That legal advice was obtained by former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein, administrative law expert Richard Niall QC and contract law expert Siobhan Keating. Victorian Labor states that it will not be held responsible for a document that was recklessly devised in haste and error and that it does not believe that any contracts for the East West Link project can be validly entered into while a matter before the Supreme Court remains unresolved and there can be no certainty that any contracts for the East West Link are legally binding.

Victorian Labor has said if no legally binding contracts exist, then a Victorian Labor government will not proceed with the East West Link project.

Disgraceful haste to sign before elections

It is a disgrace that the Victorian Liberal Treasurer, Michael O'Brien, says the government is determined to sign the East West contracts before the onset of the pre-election caretaker period. I need to bring to the attention of the House that we need to recall that the Liberal Party said before the election that it would not build the East West Link. It did not take this issue to the voters. Now it is shamelessly trying to lock Victorian taxpayers into billions and billions of dollars on a freeway through Royal Park. This project is so big that it will eat up both Victoria's road budget and public transport budget for years. It kills off the legitimate aspirations of communities from all parts of Melbourne for improvements to their local roads, railway crossings and the like.

This fraud on the voters—trying to lock taxpayers into this lemon before an election can be held—comes from the same political party that talked up such a storm and became positively apoplectic over Julia Gillard's 'no carbon tax' pre-election statement. You have to wonder: where is that 'convoy of no confidence' when you need it? The East West tunnel project will cripple Victoria's finances for many years to come. It will crowd out the state's other core responsibilities in public transport, education and health. A proper, thorough and publicly transparent economic modelling case should be undertaken for this project. If we examine what is known in terms of economic analysis of the tunnel, then we can come to some understanding as to why this government is ducking and weaving to avoid undertaking one.

The government's business case relies totally on the assumption of what economists call an agglomeration effect in which population and economic clusters in cities lead to efficiencies and add to business productivity. The Linking Melbourne Authority, which provides information on road infrastructure projects conducted on behalf of the Victorian government, has referred to a book by the American writer Edward L Glaeser called Triumph of the City. Its main thesis is the agglomeration benefits that create cities. The Linking Melbourne Authority does not appear to have read the book, because the book does not argue that freeways are the path to create these benefits. In fact, it argues quite the opposite. Mr Glaeser argues that 'driving creates negative externalities that hamper urban economies' and he warns against highway building, calling it 'anti-urban'. He said For decades we have tried to solve the problem of too many cars on too few lanes by building more roads, but each new highway or bridge then attracts more traffic.

The Age commentator Kenneth Davidson has accurately pointed out in relation to the Royal Park freeway It will cripple the state's fiscal position for many years through massive payments to the public-private partnership consortium that will finance it.

The financial burden on the Victorian taxpayer will be so big that it will ''crowd out'' the state's core responsibilities for funding schools, hospitals, rail transport and even other roads for at least a generation.

Vic Gov Economic consultant says economic benefits wildly overstated

An email recently obtained through FOI illustrates that the Victorian government's own economic consultant, Chris Tehan of Evans and Peck, told the government that the business case 'had dramatically overestimated the wider economic benefits to get an artificial figure of a $1.40 return'. According to The Age … the methodology ''has not been used in any of [the Transport Department's] other public transport projects or program modelling to date''.

Financial case based on reverse of actual trends

The financial case for the East West Link hinges on a prediction that toll road use will jump over the next 30 years because of rising wealth and shrinking petrol and CBD parking price rises. The business case makes the controversial assumption that: first, a driver's willingness to use toll roads will increase by 1.4 per cent per annum due to rising incomes; second, the rate of increase in the cost of running a car will fall from the current two per cent per annum in real terms to half a per cent per annum by 2041; and, third, that the rate of increase in the cost of inner city parking, which is currently increasing at four per cent per annum in real terms, will fall to 0.5 per cent by 2041. I personally regard this as a remarkably heroic assumption given that the state government has decided to extend its congestion levy up from the City of Melbourne into the City of Moreland, up into my electorate, in recent times. This will of course lead to significant increases to the cost of inner city parking.

The Victorian government has been caught out manipulating modelling to produce a favourable result.

Why the public are cynical about "bigticket" infrastructure

The former Infrastructure Australia head Michael Deegan told a Senate committee that the government's unpublished business case provided an alternative estimate showing a cost-benefit ratio of just 0.8. Under this scenario, the project would return just 80c for every dollar spent, suggesting an economic loss if the stock standard analysis preferred by Infrastructure Australia is used. According to The Age, in a submission to a federal infrastructure inquiry, Infrastructure Australia outed Victoria for failing to submit a robust business case for the East West Link, singling out … the controversial $6 billion to $8 billion road as a key example of why the public are cynical about "bigticket"
infrastructure announcements.

Infrastructure Australia's 11-member council—which includes transport experts like Sir Rod Eddington and the former federal Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson—is understood to broadly recommend only those projects with benefit-cost ratios of more than 1.5. And Michael Deegan warns that big-spending promises are being made without proper scrutiny. He said This is a particular problem during election periods where commitments are often made, although robust business cases have not been prepared, let alone independently reviewed … The freeway through Royal Park is a classic example of economic mutton dressed up as lamb.

According to traffic expert Stephen Pelosi, the traffic on the East West Link during the morning peak is expected to slow to 20 to 30 kilometres per hour by 2031 as worsening congestion pushes the road close to capacity just 12 years after it is due to open. The East West Link is forecast to carry 80,000 vehicles a day on opening in 2019, increasing to between 100,000 and 120,000 a day by 2031 according to this modelling.

Stephen Pelosi said If it's reaching 120,000 we're at a position where we're reaching capacity. Unless you intervene in some manner and manage the toll rate to influence demand, you get a situation where you're near capacity.

If it is good enough for the NBN, as the previous speaker suggested to the House, it should be good enough for this project too. Why is the government only too happy to undertake economic modelling on the NBN yet, when it comes to the largest infrastructure and transport project in Victoria's history—East West Link—it refuses to do so. If the age of entitlement is over, why isn't the private sector bankrolling East West Link? If we are in the midst of a budget emergency, why aren't the belts being tightened when it comes to major projects that do not make economic sense?

That is why the amendments to the bill which Labor has moved seek to assess projects first on their merits and fund them later, not the other way around. We also seek to strengthen transparency and public disclosure of project assessments. These are strong measures that will prevent money being wasted on potential white elephants like the East West Link. If this government were serious about fiscal responsibility, if it were serious about merit based infrastructure planning then the freeway through Royal Park in Melbourne would not proceed.

Lack of due diligence

Concern with the lack of due diligence behind the decision to proceed with this freeway is growing. It is acknowledged in the transport industry that adding road capacity through the freeway will bring in more vehicles more quickly and actually worsen congestion on Haddle Street, Flemington Road, Tullamarine Freeway and other roads that are currently at capacity.

Industry assessments are that the freeway will not fix congestion, because, as the 2008 Eddington report identified, less than 20 per cent of all vehicles travel through from the east to the west. What actually goes on is that 80 per cent of all vehicles exit to inner Melbourne to access jobs and services. They will continue to do that despite the Royal Park freeway and, with more vehicles reaching exits more quickly, the risk is that congestion will actually be worse.

There is no strategic justification for this project. This is a proposal which fails critical productivity tests and runs the risk of being negative for state product and GDP. When a poor public project is selected, the community loses twice. It loses because scarce capital is misapplied and because taxes and funds raised to finance that project distort behaviour in ways which have a significant cost.

