Melbourne's overdevelopment problem

"The redevelopment and remodelling of the Queen Victoria Market (QVM) plus changes in its functions proposed by the City of Melbourne, led by the Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, should be ringing alarm bells amongst Melburnians. This is one of the biggest assaults ever mounted on the QVM in the history of Melbourne." (Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.)

Report on Queen Victoria Market and Development Proposals by City of Melbourne [1]

In the early 1970s the City of Melbourne, with the support of the Victorian State Government, proposed to demolish the QVM and replace it with a combined Trade Centre, office and hotel. The Save the Victorian Market Committee was formed. Then Norm Gallagher and the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) . put Green Bans on the demolition of the QVM and guaranteed its survival from demolition and redevelopment. The QVM was put on the Historic Buildings Register. There is talk of nominating the site for World Heritage and it certainly fills an important place of Melbourne’s cultural heritage. Twenty years later, prior to his death in 2006, John Cummins (a former BLF official and then CFMEU official) gave market stall holders assurances that the QVM would be defended by the CFMEU should there be any retreat from agreements to save the Place. (This information paraphrases quotes from Dave Kerin’s history of the BLF.)

I have not analysed in detail the destruction of heritage should the City of Melbourne’s plans be implemented. It is certain that, however, that the current plans will destroy the social heritage of the QVM, maintaining the sheds as a kind of “Disneyland” market, which in the long term would not be sustainable

I thought it useful to look, firstly, at the fact that the QVM is possibly one of the biggest suppliers of fresh and processed food, as well as other retail items such as clothing, in the inner Metropolitan area. Dr Miriam Faine, who is a Convenor of the Friends of OVM Facebook group and who is alarmed at the changes proposed, says that the QVM currently supports traders who will lose their business if the development proceeds; offers a voice to market customers who shop regularly at the market (and are not 'visitors' but part of the market community); preserves the market as an every day shopping space for the people of Melbourne; and, she argues, provides a traditional market model with many small independent traders competing on freshness, variety, value and sustainability.

To the Lord Mayor and Councillors the market is just a show piece and a tourist attraction as they appear to have no clues that the market is an integral part of people's lives and plays an important part in supplying the metropolis with food. As far as I know the Lord Mayor of Melbourne does not live in the municipality of Melbourne and possibly has no experience of shopping for the family every week in the QVM.

The QVM is not just a market for the municipality of Melbourne but for a huge radius of suburbs. One reason that the Market serves this vast hinterland is because of the parking availability at the Market and also in the streets around, although complaints are made that charges are excessive compared to other shopping centres. There are 700 spaces at the QVM plus another 500 which are now under threat in the surrounding streets. It would be disastrous if they were removed. See the web page - http://au.parkopedia.com/parking/carpark/queen_victoria_market/3000/melbourne/ - which provides a run down of all available parking within reasonable reach for QVM patrons. There is certainly a case for retaining cheap parking easily accessible for QVM patrons, within the context of a broader objective of maximising space efficient and sustainable modes.

Public transport advocate Ian Hundley has made a great contribution to this report. His comments concerning transport have been included below.

With regard to the count of daily traffic numbers over the last 10 years for major arterial roads (Dudley Street, Peel Street, Victoria Street, Elizabeth Street) near to or abutting the QVM, it appears that these numbers have been static, or even declined, during this period. This is welcome news and confirms that Melbourne really only works as well owing to the fact that a substantial proportion of visitors travel by sustainable means. This is not the case with most of the suburban activity centres which are highly car dependent and face increased road traffic congestion as a consequence. The tram lines mentioned here in relation to the QVM connect with north and western suburbs.

An emerging threat for the north-west part of the City of Melbourne is the Victorian State Government's proposed Western Distributor which includes a feeder into the Melbourne CBD from the Westgate Freeway. Ian Hundley comments that he is of the view that, as this is a Transurban inspired toll road, they might well be looking to maximise road traffic numbers in this area.

We understand that daily visitors to/users of the market vary between about 22,000 and 32,000 with the greatest numbers being on Saturdays. Furthermore we understand that the QVM administration reports that a phenomenal ten (10) million people visit the markets every year. We do not know how many people visit the QVM as their one and only destination or how many people have multiple destinations on journeys within the CBD, one of which is the QVM.

It appears that the QVM, as currently configured, does not cater very well for the many patrons who use shopping trolleys, a design issue mainly. It is also an issue for public transport users in the area with no services on Elizabeth Street and Victoria Street being low floor. This will improve over time, but it is not happening quickly enough.

We consider it would help to get many more people onto public transport if a number of problems were addressed. For example, the Victoria Street tram corridor is not continuous which makes it difficult for quite a few people and there is no ready access to North Melbourne station from the QVM. Also, low floor trams would be a plus, especially for shoppers at QVM.

Finally with regard to transport and planning issues, I have heard that plans are being formulated by the City of Melbourne for Franklin Street to be closed; for QVM car parking to be removed; and for three 50 storey tower blocks to be built on the site. Franklin Street provides very useful access from Victoria Street through to the RMIT complexes on Swanston Street and through to the legal world in Lonsdale Street and William Street. Predictions are there could be disastrous traffic congestion resulting from the Franklin Street closure.

