Victoria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Drost
Planning Backlash

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

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

Committee
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause agreed to; clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5

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

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

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

Entire suburbs could fall under this regime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Making the community feel confident" (Madden)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Guy -- You said your department made them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal consequences for councils

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DACS Powers of secrecy and silencing of dissent within DACS

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

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

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

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

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

New section 97MTA(4) says:

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

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

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

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

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

-- which are pretty minimal --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information provided to a member of a DAC --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Partnership arrangements" sound like private-public dictatorships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs Peulich -- Just ignore it?

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

Mrs Peulich -- Criticism.

Criticism which 'undermines the authority of the DAC'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs Peulich -- Leading to a bad result?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In relation to all those matters -- --

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

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

Mrs Peulich not reassured

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed.] Madden refuses to answer reasonable question reasonably

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Barber interjected.

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

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

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

Mr Barber interjected.

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

Mr Barber interjected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The penalty here is 100 penalty units.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How might a DAC member have access to public funds?

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

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

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

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

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

Do DACS rely entirely or mostly on using council funds?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order!

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

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

There is no provision for funding DACS members for legal advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two sets of laws might apply simultaneously to a councillor

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

Register of interests, keeping of records - serious problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People would have to fall back on the omsbudsman!

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

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

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

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

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

Privacy should be secondary to public interest in representative role

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

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

Too bad for the public interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insufficient probity monitoring; high risk of corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Barber interjected.

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

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

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

Clause agreed to; clauses 6 to 10 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Source: Victorian Hansard, Council Proof, 9 September 2009

What a coup for long-time environment and democracy activist, Julianne Bell! Last night in Melbourne at the AGM of the Royal Park Protection Group, federal ALP Member for Wills, Hon Kelvin Thomson announced and detailed his 14 point plan for population reform, which is reproduced at the end of this article.

The plan was well received by an audience composed of the Royal Park Protection Group [RPPG] members of members of other Victorian community groups.

Questions from the audience indicated a high degree of engagement with the topic both on the local and global level.

Lifelong concern for Australia's native animals

After delivering his plan , Kelvin Thomson spoke of his lifelong interest in Australia's unique native fauna, and his concern that it can very easily be extinguished mainly through through loss of habitat and that our compassion should extend to living creatures other than humans. He said that many small species will disappear and not even be noticed by most people however be a loss to bio-diversity all the same.

Thomson also referred to the more iconic example of the koala whose perilous survival has been most recently in the news. He pointed out that there are only as many koalas remaining in the wild as there are additional humans in Australia every few weeks!

Kelvin Thomson expressed his concern that Australians need to leave our continent in as good condition as it was when we found it.

A motion at the end of the meeting was passed unanimously and in support of Kelvin's position which also called for a population summit.

Royal Park Protection Group an appropriate host

It was very appropriate that RPPG host this ground-breaking speech because RPPG was formed to defend 20 ha of Royal Park, in the heart of Melbourne, from being sold off by the Bracks government to Australand (Singapore majority owned) developers for a housing estate which was advertised worldwide to prospective immigrants. After this extraordinary gift of the peoples' land, the Bracks government even gave Australand $80m of tax payers money, purportedly in exchange for 10 days use of the land for the Commonwealth Games. Unable to win against the might of corporations and government, and with little help from Victorian unions, RPPG members went on to form Protectors of Public Land (Vic) and have now led Victorians in organising against the destruction of democracy and public land for commercial interests profiting from politically engineered population growth.

Where to from here? Population Reform - Political Challenges!

Kelvin Thomson will be the guest speaker at a Public meeting run by
Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch)
on Sunday November 29th at 3.00pm.
Topic: Population reform- Political challenges
At: Meeting Room 1 North Melbourne Library 66 Errol St. North Melbourne.

All welcome.
Enquiries to jillq[AT]optusnet.com.au

THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO RUNAWAY POPULATION

- KELVIN THOMSON’S 14 POINT PLAN FOR POPULATION REFORM

Tonight I am releasing for discussion a 14 point plan for population reform.

The first 11 points go to how we can stabilise Australia’s population.

1. Stabilise Australia’s population at 26 million by cutting the net overseas migration program to 70,000 per annum.

2. Cut the skilled migration program to 25,000 per annum.

3. Hold the family reunion program at 50,000 per annum.

4. Increase the refugee program from 13,750 to 20,000 per annum.

5. Alter the refugee criteria to include provision for genuine climate refugees.

6. The revised number of annual permanent arrivals from these programs would be 95,000 - 50,000 family reunion plus 25,000 skilled plus 20,000 refugees. Two more factors need to be considered: the number of people departing permanently from Australia, and the number of people arriving permanently from New Zealand. To reach a net overseas annual migration target of 70,000, the number of automatic places available for New Zealanders needs to be restricted to the number of departures from Australia over and above 25,000. The Trans Tasman Travel Arrangement would be renegotiated to achieve this, splitting available places for New Zealanders equally between skilled migrants and family reunion, and allowing New Zealanders to also apply and compete with other applicants under these normal migration programs.

7. Reduce temporary migration to Australia by restricting sub-class 457 temporary entry visas to medical and health related and professional engineering occupations.

8. Require overseas students to return to their country of origin and complete a two-year cooling off period before being eligible to apply for permanent residence.

9. Abolish the Baby Bonus.

10. Restrict Large Family Supplement and Family Tax Benefit A for third and subsequent children to those presently receiving them.

11. Dedicate the savings from abolishing the Baby Bonus and reduced expenditure on Family Payments for third and subsequent children towards increased investment in domestic skills and training through Universities and TAFEs.

The final three points go to how we can play a role in helping stabilise global population.

12. Increase Australia’s aid to meet the United Nations target of 0.7% of Gross National Income with money saved by abolishing Fringe Benefits Tax concessions for company cars, and greater use of off-the-shelf purchases in defence equipment purchases.

13. Use more of Australia’s aid budget for educating girls and women, and for better access to family planning and maternal child health, and advocate in the United Nations and international fora for other countries to do likewise.

14. Put overpopulation on the Agenda for the Copenhagen Climate Change talks.

How have I arrived at this plan?

STABILISE THE WORLD’S POPULATION

I have set out the reasons why I believe the world’s projected population levels are too high and unsustainable – global warming, food crisis, water shortages, housing affordability, overcrowded cities, transport congestion, fisheries collapse, species extinctions, increasing prices, waste, war and terrorism – in detail in a speech to Parliament on 17 August. [Candobetter.net Editor: This link is broken, but the contents are reproduced below. The broken link was http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/speeches.php.]

If we are going to achieve this outcome, everyone has a role to play. Every country has both the right and the duty to stabilise its own population at a level compatible with its own resources and environment. In equity terms, this is an easier issue to deal with than carbon emissions, where the poorer countries have a legitimate anger that the wealthy countries have had all the fun; wrecked the neighbourhood, and the police have been called in to shut the party down just as poorer countries were starting to arrive.

The equitable approach is for each country to pull its own weight and stabilise its own numbers. Countries should not be asked to do more, or less, than this.

The two most promising ways of achieving population stability around the world are educating girls and women, and the provision of better health services, particularly reproductive health services. These two measures lower the fertility rate. According to the World Vision chief executive Tim Costello, for every extra year a girl stays in school, her fertility decreases. “She has fewer children and more optimism and power”, says Tim Costello. Professor Roger Short says that removing the barriers that separate women from the knowledge and technologies they need to manage the size of their family will cause family size to fall, even in poor, illiterate communities. He says conversely, as a result of lost attention to family planning since the 1990s, the population projection for several countries in 2050 has been raised, e.g. Kenya, up from 54 million to 83 million.

There are four things Australia can do to promote this international responsibility. First, in international fora such as the United Nations,
we should promote population stabilisation, better education for girls and women, and improved health services.

Second, we should increase our overseas aid program to meet the United Nations target of 0.7% of Gross National Income. This would involve an increase of $350 million in 2010-11 and a bit over $1 billion in 2011-12. The Government is committed to returning the Budget to surplus, so clearly such an increase would involve finding savings from elsewhere in the Budget – the money has to come from somewhere. One option which has merit in my view is scrapping the $1.5 billion fringe benefit tax concession for company cars, a subsidy from taxpayers which has been criticized by the Australian Conservation Foundation and other groups as damaging to the environment. Another is to trim fat from the defence budget by buying off-the-shelf military equipment rather than engaging in incredibly expensive modification. For example the Air Warfare Destroyer project cost double the initial estimate of $3.5 to $4.5 billion, to be $7.5 billion. So too did the Amphibious Vessel project, initially estimated at $1.5 to $2 billion, and finishing at $3 billion.

This additional money could be channelled into three critical areas – improving education levels, improving health outcomes and reproductive health services, including contraception, and developing renewable energy-based economies which have a path to prosperity that is not linked to increasing greenhouse emissions.

Third, we should put the issue of population stabilisation on the Agenda for the Copenhagen Climate Change talks. Al Gore has listed population increase as one of the three key drivers of climate change, and he is right. It is hard to see how any serious carbon reduction targets can be met while the world’s population continues to escalate. Until we address the issue of population, we are fighting global warming with at least one arm tied behind our back. Whilst it is unreasonable to ask developing countries to remain impoverished, it is not unreasonable to ask them to adopt a goal of population stabilisation.

Fourth, we can lead by example, and stabilise our own population.

STABILISE AUSTRALIA’S POPULATION

The reasons why I believe Australia’s population needs to be stabilised are also set out in detail in my speech to Parliament on 17 August, which can be accessed at [candobetter.net editor: Link no longer functional, due to Kelvin's retirement"http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/speeches.php">http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/speeches.php.]

Population is a function of birth rates, death rates, and migration rates. I am in favour of everyone living as long as possible. That leaves the migration rate and the birth/fertility rate.

Australian population increase over time is set out in the following graph:

MIGRATION RATE

Population policy cannot be a long-term side effect of ad-hoc immigration practice (Barry Jones Report, 1994). Immigration policy should be based on population policy.

Australia’s population has been skyrocketing in recent years, and the principal reason for this is the dramatic increase in our migration rate. This increase is due to the record high levels of Australia’s permanent entry program in recent years and to a surplus of long-term temporary arrivals, notably students and workers, over departures.