For a profit, tolls would need to rise to $10.50 per return trip

Tolls on the planned freeway would have to be three times the current cost of an average trip on Citylink for the project's investors to make a profit, according to an international study led by University College London which analysed numerous transport megaprojects, including Australian road and rail projects. It found that, for investors to get a return on the freeway, motorists would have to be charged a minimum $10.50

Source: Speech by Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (19:34): Tuesday, 23 September 2014 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 78 CHAMBER

The farce of the 'world's most livable city'. Overpopulation drives both sides of parliament to attack each other publicly but privately to support draconian reconstruction of Melbourne, because they have created a situation that makes it inevitable if they don't stop population growth. Nonetheless, this speech by Ms Kanis, the ALP Member for Melbourne, on 4 September 2014, still picks up the Government on the detail of the mammoth assault on democracy and the public purse that is the proposed East West Link. Following on her speech, Liberal Member, Ms Ryall of Mitcham, constructs a half-knitted jumper of motherhood cliches about 'our children's future', before abandoning it to choose attack as the best means of defense, evoking the equally scandalous Desal Plant of the recent Labor Government. The 'world's most livable city' is, of course, a cynical business marketing construction designed to give authority to the forces overseeing the increasingly brutal deconstruction of Victoria's democracy.

Source: Proof Parliament of Victoria Legislative Assembly Daily Hansard, Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Ms KANIS (Melbourne) — The new ABC satire Utopia provides plenty of laughs about poor government planning. [...] Unfortunately, the reality is not terribly funny. The state of Victoria has been writing its own script for an episode of Utopia. It involves an $8 billion road tunnel, more than 100 property owners facing dispossession, hundreds of residents whose homes will be next to a roaring toll road with no compensation and vast swathes of heritage parkland and precious sportsgrounds under threat.

The plot of this episode revolves around a government intent on building the ultimate infrastructure white elephant, against all planning, economic and transport advice. The government spends millions advertising its road, promising that it will reduce congestion, improve public transport, improve pedestrian routes and deliver enormous community benefits. The government then spends millions of dollars defending its project in a 30-day expert committee, and then ignores the majority of recommendations made by planning experts. The government ducks and weaves through FOI cases and is brought before the Supreme Court to defend its unpopular project.

The twist in the plot is that, despite all this, the government refuses to produce evidence of the economic benefits of the project, the east–west link.

The government hides the business case in a box in a courtroom. ‘Trust us’, the government tells the community. I, along with thousands of residents in the electorate of Melbourne, do not trust the coalition government and its secret business case.

This real-life episode of governmental secrecy, spin, misrepresentation and wastage is not at all funny. For hundreds of residents who have been told their homes will be acquired, this episode is heartbreaking.

It should not be the case that residents in my electorate of Melbourne are living with the possibility of a concrete flyover being built within 5 metres of their homes, but this is the scenario facing residents of Bent Street, Kensington. Residents of Parkville and North Melbourne do not know if a tollway exit slated for Flemington Road will emerge on or nearby their properties. Members of the Friends of Royal Park do not know if wetlands, trees and open space will be demolished. Sports clubs have been left without playing fields while the coalition charges ahead with its wasteful east–west link. Nothing about this episode is at all entertaining or beneficial for residents of Carlton, who will have a tunnel dug beneath their homes and ventilation stacks puffing exhaust fumes, for the Friends of Royal Park, for heritage flora and fauna sites, for residents of Manningham Street, for residents of the Flemington housing estate or for properties and residents in Kensington.

A few weeks ago the Premier tried to convince people that travel times on the toll road will defy reality. He argued that people will be able to travel at 75 kilometres per hour through the tunnel during peak hour. This tunnel, which will carry an estimated 100 000 vehicles per day, will connect a congested Eastern Freeway to a congested CityLink, yet somehow cars will be able to zip between those two congested freeways. Maybe that is because it will be so expensive that very few people will choose to use it. The Premier cannot have it both ways. He cannot say the road is needed for thousands of cars and that travel times will be exceptional. That is a plot inconsistency that does not fool anyone.

It is worth noting that traffic projections for the east–west link hardly make the case for its necessity.

The government has predicted that somewhere between 80 000 and 120 000 vehicles will use the east–west link every day. There are over 4 million registered vehicles in Victoria. If 120 000 use the east–west link, that is a total of 3 per cent of Victoria’s vehicles. There are 1.5 million cars in Melbourne, and the government expects only 8 per cent of them to use the east–west link. CityLink carries 800 000 vehicles per day; the east–west link is projected to carry 120 000 at best. This project will use up billions of dollars that could be spent on public transport, schools and hospital beds but will service, at best, only 3 per cent of Victoria’s vehicles.

Who will benefit from this project? Most of the residents of my electorate of Melbourne certainly will not benefit, and at best only 8 per cent of Melburnians and 3 per cent of Victorians will use the road.

I want to make something very clear to the coalition, to the Linking Melbourne Authority and to Melbourne: I do not support the east–west link. The Labor opposition does not support the east–west link. A Labor government will not support the east–west link, because it will do nothing to reduce traffic on our roads; because it will steal money from schools, hospitals and public transport; because it is not warranted by traffic data; because the planning processes have been hasty, chaotic, slapdash and flawed; and because no-one other than the government has seen the secret business case.

The project has been marketed by the coalition as a second river crossing. I am not sure which maps the Premier is consulting, but on my maps there is no river between Parkville and Collingwood, so I am not sure which river stage 1 of the east–west link will cross.

The assessment committee report made public in June highlights dozens of concerns about the project and recommends that part B — a four-lane duplication of CityLink from Flemington to Footscray — be removed.

The Minister for Planning ignored this advice and requested a development plan for this section. We are now just weeks away from the advertised starting date for the construction of the project, and the Linking Melbourne Authority has said it has not even started drafting a plan for part B.

Labor MPs, community members and councils have worked tirelessly to challenge the completely substandard planning that is propping up the coalition’s east–west link. The coalition has been challenged by two FOI cases, two court cases, a Senate motion and thousands of community members taking action. Even the Productivity Commission has spoken out against infrastructure projects that are not subjected to rigorous public scrutiny. The commission wrote this year Properly conducted cost-benefit studies of large projects, and their disclosure to the public, is an important starting point for guiding project selection and improving the transparency of decision-making.

Further, the commission said that processes should be immediately reformed for planning and selecting public infrastructure projects, including rigorous and transparent use of cost-benefit analyses, evaluations, public consultation and public reporting of the decision, so as to maximise the net benefits for the whole community.

A transparent cost-benefit analysis and genuine consultation are missing from this project. In opposition, the now planning minister said he respected consultation. He said When we had public consultation, people meant it. I remember being an adviser in the Premier’s office — in the Kennett years, when — we actually did take things into account, particularly from industry groups and from councils, and those submissions meant something. Nowadays, it’s just done as part and parcel of spin.

Yes, nowadays it is just part and parcel of spin. The planning minister wrote recently … we have reformed our planning system to give real certainty to investors, councils and residents so that our suburbs are protected once and for all … That is not so when it comes to the east–west link.

There has been no protection for wetlands, trees, parkland, homes, Vision Australia, Urban Camp, the Flemington Community Centre, the Debneys Park playground, Manningham Street residents, Clifton Hill residents and Bendigo Street residents. None of these have been protected.

Members of the audience for this episode of real-life infrastructure planning are not laughing. This episode of Victoria’s Utopia needs a satisfying ending. The east–west link should not be built. A Labor government will not allow such cavalier disregard for people’s homes, parkland, community facilities, sports grounds, planning law, heritage and taxpayers money. Along with the thousands of community members who have fought this economic flop and planning and transport fiasco, we will continue to fight the coalition’s east–west link. We demand that this project be taken to the election so that Victorians can vote on it. Let us see what people actually think about it.

Liberal Party member, Ms Ryall (Mitcham) responds:

Ms Ryall trots out cliches about 'our children's future' whilst ignoring the herd of elephants in the room that the Liberal Party is unleashing to trample every child's future into the dust and despair of an overpopulated city in a petroleum depleted world.

Ms RYALL (Mitcham) — From the outset it is important to establish what the east–west link is about.

The east–west link is about the future. It is not just about us sitting here today. It is about our children and our children’s children and making sure that they have a city that works. It is not just about the political expediency that we have seen from those opposite.

There are significant benefits to the east–west link. As many members know, I live adjacent to the Eastern Freeway. I am very familiar with the amount of traffic that uses that freeway.