The QVM is seen as of central importance to people's lives enabling them to live within strict budgets. The food prices are the most reasonable in the metropolis. One is able to buy food items - costs go down in seasons of plenty. Also prices go down close to closing times so traders can dispose of goods. The QVM does not serve just residents in surrounding suburbs but also the international student population increasingly living in high rise apartments in the city. If a large part of the QVM is closed down then where will numbers shop? There are few Big Block Coles and Woolworths in the city. Many of the thousands of tertiary students who live in inner Melbourne seldom dine out. They need to watch their budget and want to shop locally and economically to cook at home.

Another point is that numbers of stall holders provide surplus food to “Second Bite” and charities so these services would be lost if the QVM trading were to be drastically reduced in size, as Lord Mayor Doyle’s “redevelopment” proposes.

The “deli” shops specialise in ethnic foods. The Greek deli shops, for instance, have a huge number of clients from the Greek Community from all over Melbourne. .

Also interesting to note would be just how many top City restaurants and cafes obtain their food from the market. I used to go to the organic foods section and encountered many restaurant owners/chefs purchasing fresh supplies.

My parents used to go every week from Camberwell for about 50 years! And I used to go to the QVM by tram when living in Parkville and North Carlton for many years. Many Melburnians remain loyal to certain stall holders and keep up patronage for a lifetime.

Queen Victoria Market is very special. For many years it been an effective antidote to mega sized, corporate retail food distribution and it needs to be retained as such for the benefit of the growing numbers of local, inner city residents including students, the loyal shoppers from the middle suburbs, as well as the visitors to the city.

There is a related topic which needs to be dealt with separately. It is difficult to imagine where fresh food will be grown given the rapid loss of arable food producing land with the spread of housing developments. The question arose some years ago when the Brumby Government extended the urban growth boundary to allow spread of residential housing into arable farming land. . Melbourne is now heading for 8 million population. Will we soon be reliant on imported food?

Signed:

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

Mobile: 0408022408

Date: 3 July 2015

NOTES

This article is slightly represented from the original letter signed by Julianne Bell for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., which was entitled: "REPORT ON QUEEN VICTORIA MARKET AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS BY THE CITY OF MELBOURNE."

This is a report on Transurban and the Western Distributor and the Defence of Our Parks from Commercial Development and Takeover by Park Furniture. It also contains details of upcoming Transurban: Western Distributor - Information sessions through the inner west in May and June.

I. Transurban and the Western Distributor

Death of the East West Link

Yesterday I attended a meeting at the State Netball and Hockey Centre in Royal Park - the first since the election - and lost no time in reminding the meeting that the wonderful views of Royal Park from the Hockey Champions Room - the Conference Room - would have been entirely ruined as, had Napthine been elected, construction on the EW Link would have started by now. We would have been looking down on a quarry immediately to the south of the SNHC - 40 metres away in fact. This would have been the preparation for the tunnel under the Upfield Railway Line through to the Ross Straw Field in West Royal Park. Plus there would have been a construction road for trucks up Brens Drive right past the SNHC building and through the SNHC carpark into the area to the west of the Zoo which was designed as a construction camp and a carpark. It is a major miracle that the Royal Park landscape is still intact.

So again thanks to the multitude of groups and organisations fighting the EW Link and the Labor Government for terminating the project.(See attached Age photo dated 22 November 2014 taken on the location of entry to the tunnel on the Ross Straw Field.) But read on for the danger of the Transurban and the Western Distributor. Thanks to YCAT for the information - see YCAT website.

Transurban: Western Distributor - Information sessions through the inner west in May and June

Thanks to Berish Bilander, of Public Transport Not Traffic who organised the walk in Yarraville last Sunday.

Coming up are Transurban's information sessions. They say ""Drop in to learn more about the project, talk with the team and provide feedback" People are urged to attend! But watch our for the advertising spiel. We have had experience with Linking Melbourne Authority for the - in our view - highly misleading sessions re the EW Link. They consisted of lots of photos on walls and a few staff to answer questions. Transurban has already an advertising campaign on commercial radio and is even advertising on Radio 3MBS Fine Music Melbourne!

Details of coming public information sessions:

1pm - 5pm, 30 May 2015 at St Augustine's Parish, 61 Somerville Road, Yarraville.Melways Map Reference 41 K7
4pm - 8pm, 4 June 2015 at St James Old Cathedral, Corner King and Batman Streets, West Melbourne. Melways Map Reference 43 E7
5pm - 8pm, 11 June 2015 at Scienceworks, 2 Booker Street, Spotswood. Melways Map Reference 56 B1
9am - 1pm, 13 June 2015 at Footscray Community Arts Centre, 45 Moreland Street, Footscray.Melways Map Reference 42 E5

More at: http://consult.transurban.com/western-distributor-join-the-conversation/

II. Defence of Our Parks from Commercial Development and Takeover by Parks Furniture

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbournes-parks-need-more-tourist-attractions-new-york-parks-man-says-20150525-gh8ulp.html The Age 25 May 2015 by Aisha Dow "Melbourne's parks need more tourist attractions, New York parks man says." This online version contains my comment but the editor had cut me out from the hard copy. For once I agree with the Lord Mayor of Melbourne quoted here! It was encouraging that according to a 3AW report 80% of listeners to 3 AW said leave our parks alone they are fine. This was after the interview with the American visitor Mr Mitchell Silver. See below letters to the Age Editor.

