2016-06-21
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise this morning to speak on the motion moved by Mr Davis to disallow amendment GC37 to the Cardinia, Casey, Glen Eira, Greater Dandenong, Kingston, Melbourne, Monash, Stonnington and Yarra planning schemes. There is no doubt the elevated project is a done deal, and it has been done very badly. This was made abundantly clear to the Greens at a briefing we had with the planning minister and his staff. There is no stopping this project. There is a bloody-mindedness attached to delivering this project riding roughshod over community. It is the government that created this monster and this motion that we see before us, and it is very disappointing to hear very little in the contributions of government members about the core issue, which is in fact planning for a major project and why amendment GC37 is important.
I am going to turn first to some of the issues around this particular project, and there are many. At the core of this project is the issue around lack of consultation. An appalling approach has been taken by government in relation to this. I have made contributions already in relation to this matter. Information sessions are not consultation. Telling the community what is happening is not consultation. Consultation is a genuine conversation with community where they have an opportunity to influence outcomes and determine what is best in their local areas. That has not happened in this case, and we sit here today as a result of that lack of consultation.
People want to know what is going on, and some glossy, one-page brochures simply are not cutting it. People are asking where the business case is, and it is worth noting that this was recognised by the Victorian Auditor-General in his recent report entitled Managing and Reporting on the Performance and Cost of Capital Projects. To quote from that report, under '2.4 — Planning documents' it states:
The lifecycle guidelines require all investment proposals over $10 million seeking budget funding to submit a full business case which includes a:
procurement strategy
risk management plan
stakeholder engagement and communication plan
benefits management plan.
The Auditor-General notes that:
Planning documents were prepared for all projects except the level crossing removal program.
He goes on to say:
… proceeding with this program without an overall business case is not recommended practice and raises the risks around the timely and efficient delivery of the intended benefits. Precise cost and benefit estimates for the program have not yet been prepared and validated.
We have not seen, and we are still waiting to see, the analysis of why this is the best option for communities. Despite briefing after briefing we have sought with ministers and with the authority we still have not seen a detailed analysis of why this is the best solution on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line.
You would have thought that members opposite would have learnt from the regional rail debacle. Some of the concerns the community has raised with us — and they are extensive — revolve around some similarities across the board. The first I am going to talk about is the trees. I was very fortunate last week to tour the region with my colleagues Ms Springle and Ms Pennicuik. We looked in great detail at what is proposed along the line, particularly in Southern Metropolitan Region. There are some extraordinary examples of river red gums along the line there. They provide great amenity to the area, and I am not surprised that people are very concerned about the removal or loss of those trees, because they are part of the landmark of that area. They contribute greatly to the character of the area, and I would hope that the authority does everything in its power to ensure those trees are retained, because they are wonderful specimens. We also have to take into account that suburban biodiversity is under great pressure, so we should be doing all that we can to retain trees, particularly these trees which must be in the order of 200-plus years old.
The next issue we hear often about is amenity and the impact of amenity, and there is no doubt that this project will impact on the amenity of the area, particularly when this project is so closely located to people's backyards. It particularly struck us that in some cases with the developments along that railway line people in the three and four-storey apartments will now look directly out at a structure, so I can understand completely why those community members are so incensed about this project and the lack of consultation around it.
Heritage is another important consideration, and the delight, I think, of my tour last week was visiting the Murrumbeena and Carnegie railway stations. They are delightful heritage places, and I just want to turn the chamber's attention to the Carnegie railway station. According to the Victorian heritage database:
The Carnegie railway station with associated gardens … was presumably opened with the line on the 8th of October, 1877, the present main building and remains of the downside building having been erected at the time of electrification in 1922 when James Fawcett was the chief architect of the Way and Works Department. It is historically and aesthetically significant.
It is historically significant … as a point of entry and departure for the Carnegie locality for over a century … It is understood that the platforms are the only surviving 19th century elements.
We probably should be grateful for those elements. The database entry continues:
The main building is historically significant also as a surviving standard structure of its type designed by the office of the chief architect —
who I mentioned earlier. The entry also says of the main building:
It is aesthetically significant … as a surviving suburban station complex from the Great War period with up side building complemented by mature public gardens.
It is important that any consideration of this project take into account those heritage areas along the line. It would be devastating to see this really rich part of Melbourne's history, and Melbourne's public transport history, demolished without any thought of how those buildings might be able to be incorporated or in some way retained.
The issue of community safety has been raised with us. It is a genuine concern that people have. It again highlights the lack of consultation and the lack of knowledge that people out there have around how community safety is going to be managed and what measures are going to be put in place to mitigate their concerns — and even if measures are going to be put in place to mitigate their concerns.