The increased migration rate has made all the previous projections about our population quite inaccurate understatements. Australia is now officially projected to have 35 million people by 2049. Just 2 years ago the Intergenerational Report predicted we would have 28 million.

Previous predictions and projections about Australia’s population have been gross underestimates. Back in 1984 the World Bank’s population projection for the year 2100 was 21 million. We reached that in 2007! A decade ago, forecasters were predicting we would not hit the 22 million mark until 2040. We’re there already!

The idea that the population is going to take care of itself is just wrong. Not only does it never happen, population is now a runaway train.

To bring the train back under control we need to return to a net overseas migration number more in keeping with previous practice. Net overseas migration in 2007-08 was 213,461. I believe this should be reduced to 70,000. If we cut net overseas migration to 70,000, and the fertility rate was maintained at 1.8, according to Professor Bob Birrell, of Monash University’s Centre for Urban and Social Research, the population would reach 26 million by the year 2050 and stabilize at about this level for the rest of the century.

The age profile of the population would also remain relatively constant.

A net overseas migration figure of 70,000 is not unachievable or without precedent. There were several years in the 1980s when the net overseas migration figure was in the 70,000s, or less. There were three years in the 1990s when the net overseas migration figure was less than 70,000. As recently as 1998 the net overseas migration figure was less than 80,000. In 1994 the Australian Academy of Science advised the Federal Government that it would be prudent to keep net migration below 50,000.

A net overseas migration rate of 70,000 is not inconsistent with Australia’s obligation to be a compassionate international citizen, nor is it inconsistent with a humanitarian approach to allowing family reunion for present Australian citizens. The present number of refugees and asylum seekers taken by Australia is 13,750. It has been at the 12,000 – 13,000 level for many years. It could be increased to 20,000, an increase of over 45%, within the context of a large cut to the overall migration program.

If we increase the refugee program we would also be better prepared for the possibility of climate refugees. There is a distinct prospect that in future low lying islands in the Pacific will be rendered uninhabitable by sea level rise and storm surges. I think our refugee criteria should be altered to enable us to accept people from the Pacific Islands provided they can demonstrate that their former homes are genuinely uninhabitable as a consequence of climate change, and provided that Australia is not being used as an overflow by countries which have failed to address their own population capacity and allowed themselves to become overpopulated.

Nor is a generous family reunion program inconsistent with population stabilisation. The family reunion program stood at 49,870 in 2007-08 and 56,366 in 2008-09. A figure of 50,000 could be retained.

What is incompatible with population reform is our skilled migration program. In 1995-96 it was 24,100. It had risen to 114,777 by 2008-09 – four to five times what it used to be. It should be cut back to 25,000.

To those who object that we need these workers, I ask, why is it that the catch cry for just about every Government project, and every private sector project, is that it will provide jobs for our workforce. If we are already short of workers, why do we need to find them these jobs? Why is it that 100,000 young Australians aged between 15-24 dropped out of the labour force last year?

Ambit claims about the need for a vastly increased workforce or an imminent lack of labour, also underpin much of the ageing population scare (See Overloading Australia, pp 98 ff).

And workforce participation by older Australians is rising, not falling, and could rise further. For 2008-09 average participation in the workforce was 81 per cent for 50-54 year olds, 69 per cent for 55-59 year olds and 49 per cent for 60-64 year olds. These participation rates have gone up during the last decade. Further improvement is possible. Why have our Disability Support Pension numbers risen? Its annual growth rate in the last 10 years has been 3.16 per cent, and it continues to rise despite Government efforts to reduce it. Skilled migration also undermines the need for a concerted effort to lift aboriginal employment.

Employers who claim they will need a huge labour force in the future usually mean that they would like a large pool of job seekers to select from, to suppress wages. In reality no managing director will employ more staff than necessary. Automation and robotisation are often preferred.

To those who say, these workers are needed for the skills they bring to Australia, I disagree. Only a minority of Non-English Speaking Background migrants use professional qualifications in the work they find once admitted to Australia. This applies to former overseas students and those with qualifications from overseas. And bringing in 3485 cooks and 1082 hairdressers under skilled program visas in 2007-08 is an indictment of our own education and training system. The present arrangement is suppressing market signals that would improve our education and training system. We have become addicted to skilled migration. It is time we broke the habit.

Our Universities and TAFES have had their funding slashed and have been told to make ends meet by bringing in overseas students. It would be better if young Australians who are presently missing out on a place at a University or TAFE were given a place. 18,500 eligible applicants missed out on a university place this year, up from 12,600 last year. Professor Bob Birrell says that the real number of students missing out may be much larger. He says eligible applications amount to 227,000, compared with actual acceptances of 161,000- a difference of more than 66,000. The proportion of resident young people enrolled in higher education is relatively low by European standards. This reflects the period since 1996 when there has been very little increase in the number of domestic subsidized places. There should be a large increase in domestic enrolments in higher education so we can match the demands of the job market, where at least half of net job growth requires degree credentials. This requires an increase in funding, and the money has to come from somewhere.

This is where the birth rate issue comes in.

FERTILITY RATE

Australia’s fertility rate has moved between 2004 and 2007 from 1.76 to 1.93 children per women. This does not mean that births are less than deaths. Births per year in Australia are twice deaths, and have been so for many years.

In 2004 the Howard Government introduced the ‘baby bonus’ to encourage women to have more children. This payment is contradictory to the objective of stabilising Australia’s population. Furthermore if it has any effect, it encourages women to have children for the wrong reasons. Children should be loved and wanted, not seen as a potential source of income. If it has no effect, it is a waste of taxpayers’ money which could be better used elsewhere. Its present cost to the revenue is $1.4 billion in 2009-10.

Recently the total fertility rate has been increasing. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Australian total fertility rate was 1.93 babies per woman (2007), up from 1.81 in 2006 and the highest since 1981.

I have no problem with ongoing Family Payments for the first and second child, but payments for third and subsequent children fly in the face of efforts to achieve population stabilisation.

The Large Family Supplement is paid for the third and each subsequent child at a little over $280 per annum. Its cost to revenue in 2009-10 is estimated at $208 million. It should be phased out – while it would be unfair to remove this payment from those presently receiving it, it should be grandfathered, and third and subsequent children born from now on would not be eligible for it.

The Family Payments Budget for 2009-10 is $17.4 billion. It is one of the Federal Government’s largest and most complex expenditure programs.

The STINMOD micro simulation model produced by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) indicates that around 375,000 children are third or subsequent children.

Assuming that the distribution of rates of payment for these children is similar to that for Family Tax Benefit A recipients generally, it can be assumed that about 33% would be on the maximum rate, about 30% on less than maximum rate but more than base rate, about 30% on base rate, and about 7% on less than base rate.

Using 2009 rates for 0-12 year olds adjusted up a little to take account of higher rates for 13 – 15 years, the cost is estimated to be approximately $1.3 billion in 2009-10.

As with Large Family Supplement, I would propose that Family Tax Benefit A for third and subsequent children be restricted to those presently receiving it.

The combined savings from cutting out the Baby Bonus, Large Family Supplement, and Family Tax Benefit A for third and subsequent children would be approximately $1.4 billion plus $200 million plus $1.3 billion, ie nearly $3 billion.

While this saving would not all become available immediately, it is very significant and could greatly boost the levels of university and vocational education in Australia. It could be used to boost the number of places being offered by Universities so that eligible students do not miss out on a place, it could be used to boost funding for TAFE, and used to boost funding for apprenticeships.

The Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education said we could achieve a demand driven entitlement system for domestic higher education students, where public funding will be provided for each undergraduate student eligible for a university place, at a cost of $1,130 million over 4 years. The Budget Papers have allowed $491 million from 2009-10 to 2012-13 towards this objective. Finding the extra $639 million and funding the extra places would be money well spent.

In relation to the TAFE sector the Australian Education Union has called for increased funding to meet projected needs in vocational education and training of $1,125 million. Key areas for spending include:

• Projected growth in enrolments, the economy’s anticipated need for higher level qualifications, investment in retraining the workforce and strategies to engage those in society who are under or un-employed.

• Workforce transition and renewal and professional development.

• Building and technology improvements.

• Student services and support programs.

I would also like to put money into reducing HECS debts, which I think are too high, and into increasing payments to apprentices and Youth Allowance, which I think are too low. I acknowledge, however, that these are expensive items, so improvements in these areas would be subject to getting in the full $3 billion in family payments savings, and therefore would be some time off. I think it needs to be, regrettably, a second order priority to creating the extra places for young people, and some not so young people, who are presently neither studying or working.

TEMPORARY VISAS

Temporary entry permits have skyrocketed in Australia. In 1995-96 they were 3.1 million. By 2007-08 they had reached 4.2 million.

This number is made up of:

• 110,570 subclass 457 visas;
• 278,180 student visas;
• 3,808,610 other visa classes.

There are no caps on student visas, 457 visas, or Working Holiday visas. Nor are there caps on numbers taking up bridging visas or 485 visas after completing courses here.

It is said that this doesn’t matter because the temporary residents all return to their country of origin. This is not true. At least half of former overseas students are staying on either by gaining permanent residence visas or temporary bridging or 485 visas. Maybe around a third of 457 visa holders gain permanent residence, mainly via Employment Nomination visas. Furthermore, while they are here, they add to Australia’s population pressures.

In 2008, on average nearly one million temporary residents, including tourists, were here at any one time.

Temporary entry work visas are a tool for undermining the wages and conditions of Australian workers, and a recipe for exploiting overseas ones.

The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union has uncovered dreadful examples of the use of sham contractors who are underpaid or not paid at all, and threatened with deportation if they complain or seek to enforce their rights. Subclass 457 work visas have no worthwhile role to play, except in very limited situations. They should be restricted to areas of clear need, that is to say the medical and health related and professional engineering occupations. If we really are short of workers, how come political and business leaders are forever promoting proposals with the catchcry, “jobs, jobs, jobs?”

Overseas students should be required to return to their country of origin once they have completed their course. They should be subject to a 2 year cooling off period before being eligible to apply for permanent residence in Australia. Since the Howard Government changed the rules in 2001 to allow students to apply for permanent residence, onshore, overseas student numbers have skyrocketed from 204,000 to over 467,000 in just seven years. Rorts and scams have crept into the program and damaged Australia’s international education reputation. Decoupling the link with permanent residence will put the focus back on education where it belongs, restore Australia’s international education reputation, and probably also reduce temporary entry numbers.