Age Letters Thursday 28 May 2015

Very unattractive

Mitchell Silver, New York City's parks commissioner, believes Melbourne's parks don't have enough attractions ("US expert says Melbourne parks are lacking attractions", 26/5). Clearly, he did not take the time to visit Albert Park. If he had done so, he would have witnessed how this park has been sacrificed by successive state governments for the staging of a taxpayer-subsidised annual car race. Would New York residents be happy if Central Park was offered up for a similar purpose? I don't think so. (Joe Erftemeyer, Caulfield East)

Parking it on the grass

Mitchell Silver said that Fitzroy Gardens "did not seem heavily used" and there was not enough seating. He is also quoted as saying: "What will happen is that people will either sit in the grass or keep walking." This reveals cultural differences between Australians and Americans. First, most of us are working during the day but we appreciate our parks as they are still active as the lungs of the city. Second, we just love sitting on the grass. If catering for the elderly or disabled, we folk will come prepared with fold-up table and chairs. That way we can enjoy the true bush atmosphere of Royal Park or the elegance of the historic Royal Botanic Gardens without their being cluttered with useless, dated and visually intrusive park furniture. (Lewis Prichard, Hawthorn)

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

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

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

This article thanks all who attended the celebration today (7 December 2014) to give thanks to the incoming Labor Government and to all who have campaigned for years to save Royal Park and the Zoo from certain destruction should the East West Link be constructed. The article also contains a photo of a concerning note left by East West Connect for a resident, requesting some kind of ongoing involvement in the link.

The Zoo celebration event was sponsored by MCAT - Moreland Community Against the East West Link, PPL VIC - Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and RPPG - Royal Park Protection Group Inc. Thanks go to the Zoo Director, Mr. Kevin Tanner, who addressed our group and escorted us to the elephant "paddock" (if that is the correct name) where the curator gave us a great report on the Zoo elephants and their histories. (The Zoo waived entry fees for our group.) I hope Channel 2 ran a report on the news. We finished the visit with lunch at the Lakeside Cafe.

Note the photo of a child, Alexandra, dressed as a unicorn holding a wombat with the message : "Thanks Dan 4 Saving the Zoo"

The 'Dan' in the sign refers to the new Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, who said he will not go through with the
East West link, which the outgoing Coalition government was hell-bent upon. The freeway would have affected the zoo.

This photo and the photo of the group (where one person is still reading the message on her poster) were done by Jill Quirk. Thanks also go to Michael Petit for MCAT who spoke about the threat to Zoo animals by the East West Link. And lastly to Rod Quantock the MC of the event and President of PPL VIC.

See article in Age re elephants: "East West Link opponents - project risk to zoos pregnant elephant Num -Oi" (Age 22 November 2014.)

One of the objectives of PPL VIC mentioned to Mr. Tanner at today's event is to have talks about promoting public transport for visitors to the Zoo and revive the plan for a special tram on the 55 Coburg line to be painted with Zoo animals like the old tram on the Elizabeth Street/Royal Parade line which existed 10 years ago or so.

Donations needed to help Cover Legal Costs Incurred over East West Link Plus Heritage Listing

As people might be aware, not only did the Coalition Government sign contracts before the election and prior to proceedings in the Supreme Court, but actually commenced work in Royal Park 2 weeks before the election marking out trees at the Tunnel entrance plus a construction road up Brens Drive and through the State Netball and Hockey Centre carpark. Our lawyer wrote letters to the East West Link Connect consortium demanding that they desist from marking trees and stop work. We are therefore sending out a request for membership renewals for groups or individuals and/or for donations. As you will be aware Royal Park was included on the State Heritage Register but then Minister Matthew Guy listed exemptions for the East West Link this rendering the heritage listing useless. We are now seeking legal advice to delete the exemptions thus ensuring Royal Park is protected forever!

What's Happening over Work on the EW Link?

Received today was a report by a resident in Parkville that he received in the mail yesterday (see attached) a notice from East West Connect. He rang today Saturday and they said they wanted to put a machine on his balcony "to record the sound levels from the City Link highway for a week"! He declined. Please advise me if anyone else has been getting notices from East West Connect. We will investigate. .

Disturbing News Re Possible Clearfelling of Trees in Princes Park.

According to a number of reports trees on the perimeter of Princes Park including the 100 year old Moreton Bay Fig trees and the lines of eucalypts are marked out with yellow paint and the ground marked in pink. This could signify complete and wholesale axing of tree cover. The City of Melbourne received $14 million for the development of sports grounds including Princes Park to compensate clubs on the Ross Straw Field when it was thought this section of the Royal Park would be taken over by the East West Link. So the question arises. Is the development of Princes Park going ahead under false pretences now the EW Link has been cancelled?. Does any of this development conform with the Princes Park Master Plan? A cursory inspection of the plan would indicate that all the existing trees are in the Plan. We will question Councillors and staff. Please if anyone can supply photos of marked trees let me have them ASAP.