When I look back, I see that it was Labor that in 2008 commissioned the Rod Eddington report which recommended the building of the east–west link. It was Labor that trumpeted the east–west link. It made sure everybody knew about it. It was on the lips of every Labor member. In fact on 15 August 2008 former Premier John Brumby said I think what is undeniable, in Rod Eddington’s report, is that the city does need a second east-west crossing … So, one way or another we’ve got to address this issue of a second east-west crossing … The member for Lyndhurst said in 2008, and I quote from Hansard … the Greens have told motorists in the middle and outer west to ‘stick it’ — no new river crossings and no new roads for them. Car drivers in the west are to be punished, sacrificed on the altar of green ideology.
Who is telling who to ‘stick it’ now?

The Leader of the Opposition in a speech to the Melbourne Press Club in October 2012 said A back-up for the West Gate, which currently handles more than 165 000 vehicles a day as well as the significant commercial and residential growth in the west, makes the case compelling.

The member for Tarneit in his former role as roads minister said WestLink is an important project for Melbourne that will reduce over-reliance on the West Gate Bridge, cater for the planned expansion of the port of Melbourne, remove cars and trucks from local roads, create more jobs and improve our way of life.

Federal opposition leader Bill Shorten supported the east–west link. Bill Shorten and Cesar Melham stated in a document entitled Submission to Study by Sir Rod Eddington East–West Link Needs in 2009 The Australian Workers Union (AWU) believes that the new east–west link is crucial to jobs and economic growth. A new transport link from Melbourne’s booming west to the south east and eastern suburbs has the AWU’s strong support because the Victorian economy relies on the efficient movement of freight and people.

You have got to ask: what has changed? What has changed in that time that would suddenly make those opposite change their minds from saying, ‘This is what we need. There is a compelling case. The unions say it and the federal opposition leader says it’. What has changed? Nothing has changed apart from there being a few inner city seats at risk for those opposite Richmond, Northcote, Brunswick and Melbourne.

Labor has no choice but to oppose the east–west link because of those inner-city seats. There is no choice.

There is nothing scientific about this change. There is no sense to it other than political advantage.

This was a report commissioned by Labor when it was in government, trumpeting a second east–west river crossing and detailing all the reasons why it was important. Now members opposite want our kids and our grandkids and future generations to be relegated to Bangkok-style traffic congestion. That is what they want for our future generations. Do they think for a moment that our kids are going to thank us for it? Will they say thank you for the massive congestion on our roads? In my community this is about building for future generations. In my electorate we only need to look at the level crossing removals — the Mitcham and Rooks Road level crossings are gone, and every week I have people coming up to me saying thank you for removing that level crossing. The removal of the Blackburn Road level crossing is funded. The preliminary work on the level crossings at Bayswater Road and Scoresby Road in Bayswater has been commenced. The new Mitcham station has been completed. The tender for work on the Ringwood station and bus interchange has been let.

It has taken this government to deal with the road congestion in the Mitcham and Ringwood areas. It has taken this government to relieve and reduce that road congestion. Now people are saying, ‘Get on with the east–west link. Deal with it’. Week after week when I am out the community people are telling me to get it done. Tradies, businesspeople, workers and families are all saying, ‘Get it done’. They also want to see work being done for the Melbourne rail link, which will move an additional 35 000 people per peak hour. They are saying, ‘Get that done’. They are also asking, ‘Is the airport link going to happen? We have wanted it for so long’. They are saying, ‘We are so grateful that you are the only government that has committed to it. You are the only government that is putting our money where your mouth is’. Other infrastructure includes Box Hill Hospital.

Mr Angus — Hear, hear!

Ms RYALL — I agree. It is very much a ‘Hear, hear!’ for our community. The Box Hill Hospital is an incredible new facility with more than 200 additional new beds. There is the expansion of the Maroondah Hospital. There is the rebuilding of Blackburn Primary School, Mount Pleasant Road Primary School and Eastwood Primary School, as well as upgrades to Mullauna Secondary College, Ringwood Secondary College, Ringwood North Primary School and Ringwood Heights Primary School. This is what this government is doing to build for the future of our children and our children’s children. It is not just for now. It is about the future.

My father loved Slim Dusty. Slim Dusty sang a song called Looking Forward, Looking Back. On this side of the house is a government that looks forward to what needs to be done, not just now but in the future. Those opposite are looking back in the rear-vision mirror. It seems they were looking forward back in 2008 and 2009 when the Eddington report came out, but now they are looking back and saying, ‘No, we won’t do it’.

This government looks forward. It is planning for the future, building for growth and making a city and state that works. That is where we sit. If we followed Labor’s agenda, this state would be full of white elephants — just to complement their existing white elephants.

Mr Angus — Desal!

Ms RYALL — The desal plant! The member for Forest Hill talks about the desal plant, which is costing $1.8 million a day. Do members think that Victorians would rather spend their $1.8 million a day on their water bills or on hospitals, schools, rail and roads? Over the course of one week $1.8 million a day is sufficient to build an entire primary school, and on top of that it is providing no jobs. With our east–west link, our Melbourne rail link, our airport link, our Tullamarine Freeway widening and the Pakenham-Cranbourne train line upgrade we are talking tens of thousands of jobs.

It is not just about now, it is about the future and about job creation. We have to put all the factors in, based on very sound economic management — thanks to the Treasurer of this state — to make sure we have the funds to create jobs and build the infrastructure of the future. That is what the east–west link is about; it is part of an overall plan that is funded to make sure we have a state that works, to make sure that our kids and their kids can look back and say, ‘Thank you’, like we look back at Henry Bolte and say, ‘Thank you for the vision you had. Thank you for setting apart that land around the port of Hastings. Thank you for having the vision that we would have another port there’. People look back on coalition governments and say, ‘Thank you for the Bolte Bridge, thank you for the West Gate Bridge, thank you for CityLink’.

I think the member for Melton talked before about the amount of traffic on CityLink. We can only imagine that traffic being stuck there without CityLink. We have a mountain of people who need to get from A to B, and we have got Ringwood Secondary College that absolutely needs infrastructure.

SOURCE: PROOF PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DAILY HANSARD Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Video added inside. Headings in this highly informative paper include: How people get to Frankston Station, Social needs and mobility, The household transport cost burden, Peninsula Link, East West Link, The VicRoads Point Nepean Road Study, The Container Port at Hastings, The Cranbourne/Pakenham rail corridor project, and remarks on Road Spending. Only about 0.6% of Frankston residents who travel to work, work in locations that would be accessed by the Napthine government's proposed East West link, if they chose to drive. Poor frequency of service is a major issue in Frankston and on the Peninsula for bus services. The Stony Point train service is in danger of death through neglect and indifference if its service frequency is not improved and locals do not mobilise to support it. Local government can and should play a major advocacy role in this space.

Original title of this paper by Ian Hundley was, "The Transport Crisis in the Frankston Area: Issues of Economy, Ecology and Social Connectedness." It was presented to a meeting of Victoria First about overpopulation in Victoria, and Frankston's specific burden, at the Frankston Lifesaving Club on Saturday 2 August 2014. A video of the speech plus comments and questions will be uploaded to youtube soon.

Introduction

I am here to discuss some of the things that are going on and what needs to be done to improve the public transport outlook for residents in the Frankston area. What we will find, I think, is that there are both local and larger issues that are having major consequences for the residents of Frankston. And they do raise issues about economy, ecology and social connectedness. The influences that local people are able to bring to bear will be very important in how things pan out.

So, firstly, how do people use public transport in Frankston and in the rest of Melbourne?

Travel to work

In Frankston and on the Mornington Peninsula about 80% of trips to work each day by residents are taken by motor car alone and relatively few by public transport. [1] For Frankston residents, only about 5.6% of trips to work involve public transport and on the Peninsula only about 2.3% of all such trips.

Where public transport is of higher quality, such as in the City of Yarra, for example, nearly 30% of trips to work by local residents are made by public transport.

Where do Frankston residents work?

Both of the major political parties say their transport policies will make it easier for people to travel to and from work, thus providing them with more time with their families. Unfortunately, in outer Melbourne these projects are predominately roads projects, not improvements to public transport.