NEW ZEALAND

At present we also have uncapped migration from New Zealand. The number of New Zealand citizens stating that they are settling permanently in Australia has increased from 16,364 in 2002-03 to 34,491 in 2007-08 and 47,780 in 2008-09. About 7,000 of the 34,491 were third country migrants who have migrated to New Zealand, then got citizenship, then come to Australia. This open-ended, uncapped program makes it impossible for Australia or New Zealand to implement a population policy and it needs to be reformed.

The Trans Tasman Travel Arrangement with New Zealand would need to be re-negotiated to do away with the open door. The present arrangement has no formal legal status. In any event, we need to stabilise population globally. Hence getting other countries such as New Zealand to address their population capacity, rather than simply acting as an overflow for surplus population, is important.

What we should do is monitor annual departures, and renegotiate the Trans Tasman Travel Arrangement with New Zealand to close off automatic entry for New Zealanders, while allowing the places made available by annual departures from Australia above 25,000 to be filled by New Zealanders, splitting available places equally between skilled migrants and family reunion. Otherwise New Zealanders would be eligible to come to Australia under the normal programs, applying and being assessed in the same way as everyone else.

This would give Australia control over our net migration number which we presently don’t have. We can set a target for permanent skilled migrants, family reunion, and refugees, but we have no idea how many people are going to come in from New Zealand, and no idea how many people are going to leave Australia. These numbers are too important to be left to chance, and we should set a net target figure. The approach I have adopted is based on a net overseas migration target figure of 70,000: 95,000 in from skilled, family reunion and refugee categories, expecting at least 25,000 to leave, and allowing New Zealanders to fill the places made available through this process. The number of departures in recent years has been far higher than 25,000, and even when permanent arrivals numbered around 90,000 it was still well above 25,000.

CONCLUSION

In combination these measures would do great things for Australia. First and foremost they would stop us wrecking our environment. Second they would get us to focus on higher education and training for young Australians. They would open up job opportunities for younger and older workers who are presently missing out. They would help us meet carbon reduction targets. They would make housing more affordable. They would put a halt to the creeping inflation and price rises for food, water, and energy. They would address the declining quality of life in our cities, the traffic congestion and the disappearing backyards and open spaces. They would enable us to be compassionate, decent international citizens, taking more refugees and lifting our overseas aid. Above all else they would discharge our obligation to pass on to our children and grandchildren a world, and an Australian way of life, in as good a condition as the one our parents and grandparents gave us.

ROYAL PARK PROTECTION GROUP INC 2009 AGM WITH KELVIN THOMSON MHR FEDERAL MEMBER FOR WILLS AS GUEST SPEAKER

Here is a date for you diaries. The Royal Park Protection Group Inc gives notice of the 2009 Annual General Meeting which will be of interest given the special guest speaker. Here are the details:

Time: 7:15 pm for 7:30 pm.

Date: Wednesday 11 November 2009.

Venue: Meeting Room 1 North Melbourne Library 66 Errol Street, North Melbourne next to the Town Hall and Post Office near the corner of Errol and Queensberry St. (Parking usually available in surrounding streets.) Tram No 57 from Elizabeth St. travels along Errol St.

Guest Speaker: Mr. Kelvin Thomson MHR Federal Member for Wills. He will speak on the following topic: "Melbourne's skyrocketing population and its implications for our environment and our way of life". Kelvin would like a show of support as he is the sole voice in Government speaking up for sustainable population; opposing the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary with the prospect of urban sprawl and destruction of Green Wedges plus imposition of the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) - a grossly unfair land tax - plus fast tracking of freeways and road tunnels. Royal Park is still under threat from the extension of the Eastern Freeway in a road tunnel or open cut freeway.

Election of Executive Committee: Proceedings will include election of the executive committee for 2010 and reconfirm the focus of the Group for 2010.

Supper: Stay to supper and meet our celebrity guest, catch up with other members and representatives of other community groups.

Contact: Anne Phefley Secretary Royal Park Protection Group Inc. Phone mobile 0412 279 156 www.royalparkprotect.org.au

To avert catastrophy we need to try everything possible.

Forums happening now!

These potentially crucial forums have been very poorly publicised by the Victorian Government.
We have a report from a community activist who went to one. She said there were about 70 professionals and bureaucrats - all in the population growth as business mode, and thinks that she was the ONLY community representative there.

Although the government has shown itself to be untrustworthy and dishonest on matters of public consultation about how its policies drive population growth, if you can get to one of these 'forums', please do. Quite often there are business people there who are so isolated from the real impacts of their decisions that they are actually willing to listen to some feedback and may then question the modus operandi and the values of the lobby groups which 'represent' their sectors and their 'opinions'. Like the rest of the public, they may actually have been taken in by what the mainstream press misrepresents as public opinion.

So try to get along to one. Take something to hand out if you can. Consider printing out a relevant article from candobetter.org if you have nothing else.

Remember that population growth threatens every aspect of life and democracy in Victoria and Australia. We cannot sustain it. Our systems are already breaking up.

Here is the "http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/dsenres.nsf/LinkView/2B65B655D17BD98ACA257611001A62114CA023FAC31D9D5CCA256D650016CB01"
link to the relevant internet page on the website of the Victorian Dept of Planning and Community Services which tells you of coming Urban and Regional forums, as below:

"Department of Planning & Community Development is hosting a series of forums across Victoria during September, October and November to present the story behind the Victoria in Future numbers.

This is a DPCD in the community event, during each forum attendees will be given an opportunity to consider and discuss the implications of the population projections and provide any thoughts and comments."

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/dsenres.nsf/LinkView/2B65B655D17BD98ACA257611001A62114CA023FAC31D9D5CCA256D650016CB01

For enquiries -
Nicola McCracken, Communications and Administration Officer
spatialanalysis.research[AT]dpcd.vic.gov.au
Department of Planning and Community Development
Telephone 9208 3699 Fax 9208 3335 (during business hours)

You will be told that the population growth will happen and we must accommodate it. Tell them that you know the government is encouraging it and that you don't buy it. Tell them that you have a right to veto such a damaging policy and that it has already gone too far. Tell them that the business sectors have to learn to contain their greed and to maintain what we have rather than to push for overshoot.

Good luck!

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

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

...

Introduction:

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

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

The grounds of our submission are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a Sustainable Population for Victoria?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Destruction of the Environment and Green Wedges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ed.) McPhail Report – State of the Environment

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

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

The report continues:

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

Urban Growth Areas in Fire Prone Areas:

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

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

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

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

Cost to Victorians:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accommodation of Population within Existing Urban Growth Boundaries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submission details

This submission was addressed to:

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

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

on 19 October 2009
by

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

[email protected]

Figures from The Magic Puddingby Norman Lindsay

A Victorian citizens rally cry and lament

People of Australia we’re in trouble to our nuts, it’s five to bloody midnight-no ifs or bloody buts
Its’ time for damned austerity with water, power and perks. So leave the bloody car at home and walk to work you jerks!

People of Orstralia now the water’s all run out. Some blame global warming and some the bloody drought
And some say it’s a bastard but everybody will when they get the bloody info that water’s twice the bill.

The same goes for electric that we get from bloody coal, it’s looking for sequestrum like a rabbit down a hole.
Yet we’ve got bloody solar for ten thousand times our needs and governments do nothing by thought or word or deed.

Fellas of Australia, sheilas, blokes and mates, you’ll go bloody nowhere if you retain the bloody states !
Define the bloody regions, get rid of lines on maps and focus on efficiency in government perhaps.

Females of Australia this is not the knell of doom, but you can’t legitimise your place through your bloody womb.
We all should be more tolerant of lesbians and queens but keep a bloody eye out for the pioneering genes.

Let’s educate our youngsters so they can get the skills to pay the bloody taxes, P.P.P.'s and other bills,
We're behind in infrastructure, schools, hospitals and trains, but the Government's planned nothing, they've got no bloody brains!

Sure, we are girt by sea and girt by c02 and girt by bloody methane to put into the brew.
We're girt by politicians who won't de bloody bate that overpopulation will be our terminal fate
We've species loss, degraded soils and environmental squalor, and bloody blind self serving bastards in it for a dollar!
They want Melbourne at 7 million and Oz at 35 a ridiculous bloody trajectory that Aussie can't survive.

Now Oz has got a statesman who runs the bloody show with 2020 vision and Chinese lingo, don’t you know?
And the sheila there who helps him is as smart as bloody paint and just like bloody Ablett, she’s never where the ball ain't.

But we’ve got bloody Brumby, by default you’d have to say and by default the bloody desal and dredging of the Bay.
But he’ll be Jeffed like Kennett and bloody Howard too. And I’ll be there to wave goodbye. It’s bloody overdue.
People of Orstralia, when the bugle sounds the call, don’t just bloody stand there like you’ve lost a bloody ball.
Heave and strain and struggle with all your bloody might and hope to hell your efforts will bring us to the light.

We must be multipartite on education and health, indigenous affairs and immigration so it’s not approached by stealth.
Let’s get a national anthem that sounds less like a dirge and get a new republic while the folks have got the urge
And get a proper flag as on Eureka’s noble knoll, not a quasi bloody mish mash of colonial control.

And so I ask my Aussie mates before they place their bets to consider the integrity of the “PATH OF NO REGRETS”
Get rid of self indulgence that used to be the way and save old bloody Aussie and the planet I dare say.

By Walter Grahame
For and on behalf of Arthur Cartwright a.k.a J.N. Button

Who is braver or more dedicated than the activists who protect our forests?

Victoria, Australia the World owe an incalculable debt to Jill Redwood and the other members and supporters of Environment East Gippsland. Every tree saved is also a bastion for democracy and freedom, against the malignant march of concrete burocracy and the development lobby who would turn every old giant into toilet paper if they could.

Support our forest warriors in this battle by donating here.

Tuesday 29th September ‘09

The Supreme Court today refused VicForests' application for up to $163,000 in security from a small environment group. VicForests was asking for this sum to be secured before a court injunction is granted to stop logging on Brown Mountain.

"If Environment East Gippsland (EEG) had been required to pay such a large sum of money, it could have stifled an important piece of public interest litigation", said EEG spokesperson Jill Redwood.