The other area which has been raised with us, and in fact was raised with us in our visit to the area last week, is around case management by the Level Crossing Removal Authority. If I take on face value what was reported to us, it has been a pretty lacklustre response in terms of case management, managing community expectation and dealing with genuine and legitimate issues community members have in relation to the preparatory works for this project. Little rationale has been provided as to why there is elevator rail at these locations. Exacerbating that, residents can see rail going under road just around the corner at Ormond and McKinnon. If we are talking about the crow flying, Carnegie to Ormond and McKinnon is about 5 kilometres and 6.4 kilometres respectively. From Hughesdale to Ormond is 6.6 kilometres and to McKinnon is 7.5 kilometres. So these stations are literally in the neighbourhood and around the corner. Are these stations getting rail under road because coincidentally they happen to be in the seat of Bentleigh? I can certainly understand why the community is drawing that conclusion.
The travesty in relation to this plan is it is not a long-term plan for the public transport future of Melbourne. It is a $1.6 million project which will last 20 years before the project is redundant and another two rail lines will be required along that corridor.
I want to turn now to the planning scheme amendment, and sadly we have not heard much on the planning scheme amendments — the one that is before us as part of Mr Davis's motion or the one that is already in place, which is the result of the planning minister of the day, Matthew Guy, who is now in the other place. In relation to those planning schemes, GC37 being Minister Wynne's amendment and GC 15 being then Minister Guy's amendment, neither of them has guarantees of no rail under road or prevention of elevated rail. It is very sad that the community believes that it is the case that there are these guarantees when there are not. Both amendments are framed around the term 'including but not limited to'. So what exists in those planning schemes are many of the works — in fact the majority of the works — required to deliver the various programs, but it is not a comprehensive list. The government of the day can add more to that list. Both of the amendments are framed in this way, making it a planning lawyers' feast.
It is worth noting in relation to the planning scheme amendment that, as far as the Greens are aware, of the seven councils whose planning schemes will be amended, not one has approached us to support the disallowance of Mr Davis. As the representatives of the local community we look to local government and place its views very highly.
I want to turn to the planning scheme amendment, although with that it is not the Greens' job to describe planning scheme amendments to the house. It is not our planning scheme amendment; it is the government's planning scheme. It is pretty poor that it is left to the Greens to go to the core of the issue. However, I will go to the core of the issue because it is what this motion is based around. There is no doubt there are differences between the two planning scheme amendments because of the scope of the project. The current project suggests nine level crossing removals and five redevelopments of railway stations. The current amendment suggests modifications and refurbishment to existing stations. The current amendment talks of development of newly created open space and associated community facilities, relocation and upgrade of telecommunications infrastructure — and they are separate and distinct components of GC37 that do not appear in GC15. It is worth noting in here — —
Mr Davis — And elevated rail.
Ms DUNN — I will leave it up to the government to defend why it is going with elevated rail.
The planning scheme amendment also turns to enabling future transit-oriented development, and one can only read into that that this is the issue around needing a third and fourth rail in 20 years time. The other differences in the planning scheme are that the one suggested by Minister Wynne includes an environmental management strategy. The upside in relation to that is that in the amendment the development of the environmental management strategy must be prepared in consultation with those seven councils.
It cannot be done without consulting with those councils, and the amendment is very clear in that it uses the term 'must'. That is something you do not often see in planning, which is often many shades of grey.
The amendment also takes into account heritage management, and with that I can only hope that Carnegie station and Murrumbeena station do get some saviour in relation to what happens to those buildings. The amendment talks about noise, urban design, development of new open space areas, telecommunications facilities, easements and of course, as I mentioned, enabling future transit-oriented development.
I can only hope that in future contributions government members will actually turn their minds to what is good about their planning scheme amendment and why they need to have it in place. In relation to the contributions that we have heard so far from government members, it is disappointing that they have not turned the house's mind to how the planning scheme amendment would work. I do note that the government has more speakers in relation to this, and I can only hope that they will address that more fulsomely than what has been done until now.
The government has not described to us what orderly planning looks like to it, and that is the whole reason that we have planning schemes, planning scheme amendments and incorporated documents — it is about guiding orderly planning across our state. It is not the job of the Greens to explain the work of government. I make that very clear. It is not our project. I am happy to come here and talk planning all day long if you like, but I think members would get bored with that pretty quickly. Sadly, the contribution of the government is synonymous with what is going wrong with this project: lack of information, lack of consultation, lack of transparent and open government. Sadly, the speech of the government's lead speaker had nothing to do with planning, other than to mention the scope of the project, and there has been nothing compelling in the government's contribution so far in relation to planning.
I want to turn now to mechanisms that the government may use in relation to getting its way in relation to this, and it is a very high risk for the communities along those lines because what I am talking to is section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the risk of the government invoking that section to exempt the Level Crossing Removal Authority from any planning permit approvals. That would mean there would be no controls anywhere, anytime, on any project.