Source of article: Taken from a report by Julianne Bell, Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052

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.

Save our Suburb's Planning Survey exposes some fascinating trends among independents and small parties on population policy. I have put together some data on Victorian candidates for this coming election with regard to the population question on the poll plus any remarks. This was a late night operation and some candidates' remarks were partly obscured in the copy I made. Some Greens said they were in favour of such a policy, but I note that their own policy has for years avoided mentioning immigration and places the issue at a vague global level. It is well-known that this is a contentious issue with the Greens and that members and candidates tend to get punished for mentioning it and every attempt at workable local policy is suffocated from the top. Two Labor candidates - amazingly - said they were in favour of the policy. Note that the responses to the whole questionnaire are available here: http://sos.asn.au/vic/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/141117-Planning-Survey-of-Candidates-RO.xlsx UPDATE: As the survey is updated every 48 hours to include candidate responses, It might be best to use these links: Trend results and Individual candidate responses

Here is the question candidates were asked in the SOS poll, to which 35 had responded positively by 21 November 2014:

"While ensuring that human rights are protected, would you support wider public debate on a stable population policy for Victoria in order to address ecological sustainability, as well as infrastructure and employment impacts?"

Candidates who said they were in favour of such a policy were:

Australian Cyclists Party (All regions)
Voice for the West (Altona, Broadmeadows, Essendon, Footscray, Koroit, Melbourne, Melton, Niddrie, St Albans, Sunbury, Sydenham, Tarneeit, Werribee, Williamstown.
John Rinaldi, Independent, for Broadmeadows.
Calre LeServe, Independent for Bass.

Nigel Hicks, Independent for Murray Plains.
Lynette Bell, Rise Up Australia for East Bendigo
Christopher Byrne, Independent for Eltham.

Peter Gardney, Climate Emergency, Gippsland East.
Robert Anderson, Independent for Hastings.
Matt DeLeon, Independent for Melton.
Jordan Crook, Save the Planet Party for Monbulk.
Dr Eleonora Lullone, Animal Justice Party, Prahran.
Alan Menadue, Independent: Anti GST, Anti-Privatisation of Social ... for Prahran.
Tom Keel, Independent for City Living of Richmond.
Michael Challinger, Independent opposing selling off of public assets ... for Ringwood.
Jamie Overend, Animal Justice Party for South Barwon.
Safwat Ali, Independent for Tarneit.
Thomas Di Parma, Independent for reducing congestion, crime... for Thomastown.
Brenton Edgecombe, Animal Justice Party for Eastern Metropolitan.
Voice for the West for Western Metropolitan, Western Victoria, Northern Metropolitan
Maria McLaverty, Animal justice Party for Northern Metropolitcan.
Bruce Poon, Animal Justice Party for Northern Metropolitan.
Andy Meddick, Animal Justice Party for Western Victoria.
James Purcell, Vote 1 Local, for Western Victoria.
Joel Martin, Independent, Return TAFE and uni to the Yarra Valley, for Croydon.

Greens who said, "Yes", (in contradiction to their party policy and record.)

Most people aware of population politics know that the Greens always support the Liberal Party and the Labor Party's big population policies and their policy is mostly a vague one about 'global' population.

Bill Pemberton of the Greens Box Hill, responded with "Yes," and stood out from his fellows by adding the following remark, courageous for a Green:

"Although a Federal issue 2000 people a week coming to live in Melbourne is unsustainable."

Daniel Caffrey of the Greens for Morewell, also responded "Yes."
Bruce Lindsay, Greens, Geelong also responded "Yes."
Rod May, Greens for Ripon, also responded "Yes."
Steven Merriel, Greens for Oakleigh, also responded "Yes."
Danel Caffrey, Greens for Morwell, also responded "Yes."
Paul Kennedy, Greens Ivanhoe, also responded "Yes."
Clem Stanyon, Greens, for Bundoora, also responded "Yes."

Labor Party candidates who said "Yes" in apparent divergence from Party policy.

Steve Hosing, Labor Hastings. This is exceptional for a Labor candidate!
Ian Spencer, Australian Labor Party for South East Metropolitan. This is exceptional for a Labor candidate!

Socialist Alliance vehemence against democratic consultation continues

Sean Brocklehurst, Socialist Alliance for Pascoe Vale is typically opposed to a democratic population policy and has written remarks to that effect, also relying on the old racists posing as ecologists argument to discredit the validity of the issue.

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.

I must start by extending a vote of appreciation to the Mayor for agreeing to debate population growth with Kelvin Thomson. Both debaters and the Moderator respectfully acknowledged the original owners of the land upon which the debate took place, the Wurundjeri.

Mayor Doyle took the position that would guarantee that the ongoing dispossession of the Wurundjeri should continue at an ever escalating rate because it was "inevitable". Kelvin Thomson's position was more respectful of the Wurundjeri and took the opposite view.