“This is a groundbreaking decision because no Victorian court has ever ordered an injunction on logging before. It is also a groundbreaking case because it is the first time that the Supreme Court has been asked to order a party in a public interest case to pay security of this type”.

"The judgment says 'this is an exceptional case', and that if logging was allowed to go ahead before the trial, there is 'a genuine risk' that the Potoroo habitat may be destroyed”, said Ms Redwood.

Justice Forrest said that the relevant laws “demonstrate the clear legislative intent that protecting threatened or endangered species such as the Potoroo is particularly important”.

“We feel vindicated by this decision today and look forward to having the case heard for the protection of the forests and rare wildlife on Brown Mountain”, said Ms Redwood.

Editor: This is a comment about the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) Second reading Debate resumed from 15 September on a motion of Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Community Development) made in the Assembly of the Victorian Parliament on 16 September and recorded in Hansard. [1] This Labor Government initiated bill is a source of enormous consternation for Victorians not completely roped in by the corporate media. The concerns are on democratic, planning and environment grounds. It was read for the second time and, after a very close call, its passing has again been delayed - this time until 13th October.

The Bill is a very blunt instrument" (Mr Morris, Mornington)

I want to initially come back to something the member for Bundoora [Mr Brooks, ALP] said when he was talking about the Dispute Resolution Committee process that has led to the current form of this bill. He referred to it as a democratic process with equal numbers from government and non-government parties, but of course the government has the right to elect a chairman and the government has the casting vote. So no matter what quality of debate there has been — and I understand there has been some good discussion and good work done and some of the nasties have been taken out of the bill — it is a long way from being a democratic process. In fact it is about as democratic as the are proposed to be.

The bill essentially is the death knell for community input into the planning process in the areas that have been nominated. It is a real symbol of the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party when it comes to local government, when it comes to local communities and when it comes to local interests. This is about getting the message right and getting the process right to suit the message. It is about spin. It is about saying one thing and meaning a different thing entirely. The claim is, ‘We are on side with the communities’. But the reality is that these are simply soothing words, lulling communities into a false sense of security, and then belting them on the head with a blunt instrument.

Members of DACs will be hand-picked

This bill is a very blunt instrument. This is not calling in one application and this is not calling in two applications; this is calling in the whole planning process. It is taking the entire planning process away from local government and the local community. It certainly gives lie to the government’s claims of partnership with local government. Every significant application in every principal activity centre in 27 areas of the metropolitan area, plus the city of Geelong, will now be determined by a committee hand-picked by the Minister for Planning. The people who will dominate these development assessment committees are not, will not and never can be independent persons. They will be hand-picked to push through the government’s agenda in this area.

Let there be absolutely no misunderstanding about that.

You simply need to refer to the bill, in particular proposed section 97MK, which deals with the membership of the development assessment committees. The chair will be nominated by the minister from a list of persons that he has prepared under proposed subsection 3. Proposed subsection 3 requires the minister to, firstly, prepare a list of names, secondly, to consult with the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Local Governance Association, and then to make his own decision. So the VLGA and the MAV are told who are contenders for the position. That is the extent of their input. They have absolutely no right to say, ‘Yes, we agree’, or, ‘No, we don’t agree’. It is the minister’s list, it is the minister’s decision, and they are dragged in to dress up the process and to make it look respectable.

Two members will be appointed directly by the minister. So that is three out of five. Two members will be appointed by the local council, and they will rotate. I understand there might be, say, one DAC for southern metro and two councillors from Glen Eira, two councillors from Frankston, two councillors from Kingston, or whatever. Those two councillors are, once again, simply to dress up the process, because you could wait until hell freezes over before they have any influence on a decision. They are there as the scapegoats. They are there to take the blame. That is all they are there for. and who is going to pay for the process? Do you think the people who have lost their influence over the process will be able to put the cost onto someone else? No, of course they will not.

I refer to proposed section 97MG at page 11 of the bill.

To enable a DAC to decide on an application, the responsible authority — in other words, the council — has to provide not only the application but also a copy of comments from a referral authority. They have to do the referral to start with and then also provide a copy of a report from any member of their staff, any other document that is relevant and any other document or information that has been reasonably requested by the DAC. In other words, if they jack up and say, ‘No, we are not going to do a report on this; we are not going to pay the officers to do these reports for someone else to make a decision on’, the DAC can come back and say, ‘Oh yes, you will anyway’.

The vast majority of the cost of the planning process is not the actual decision making. The costs are in officer time, the officer effort that goes into preparing the report and getting it into a form to go to the decision-makers. That cost will still be borne by the community.

Political mechanism called 'the blame game' to take heat off ministers in their local areas

The bill strips away any opportunity a citizen has to have an input into the bricks-and-mortar future of their community. In the second-reading speech the minister said the government is committed to strengthening confidence in decision making and to the state government playing a role in actively implementing state policies. If the government is that committed, why is it establishing these bodies? Why do we need to create another layer? Of course it is a tried and true formula, and it has been going on for the last 10 years.

It is called the blame game. It is about making sure there is someone else set up to take the blame. Many local councils are sick to death of being blamed. It has been standard government member policy. Any time an application comes up that the community does not like, government members say, ‘Look, the council is dealing with that; we can’t get involved’ — and quite properly they should not — the refrain is ‘It is not our fault’.

It is. The entire planning structure is a product of decisions of this government. The councils are simply charged with trying to knock the rough edges off and have some input. Once again statutory bodies are being set up in order to take the blame. The planning system is certainly in dire need of an overhaul and of a refocus.

There is now a huge number of development applications that are subject to appeal, and anyone who is involved knows that. This number of appeals did not occur 10 years ago.

They did not occur in the past when the appeal processes were not quite as effective as they are now.

These appeals did not occur before the introduction of Melbourne 2030. It is only the government’s meddling with the planning act, preventing people from having their say, that has caused this level of objection. We have a situation where local councils now cannot even commence a planning scheme amendment without the minister saying yes. Occasionally one slips through.

The C87 amendment — the Mount Eliza woodlands amendment — is a classic example; the minister did not like the outcome so it simply sits on his desk and he does not approve it.

All the planning in this state is now located at 8 Nicholson Street

All the planning in this state is now located at 8 Nicholson Street.

We have an epidemic, we have a tidal wave of objections, and the minister seems to have no idea what is causing it. But the solution advocated by the government, and this bill is living proof of that solution, is to strip councils of their powers, to put fees through the roof and to threaten objectors with costs in the event that they are unsuccessful — in other words, to try and scare them away from the process and to make it impossible for ordinary Victorians to have their views heard. That is the real message.

That is the intent of the bill — to take the process away from the hands of the people, to set up a body to take the blame, take the fire, deflect the anger from the government and to pretend, as we have heard in this debate again and again, ‘Oh, we have got urban expansion, is it not terrible?’. Yes, we do have urban expansion — because the government has set up the zones in that way. It has nothing to do with local councils. It has everything to do with the planning structure that has been set in place by this government, and it is time it stood up and took responsibility rather than trying to blame somebody else.

[1] Debate recorded in Hansard, 16 September, 2009 (Assembly)

Editor: This is a comment about the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) Second reading Debate resumed from 15 September on a motion of Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Community Development) made in the Assembly of the Victorian Parliament on 16 September and recorded in Hansard. [1] This Labor Government initiated bill is a source of enormous consternation for Victorians not completely roped in by the corporate media. The concerns are on democratic, planning and environment grounds. It was read for the second time and, after a very close call, its passing has again been delayed - this time until 13th October.

Moratorium on population increase 'totalitarian'?

Labor Government member, Ms Joanne Duncan, stated that she supported the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2)[DACs revisited] and the introduction of development assessment committees (DACs). She observed that people did not want to continue Melbourne’s sprawl, but conceded that "people generally do not like higher density housing." She then said that it was inconsistent to "have higher density housing and prevent urban sprawl," commenting, "We are either serious about increasing densities across metropolitan Melbourne or we continue urban sprawl." However she then made this bizarre statement: "Another option is to somehow put a moratorium on any population increase and have all manner of totalitarian measures to reach that end. All of those are completely unacceptable, so we will continue to have population growth."

What totalitarian measures?

What are the totalitarian measures that would be required to put a moratorium on any population increase?
The totalitarian measures are already present in the government purposefully ramping up immigration to create overpopulation and then trying to force through increasingly draconian legislation to facilitate this dictatorial regime. Democracy is decreasing with population increase, yet Ms Duncan pretends that to allow the population to grow or stabilise or shrink at its natural pace would somehow require totalitarianism.

What sophistry is this?

It makes the writer wonder just what the people advising the Labor government are saying to elected representatives to make them toe the line and endorse the real totalitarian measures in the government purposefully ramping up immigration to create overpopulation and then trying to force through increasingly draconian legislation to facilitate this dictatorial regime.

Anyway, here's the rest of the purportedly 'anti-totalitarian' Duncan's support a bill which was described elsewhere in this way:

List of terms used by Shadow Minister for Planning, Mr Guy, for the earlier but similar version of this bill [1]:
The terms were: ‘concerning’; ‘sneaky’; ‘pretty low’; that the bill showed ‘contempt’; ‘bizarre’; ‘bureaucratic’; ‘misleading’; ‘half-hearted’; ‘half-baked’; that it would ‘do nothing for industry’; that it would ‘gut’ community input; ‘shameless’; and ‘deceptive’. He concluded by saying the bill would ‘undermine the fundamental basic principles’ of planning.

Ms DUNCAN (Macedon) — Despite the opposition of the previous speaker to this bill, I would support many of the issues and points that he raised in his contribution. But I rise in support of the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2).

I have sat in this chamber and listened to a number of different members go through their positions on this bill, and I am again puzzled by the position of the opposition. We are hearing from most of the speakers that they will not be opposing the bill but basically they do not support it.

We have heard a range of criticisms of the bill, which does make you scratch your head and wonder: if that is their view, if they believe that this is such poor planning or poor legislation, why would they not just not oppose it but actually reject the bill? If they were true to themselves and that was what they truly believed and if this whole dispute resolution process were not just a relevance deprivation exercise on behalf of the opposition, they would oppose the bill. There is no way members opposite could support the bill with clear consciences having said some of the things that have been said in opposition to it.