However, it is typical for most people who live in the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area to work in the local government area in which they live or in relatively close proximity to where they live. About 60,000 Frankston residents travel to work every day. About 63.5% of all these residents work in Frankston itself or in an adjoining local government area (i.e. Greater Dandenong, Kingston, Mornington Peninsula, or Casey). About 5.5% of Frankston residents work in Melbourne. A large proportion of those taking the daily commute to Melbourne each weekday would do so by train.

Based upon the most recent Census data, only about 340 of these 60,000 Frankston residents who travel to work, or about 0.6% of the total, work in locations that would be accessed by the Napthine government's proposed East?West link, if they chose to drive.

These are Frankston people who travel to work to such far flung locations as Brimbank, Hume, Hobsons Bay and Moonee Valley.

Interestingly, in other eastern suburbs of Melbourne, including Boroondara and Whitehorse, the pattern is the same. Relatively few of their residents too would benefit from the East? West link because they work in the CBD or closer to home. From an economic planning perspective it should also be a primary objective of planning and transport policy to generate jobs close to home.

Public transport within Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula

So, what are the public transport options for residents travelling within Frankston and the
Peninsula each day? By and large it is the local bus network.

One measure of the quality of the bus network is the numbers of train patrons that rely on connecting buses to take the train from Frankston. As shown in Table 1 a mere one in five of train passengers connected by bus at Frankston station, whilst about 45% connected by motor car. At Box Hill station, which has higher daily patronage than Frankston station, about 28% of train travellers connected by bus and 43% walked to the station. Only about one in six travelled by car.

It is the network capacity of public transport systems that is so important. The local bus network around Box Hill is much more effective than it is in Frankston. Connecting services have to be frequent and they have to be timetabled to provide good intermodal connections. There is nothing worse than seeing the train disappear around the corner as your bus arrives at the station.

Poor frequency of service is a major issue in Frankston and on the Peninsula. The 788 bus service between Frankston station and Portsea/ Point Nepean National Park, for example, runs about every 45 minutes on weekdays and about every 75 minutes on weekends. Who is going to use this as a commuter service in the morning and the evening? And who is going to use it on weekends and public holidays?

We would almost be forgiven for thinking that the government is trying to put the service out of business. However, despite the government inertia that has left the 788 service about as unattractive a proposition for patrons as it could possibly be, you might be surprised to know it is one of the most heavily patronised route bus routes in Melbourne. This clearly demonstrates the latent demand for effective bus services on the Peninsula and in
Frankston which remain unmet. And it also demonstrates the capacity for a good public transport service to get cars off roads and out of car parks.

Another horror story is that of the 787 route bus service between Sorrento and Safety Beach. This service runs disjointedly on week days and just twice on Saturdays. If you travel from Rye, for instance, to Rosebud Plaza to do some shopping you could easily find yourself waiting up to an hour and a half for the next service to return home.

Frankston gained very little from the timetable and network changes that were introduced last Sunday 27 July. Late night changes were made to scheduling for the 770, 771, 775, 782 and 785 services to improve co?ordination with late night train services. However, when I checked on Wednesday morning, the updated timetables for the 775, 782 and 785 services were still not available on the PTV website. They did bob up a bit later.

These services at least have the virtue of running seven days a week. But they are far too infrequent, typically with a 30 minute headway during week day peak times, hourly for the rest of the day and hourly on Saturdays and Sundays with severely reduced service span from first bus to last.

We all need to bring significant pressure to bear on the major parties to commit to upgrading local bus services in the lead up to the state election in a few weeks time.

We also have one train service that serves destinations south of central Frankston to Westernport Bay, the Stony Point line. It operates seven days a week but only every two hours in the middle of weekdays and on Saturdays and Sundays. A previous state government attempted to close it. Service frequencies must be increased and this could be done relatively easily with the introduction of passing loops and a couple of extra vehicles. In my view, the Stony Point service is in danger of death through neglect and indifference if its service frequency is not improved and locals do not mobilise to support it. Local government can and should play a major advocacy role in this space.

Social needs and mobility

A report by Dr Belinda Robson for Crossroads Youth and Family Services in the Salvation Army,[2] and based on interviews with 100 residents of the new suburbs of Craigieburn and Roxburgh Park on Melbourne’s northern fringe, highlighted the importance of public transport for social connectedness.

Summary findings of the report showed that costs of travel as well as practical issues with transport mean that many young people were not able to participate in different activities and that many new households are at risk of mortgage stress and many face problems juggling financial demands.

However, a very high value was placed by respondents on the new stations incorporated into the metropolitan rail network in 2007, Roxburgh Park and Craigieburn, and the direct rail connection they provided to the city. Service providers also felt it had made a very big difference to residents’ ability to get around, and for their community pride.

The findings and observations in this report could be very readily translated to the transport issues now faced by Frankston residents.

The household transport cost burden

Now, to look at car dependency in outer suburbs and what the lack of public transport means for household budgets.

In the City of Melbourne only 30.7% of households have 2 or more cars. In the Shire of Mornington Peninsula a whopping 74.9% of households have two or more motor cars. A large part of this difference must be attributed to the relative ease with which inner urban residents can travel by public transport, cycling or walking, rather than having to drive a car.

Cars are expensive things to run in absolute terms and relative to the cost of public transport. Annualised operating cost for a small car may be in the order of $8?10,000. For a Frankston resident who works in the Melbourne CBD clearly the cheapest option is to pay $2210 annually for a Zone 1 + 2 MYKI. But this does not work as well for local travel because the bus system is so poor.

The welfare impact of lack of access to reasonable public transport is shown in sharper relief when one examines family household income. In the City of Melbourne (2010) only 26.8% of family households have weekly incomes of less than $1,000. In Rosebud 42.7% of family households have weekly incomes of less than $1,000.

Thus lower income households on the periphery of Melbourne are basically compelled to incur substantial additional transport costs and own more cars because they do not have reasonable access to public transport.

Peninsula Link

A number of you here today may have been involved in the campaign against Peninsula Link, which was originally characterised as a traffic bypass for Frankston. The project precipitated environmental losses, most conspicuously at locations such as The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve in North Frankston and Westerfield in Langwarrin. Peninsula Link connected EastLink from Carrum to Dromana, at a cost of about $750 million. No serious attempt was made to assess any alternative approach which would see an increased focus on sustainable transport, especially public transport. It was simply a case of "predict and provide" based upon forecasts in motor vehicle traffic without regard to potential alternatives, including public transport.

The project was later criticised by the Auditor?General,[3] particularly in relation to the procuring of the project through a Public Private Partnership, the likely overstatement of economic benefits, and the dismissal of longer term negative effects, including induced traffic.

The only positive employment effect of the project I've seen in official propaganda has been the trumpeting of the opening of a new road house on the Peninsula Link reservation.

The VicRoads Point Nepean Road Study

You may know that in June 2013 VicRoads concluded this study to further increase road capacity on the Peninsula. It can be seen as the natural consequence of the induced traffic on Peninsula Link identified by the Auditor?General.

The study report recommends even further increases in road capacity in the southern Peninsula.

We know that one certain outcome from this project, if it goes ahead, is that it will generate more traffic in the area. The terms of reference for the study were deficient because they did not take account of the potential for modal shift to public transport rather than simply catering for more cars. I rang VicRoads and asked them if it was in their terms of reference. They said no, but what a good idea! I understand that some people who made formal submissions to the study also put the view that modals shift should have been reflected in the study. But it wasn't. It is always difficult to teach old dogs new tricks.[4]

I see that the Southern Peninsula Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association has concluded that if the proposed Mornington Peninsula freeway proceeds, as contemplated in the report, it would damage the biodiversity values of the Tootgarook Swamp as well as having hydrological impacts through bisecting the swamp with a major embankment.

East West Link

According to Denis Napthine, the East West Link is supposed to solve all our problems, with the possible exception of the common cold. The reality is, however, that there will be nothing left for the timely introduction of necessary transport projects in Frankston or elsewhere if the East?West Link goes ahead. The two sections have been estimated to cost in the order of $20 billion.