It must be noted that the planning minister has some of the most far-reaching powers of any minister and that that cannot be blocked by the Parliament. Section 16, under the heading 'Application of planning scheme', states:
A planning scheme is binding on every Minister, government department, public authority and municipal council except to the extent that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, directs by Order published in the Government Gazette.
They have done it before; they will do it again. I want to cite precedents in relation to this. I turn to the Victoria Government Gazette of 19 March 2009:
Barwon Heads bridge project
Order in council
The Governor in Council directs, under section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, that the Greater Geelong planning scheme is not binding on the Roads Corporation established under part II of the Transport Act 1983 known as VicRoads, to the extent that VicRoads develops or uses land for the purpose of a transport infrastructure project known as the Barwon Heads bridge project and associated buildings and works, subject to compliance with the conditions contained in the attached schedule.
It is signed by the responsible minister, Justin Madden, MLC. There is the precedent, so do not say it will not happen. The mechanism is there in the act. It has been used before; it will be used again.
I want to turn now to a colourful letter that has gone out to community members from Mr Davis. It contains a number of dot points that appear to be addressing a response by the Greens.
Ms Shing interjected.
Ms DUNN — No, Ms Shing, it does not say, 'Give us $10' on it.
Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan) — To pick up where I left off, I am going to talk about a letter sent out to various constituents by Mr Davis, which covers a range of dot points. I am just going to talk to some of them. The tone of this letter is interesting. The first dot point I want to talk to is the assertion that Liberal amendment GC15 provided planning authorisation for a rail-under-road project but it does not provide clearance or cover for a massive 20-metre sky rail. Amendment GC15 does not make rail go under. Yes, it allows it; it does not make it. I just want to draw the attention of the house to the term 'including but not limited to'. The reality is that with those words amendment GC15 is so loose you could drive a truck through it.
Mr Davis goes on to say that by disallowing the new amendment GC37 in the upper house, Labor loses planning authorisation for elevated rail and amendment GC15 remains in force. What Mr Davis does not articulate is that section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 can be invoked. It is deceptive, it is incorrect and it is an untruth. It is not the case that amendment GC15 will remain in force. The government has many different instruments available to it and it is a disgrace that the community is hanging its hopes on this when it is in fact untrue.
Mr Davis has said that if the disallowance is successful, Labor will seek to subvert the decision of the Parliament. Well, yes, Mr Davis knows that to be true. Labor has done it before; it will do it again. He knows that to be true, and yet he does not talk about it in honest terms with the community. Mr Davis argues that Labor might subvert the democratic process — —
Mr Davis — You just don't want to vote against sky rail. That is a fact.
Ms DUNN — I am addressing your letter, which is full of holes — holes that you could drive trucks through. What Mr Davis is suggesting in this particular dot point is that Labor might subvert the democratic process. Yes, it may well do that, and the government can talk to that because it is not my job to talk about what the government may or may not do. It is my job, however, to alert the community to the risks associated with this motion. No controls anywhere, anytime on any project for the Level Crossing Removal Authority is the very worst outcome for the community — no controls anywhere. If the government exempts the authority, there is nothing in place.
How is that a good outcome for the community?
There is commentary about strong contemporary controls and protections. I believe that is a direct link from the Greens response in relation to the numerous emails we have received on this issue. Would Mr Davis rather there were no controls in place or some controls in place because at the moment he is risking no controls being in place. His letter goes on to talk about backbone being required by elected officials. Backbone means being truthful to communities. It means trying to retain the minuscule planning controls on offer. It does not mean using the community. Mr Davis is using the community as a political pawn, meanwhile he is leaving them worse off. He is leaving them worse off with no planning controls. That is rich coming from a party that when in government constantly intervened in the planning process.
Mr Davis interjected.
Ms DUNN — You did nothing about McDonald's either and you could have.
The minister has extensive intervention powers. We are concerned that he will use them to block any scrutiny of this project. As I have said, it would not be the first time and it most likely will not be the last time. Does the community really want a project that has no regard for open space, community facilities, relocation of telecommunications infrastructure, future transit-oriented development, heritage management, noise, urban design and easement? Does the community really want no planning controls at all? There is barely anything with amendment GC37. But is the barely anything better than nothing at all? The opposition's approach will lead to no controls. What a brutal deception of the community.
Supporting the disallowance motion with the risk of no planning controls is a real one, not just here but everywhere — every Level Crossing Rail Authority project everywhere. It is derelict to suggest that this is the best outcome for communities. This motion will not stop elevated rail. It is a cruel hoax that the community has been led to believe that this is the case. It is an appalling state of affairs with the opposition perpetuating the myth that this motion will stop elevated rail. Equally appalling is the lack of engagement from the government and its sheer bloody-mindedness in bulldozing over community concerns.
The Greens will not be supporting this motion. It is a sham. It cruelly gives false hope and it is a disgrace that the community has been treated with such disdain.
Honourable members interjecting.