One of the good things that has come out of the debate is that the member for Shepparton declared — and it might have been mentioned by the member for Box Hill but I missed that — that if ever again the opposition is in government, it will be repealing parts of this legislation so that, as I understand it, councils will be allowed to either opt in or opt out of being part of this partnership process between state government and local government. I will be bold enough to make a prediction and to suggest that some years down the track — hopefully many years down the track — if the opposition is back in government, when it makes this offer to local governments most local governments will choose to stay in the system. It was highlighted by the previous speaker that planning is incredibly difficult:
for as many people support a proposition there will be that many who oppose it with sound arguments for and sound arguments against, and it is always a balancing act.

One of the main reasons I think this is good legislation is that previously either local governments were making decisions or there were call-ins by the planning minister. One of the reasons the opposition may oppose this bill is, quite frankly, why would opposition members see the need for it? Under their government it was either a decision by local government or they made that decision by the planning minister calling in huge numbers of proposals. Under the previous government we saw how many times the planning minister unilaterally, without any explanation, without any guidelines about why or why not, would call-in a proposal and would make that decision unilaterally.

From memory, none of these call-ins were actually in support of local residents. My memory — and I stand to be corrected — is that his call-ins supported the proponent, the developer, in almost all of these cases.

Do not ever be misled by what the opposition would suggest, that it is there to support the underdog and this is big developers just trampling over the individual rights of residents. One has only to look at the track record to appreciate that that is absolute rhetoric and hypocrisy in its highest form.

We also heard the member for Box Hill talk about the threat that hangs over us if we do not support the bill — the unchecked and repeated call-ins that he said may result if this bill is not passed. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! It really is hypocrisy in its most extreme form for any member of the Liberal opposition to suggest that this government is doing anything like unchecked and repeated call-ins. I think he must have been talking about the planning minister under the Kennett government.

It seemed to me he also questioned the fact that there are still appeals to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. He was saying that if the government was hoping this was going to speed up planning, then the fact that there are appeals to VCAT means that will not occur. That suggests to me that he thinks you either do it unilaterally, which we saw members opposite do they were in government, or you remove all those third-party appeal rights.

I can understand why the Liberal Party is confused. In listening to the contributions of members of the Liberal Party to the debate I can understand why the Liberal members would be confused, because while they say they support the bill, it is inconsistent with everything they have previously said and everything they did when they were in office. It is the case again that either they are very confused or, as I said before, they never let the facts stand in the way of a good piece of opposition rhetoric.

I support this bill. I support the introduction of development assessment committees (DACs). It is a good balance between the decision making of local councils, which will understand their local communities and have an appreciation of those local issues, and state representatives, who have an eye to a broader need for the potential of this sort of development. We know we do not want to continue Melbourne’s sprawl. We know we need to have higher density in housing and in all manner of developments. As much as people and the opposition will say, ‘Where has 2030 gone?’ and all of these things, the reality is that people generally do not like higher density housing. You cannot have higher density housing and prevent urban sprawl; the two are inconsistent. We are either serious about increasing densities across metropolitan Melbourne or we continue urban sprawl. Another option is to somehow put a moratorium on any population increase and have all manner of totalitarian measures to reach that end. All of those are completely unacceptable, so we will continue to have population growth.

These sorts of decisions must be made in a balanced way, where you are trying to bring together a partnership between two planning authorities — one with an eye to the local issues and one with a broader eye to the statewide issues and statewide development pressures — and I believe the DACs will achieve that result and we will get balanced and good planning outcomes as a result.

I commend the bill to the house. It is a further development of planning laws in this state that are designed to provide balance as well as the kinds of infrastructure, planning and development we need to ensure that Melbourne does not continue its sprawl.

[1] Listed by Mr Brooks in the debate recorded in Hansard, 16 September, 2009 (Assembly)

It seems unlikely that Environment East Gippsland stands to wear enormous costs after all. Judge Jack Forrest seems to be taking the laws he is expected to hear the case in relation to very seriously. Those laws are all about preserving biodiversity.

Here is how he has worded a relevant part of the jugement:

"Third, VicForests correctly says that any undertaking as to damages which may be given by EEG is in effect close to meaningless. The estimate of EEG's assets vary between $10,000 and $45,000. If it is unsuccessful in the calim, presumably it will, at least, have out of pocket legal expenses, and I assume there will be no money available to satisfy the undertaking as to damages. However, this is a public interest piece of litigation against a State corporation and I bear in mind that the preservation of endangered native fauna is a paramount consideration in the statutory provisions and documents I have referred to.

The Judge seems to be saying that an injunction would be appropriate. He has, however, allowed VicForests until Thursday to prove what their loss might be if there is just a temporary injunction and not a permanent stop to logging. A final comment: Since there has been a seven month moratorium for that area up until recently, while government biologists carried out surveys to confirm EEG's findings, it would be hard for VicForests to claim sudden large losses if they were prevented from logging for another few months.

Brown Mountain - Historic win for Victorian forests hangs on funding indemnity

Monday 14th September

Ed: Shakespeare wrote that the quality of mercy is not strained but falls from heaven like the rain ...
Not much rain and not much justice in Victoria, if you don't have money...
BUT there is still hope and this case is too important to lose:

In an historic win for an environment group, the Victorian Supreme Court today decided it is appropriate to grant an injunction restraining government logging monopoly VicForests from logging two areas of forest on Brown Mountain in East Gippsland.

"This is the first time a court order has been made to prevent the destruction of old growth forests in Victoria until a trial about the lawfulness of the logging is completed", said Jill Redwood, coordinator of Environment East Gippsland, the group that took the extraordinary court action.

Money required to bring our own government to justice

"The only reason the injunction wasn't granted today is that VicForests has asked the Court to order EEG to provide a large amount of money to secure its undertaking to pay any damages which flow to VicForests from the granting of the injunction. This will be argued in court on Thursday," said Ms Redwood.

Click here to find how to send money to EEG to help

"After we discovered a rare Long-footed Potoroo in the area a few weeks ago, VicForests still insisted that it would log the area immediately. We had to rush this to court to stop them," said Ms Redwood.

In his judgment, Justice Forrest referred to photographs of logging, and said they "demonstrate the apparent total obliteration of the area of native forest as a result of logging and the subsequent burning off. To put it bluntly, once the logging is carried out and the native habitat destroyed, then it cannot be reinstated or repaired in anything but the very, very long term."

Of course, that does not mean that anyone would then be able to repair it, any more than we have repaired the forest where our cities now stand. Once that forest is gone, to all intents and purposes, it is gone forever - and the species within it never to regenerate.

“If an injunction is granted on Thursday, it will last until we go to trial to argue about whether logging this old growth forest and the effects on its wildlife is lawful."

“Brown Mountain's forests have been the litmus test for the state government's commitment to forest conservation since 1989, when they were first declared National Estate by the Commonwealth Government but clearfelled by the State Government", said Ms Redwood.

It should be the government upholding the law to protect our wildlife, not fighting against it

"When will the Brumby Government get the message? It should be the government upholding the law to protect our wildlife, not fighting against it."

The endangered wildlife identified around Brown Mountain Creek includes the Sooty Owl, Long-footed Potoroo and Orbost Spiny Crayfish as well as the sensitive Greater Glider and Yellow-bellied Gliders.

The matter returns to Court before Justice Forrest on Thursday 17 September 2009.

People with guts also an endangered species which needs protection

Please help Jill Redwood and the EEG group. People with guts in Victoria are almost as rare as the long-footed potoroo. Let's help to make brave people prepared to fight for justice flourish too!

This is a very informative wrap up of the problems - political, economic, production and environmental - of the desalination plant that the Victorian Government is forcing on Victorians.

We hear the history of Labor Party promises about how they would deal with water scarcity and of how they have 'backflipped' on their promises.
We hear how the local protesters took the matter to court, lost, and how the government pursued them for costs.
We hear how the cost of water has already doubled and will keep rising.
We hear how the government has denied that the area where the desal plant is to go is a whale habitat, when it clearly is.
The government preference for poorly costed, big-scale corporate engineering 'solutions' versus multi-objective sustainable local or individual ways of getting water is discussed.

And so on.

Very educational, excellent program.

File Download (28:58 min / 13 MB)

Recall defective Planning Bill

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc has called for the withdrawal of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Bill 2009.

Brian Walters SC, President of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. said: “This Bill is an affront to democracy as well as to good planning. It will inevitably lead to damage to the environment and public assets. It is an irresponsible measure and suggests that its proponents are in league with developers instead of upholding the community’s interests.”

Under the provisions of the Bill, the Planning Minister (in consultation with the Premier) can recommend that a project be a “declared project”. Then the project is fast-tracked without any of the normal safeguards the community has a right to expect.

Community's rights removed

The community will have no right of objection, and comment by the public is only to be permitted at the whim of the Planning Minister – and then only in exceptional circumstances, and with only 15 days’ notice. To expect community organisations to provide proper comment on major projects with only 15 days to master the material and assess it – and if necessary obtain expert advice - is ludicrous. These provisions provide for a sham right of consultation which is effectively impossible to exercise. The real goal is to remove public comment altogether, but the Bill lacks the integrity to say so.

Without public comment, projects that do not serve the interests of the community will be rammed through without a full assessment of their impact.

Ministers will not have time to assess the projects

Even when comments are offered, the Minister has only 15 days to assess them, so only the most cursory examination of the merits of a project is anticipated. For most decisions under the Bill, appeals to VCAT or judicial review are expressly excluded. Where judicial review is allowed (only for the final decision to approve a project), the Bill allows just 21 days to commence proceedings once a decision is published in the Government Gazette.

Bill heavily biased in favour of developers and varies Constitution Act

In its haste to limit rights, the Bill goes so far as to vary the Constitution Act. All consideration is given to “project proponents” and none to the community.

Labour legislating for millionaire mates

Mr Walters said: “We hope the government sees sense and withdraws the Bill. If it does not, we hope the Parliament will reject it. The fast tracking of major projects for developers, at the expense of the community and good planning, appears to be legislation for millionaire mates rather than for the good government of the people of Victoria.”

Contact via this website:
Brian Walters SC President Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

These are dark times for Australia and Victoria is one of the darkest places in the country for democracy. There are, however still some good people in parliament and we must support their efforts. The Greens and the Opposition need the electorate's help to have this bill stopped in the upper house. They have done it before, so they can do it again. See for example, "Coalition, Greens & DLP vote Tim Holding's North South Pipeline enabling regulations down!".