In September 2013 the Premier and the Treasurer, Michael O'Brien, announced three short? listed bidders for the project, the East West Connect, Inner Link Group and Momentum Infrastructure consortia. However, by June this year the Momentum group had evidently lost necessary momentum when the Treasurer reappeared, this time with the Roads minister, Terry Mulder, to announce that only the East West and Inner Link groups remained in the contest.

What was not made clear by these two ministers of the Crown, but which was subsequently reported in the press, is that the Momentum group gave up on the project. Leighton Contractors, a major partner in the Momentum consortium, reportedly found the project to be too risky for them due, they said, to unacceptable geotechnical risks associated with the tunnelling required for the project.[5]

This raises serious questions about the bona fides of the bid process. Robust tender processes rely on the presence of a substantial number of genuine and able bidders. What we have here is a classical case of monopolistic competition ? limited sellers of a product. What is worse, the final shape of the product remains unclear and it is backgrounded by a business case that remains undisclosed. This is extraordinarily fertile ground for plundering the public purse.

I had my own experience of government secrecy on this project when I wrote to the minister for roads in February 2014 to request traffic volume data for CityLink and for EastLink to assist in the preparation of submissions to the Assessment Committee that reported earlier this year to the planning minister. I was denied the information by the minister on the grounds that "..the terms of the contractual arrangements between the State and the toll road operators prohibit the State from disclosing confidential or unpublished information without the consent of the relevant road operator". The letter was signed on the final day of public hearings by the Assessment Committee.

Just prior to Leighton's declaration that the project was not for it, the Sunday Age reported that "The Napthine government will use the East West Link and other major projects to leverage donations from big business as it builds up a war chest before this year's state election".[6]

The Napthine government is determined to sign contracts for the project prior to the prorogation of the Victorian parliament in early November. It is in the best interests of the state that this not occur.

The Labor opposition has repeatedly declared the East?West Link to be a "dud" project. Notwithstanding this it says that, if elected to government, it will continue with contracts if they are signed. The Labor Party needs to have a hard look at itself and decide whether they are prepared to govern in the interests of the state or a select group of contractors.

One of the excuses that Labor is using to evade a commitment to drawing a line under the East?West Link project is that it would cause the price of public debt to increase. However, as Kenneth Davidson rightly pointed out in The Age on Monday [7] the potential for the ratings agencies to do damage to Victorian public finances in the event that government debt is downgraded from AAA to AA is relatively minor relative to the colossal costs that would be inflicted on the Victorian economy if this calamitous project is permitted to stumble on.

On the face of it it would be absurd if the credit rating were to decline in the event that the ALP in government or the current Napthine government had the gumption to pull stumps on a project which has negative rather than positive consequences for the economy at large.

To my mind it should strengthen the belief that the credit rating agencies don't know what they are doing. In fact, their abject performance in the lead?up to the Asian financial crisis in the late?1990's and their inability to assess the consequences of the accumulation of sub? prime debt which triggered the Global Financial Crisis in the last decade inspire little confidence in their credentials.

Container port at Hastings

As you know, the Victorian government has been trumpeting the virtues of Hastings as the location for Victoria's second container port. They say it is to retain Melbourne's status as the freight and logistics hub of Australia. The Victorian opposition was very keen on Hastings at one stage but has now gone cold on the idea. It is now directing attention to a location in Port Phillip Bay but west of Melbourne. I won't go into the debate about whether we need a second container port and, if so, where it should be but I do suggest that the following are important factors:

I understand that prior to the introduction of containerisation, the Port of Melbourne employed about 6,500 waterside workers in general freight. I understand it now employs about 200 in the container terminals.

Despite the fact that political parties implicitly assert the employment creating capacity of a new container port it is sobering to realise that new container facilities are likely to be highly automated, which would further reduce the demand for direct labour.

It is understandable that people should be seeking new sources of employment growth when traditional employment sources, such as Bluescope Steel, have been static or declining.

However, labour replacing automation is increasingly common in the transport and materials handling industry. For instance, Rio Tinto is in the process of removing drivers from its iron ore trains operating on 1,500 kilometres of track in the Pilbara region of Western Australia through its Autohaul driverless train program. The trains will be run from an operations centre in Perth.

Analysis recently completed at Victoria University suggests Hastings may not be a very bright idea for a container port, for a number of reasons.[8] There are significant environmental concerns including the future of the RAMSAR Convention ? protected wetlands. It may also jeopardise local tourism?based industries, and the location is sub? optimal having regard for the land?based distribution task once the containers are landed.

The Cranbourne/Pakenham rail corridor project

The Napthine government has accepted an "unsolicited bid" for the upgrade of the Pakenham/Cranbourne rail corridor which is to include moving block signalling, rail duplication and grade separations. The proponents are MTR (METRO), John Holland Construction and UGL Rail Services. The project is to cost $2?2.5 billion according to the government which also claims it will provide a 30% capacity boost on the corridor, the equivalent of two lanes of traffic on the Monash Freeway, and will facilitate increased freight from the proposed container port at Hastings.

New stations are to be built at Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Clayton. Significantly, the Cranbourne?Pakenham rail corridor project is described by the government as a supporting initiative for the container port at the Port of Hastings. When a committee chaired by former deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer, reviewed the Victorian rail freight network in 2008, he recommended that 90% of freight from Hastings be dedicated to rail.[9]

However, it appears that the concept plans released recently for each of these new stations show only the two existing tracks. There are no tracks shown to cater for the proposed Rowville rail link, nor for the government's proposed container port at Hastings.

This is starting to sound like the East?West link. Secret bids, secret processes, no costings, no business case worth the name. Another one of the Napthine government's "game changing" infrastructure projects.

A concluding remark on roads spending

The recent draft industry consultation document prepared in Infrastructure Australia noted that most of the economic infrastructure projects submitted in recent years for Commonwealth funding for assessment by the agency were road projects and that they lacked any cost?benefit rigour whatsoever. The report said in part "... road project proponents...spend next to no effort examining what problems their projects and plans are trying to solve, other than the perceived problem that they do not have enough road funding. In other words, the answer is almost always 'I just need more money,' regardless of the question."

The Victorian Auditor?General also concluded recently that our road system in Victoria is operated inefficiently, in part because "Trams and buses are not currently able to provide accurate and reliable reference data to VicRoads traffic signals systems, and thus more efficient public transport traffic signal prioritisation is not available to these high? productivity vehicles".[10]

This is certainly the case with the East?West Link where Tony Abbott has been happy to turn over $3 billion of our hard earned money. No business case. No comparative analysis. No questions asked. It was the mentality behind the Peninsula Link project, and now threatens in relation to the Point Nepean Road Study where VicRoads hopes to tack some more freeway onto Peninsula Link, effectively. And without any regard for more effective public and active transport solutions that don't contribute to the further environmental degradation of Frankston, the Peninsula and surrounding areas and keeping local residents poor through continuing car dependency.

FOOTNOTES

[1]. See Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census of Population and Housing

[2]. Building Lives, Building Community in Craigieburn and Roxburgh Park: Report to the
Community (University of Melbourne 2009)

[3]. Auditor?General of Victoria, Management of Major Road Projects, June 2011

[4]. VicRoads, Point Nepean Road Study Report, June 2013

[5]. Jenny Wiggins and Adam Carey, "Link project too risky for Leighton," The Age, 29 July
2014

[6]. Farrah Tomazin, "Libs use major projects as fund?raising bait, Sunday Age, July 27, 2014

[7]. Kenneth Davidson, "The case against East West Link gets ever stronger," The Age, July 28,
2014

[8]. Dr Hermione Parsons and Mr Peter Van Duyn, Build it ? but will they come? A pre?mortem analysis of the Port of Hastings Development Project to encourage alternative integrated planning (Institute for Supply Chain and Logistics, Victoria University, 9 July 2014).