The great disappointment for many of us was the Mayor's premise that, in his opinion, population growth was inevitable and that his job was to respond to that inevitability in his role as Mayor. So he would not provide a frank opinion on whether he agreed that endless extreme population growth was unreasonable. He avoided the issue and would not concede his responsibility to the people of Melbourne who are being subjected to this ongoing process of dispossession.

The Mayor highlighted that we live in a free society where public policy debate allows this issue to be fully aired. He also explained the difference between his versions of dumb growth and smart growth. He didn't mention that a key issue is the RATE of growth - which is what concerns most people.

He praised the virtues of modern Melbourne compared to the Melbourne of the 70s and effectively claimed that we could not live in the halcyon days of the past.

He made no mention of:

• We would not be able to "live in the future" either if Australia continued its autocratically imposed self-colonisation policy indefinitely
• At 2.5% per annum, Melbourne's population growth is comparable to those of the most underdeveloped parts of Africa
• Unlike such underdeveloped countries where growth is "natural", Australia's extreme rate of growth is due to an autocratic policy of extreme self-colonisation without the consent of the Australian people
• The ABC does not support open public policy debate of this issue
• Australian homelessness is escalating at a compound rate of 3.2% per annum (doubling time 22 years)
• Australian unemployment is escalating at a compound rate of 2.3% per annum (doubling time 30 years)
• The above rates, if directly influenced by population growth, are likely to be far higher in Melbourne than the Australian averages
• There is significant evidence that population growth is directly implicated in the deterioration of the Australian economy, and that this is directly related to Australia's reduction in philanthropic aid both at home and abroad

The Mayor's (and the ABC's) approach to the issue is analogous to a public figure regarding homicide using semi-automatic weapons as "inevitable" and then proposing that nothing should be done to investigate ways to reduce this rate of homicide.

The Mayor's claim that population growth is inevitable is contrary to his policy of reducing the speed limit in the CBD to 40 kph. He claimed that this was done because nobody dies when hit by a car travelling at 40 kph or less.

The Mayor is the epitomy of what is wrong with the Australian ruling class. He appears genuinely motivated by the desire to do good, yet excludes rational, analytical, "limits to growth" thinking from his zone of responsibility. It was as if he was saying: "I was only obeying orders. The Feds told me it is inevitable. I am innocent. It's not my responsibility." I disagree. I think it is all our responsibilities.

The question is, what right have politicians and public figures to deny reality in this way? Well you might ask.

The Moderator chipped in to say there was no lack of food (in the world) because millions of tonnes of excess food was being distributed to the needy by SecondBite. SecondBite is a good cause that both the Mayor and the Moderator personally support.

So there you have it. By doing good do these two somehow justify denial of a reality that "inevitably" will do far more harm than any limited good they can otherwise do?

Infinite food in an infinite world with infinite population. Such is the nature of the illogical ruling (and moderating) class. Innumeracy does a lot to cripple analytical thinking. Australia's population will continue to double every 40 years or less, and the Mayor effectively advocates this.

On this basis, in 200 years Australia's population will be 736 million if it compounds at 1.8% per year. In 200 years Melbourne's population would be 628 million if it compounds at 2.5% per year. These are the numbers that will dictate Australia's future.

However, after infuriating many in the audience with avoidance of the real issue, the Mayor fully supported a referendum on population growth at the end of question time after the debate. For that glimmer of reasonableness we extend our thanks.

UPDATE: For the film of debate click here. The debate was attended by a 200 plus audience. The Lord Mayor showed courage under fire as he went down in the debate with only a pea-shooter of light-weight fashion statements like how many coffee shops Melbourne has vs a steady stream of deadly facts from Mr Thomson. The editors of candobetter.net are working to bring you a film of the debate, plus commentary and interviews with people who attended, ASAP. Mary Drost is to be resounding congratulated for achieving this important democratic event and also for calling for a referendum on population increase, which both Kelvin Thomson and Lord Mayor Doyle agreed would be desirable.

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle and Kelvin Thomson MP will debate the topic of Victoria's rapid and increasing population growth at Deakin Edge in Federation Square from 5.30-7pm on 13 October 2014. A few months ago Planning Backlash leader, Mary Drost, challenged Melbourne Mayor, Robert Doyle, to debate much loved Federal Member of Parliament, Kelvin Thomson, who retained his federal seat by a huge margin in an election where most other members of his party lost their seats. In 2014 Mr Thomson established Victoria First, a not-for-profit NGO to safeguard and enhance Victoria’s way of life against overpopulation. He is the only politician in Victoria to represent the people against the big business drive for rapid population growth.

Flyer attached as PDF, Word.

The rate of population growth affects people's lives by stressing services, infrastructure, and putting ever-increasing pressure on Victoria's (and Australia's) fragile environment. Residents' action groups, environment groups, flora and fauna protection groups all demonstrate and otherwise engage frequently to try and stop the brutal impacts of state-planned overpopulation on democracy, property rights, and the built and natural environment of this state. Our environmental and biodiversity protection laws are inadequate in the face of the growth onslaught.