If passed, the new proposed Major Transport Projects Facilitiation Bill 2009, will create an Act of Law tol override existing planning and environmental approval processes under the 11 other Acts listed below. Like the Repco rally law in NSW it will overturn laws for the protection of democracy, the environment, and the public.

This Bill is bad because:

- It will exempt the State Government from its own laws and concentrate decision making power into one or two Ministers, raising the risk of corruption and 'influence peddling'.

- You will not be able to appeal to the Supreme court except to appeal the final decison by the Planning Minister, but the law will be biased against the appeal because they will have to favour "cost and efficiency" of the project rather than environment, heritage, or democratic agreement by the community.

This bill is bad for democracy and is not needed or wanted - except by big business and developers.

Greg Barber of the Greens has asked, "What public transport projects have ever been delayed by following proper processes?"

Labor is determined to ram this through.

He says, "Labor is determined to ram this through. Only the Liberal-National Coalition, by voting with the Greens, can stop this bill in the upper house. You are urged to email Liberal, National, DLP Upper House MPs and tell them that if they really care about stopping corruption they will vote to make state government decisions subject to the law."

Copy of the legislation and explanatory info
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/eb658cee32cafe23ca2576100014d381!OpenDocument

Coastal Management Act 1995
Consent under section 40(1)
Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987
Comment under section 66
Environment Protection Act 1970
Works approval under section 19B(7)
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
Permit under section 40
Licence under section 53 to take and keep fish
Forests Act 1958
Licence or permit under section 52
Permit under section 59(1)
Authority under section 77
Heritage Act 1995
Permit under section 74
Permit under section 113
Consent under section 129
National Parks Act 1975
Permit under section 21(1)(a)
Approval under section 23
Consent under section 25
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Preparation, approval and adoption of a planning scheme or an amendment to
a planning scheme under sections 8, 29 and 35
Granting and issue of a planning permit under section 61
Road Management Act 2004
Consent under clause 1 of Schedule 2
Decision under clause 2 of Schedule 2
Consent under clause 16 of Schedule 7
Water Act 1989
Licence under section 51
Licence under section 67
Wildlife Act 1975
Authority under section 21(1), (2) or (3)
Licence under section 22(1)
Authorisation under section 28A

Partial source for this article was

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has recently put out an 'alert' about peak oil and the existence of a group it has formed called the MAV Transition Community Working Group. It talks about the need for local governments to lead the adaptation to peak oil.

"To the Council CEO and Councillors (all Victorian Councils).
August 2009, LG ‘ALERT’ from the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Transition Community Working Group

This ALERT is predicated on four factors:

1. The human race is facing its greatest challenge.

2. Individual communities need to collaborate to address the challenge and transition to a reduced-carbon, sustainable future. The time to act is now.

3. Local government needs to support communities in planning to address this challenge. Local government is likely to bear a significant proportion of the brunt of climate change, peak oil and other related impacts, and the sector is most effective when it collaborates to address major challenges.

4. The Transition Community approach is an empowering local response to crisis situations and offers the hope of achieving an improved local economy and improved social cohesion."

Editor: It will be difficult for local governments to lead people in a polity where all the power is being taken from local communities and they are being plugged into state and national power systems which have been commercialised and which have no obligation to their 'customers' except to submit to some vague 'competition' in prices. The cost of land and resources makes it very difficult for people to act locally as well because corporate style business is the only kind that can survive with those kinds of costs. For this reason we see our corporatised government helping big business to take over farmland. And housing developers are taking over suburban land with high density. This will prevent people from making the best of backyards to produce food and other needs locally. And the supermarkets and transport companies have stakes in preserving the current energy intensive food production and distribution system. Citizens have few remaining rights and no way of reaching a monolithic style government block which is barely, if at all distinguisable from a commercial finance, property and infrastructure development company with State and National branches and outlets in local areas to market projects and population growth.

Still, we folk have to work around this commercial system that has supplanted our self-government. See also this article by Dr Ted Trainer: The Transition Towns Movement; its huge significance and a friendly criticism. He writes:

"It is not oil that sets your greatest insecurity; it is the global economy. lt doesn’t need your town. It will relocate your jobs where profits are greatest. It can flip into recession overnight and dump you and billions of others into unemployment and poverty. It will only deliver to you whatever benefits trickle down from the ventures which maximise corporate profits. It loots the Third World to stock your supermarket shelves. It has condemned much of your town to idleness, in the form of unemployment and wasted time and resources that could be being devoted to meeting urgent needs there. ln the coming time of scarcity it will not look after you. The supreme need is for us to build a radically new economy within our town, and then for us to run it to meet our needs."

More on the MAV Transition Community Working Group

The MAV Transition Community Working Group, comprised of interested Councillors and officers, was formed to assess the Transition Community framework, developed in the UK and now spreading rapidly around the world, and its relevance to Victorian local government and communities. The Working Group has now considered the matter and has determined to issue an ‘ALERT’ to Councils across Victoria. The ‘alert’ refers to the need for Councils and their communities to be aware that:

1. communities will face an unprecedented number of significant (global) challenges in the relatively short term and need to develop the necessary resilience to cope with these issues, which include:

a. water shortages/drought (increasing cost)

b. more expensive energy (including global demand for oil exceeding supply). CSIRO modelling has forecast petrol prices of up to $8 per litre by 2018. Also please see (attached) the recent comment from the International Energy Agency (IEA), a division of the OECD, which is warning that oil prices could reach $200 per barrel within the next 2-3 years.

c. more expensive food

d. the impacts of climate change

e. economic constraints in the wake of the global financial crisis

2. living in a carbon-reduced world will inevitably result in significant changes to the way communities live, including:

a. moving away from a dependency on oil

b. reducing greenhouse gas emissions

c. using resources more efficiently

d. a greater development of the local economy, including more local food, local energy generation, and self-sufficiency in many ways.

3. the good news is that the Transition Community framework provides a positive mechanism for communities to be able to become fully aware of the nature of the challenges to be addressed, and to work together to produce plans to achieve the desired transition to a better future at the local level. The common element of the many Transition Plans that have been produced to date around the world is that they focus on what can be done by acting locally. While much of the discussion around climate change and ‘peak’ oil can be quite depressing, the Transition Community approach offers the prospect that members of a community can connect and plan for a fundamental vision of a healthier, more resilient local community.

4. this focus on ‘local’ revitalisation represents a major opportunity for local government to assume a key role in supporting communities to plan for a transition to a more sustainable future. While individuals may feel powerless in relation to climate change and more expensive energy, communities can act collaboratively and creatively to generate a real sense of hope and commitment.

5. The Kinsale (UK) Energy Decent Action Plan (access via Google) is a good example of a community plan that describes the proposed actions that will take place on an annual basis to enable the Kinsale community to transition from the ‘status quo’ to a reduced-carbon, more sustainable future. The plan includes modules for food, energy, transport, recreation, health, employment and other relevant areas.

6. The Maribyrnong Council has taken a lead position in planning for a reduced carbon future by developing a Peak Oil Policy and Action Plan, as well as Australia’s first local government Peak Oil Contingency Plan. This Plan uses various scenarios to assess the likely impacts on Council operations, and the next step is to assess the community impacts. The Maribyrnong initiative is attracting national and international attention.

Darebin Council has taken a different approach and integrated Peak Oil related issues together with Climate Change adaptation to develop a Climate Change and Peak Oil Adaptation plan which is currently out for community consultation. There are large confluences between the two issues identified in this plan.

7. The MAV Future of Local Government Program has identified the role of local government as being to facilitate the development of strong and successful communities. This is entirely consistent with the need for Councils to be pro-active in these challenging times and support their communities to address the global imperatives. The MAV also convened a Peak Oil Conference in 2007, which highlighted the fact that the demand for oil will exceed supply in the near future.

8. There are now over 500 community plans in place across Victoria. These ‘bottom up’ community planning processes provide an excellent platform to integrate with the Transition Community planning framework. Both planning processes are very similar and it makes sense to link them together rather than operate discrete processes simultaneously. They both aim to improve community sustainability.

Next Steps

All Victorian Councils need to ask themselves a number of questions in relation to the challenges referred to above:

a. Are you aware of the implications of climate change and peak oil for your Council?

b. Does your 4 year Council Plan adequately address the challenges of climate change, peak oil and more expensive resources/goods? There is little doubt that the world will be a different place by 2013 and that those Councils and communities that have planned for that future will be significantly advantaged.

c. Does your Council’s risk management plan/process take account of these issues?

d. Are your communities doing anything to plan and prepare for a carbon- reduced future?

The MAV Working Group is proposing:

e. that each Council nominates a ‘champion’ Councillor and a champion’ officer who can be ongoing contact points in relation to these matters. These nominations are sought before the end of September 2009, by emailing [email protected]

f. Councils work together to agree on a sector-wide approach in support of Transition Communities, and to link existing community planning processes to Transition planning processes.

g. Training and awareness sessions be made available to Council representatives in the near future.

h. Councils act to positively support, via advice and knowledge-sharing, communities that wish to embark on a Transition Community initiative (eg. prepare an Energy Descent Action Plan).

In conclusion, it is worthwhile noting the words of the Maribyrnong Council: ‘whatever you can do to prepare for peak oil, you should do, because you will be glad that you did’.

If you have any queries in relation to the above, please email [email protected]

John Hennessy (on behalf of the Working Group)

Attachment

The IEA warns of shortages - "The next oil crisis is coming" 27/2/2009.

A shortage of oil could trigger another global recession around 2013 – says the IEA. By 2010 the price will reach new highs. The IEA in Paris is warning of a new, much more severe global economic crisis around 2013. The reason is that investments in oil from new projects are being cancelled by large oil companies. If demand starts increasing in 2010, the oil price could explode, fire up inflation and put global growth at risk.

"We are concerned, that oil companies are reducing their investment levels. When demand returns a supply shortage could appear. We are even predicting that this shortage could occur in 2013." said Nobuo Tanaka, head of the IEA in an interview with Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

He is alarmed, because he has data that shows that the global oil supply capacity is declining and that oil reserves will likely be markedly reduced by 2013. The stronger oil demand will be in a recovery starting in 2010, especially in the US, China and India, the sooner the shortage will appear and strangle global growth.