[9]. Switchpoint: Victorian Rail Freight Network Review (Department of Infrastructure Victoria
2008), p. 58

[10]. Auditor General of Victoria, Using ICT to Improve Traffic Management (June 2014)

Message from YCAT and the RAT re the outrageous proposed acquisition of property by the State Government in the path of the East West Link and a meeting organised for affected residents and traders. Education session with lawyers on issues of compulsory acquisition.

Know your rights as residents! Property acquisition and the East West Link

Tuesday August 5th
Clifton Hill Primary School, 185 Gold Street,
Clifton Hill

Residents of Clifton Hill, Collingwood, Fitzroy and Carlton are invited to a meeting convened by the Residents Against the Tunnel (RAT) to enable discussion and to inform you about the various issues raised for home owners and tenants by the proposed East West Link.

The discussion will cover:

• home owners notified they will be compulsory acquired
• those outside the project boundary wanting voluntary acquisition option
• those above the tunnel sections having their title rights acquired
• people wanting to have property inspections to protect,their position if there is damage during works
• people who are tenants in buildings to be acquired

There will be lawyers from major firms present to explain the legal issues and take your questions about what
your rights are and what you need to do to get the right outcome for your situation.

Download leafet: Property acquisition and the EWL- Eastern section (pdf) Property-acquisition-and-the-EWL-flyer-Eastern-section.pdf

The Linking Melbourne Authority has indicated it will start issuing "Notices of lntention to Acquire" in early August and will take ownership of the properties by October - although residents may be allowed to rent these back until August
2015.

It is coming to crunch time. The East West Link is coming under unprecedented criticism from all corners and is subject to two Supreme Court challenges.

Contracts may not be signed by the election and the road may never go ahead. However the Government is intent on ploughing ahead and will start the legal process to take homes before the required legislation has been passed.

This meeting will explain the complex situation and outline your options. Come along to find out the
facts.

If you are concerned about 457 visas, local unemployment and population growth, planning issues, over-development, and the loss of wildlife and residents rights in Frankston and the Peninsula, please come along to this meeting of Victoria First. Special Guest Speaker will be Public Transport advocate Mr. Ian Hundley. Ian Hundley will speak on "The transport crisis in the Frankston area: issues of economy, ecology and social connectedness." This public meeting will be from 2-4pm at the Frankston Life Saving Club, on Frankston Foreshore. (More details of location inside article.) There will be opportunities to make statements from the floor if you let the organisers know in advance. Contact 03 9350 5777.

The Hon Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member for Wills, invites you to come and join Victoria First Inc. Public Meeting. Mr Thomson received the most votes of any Labor Minister in Australia at the last election. He is very popular in a very multicultural electorate of Wills, where he has a lot of support for his pioneering and courageous stance for the environment and peoples' rights against overpopulation.

What is Victoria First?

Victoria First is a new not-for-profit NGO, established to safeguard and enhance Victoria’s way of life. Victoria First is fighting to halt rapid population growth, over-development, reduce traffic congestion, stop the increasing cost of council rates, rising utility bills, and seeking to protect Victoria’s unique animals and plants.

You do not have to be a member to come.

Meeting details

When? Saturday 2nd August, 2pm – 4pm.

Where? Frankston Life Saving Club, Frankston Foreshore, end of Wells Street, near the intersection with Nepean Highway. (McDonalds is on the corner.)

Melways 102 C2. Nearest railway station is Frankston.

Disabled parking available. Metered parking at the venue 2 hour maximum. Free parking available short distance away in the shopping centre carpark.

Please note this is a non-smoking venue. As residents live nearby, please respect noise restrictions in and around this venue.

Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch, Annual General Meeting, 2.00pm Saturday July 12 th 2014, Balwyn Library meeting room. Guest Speaker: Jenny Warfe, spokesperson for Blue Wedges: “Politics, Population and Ports.” NOMINATIONS WELCOME - ALL POSITIONS!

Massive developments to enlarge Victoria’s port capacity are proposed by the Victorian Government.
What are the monetary and environmental costs? Who and what population levels are these developments catering for?

Hear Jenny Warfe’s analysis of how past and future port expansion projects underpin population growth; the environmental and social impacts of the shipping industry, and the infrastructure it demands.

Venue details : 336 Whitehorse Rd
Balwyn VIC 3103, Australia
Tram number:109
Melway ref. 46E8
Contact: Jill Quirk Ph. 95097429 [email protected]

Ivanhoe’s much loved Chelsworth Park, on the Yarra flood plain near the southern entrance to Banyule, is currently being considered for a 20 +10 year Commercial Lease between Banyule City Council (BCC) Ivanhoe Grammar School (IGS) - A commercial entity.

A Commercial Lease threatens the ability of our Community to decide how the park will be used, over a period of expected high population increase in Melbourne and Ivanhoe and a growing reduction in private residential space - as the number of multi-unit dwellings increase due to Government policy.

Many residents of Banyule oppose this move and believe that

1. Restrictions on the availability of the park, for both passive and active use - if leased to a private entity, are not in the community’s long-term interests.

2. Banyule City Council needs to step up to the mark and provide first-rate facilities for the ratepayers of Banyule in all its parks and for all its schools to share equally - rather than over-use some parks (nearby Ivanhoe Park) and under use and under support others (Ford Park). Council needs to do more to ensure that passive recreation, and the riverine environment for which Chelsworth Park is famous, are protected into the future.

3. More transparency is needed – Governance and Financial Reporting conditions under the current IGS peppercorn lease, have NOT been met (- despite fees from the Clubs using the Park going to IGS); In addition, Chelsworth Park continues to receive favourable infrastructure funding from Council - while other Parks miss out.

Current Griffin Ward Councillor Jenny Mulholland has given little support to major community concerns.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Write : To All Councillors, the CEO, and relevant officers
(PO Box 51, Ivanhoe 3079/ [email protected] ) and
Phone: Current Ward Councillor, Jenny Mulholland, and current Mayor, Craig Langdon
Jenny: 0413 986 912; (PO Box 51, Ivanhoe 3079; [email protected])
Craig : 0401 097 032; (PO Box 51, Ivanhoe 3079; [email protected])

Insist Council rent the land at commercial real estate rates over the short term*, (- say 5 year maximum renewals) where spare time and playing surface capacity exists, and after community needs are met . (*This could involve IGS marking, mowing, and watering the grounds as now, - as payment in kind, but with Council managing all infrastructure and community bookings)

Insist BCC control all signage, bookings, payment and community liaison (as with its other parks )

Insist that NO EXTRA business use be granted; Instead, over time, business use will be reduced while increasing community needs are met.

Ask to be notified: - of any BCC Chelsworth Plans, relevant Council Meetings and Plan exhibits - Contact Tom Zappulla : [email protected] : 9490 4222

And see: http://www.fairyhillsivanhoe.com for more info – Email contact available on the CONTACTS page

Attend the Upcoming Community Meeting:

‘Protecting Heritage and Public Interest in Banyule’
Speaker Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands
Sunday July 6th
2.00pm for 2.30pm
Seddon St. Community Centre Ivanhoe
Gold coin donation / More Information 0427 949 951 / 0411 154 914 (Robyn / Paul)

Chelsworth Park is our Park - Community asset, not private takeover!

Join us to discuss these issues of our time.

The admirable tenacity and personal sacrifices of people involved over a long time in fighting the East West Link on the streets and in the courts have finally effected some changes, but the fat lady has not sung yet. The huge Elliott Avenue toll road exchange that threatened the viability of Melbourne Zoo, will not go ahead. Royal Park woodlands near the zoo will also be left standing. What will happen instead is not yet clear and no-one can relax. The East West Link, if it goes ahead in any form, will be a kind of cut-off point for environment and democracy in Melbourne. The huge efforts already expended by the public should have seen the toll way cancelled and forgotten That it survives in some form draws attention to the tragic influence of the growth lobby over our laws and government. (Candobetter.net editorial)

On 30 June 2014, the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Matthew Guy MLA, issued a press release approving the controversial East West Link Toll Road eastern section. (EW Link)

Although opposed to the EW Link and committed to supporting public transport, nevertheless PPL VIC welcomed the Minister’s decision to accept the recommendation of his Victorian Planning Panels review team and delete from plans the monstrous Elliott Avenue toll road interchange. This vast concrete road junction was going to be located in Royal Park just 40 metres away from the walls of the Melbourne Zoo. This means the Zoo and its captive animals have been saved from certain destruction. Additionally, the surrounding open woodland in the park has been spared from the axe. Less clear is the fate of the rest of Royal Park, given the fact the Minister has decreed that he has

“determined that the Elliott Avenue interchange as proposed will not proceed and instead will be replaced by access to Flemington Road, subject to further detailed design work.”(Quote from press release.)

