What Madness

Albert Park has seen many man-made changes since it was established as a permanent park for the 'health and recreation of the public', but its values as a 'haven from the pressures of the city' lie in its green open space and its flora and fauna, not its built amenities. The Park is an urban park but it has an ecosystem, one that was in the past, at least, respected as fragile.
Whenever Man tries to dominate Nature and ignore the ecosystem, something is lost - something valuable, something beautiful and something irreplaceable. The Grand Prix in Albert Park illustrates this in microcosm.
In the weeks leading up to and following the Grand Prix, anyone who walks through Albert Park Reserve with open eyes can see the massive damage to the Park's environment.
Concrete slabs, grandstands, viewing platforms and marquee floors compact the soil and kill off the grass beneath them. Grassed areas are asphalted - some temporarily, others permanently - and huge areas are buried under gravel for the runoff areas. The constant movement of contractors' heavy vehicles and other equipment damages trees, destroys grass, and compresses delicate tree roots. After last year's Grand Prix Parks Victoria officially reported that it had to replace 17 trees and 200 native grasses.
What of the Park's ecosystem? What we can observe after five Grand Prix races is the steady degradation of many areas, and the stark contrast between the GP-affected areas and the few havens where the turf and trees are allowed to mature undisturbed. 
Parks Victoria is hamstrung by the requirements of the Grand Prix Corporation, and successive governments have been unconcerned by the ongoing damage.
The current destruction is madness. The only sane 
solution is to move the race to a purpose-built permanent venue, so Albert Park can again be shared by Man and Nature in harmony, to the considerable benefit of both.
Ross Ulman, Convenor

Top of this page

SAP Race Week 2001 Program

Motor racing in public parkland 
is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wrong ethically. Wrong environmentally. 
Wrong economically.

This is the basic message that we have been repeating for seven years. We will be re-stating it during race week (Tuesday 27 Feb-ruary - Monday 5 March) when Albert Park Reserve is completely closed for the 2001 Formula One Grand Prix event. The use of public parkland should be an inalienable right. We will be making this point in an appropriate, peaceful way.
WRONG ETHICALLY
It is ethically wrong to hand over public parkland for commercial purposes. When a key purpose is to promote tobacco use, the wrong is multiplied. 
'VIP' marquee - SAP will have a marquee at Gate 1 (the corporate entrance to the event, opposite Armstrong Street, Middle Park) from Wednesday 28 February to Sunday 
4 March, between 7am and 3pm. 
It will be used as the centre for our attendance count, media contacts, and hospitality for our supporters. We will display information about the event and list high-
profile Victorians who are prepared to declare publicly that 'motor racing in public parkland is wrong'.
WRONG ENVIRONMENTALLY
Save Albert Park's 2000 Parkwatch Report on the environmental damage to the Park and the threats to the safety of park users will be launched at 11.00am on Wednesday 28 February at Gate 1.
In the lead-up to the race, the SAP Vigil features banners highlighting the dangerous Park roads, the damage to the Park, the 27,000 tonnes of race infrastructure trucked in and out every year, and the four months during which the Park is a construction site.
The Vigil will operate until 27 February, and re-start immediately after the race.
WRONG ECONOMICALLY
Once again we will be undertaking an accurate count of race patrons. We do this because we do not trust the Australian Grand Prix Corporation (an arm of the Victorian Government) to report true attendance figures. 
Our previous counts indicate that the AGPC's figures have been inflated by 26% in 1998, 42% in 1999 and 44% 
in 2000!

ÅMembers are invited to visit the marquee at Gate 1 on any day 
- particularly on Sunday 4 March from 10am.
Then please join us at the SAP office between 2.30-5pm for a drink and a chat.
Members who would like to participate in our race week program, and who have not yet volunteered 
for specific activities, are asked to contact the SAP office.