According to the IEA, the oil price could then exceed the records achieved in the summer of 2008 and reach $200 per barrel. "We could be steering into a new crisis, which could be greater than the current crisis", said Mr. Tanaka

This week - 25 August 2009 - it's about creating a citizens bank. Joe points out that Australians demanded a peoples' bank in 1909 (after the 1890 depression) and got it. Unfortunately they made it the property of the government, and the Hawk Government sold it off.

"Next time", says Joe, "It needs to be made to belong to us, not the government." Then they won't be able to sell it off without a referendum.

You learn a lot about politics, rights and institutions from Joe. Also about how to conduct demonstrations. And about how we need to be active and let the government know we are out there.

Joe is also wise to big business and unsustainable population growth.

Listen to Joe Toscano here. From anywhere in the world.

Hmmm...

On 12 August 2009, Water Minister, Tim Holding said that
"The Liberal, National and Greens parties have today sought to deprive Melbourne and Victoria’s stressed rivers, like the Murray River, from water saved through irrigation upgrades. In an unprecedented move, opposition parties voted to disallow the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Further Amending Order 2009." His interpretation was that, "This prevents water savings from the Food Bowl Modernisation Project from going to the environment and to Melbourne households and businesses via the north-south pipeline." (Government website press release 12-9-09)

Now, why would the Greens and the Liberal Nationals all vote together like that?

So what's really going on?

We provide three articles based on three press releases.
Greg Barber's is probably the most comprehensive.
To summarise, he says that:
- Because there is no water to divert at the moment no-one is losing anything by stopping to discuss the matter
- The government is refusing to reveal its 'business case' without which no-one can judge its economic and hydrological claims
- The government has attempted to proceed without Federal Environment law clearance
- The government is not providing verifiable accounting data and measures for outsiders to assess the project
- The project appears more political than hydrological
- Commerce seems to be trumping water security
- Environmentally it's a case of suck and see since there is no indication that anyone knows what the impact of the proposed changes will be
- The project is already destroying the social ecology of farming communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desal plant and North-South Pipeline related

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

Destroying farming communities

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

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

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

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

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

Approval from Federal Government still not granted

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

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

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

Government jugganaut designed to dishearten and overwhelm democratic objection

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

The Coalition needs to come clean as well

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

Mr Hall -- Simultaneously.

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

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

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

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

The Real impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Federal Environment approval but trying to operate anyhow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every reason to distrust this government on water

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greens, Greg Barber MLC
12/08/2009

On Wednesday, 12 August 2009 the Victorian Parliament Upper House passed a motion moved by the Liberal Nationals Coalition to disallow parts of a water regulation which would have seen the Brumby Labor Government break key water promises.

The Coalition’s disallowance motion was supported by the Greens and DLP member Peter Kavanagh.

Coalition spokesman says it opposed the order because it broke three key promises

Leader of The Nationals and Shadow Minister for Regional and Rural Development, Peter Ryan, said the Coalition opposed the order because it broke three key promises made to Victorian communities.

The government’s intention was to redirect water to Melbourne through the north-south pipeline despite it being promised to the Snowy and Murray rivers,” Mr Ryan said “Labor also planned ‘negotiating with the Commonwealth’ on distributing savings from the second stage of the Food Bowl Modernisation Project, which contradicts its original promise of allowing the water to be split 50/50 between farmers and the environment.

He added that, “Furthermore the order lacks the necessary rigour in auditing savings from the Food Bowl Modernisation Project.” Mr Ryan said the Coalition was determined to hold the government to account over its promises to the environment, to irrigators and communities in northern Victoria.

Mr Ryan accused the Government of attempts at "looting water" due to failing to plan for Melbourne's future water needs

“Today’s successful disallowance motion in Parliament highlights the overwhelming opposition to the Government’s attempts to loot water from food producers and the environment because it has failed to plan for Melbourne’s future water needs,” Mr Ryan said.

“Labor’s hyperbole that by disallowing this order, the Coalition has denied water to the environment and Melburnians is factually incorrect.

“The ball is now in Premier Brumby and Minister Holding’s court to actually come back to Parliament with a fair and honest amendment to the bulk entitlement.

“Such an amendment should include a rigorous auditing process for savings which is approved by Parliament and where environmental water and savings that are meant for irrigators are delivered to them, rather than to Melbourne.”

Greg ... of the Greens commented that the Coalition should not treat the matter like political football and should do more than just criticise the Government. It should tell the electorate what it will do if it comes to power.

Order would have breached committments regarding Foodbowl Modernisation Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inadequate auditing of 'foodbowl modernisation process'

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

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

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

Yet more unforgivable promise-breaking

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

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

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

Planning Minister, Mr Madden, ALP.

Justin Madden needs to answer questions

Shadow Minister for Planning Matthew Guy has issued a press release declaring that he will today ask the Parliament’s all-powerful Finance and Public Administration Committee to call the Planning Minister, Mr Madden, and the Growth Areas Authority (GAA) to appear before it to urgently explain the proposed Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) that will have damaging effects on Victorian families."

Matthew Guy says he will ask why taxes not imposed on developers rather than land-owners.

In the press release it says that the Committee has the power to subpoena any Upper House minister or government agency, and that Mr Guy has said the Minister and the GAA should provide full and frank evidence explaining why this tax is being aimed at landholders on the outskirts of Melbourne, and not at those who sought to develop the land.

“The Minister’s public comments to date have been woefully inadequate and have left residents, councils and industry in the dark about this new tax,” committee member Mr Guy said today.

“The only way to make the Minister and the Growth Areas Authority answer in full is to haul them before this Committee and to seek answers under oath,” Mr Guy said.

After eight months, the GAIC is supposedly still in the drafting phase, yet Labor has announced several ‘amendments’ to the tax despite refusing to release any details beyond a handful of information sheets.

“Labor’s failure to keep Victorians informed about this new growth areas tax is atrocious,” Mr Guy said.

“This tax will reap more than $2 billion for the government from residents and the construction industry, yet the government still refuses to tell us the details.

“The GAIC proposal is destroying people’s lives and is creating huge uncertainty in the community.

“The only way to end the uncertainty is to have the Minister and the GAA answer questions in a full public hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and it must be done as soon as possible.”

To observers it looks like the Victorian government, beleagered by financial problems and massive unpopularity due to its undemocratic, unfair and socially and ecologically harmful land-use planning policies, may be in its last throes and thus susceptible to restraint. But bogeymen often come back just when you least expect it, so let's not hold our breath.

Candobetter Ed. We just hope that Mr Guy and the Liberal Party will join in spirit Federal ALP Member, Mr Thompson, in roundly condemning the growthist population policy which has led to these tragic circumstances and menaces all of Victoria's remaining wildlife habitat in the Green Wedges as well as agricultural land there. It would be very disappointing, to say the least, if the Liberal Party were merely to broker some other carve-up of Melbourne's lungs and wildlife corridors, to keep the ravenous and unsustainable growth lobby supplied.

David Davis MP will introduce his resolution for the Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee of Parliament to hold an enquiry into the Extension of the Urban Growth Boundary at 10:30 am on Wednesday 29 July 2009 in the Upper House. Concerned citizens are urged to attend parliament to watch as our representatives argue the toss of our remaining quality of life and environment in Melbourne. A link is also provided to listen on-line. See also: Other relevant articles about the Urban Growth Boundaries assault

David Davis MP will introduce his resolution for the Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee of Parliament to hold an enquiry into the Extension of the Urban Growth Boundary at 10:30 am on Wednesday 29 July 2009 in the Upper House.

It will be under General Business. It is suggested that if people would like to attend then perhaps come half an hour earlier to allow time for security clearance. Ask to go to the Upper House public gallery.

(No banners or shouting at ALP members in Parliament!)

For those at home look up on www.parliament.vic.gov.au and click on Live Audio Broadcast sign on the home page. You can listen to a direct broadcast. The picture of the member of Parliament speaking comes on the screen.

Below is cut and pasted an extract from Hansard with David Davis' resolution, which is the neatly presented bit at the top. What follows are remarks which may be of some interest. (Note that the links do not work.)

The State Government's plan to extend the Urban Growth Boundary, which heralds amongst other things, the destruction of Green Wedges and imposition of a grossly unfair vendor land tax, will have disastrous consequences for Victoria, if it gets through.

Original Source: http://www.climate4you.com/images/OperationBarbarossa1941.jpg

Submission by Jill Quirk, headlines and teaser by Admin, candobetter

Growth is discretionary but the Government doesn't want Victorians to realise this

We have just learned from a newly issued State Government report that building on the outer urban fringes -taking into consideration the infrastructure needs for making new suburbs from scratch- costs more than twice as much as building within established areas.

The hackneyed arguments about urban sprawl vs. urban densification are usually presented and reported as either forced choices or choices of the most suitable recipe of proportions of one or the other.

What is rarely questioned is the actual need to have the rate of population growth that forces these dilemmas on us.

The State Government and planning authorities as well as developers and all those who lobby for higher population growth must be well aware of the extent to which the level of population growth in Victoria is discretionary. These aforementioned must also be well aware that logically, growth at the present rate or indeed at any rate is not possible into the indefinite future.

http://www.liveinvictoria.com.au is a Government website to drive population growth upwards

Even without the State Government recklessly inviting people from overseas and interstate to join us in our water depleted state e.g. via the website http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au, Victoria would still experience population growth- but at a far more manageable level- roughly 30-40,000 per annum as opposed to the present nearer 100,000 p.a. increase . Eventually with a balanced level of incomings and outgoings and our natural birth and death rate , Victoria's population would level off in the next 40 odd years.

Victoria now in ecological overshoot

Victoria is now in ecological overshoot-as clearly demonstrated by the need to industrialise our water supply with a desalination plant and by the parlous state of our environment as described in the State of the Environment report 2008.

That is why we need to stabilise and then allow natural attrition

This is why Victoria, for a secure future needs to look towards stabilising its population in future decades. As long as our population increases, our environment will be in decline. The present scenario of high population growth guarantees a poorer existence for future citizens than that of present citizens just as the present residents are poorer than those of 40 years ago when the environment was in much better shape and we had adequate water supplies.

As Victoria is in overshoot in 2009, imagine what it will be like in 10 years with 1 million more people,many of them living on the Melbourne outer fringe in large poorly designed houses on small blocks of land with few transport options. 10 years from now, more of our agricultural land close to the city will be either built on or earmarked for development. At the same time we will be further down the one way road towards oil depletion which will adversley affect car travel economy, agricultural output and transport of goods.