The major portion of Australia's population growth is due to the very high rate of planned invited economic immigration in Australia. This is a situation promoted by the states, which like Victoria, all have government websites that seek to attract high numbers of immigrants to this country. Victoria's website is http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/

Successive Victorian governments from the time of Jeff Kennett's have all deliberately brought on the population squeeze that has driven them to expend resources on successive planning blueprints for the state.

The major driver behind population growth is a number of focused beneficiaries which have formed organisations in order to keep those benefits coming. Property developers, mortgage financiers and their mass media representatives predominate in the growth lobby. The mass media has interests in population growth in stimulating business for property dot coms like www.realestate.com.au and www.domain.com.au and is the growth lobby's corporate mouthpiece. Therefore Melbourne's The Age, the Financial Review and the Herald Sun constantly talk about population growth but report it in a biased way, pretending, as the government does, that it is inevitable.

Melbourne’s Mayor Robert Doyle will represent the growth lobby position by saying that growth is inevitable in urban centres and must be 'planned for'. The Mayor’s opponent, Kelvin Thomson, is advocating for a reduction in the rate of population growth, which is currently 1.82% compared with the world average of 1.1%, Russian Federation 0.2%, Korea 0.4%, China 0.5%, France 0.5%, UK 0.6%, US 0.7%, Sweden 0.8%, New Zealand 0.8%, Samoa 0.8%, French Polynesia 1.1%, India 1.2%, Indonesia 1.2%, Canada 1.2%, Haiti 1.4%, Malaysia 1.6%, Singapore 1.6%, West Bank and Gaza 3.0%. Australia's population, at its current rate of growth of 1.8% per annum, would double in 38 years. At 0.5 % per annum, France's would take 138 years to double, but France's rate is more likely to decline, so that its population will never double, whereas Australia's rate has been higher and the government intends to increase it.

The forum will address the pros and cons of population growth. There will be an opportunity to ask questions.

Presented by Planning Backlash and a coalition of resident groups.

Where: Deakin Edge

When: Monday 13 October, 5.30pm - 7pm

Price: Free

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

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.

21 July 2014. Yarra City Council has voted unanimously to join Moreland Council in seeking a judicial review of the Minister for Planning’s approvals for the East West Link and the assessments committee’s recommendation to the Minister.

Mayor Cr Jackie Fristacky said that under the Local Government Act Yarra has an obligation to act in the best interests of its community, which is why Council is taking this important action.

“Yarra has long opposed the East West Link because of the absence of a transparent and viable business case and the devastating impact it would have on our local community, local heritage, inner city traffic and many other important aspects impacting liveability”, Cr Fristacky said.

The Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act provides for appeal against the Minister’s decision to the Supreme Court within 21 calendar days of the Minister’s decision. The deadline for lodging an appeal in the Supreme Court is today (21 July 2014).

On July 8, Councillors voted unanimously to reject the State Government’s decision to approve the East West Link contrary to substantial evidence and the many professional recommendations of the Assessment Panel.

Council's resolution:

“That Council:
• reaffirm the Council’s resolution dated 8 July 2014 which stated its firm opposition to the East West Link project;
• joins Moreland Council in seeking a judicial review of both the Minister's decision under section 77 of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act and the Assessment Committee's recommendation to the Minister made on 30 May 2014, under section 73 of the Act;"

Media enquiries
Bernadette Collins
Acting Senior Communications Officer
9205 5042
[email protected]

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

Congratulations to all who organised, prepared, worked for and took part in the rally yesterday Saturday 28 June . It was a monumental task and a great celebration of community spirit. What was so impressive was the amazing diversity of groups and spread of ages of marchers and participants.

One leader of a community group who has been to lots of protests speaks for many when she commented yesterday after the march in an email:

"That surely was a great rally today in Melbourne, I was in awe during the march from State Library along Swanston St. It was conducted so very well with police on their horses beautifully standing to attention outside Flinders Street station while the speeches continued. Was this really democracy in action?? And how about the beaut little middle-aged lady in a red jacket holding up high a very large poster with a simple six-word message which read STICK YOUR TUNNEL UP YOUR FUNNEL !" Also the writer said: " I have never been to a rally as large, powerful and widely representative. All credit to the organisers and speakers too!

"

See the Gallery of Photos (9 in all) in the Age: http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/national/east-west-link-tunnel-protest-20140628-3b0h9.html This is entitled "East West Link protestors marching through Swanston Street in Melbourne on Saturday 28 June 2014. Photos by Luis Ascui." Note on Page 2 of the Age the photograph of the sign held by a resident of Travancore "5200 trees Axed for EW Link - Say No Way!" (This is referring of course to Royal Park.)

The photos illustrating this article were taken by Jill Quirk. They are of the banner with the iconic message "Trains not Toll Roads" (with the Royal Park banner in the background) and of the children of the Save The Zoo contingent, dressed as Zoo animals gathered outside the State Library waiting for the rally to commence. I would particularly like to thank the Moreland Community Against the East-West Tunnel (MCAT) and their Save The Zoo Children's group. Also Rod Quantock our PPL VIC President who did a Pied Piper act and led the children and Royal Park groups at the front of the march. I understand that Channel 2 and 9 covered the rally but have not yet seen the record.