According to Donald Rumsfeld

“There are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns…”

This certainly applies to Royal Park as we have not yet seen the replacement plans for the EW Link. We are going to have to wait for “further design refinements” (as the Minister terms them.) We look forward to the opportunity to comment on the new designs for the project and to have a chance to speak at any hearing.

Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC comments:

“In addition to considering the Minister’s announcement re the EW Link, we have been anxiously waiting to hear his pronouncement as to whether he has decided to include Royal Park on the State Heritage Register. This would give the park protection from the EW Link. It would be most unfortunate if the Minister decides to give Linking Melbourne Authority (the project proponent) a heritage exemption to allow the project to be constructed through Royal Park.”

Rod Quantock President of PPL VIC observed:

“While pleased with the announcement concerning Royal Park, we were alarmed to hear that the Minister did not concur with his Review Committee’s recommendation to reconfigure the Hoddle Street interchange of the EW Link, the official gateway to the Tunnel. Thus heritage neighbourhoods in Collingwood and Clifton Hills will be bulldozed for the sake of erecting a showy, non-functional architectural structure. In addition we are concerned over the fact that the Minister has refused to review “Part B” of the EW Link, that is, the section from Flemington Road to the port of Melbourne. The lives of residents in inner Melbourne will be devastated by this Neanderthal transport project which has no place in this day and age.”

PPL VIC considers that there has been no adequate business case made for the EW Link; that funds need to be diverted into much needed public transport projects; and that approval for the EW Link should be put to the people at the coming election.

Contact: Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Mobile: 0408022408

Tomorrow, Saturday 28 June 2014, thousands are expected to pour onto the streets to take a final stand against the monstrous $14 billion East West Link (EW Link) project about to be foisted on the long suffering people of Victoria by - in our view - the incompetent and increasingly unpopular Napthine Government. Demands of the rally are: scrap the E W Link Toll Road; rip up the contracts if/when signed; and invest in public transport.

Additionally the call has gone out for the Coalition to make the EW Link an election issue and to resist signing contracts before “the people” have spoken. Protestors will rally outside The State Library at the corner of Swanston and Latrobe Streets by 1 pm tomorrow, hear speeches and then march to Flinders Street Station.

Julianne Bell PPL VIC Secretary comments:

“Many of our allied groups will be forming one contingent to march together to draw attention to the looming threat to Royal Park and the many inner city parks along the route of the E W Link and City Link. We expect that a legion of children together with parents and grandparents who are concerned over the impact of the EW Link on the Zoo in Royal Park be marching alongside the parks groups. This project will, if it proceeds, cut an enormous swathe through Royal Park.

The City of Melbourne has estimated that, in this park alone, 5,200 trees will be axed for this project. These include 100 year old River Red Gums and the line of Moreton Bay Fig Trees in Macarthur Road planted by the famous Baron Ferdinand Von Mueller in early colonial days. We regard construction of the E W Link through Royal Park as an act of
gross environmental vandalism by the Napthine Government. Would the Mayor of London permit Hyde Park to be treated as free land to accommodate a new road through the city?

Rod Quantock President of PPL VIC points to the destruction of heritage suburbs from Collingwood through to Kensington along the route of the EW Link. He says:

“Not only will whole streets in Collingwood, West Parkville and Clifton Hill, where some families have lived for generations, be demolished but contractors plan to work on the excavation of the tunnel and construction of giant interchanges 24 hours round the clock. This will mean that huge areas of Melbourne will be rendered uninhabitable for years with the dust, noise, vibration and obtrusive lights and difficulty of access to some streets. All these advance plans have been made even though the Minister for Planning has not yet made his pronouncement about the findings of the 6 week long enquiry into the EW Link and advised whether the project has been approved.”

Numbers attending the protest tomorrow in the face of wild weather conditions will be an indication of the strength of public opposition to what is regarded as the most expensive and environmentally damaging infrastructure project ever proposed in Victorian history.

Contact: Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Mobile: 0408022408

Source: Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) 27 June 2014

Melbourne’s outer suburbs have accommodated almost half of Victoria’s undemocratically imposed population growth during the past five years, yet they have been allocated only seven percent of the Napthine Government’s 2014/15 budget for key infrastructure.

The Interface Scorecard 2014, prepared by Essential Economics, shows the rest of the budget’s infrastructure allocation, 93 percent, has gone towards supporting the other half of Victoria’s population growth, being hosted by the metropolitan and regional/rural areas, most of it 78 percent, being allocated to the metropolitan areas.

Cr Bob Fairclough, Mayor of Wyndham City Council and spokesperson for the Interface Councils will be presenting the research to Deputy Premier Peter Ryan today.

“Why is it that less than 10 percent of the budget is allocated to support one half of Victoria’s growth, while the other half qualifies for more than 90 percent? This translates to a shortfall of $695 million in the urban fringe areas,” Cr Fairclough said.

“In real terms, this means they have been short-changed four buildings for early childhood centres, 10 new secondary schools, three new TAFE campuses, five new hospitals and they are unable to cater for more than 9,000 new public service users.

“Its wide-ranging negative impacts create a downward spiral which may be impossible to reverse if allowed to continue.”

For example, according to DEEWR statistics, these areas suffer much higher unemployment than their metropolitan and rural counterparts and there is only half a job available for every job seeker. The research reports that urban fringe areas have 6.5 percent unemployment, while the metropolitan areas are sitting at 5.7 percent, with one new job provided per labour force participant, and the regional areas enjoy the lowest unemployment of 5.4 percent, with 1.07 new jobs for every job seeker.

Private investment in the area is also falling. Data from the Building Commission of Victoria shows investment in the commercial sector has fallen by 64 percent or $194 million in the past three years, and in the retail sector, by 24 percent or $60 million.

Cr Bob Fairclough said,

“Over the current 4-year budget period an estimated $1.831 billion in investment is required for critical infrastructure in the urban fringe areas. While the majority of this funding is a State responsibility, funding support is also required from the Federal Government and Council’s, and some will be provided by the private sector.

“State funding allocated in the 2014/15 budget during the past four years represents just $1.021 billion or 56 percent of this requirement. A further $695 million in investment is required from either unallocated State funding, or from non-State funding sources in order to meet the identified needs of the interface communities over this period.”

Community groups from the outer suburbs are planning to rally at five community meetings in July to discuss their unfair treatment by the Napthine Government’s 2014/15 budget. For more information about community meetings, residents of Melbourne’s outer suburbs should call their local council.

Interface Councils is a group of ten municipalities that form a ring around metropolitan Melbourne. They represent some of the fastest growing areas in Melbourne, comprising Cardinia Shire Council, City of Casey, Hume City Council, Melton City Council, Mitchell Shire Council, Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, Nillumbik Shire Council, City of Whittlesea, Wyndham City Council and Yarra Ranges Council.

Video of William Bourke's speech inside. William Bourke is the President of the Sustainable Population Party. In this speech he covers a broad range of issues relevant to the population debate including: political donations and the power of vested interests, growth lobby spin, the world's biggest tower, GDP, Victoria's deteriorating economic base, the economic importance of natural capital, single issue politics, and a potential way forward for the population debate through a national vote by plebiscite.

You can hear more from Mr Bourke and from the other speakers and the open mic session at the "Does Melbourne have to keep growing?" forum from videos in the following article: "Melbourne must stop growing - Packed hall in Hawthorn votes for plebiscite."