Top of this page


British GP Re-Located

Thanks to one of our members overseas, we have been in contact with The Woodland Trust, UK's leading woodland conservation organisation, which has successfully opposed the destruction of 15 hectares of ancient woodland bordering the privately-owned Brands Hatch Motor Racing Circuit in Kent.
In 1999 the owners of Brands Hatch Motor Racing Circuit secured the rights to hold the British Grand Prix for 15 years from 2002, in effect pinching the race from the owners of the Silverstone track. However, to meet the necessary standards, the Brands Hatch circuit had to be extended. The proposed extensions were to be at the expense of the bordering green belt and this required a planning application to the local district council, including an Environment Statement prepared by the proponents.
Brands Hatch's ecological report acknowledged that the loss of woodland would be a depreciation of ecological capital, and undertook to replace the trees with new ones (does this sound familiar?). The Woodland Trust refused to accept this argument for compensation.
Despite opposition from The Woodland Trust and other local groups, the local Sevenoaks District Council approved the planning application in June 2000. Woodland, it appeared, had no legal protection as such. However, the proposal was considered inconsistent with the British Government's "Strategy for Sustainable Development", which included an objective to halt the decline and fragmentation of ancient woodland. It was also in contravention of the Kent Structure Plan, and even the Sevenoaks Local Plan under the area's Special Landscape Area protection status. 
In May 2000 the British Government indicated that if the Sevenoaks Council approved the proposal it would be referred to the responsible Minister who would be able to call in the plan. After pressure from The Woodland Trust the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced a Public Inquiry into the planning application.
In the end the owners of Brands Hatch avoided these planning complications by reaching an agreement in December 2000 with the owners of Silverstone to hold the Grand Prix there for the next 15 years. Improvements will also need to be made at Silverstone and these too will reportedly need planning permission.
This whole saga demonstrates that a contract to run a Grand Prix does not prevent its relocation to a more approp-riate venue. Events like the Grand Prix are national events and should be treated as such, and not left to the machinations and parochial interests of local politicians.
Albert Park Reserve was not a site of ancient woodland, but it did have pre-white settlement trees. It is unlikely that the 
construction of the track could have proceeded without the AGP Act 1994, which overrode all planning and environmental 
protection legislation. 
It is unlikely also that the use of a temporary circuit like Albert Park could be considered consistent with any sustainable development strategy. The greenhouse impact of thousands of additional truck trips, loss of access to green open space, degradation of parkland, and noise impacts would be enough to attract attention from any environmentally serious government.
GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
British GP organisers are now seeking British Government subsidies to upgrade Silverstone. However, according to Formula One News, they only expect the Government to match what Octagon, BRDC and Bernie Ecclestone are investing. Formula One News itself seems unconvinced - "Quite why the government would wish to be involved is not clear - especially following the Millennium Dome fiasco that has drained the 
taxpayers money in the name of entertainment." 
The report suggests that "Perhaps the British teams themselves - such as Jaguar - would wish to contribute to the 
facility? After all without race tracks, the teams would not be able to run their (generally) profitable business".


Parklands Code update
Save Albert Park has been informed by Minister Garbutt's office that the Parklands Code is "still a rough draft".

Top of this page

A Missed Opportunity

The Grand Prix Corporation's CEO John Harnden seemed to have missed the irony in the report that Tourism Victoria was compiling information packages for racing teams and the media to encourage them to stay on in Australia, rather than returning to Europe before the Malaysian GP (The Age, 12/2). If the Australian GP were held on a permanent track designed for 
racing and testing, the teams would have a real incentive to remain here. Are they really going to spend valuable time at 
the start of the racing season sun-baking or touring wineries rather than completing tests on new cars?

Top of this page

Moscow Circuit Plans

The latest plans to build a US$100 million motor racing 
circuit just outside Moscow reinforce what is sensible inter-national practice. 
Firstly, it will be a permanent circuit designed for inter-
national car and motorcycle racing.
Secondly, it is expected to be privately funded as a joint 
venture by the British engineering company TRW Group and Russian investors.