In ten years people on the outer edges will be much closer to the edges of survival - food, water, petrol

The people of Melbourne especially those in the suburbs of the urban fringes will be much closer to the edges of survival. Their lives will be more difficult as they struggle to find economical transport and their opportunities for self sufficiency in a climate of rising food prices will be limited by lack of land and time.

These are all arguments against a mindset of continual population growth and expansion of our city which has so many unwanted consequences right now for the bulk the population.

Higher urban density not the answer; we are already going upwards and outwards

The alternative to extending the urban growth boundary given continued population growth is the densification of the established parts of the city which the State Government report says is the cheaper option for accommodating population growth. Unfortunately, at a massive 2% socially engineered p.a growth rate, we will get both more urban sprawl and urban densification . Urban densification has distinctly negative consequences for affected residents- overcrowding , uncertainty of what will be built next and where, loss of natural light in houses, loss of gardens and of open space and increased traffic. Eventually everyone will be adversely affected except those with enormous property buffers within the city i.e the very rich.

Apart from major conservation and wildlife considerations on which other organisations will be making separate submissions especially as extension of UGB affects the Green Wedges, the proposal to extend the UGB totally lacks vision and any will to make a different future in the interests of Victoria's citizens.

The Victorian Government should totally revise its modis operandi with regard to its own part in population growth in Victoria and work towards a sustainable future with first a future stable population and then inevitably a smaller one after mid century. This kind of foresight is needed if we are to have a future and not ecological collapse.

Jill Quirk

(Submission by Jill Quirk, on behalf of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) Victorian Branch)
If you want to contact Jill, send her a message to [email protected]

***

See also on the financial cost alone:Jason Dowling and Clay Lucas, "Suburban sprawl costs billions more," The Age, July 17, 2009

"PLANS to build thousands of homes on Melbourne's fringes will cost Victorians around $40 billion more than if they were built in existing suburbs, a new State Government report shows.

In an embarrassment for the Government on the day that submissions close on its plans to further expand Melbourne's urban growth boundary, the report released on Wednesday shows the total cost of building homes in new outer suburbs is more than double that of building in existing areas.[...]"

Ed. But don't believe that writing to the Age will save you or even that the Age owners care - the Fairfax Press and the Murdoch Press would be backing this growth to the hilt, since they have corporate investments in property development and its marketing throughout the world, as indicated by, for instance, www.domain.com.au and www.realestate.com.au

One of several speeches made at Melbourne 14 July 2009 rally against undemocratic rezoning of green wedges to benefit developers by making it possible to continue high immigration by providing housing at the expense of wildlife, open spaces and democracy.

The speaker is Michael Hocking of Taxed Out. The GAIC tax proposed is quite medieval, like a tax on peasants to benefit lords, which is how the feudal system worked. Where modern practice in the anglophone land-tenure systems is to tax developers the windfall they make on rezoned land, the GAIC tax would tax landowners if they sold land which had been rezoned against their wishes. The choice is a Hobson's one; if you stay you pay very high rates based on the theoretical value of resale. Hard to stay under the circumstances. A recipe for driving farmers and wildlife out and ushering suburbia in. A policy driven by the Growth Lobby.

Jan Heald and Maryland Wilson of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council

Rights of Wildlife

A lot of people at the July 14 demonstration against Madden's proposed land grab in the Green Wedges were there to campaign for the rights of wildlife. Among them were three members of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC), President Maryland Wilson, Secretary Jan Heald, and winner of an AWPC award for outstanding service, Rod "Roos" Stoner.

"We appreciate this opportunity to be a VOICE for our native animals," said Maryland Wilson. "It is a privilege to be standing with Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands, who speaks for all those affected by the Government's outrageous planning laws, which run roughshod over ecosystems and biodiversity."

She was, of course, referring to Planning Minister Madden's shocking proposed expansion of Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary, involving rezoning up to 46,000 hectares for residential development, new roads and a freeway.

Addressing a large and angry crowd of people who had gathered to protest at the destruction of the wedges and draconian taxes on landholders, President Wilson expressed her sympathy for those who stood to suffer from the taxes, but she said, "Someone here also has to speak up for the kangaroos and other wildlife who cannot vote or speak up themselves. If these plans go ahead millions of living creatures will suffer and die, and our world will be poorer for their loss and we as human beings will be poorer for our loss of decency towards them."

Victoria the leading state in environmental destruction

In an interview, President Wilson told me, "In 2006 the AWPC wrote to Madden, asking that any development should have an environmental impact statement (EIS) before proceeding. Not only has he ignored that reasonable and modest request, but he has proceeded to create policies which destroy native wildlife habitat at an alarming rate, so much so that Victoria is now the leading state in environmental destruction. The Victorian government and Mr Madden's planners run roughshod over wildlife habitat, seemingly without giving a thought to the ramifications of what it means in extinction of species."

When asked what she felt might still be done, President Wilson said, "Obviously Mr Madden is not going to listen to the pleas for help to preserve what wildlife remains. Therefore the only alternative is for a change of government."

She said that the situation is growing so serious for species, especially kangaroos, that she cannot keep up with the calls she receives for help and her volunteers are stretched to the limits on the frontiers of encroaching suburbia, dealing with a sort of 'animal apocalypse'.

Tragic and avoidable situation of the Somerton kangaroos near Thomastown

"For instance", she said, "Several years ago we made an award to one of our 'wildlife warriors' - Rod Stoner - for his incredible efforts to draw public attention to and get help for the plight of a small mob of kangaroos trapped by industrial, commercial and housing development in Somerton. The animals were literally being built around as they foraged for grass in fields that had been enclosed after they had entered it. Some died while trying to make it across the highway. A road was paved down the center of the area; rock crushers made noise and dust on one side; delivery trucks entered and left on another, bulldozers worked on another, and everywhere there was rubbish piled up and strewn around. The animals were being treated like so much rubbish themselves."

"A number of people from different organisations were so shocked that, there and then, we formed the Coalition for Wildlife Corridors. We have published surveys and drawn maps and studied the problem of Victorian wildlife in the particular and the general and we have, most importantly designed easy to follow plans for wildlife corridors in particular areas."

"Rod Stoner has been monitoring these poor kangaroos for several years now,and we have tried everything but stand on our head to gain effective action from VicRoads, DSE, and the Hume City Council. All have made reassuring noises when pressed, but no-one has taken any real responsibility. We who care so much see that those who have power in planning and development have no real concern for the suffering of other creatures and no real respect or understanding for the natural world. Because of this callousness and apathy, this poor little mob of kangaroo refugees will eventually die out. Our wildlife deserves ... So ... Much ... better, " she said, drawing the words out.

"On a bigger scale", she added, "It is obvious that a population explosion in Melbourne, with the accompanying demands for housing is responsible for the Somerton and other tragedies to date, but, with the latest figures showing that Melbourne is increasing by 2000 people a week, it will not be long before we see all our wildlife die out in Victoria, the most cleared state with the worst species extinction in Australia."

"If we cannot refrain from continuing this completely avoidable rate of population growth in addition to climate change and the reduction of indigenous habitat and wildlife access to water and food, our wildlife are doomed."

"Is this really what we want for Victoria?" she asked.

Australian Society of Kangaroos thanks the organisers of the rally

Nikki Sutterby, the Coordinator of the Australian Society for Kangaroos said she sent a big thank you to the people who organised the demonstrations and marched today to save our environment in Victoria, and its green wedges.

"As an organisation that is fighting for the rights of kangaroos, we are well aware of the suffering and displacement that occurs when natural areas are destroyed for development", she said.

"We are currently fighting to save a mob of kangaroos at Mill Park who are land locked by development, and another at Bendigo."

But that is only a teardrop in an ocean of infinite sadness ...

"These animals represent millions of animals that lose their homes every year to the expansion of human development and may we say that we are fully supportive of what you are doing to save our environment and increase the publics awareness regarding it."

Ms Sutterby regretted that she was unable to personally attend the protest, due to circumstances beyond her control, but she offered to give her organisation's ongoing support to the campaign.

Blurring of Government with Land Speculation Ominous for democracy in Australia

The opaque but omnipresent relationship of Australian state governments to developers and big business is a source of disquiet. A Bastille Day lunch between Victorian Planning Minister, Mr Madden, and big-business seemed especially Marie-Antoinette, as hundreds of angry farmers, other landholders, wildlife and other environment groups, demonstrated outside.

All were concerned about the bad laws and injustices that excessive population growth is driving in Victoria. Most are beginning to realise that it is because of the Government's excessively close relationship with the developer growth lobby that Victoria is suffering from water shortages, homelessness, increased violence and loss of democracy. A new tax the government wants, which would involve taxing landowners instead of developers for government-imposed changes to land-zoning could beggar thousands of people.

Jill Quirk, Victorian President of Sustainable Population Australia, said, “Planning Minister Madden's Bastille-day lunch with the ALP's developer-linked Progressive Business fund-raising arm is ironic.”

Yes, Jill. Bastille Day is the anniversary of the time in the French Revolution when the people demanded representation in return for their taxes from a worthless government that was selling off public land to the highest bidder in order to finance debt and printing worthless money.

Progressive Business Association: Official association for Big Business and the Labor Party

The Progressive Business organisation calls itself is ‘an associated entity of the Australian Labor Party [which] from time to time, donate funds to the Party’. It has two membership types : Corporate - $1,550 (incl. GST) and Business - $990 (incl. GST). Corporate members get 5 Tickets to the Breakfast Briefing Program and access to 5 Twilight Briefings for 5 company representatives; Business members get 3 Tickets to the Breakfast Briefing Program and access to 5 Twilight Briefings for 3 company representatives.

Most Victorians pay far more than this in taxes every year but the Minister for Planning doesn't listen to them.

The Victorian public get NOTHING but coercive population growth and development expansion. Research has shown that many of the government's sponsors and business associates reap far more in public contracts than they ever donate.

President Quirk commented that, "In a democracy, government policies should be conceived and drafted with the interests of ordinary citizens in mind. The push for more and more population growth causes friction, disruption and loss for those directly impacted and also to the citizens at large. Nature as a whole is being steam-rolled and many cannot sleep at night from rage and despair."