The Sustainable Population Party's website is at www.populationparty.org.au

Inside is the video of the Open Microphone session for members of the audience, including members of community groups for Must Melbourne keep growing. Motions passed calling for a national plebescite on population numbers and for a national conference on sustainable population taking into account State of the Environment reports.

We may replace this film with one taken from another angle which recorded the size of the audience, the applause and the show of hand on the motions. In the meantime this gives the content of the Open Microphone session.

See update and details at http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3591Community groups have received the news of an apparent backflip on East West link. Is there some democracy left in Melbourne after all? REMINDER - NO TUNNEL Snap Protest at 12 noon for a 12:15 pm start TODAY Thursday 12 December 2013 on the steps of Parliament!

(1) State Planning Committee on "Plan Melbourne" Resigns Over East West Link

PPL VIC and other community group representatives were stunned to hear Ms Roz Hansen's denunciation of the East West Link at the Future Melbourne (Transport) Committee Meeting on the City of Melbourne's submission on the Comprehensive Impact Statement on the East West Link on Tuesday night. The Lord Mayor seemed taken aback. After the meeting I asked Ms Hansen for the speech and she said that it should be on Council records but to get back to her if it was not available. I am determined to obtain it as is an excellent statement.

(2) Kelvin Thomson's Speech in Federal Parliament on the East West Link on 10 December 2013

Please see Kelvin’s speech delivered to the Parliament last night on the East West Link. Please feel free to distribute it through your networks.

Kelvin Thomson Parliamentary speech on East West Link 11 December 2013

(3) REMINDER - NO TUNNEL Snap Protest at 12 noon for a 12:15 pm start TODAY Thursday next 12 December 2013 on the steps of Parliament!

Please send an apology if you can't attend and also messages of support if a representative of your group cannot attend. See you there!

Source: Julianne Bell Protectors of Public Lands VIC Inc.

The Important Politics of Public Shopping Strips vs Private Shopping Malls

The subject matter of other comments involved the retention of shopping strips over private malls. This is very important because it involves the retention of public land - where people have the right to demonstrate, film and give out information. In contrast, the privatisation of commercial land into malls permits the developer-owners to exercise complex restraints over what retailers and customers may do. These rules generally rule out democratic activity beyond shopping. These malls are also beyond local council laws in terms of democratic input available to citizens who rent, shop or frequent shopping strips. What this means is that the 'market place' where much political communication has taken place since humans first formed villages and towns, is being lost. #n3581_fn1" id="n3581_txt1">[1] #n3581_fn2" id="n3581_txt2">[2]

Planning fails democracy 101

One participant who admitted she had only skimmed the hefty document “Plan Melbourne” protested the lack of democratic principles in it. Mathew Guy defended his work on the basis that Plan Melbourne protected about half of Melbourne's residential areas whereas before they had not had such protection. He was vehement that he had limited developers’ activities in the interests of residents. The participant remained unconvinced saying she would go home and read the document thoroughly – such are the tasks now for Melbourne residents who feel any responsibility about the future of their city. As far as most were concerned, they were there because they felt that the public were largely left out of the planning process although it affects them in ways that are often quite devastating. They have formed community groups because they are very unhappy with this.

VCAT: a State Government tool

One participant raised the issue of VCAT’s role in development and planning.

Minister Guy distanced himself from any sense of control over VCAT, emphasizing where he and they had disagreed, saying "I expect no Christmas cards from VCAT".

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal(VCAT)is a State entity and the State Govt has total control over VCAT beyond even what most know.

VCAT, a very active arm of State Govt in promoting overdevelopment, is staffed by Members with no security of tenure. If Members fail to promote the State Govt line on Planning Policy about "managing population growth" (read Rapid Population Growth 60% from NOM must be accommodated by densification and destruction of amenity) then the Member's appointment is not renewed. As a local councillor on another occasion was heard to observe, "It is the perfect system." That is, it is the perfect system for promoting overdevelopment because VCAT very deliberately, repeatedly overrides the local democracy of Council on neigbourhood amenity. And woe betide the VCAT Member who fails to get the message.

The whole thrust of the MPS and the New Zones too is to "Cut Red Tape." There is a whole Victorian Government and Federal Productivity Commission project named as such - explicitly to define areas for open slather for developers. The vast legacy of VCAT decision precedents which have to date been so pro-development "by happenstance", is now to be implemented in concrete on the New Zones and the new MPS. As if Minister Guy and his predecessors had nothing to do with it because of the separation of powers.

Matthew Guy very confusing on facts

When Mathew Guy finally took SPA Victoria President, Jill Quirk's question, about his erroneous pronouncement that 85 per cent of Melbourne's population growth was from natural increase, Mr Guy stated that he had said that 85% of population growth would be in Melbourne. He added then that natural increase was about half Melbourne's population growth. Ms Quirk had to disagree again, informing him that only 40 per cent was due to natural increase, whereas 60 per cent is due to overseas migration. Mr Guy agreed. After the meeting, candobetter's attention was drawn to the fact that the ratio 60/40 was stated in the draft of the “Plan Melbourne” (“Melbourne, let’s talk About the future” ) document but that this fact has been omitted from the final document. Perhaps the government thought that Victorians would not notice. It seems likely that the government prefers to conceal the fact that high population growth is inflicted on the people of Melbourne through high immigration. Further, that the Victorian government is more than happy to have as much of this growth as possible regardless of the shortfalls in infrastructure services and the displeasure of citizens who see their amenity disappearing, as the city sprawls outwards and the density of established suburbs increases.

Ms. Quirk went on to say that Victoria's population would reach about 20m by the end of the century –on the same scale as the entire population of Australia today if recent growth continues.

Mr Guy countered that State government did not really have much control over this.

Ms Quirk drew Mr Guy's attention to the fact that he had been reported recently in the news saying MP for Wills, Kelvin Thompson was ridiculous to say that immigration should be less.

Mr. Guy's response was to say that by saying that Mr. Thomson had had six years to convince his government of his point of view on population and had failed to do so.

Ms Quirk said that she did not think Mr Guy could blame Thomson for the situation we are now in.

State is engineering frightening and undemocratic population growth in Melbourne

In relation to the State Government's ability to control immigration, Ms Quirk pointed out that the Victorian government runs a website called http://www.liveinvictoria.gov.au, which promotes population growth.

Mr Guy's response was, "Yes, I'm aware of that."

Discussing within groups after the event came to the conclusion that the effect of Mr Guy's erroneous pronouncement that 85 per cent of pop growth was due to natural increase, if left uncountered, would have been to have made Victoria's frightening rate of population increase seem inevitable.

What, we wondered, was the purpose of this meeting organised by Matthew Guy? Presumably it was to tick the box of 'consultation'. In fact, Planning Melbourne will no longer take comments on the substance of the actual document, only on its implementation.

The participant's objection to the apparent absence of democracy in "Plan Melbourne" has been well demonstrated.

Victoria's state government is effectively a dictatorship. The extreme population growth accompanying this abrogation of democracy is contributing to homelessness, unaffordability, debt, environmental destruction, increasing gaps between rich and poor, and relatedly to increasing drug abuse, gambling, relationship break up and violence.

NOTES

This talk was formally entitled, in the invitations, as "Community group briefing". It took place on Friday 25 October, 2013, from 3.00pm to 4.00pm in the Sir Redmond Barry Room at 46, 55 Collins Street, Melbourne.

#n3581_fn1" id="n3581_fn1">[1] #n3581_txt1">↑ Art critic, Mark Holsworth, writes that 'Historically no city in Victoria was designed with a square because the then Governor Gipps didn’t like them because they encourage democracy. Melbourne City Square was only built in 1980 (when democracy was no longer a threat)..." Source: http://melbourneartcritic.wordpress.com/tag/governor-gipps/

#n3581_fn2" id="n3581_fn2">[2] #n3581_txt2">↑ A very good article on the covert and creeping privatisation of public land can be found here: http://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/privatising-public-space-1/