Julianne Bell
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (Inc.)

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

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

This morning the Herald Sun reported that Melbourne has experienced its fastest property boom since the turn of the century. The median house price rose by over $100,000 in the past nine months, jumping over six percent each quarter from June last year to the end of March this year. These figures came from the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, which is happy about them. But elsewhere in the Herald Sun, Tom Elliott, who has a radio program on 3AW, has a less rosy assessment of the situation. In an article titled "Home horror is a people problem" he pointed out that first home buyers face a housing market that is one of the most expensive on earth. According to the International Monetary Fund, Australian residential real estate prices as a multiple of average incomes are exceeding only those of Canada and Belgium.

And not only was Tom Elliott on to the fact that rising house prices is not a good thing for the young people who get locked out of the chance to have their own home, he was also on to the reason why. "What is the real reason houses are now so expensive?" he asked, and gave the following answer "Look around – its people. More specifically the huge increase in population that Australia, and particularly Melbourne, has experienced over the past twenty years". His conclusion was that until we work out a way to conjure up more land close to the city, reducing population growth is the only sure fire method of denting property prices".

He's absolutely right. And he's certainly right about the huge recent increase in Melbourne's population.

In recent years Melbourne's population has taken off. We have been growing at an unprecedented rate – 200 a day, 1500 a week, 75,000 a year, more or less, year in, year out. Each new population projection for Melbourne is bigger and more outrageous than the one before it. The latest says we'll get to 7.7 million by 2051!

The question we don't spend near enough time thinking about is, is this growth giving us a better city? Now I am not a zealot or an ideologue. I am fundamentally a very middle of the road, practical sort of person. So when I try to work out whether something is a good idea, I look around for examples to compare it with real-­life examples. If I can't see how something works in practice, I don't set too much store by it.

Now in the case of thinking about an issue like the size of Melbourne, there seem to me two relevant kinds of example, two kinds of comparisons we can make. One is with other cities, both bigger ones and smaller ones. And one of the advantages of my life is that I've got to see a lot of other cities, both bigger and smaller. And I am absolutely convinced that in terms of living standards and quality of life that the smaller cities have it all over the bigger ones. We do not want to become Manilla or Mumbai, or London or New York.

Let me return to Tom Elliott's last line this morning "Until we work out a way to conjure up more land close to the city...." Of course some planners and policy makers, to say nothing of property developers, think they have achieved just that with their dual occupancies and multi-unit developments and in particular with their high rise. Let's build upwards, they say. The City of Melbourne reported breathlessly that in 2013 it had welcomed 11,000 new residents, making Melbourne City Council the fastest growing municipality in Australia. John Masanauskas wrote in the Herald Sun in May that over the past few years, in the CBD, 90 high-rise towers have been approved.

The advocates for high rise and multi-unit developments say they are necessary to maintain housing affordability. But if this is their purpose, then they are failing miserably. Housing has never been less affordable, as I pointed out earlier. Another thing they say about high rise is that we shouldn't stress so much about quantity – it's quality that matters. Reducing our environmental footprint and living sustainably is all about good design, and efficiency and so on.

To respond to that, let me turn from this morning's Herald Sun to this morning's Saturday Age. Aisha Dow reports that windowless bedrooms exist in almost a quarter of new residential developments in the CBD. A Melbourne City Council study estimates that more than half of the city's tallest apartment buildings over 15 storeys are of poor quality, with common design flaws and lack of natural light. All of the high rise apartment designs were considered either poor or average quality. Common failings include kitchens in hallways, poor storage, lack of ventilation and excessive energy use. The latter point is very significant, because there is a myth around that high rise is environmentally superior.

The Age says some Melbourne architects are so unhappy with the result of buildings they have designed that they have refused to have their name associated with them. The article quotes the Melbourne architect Jon Clements, representing the Australian Institute of Architects, saying "The general feeling among architects is that it's ridiculous to be forcing architects to produce buildings that don't appropriate quality and amenity standards". He is calling for minimum apartment design standards to be legislated. Some people would call minimum quality standards red tape. But I say the absence of them is a recipe for 21st century slums.

I lived in New York as an Australian Parliamentary representative to the United Nations for three months a couple of years ago. Fascinating, certainly, but not as good a city to live in as Melbourne, not even close. Even the relentlessly pro-growth, pro-business, The Economist ranked Melbourne at the time as the most liveable city in the world. New York was 56th. No doubt this has much to do with New York's well documented problems with crime, drugs, unemployment, beggars in the streets, and unaffordable housing. And all this is on a good day. It's intricately designed public and private transport networks have no margin for error and are incredibly vulnerable to adverse events like car accidents, train derailments, or storms. When these happen the whole system seizes up and hundreds of thousands of commuters are left stranded, seething with impotent rage.

Manhattan's intersections carry a myriad of signs warning of $350 fines for motorists who honk their horns. But they honk anyway. They honk constantly. They honk because they are angry, sitting there in gridlock in traffic. Is this really what we want for our city? Is it seriously worth sacrificing the vision of Melbourne's founding fathers of a city of parks, or the former Victorian Liberal Premier Dick Hamer of a city of green wedges, for this?

It is an urban myth that people living in high rise buildings use less energy and have a lower environmental footprint than people in detached houses. In Manhattan people run their air conditioners all day and all night to keep their airless apartments cool. There are no rainwater tanks, no solar PV panels, no people growing their own vegetables. Manhattan is not the self-sufficient, sustainable world of the future. It is a product of a time when we thought the sky was the limit. But the planet does have limits — food, water, energy, carbon.

The second kind of comparison I make is with the past. I remember what Melbourne was like when I was young. I remember what it was like 10 years ago. It is not getting any better. I've already talked about declining housing affordability. It is way harder for my children and their generation to afford a house than it was for my generation or that of my parents. And there's traffic congestion. We had a great deal of discussion about that at the February Victoria First Meeting with Dr Ernest Healy.

And then there is planning. We talked about that in Ringwood in April with Professor Michael Buxon. Developers use doublespeak terms like "housing choice", "sustainable", "exemplary design", and "efficient planning". But these are all code for removing residents rights to meaningfully object to developments in their neighbourhoods. I stand for the right of residents to have a say in the character of the street, the neighbourhood, the community in which they live.

You know they say that Melbourne and Australia used to be greyer and duller before we went all out on population growth. I grew up in the sixties and seventies. Jim Keays has just passed away. We had the Masters Apprentices, Daddy Cool, Skyhooks, Sherbert, Zoot, Chain! Seriously life was not duller or less interesting back then! We had more freedom more choices.

Is life better now for students? With youth unemployment at much higher levels than when I was young, and students being fitted with deregulated course fees and a student debt that goes up at the long term bond rate and gets bigger rather than smaller over time? I don't think so.

Is life better now for older people? With electricity, gas, water and council rates increasing above the rate of CPI, with increasing costs to visit the doctor, with cuts foreshadowed to the rate of pension indexation? I don't think so.

And is the environment in better shape than it used to be? We all know the answer to that one. Our list of endangered species grows ever longer, and climate change threatens more droughts, bushfires, and extreme weather events.

In recent decades Melbourne has grown both upwards and outwards. What have been the consequences? I have given a window into the consequences of growing upwards in talking about Manhattan, including beggars in the streets. And indeed the Lord Mayor of Melbourne Robert Doyle talks at some length about the problem of begging in the city in his Mayor's Message in their latest publication. Not something a Lord Mayor of the 60s or 70s would have needed to talk about.

But there are plenty of consequences from growing outwards too. We've expanded over fertile soils very suitable for vegetable growing. We've expanded into bushfire prone areas. And when fires come, and they always do, everyone wants someone else to pay for the damage — homeowners, insurance companies, councils, taxpayers. No-one thinks they should have to wear the loss. And just last Sunday the Sunday Age reported that thousands of homes in new estates from Grovedale on the outskirts of Geelong to Doreen in Melbourne's north, and including homes in the municipalities of Hume, Melton and Wyndham, have been built on highly reactive volcanic clay soils on "waffle slab" foundations. Soil movements under a home's foundations are causing walls to crack, doors and windows to jam, and floors to tilt. Homeowners now facing ruinous home renovation and legal bills will not think that housing has become more affordable for them as a result of greedy and short-­sighted behaviour by property developers and planning authorities.

This is also an issue about quality of life and mental health of communities. Health experts have pointed out clear health benefits from exposure to nature. Children build up their immune system by playing with soil and being in the real world rather than indoors. What do you call a kid in a backyard? A free range kid. Joggers and walkers and cyclists have been found to derive mental health benefits from being doing their exercise outdoors rather than in a gym. Patients in a hospital recover more quickly if they have a view out their window of nature, rather than a wall, to look at as they convalesce. And retaining green spaces and trees and vegetation helps keep our city cool, and reduce the urban heat island effect. Most of you will notice on the weather report at night how Melbourne is warmer than surrounding areas. This is because of the extent of heat absorbing concrete, brick and bitumen we have in the city. This might feel like a good thing in June, but it isn't when we have the heatwaves in January, February or March. They kill people. We should be doing what we can to stop Melbourne from overheating.

We spend endless amounts of time on our grey infrastructure — the freeways, bridges, drainage and so on. We need to put more effort into protecting and advancing our GREEN infrastructure of parks and trees and vegetation, and our BLUE infrastructure of creeks and beaches and lakes and waterways. We shouldn't see this as an environmental issue, as if it's some optional extra that we can afford to care about some years but not others. It is a health issue. And our health is a core issue by any yardstick. The OECD says that health is, globally, the highest ranked issue of public concern.

The things that we used to be able to afford — free education, free health care, a home of your own, a say in what happens in our street — now we are told we can't afford them anymore. Well if we can't, we're not better off, we're worse off.

We need to show the same foresight the founders of this city showed when it was initially designed. They left us with a city with open space, extensive tram and train networks, and liveable suburbs supported by extensive local infrastructure in the form of schools, hospitals and social services. We should leave a legacy for future generations that we, and they, can be proud of.

Kelvin Thomson MP