Top of this page

The Facts Behind The Hype

This is the season for talking up the Grand Prix and trotting out the boosterist claims for its economic benefits. Let's run through some of the recent claims and hype that followed the release of the Government's latest economic impact report.
CLAIM The naming rights are worth $10 million. (Herald Sun, 
6 February, 2001)
FACT The Australian Grand Prix Corporation's own accounts show that the total sponsorship revenues exceeded $10 million but only thanks to sponsorships of over 
$1 million from the public sector (TAC, Tourism Victoria and others). It is also interesting that a six-page article on 
sponsorships ranging across over 10 major sports ("The Big Yield", Australian Financial Review Magazine, Feb. 2001) does not even mention the Formula One Grand Prix.
CLAIM The GP generates "$130 million in economic benefit".
FACT There are two problems with using this figure.
Firstly, it is simply a measure of the impact on economic activity. According to the Government's own figures the average annual "net benefit" for 2000-2006, after taking into account the opportunity costs 
of government expenditure, is only $62 
million. This figure is, however, not a true measure of the economic benefit because as Professor Forsyth of Monash University argues, it does not take account of the various costs of providing services "to meet the needs of the visitors".
Secondly, the estimate is inflated by including components for which there is no convincing evidence, namely:
o the claimed $14.5 million expenditure by teams, race officials and media is based on "details and impressions of expenditure patterns" supplied by the GP Corporation
o the claimed $13.6 million that would have been spent by Victorians in Adelaide if the GP had been held there. (The 
estimated expenditure for all interstate visitors was only $22.5 million).
o the claimed $8.1 million of induced tourism 
and, most controversially, by including:
o $11.5 million of household savings spent by Victorian patrons. 
The conventional principle of event evaluation is NOT to include local resident expenditures in event benefits. 
Professor Forsyth of Monash University has supported the previous criticisms by Francis Grey: "To the extent that savings are reduced to fund current expenditure, future expenditure will be reduced. At some point, if people have less saved they will be able to spend less" and when this happens "there will be a downward pressure on economic activity". 
This is now happening in Victoria.
Without these questionable inclusions, however, the GP does not look good as an event. It suffers from two disadvantages:
1. International and interstate AGPC revenues (e.g. sponsorships and ticket sales) appear to be offset by the licence/
franchise fees.
2. Unlike most other events it generates no lucrative inter-national television royalties, as Bernie Ecclestone owns the rights. Television royalties for the Sydney Olympics were worth $1033 million.
CLAIM The race attracted 50,000 visitors. (The Age, 30 Jan)
FACT The Government report on the 2000 GP is absolutely clear that only 7,556 international and 15,996 interstate 
visitors came to Victoria "solely because of the GP". 
In truth, the figure of around 23,000 is simply an estimate based on patron surveys whose reliability is very questionable. The "Grand Prix-tensions" report noted that "the review of the survey did not provide a 
con-fident explanation of how the data had been gathered, nor how data 
quality had been maintained". 
A survey specialist who reviewed the 2000 report for SAP noted the potential sampling errors and wide range of estimates, and concluded that "the report as it stands provides in-
adequate information to allow precise estimates to be made".
The GP claims are not easily checked because, unlike genuinely big major events like the Sydney Olympics (or even an Australia-New Zealand rugby test), the numbers of visitors are not enough to show up in official tourism data.
CLAIM The GP generates $9.8 million in tax receipts.
FACT This is derived from the consultant's economic model, and is dependent on the estimated impact on economic activity.
The figure is crucial to the GP Corporation. Treasury's 
original charter was that the GP earn a running profit. When it became obvious that this would never happen, the charter was replaced by the requirement that the event had to generate tax revenues that exceeded its annual subsidy.
However, the claimed $9.8 million in tax receipts does not cover the real underlying annual subsidy. 
If the AGPC had to pay the taxpayer interest on the capital and operating grants, the annual costs to the public sector would be closer to $15 million. 
When the Bracks Government announced the signing of a new Grand Prix contract last August, it undertook to develop "standard methodology to estimate the economic impact of events". 
Until this is done, estimates of the economic benefits of different events will continue to tell us more about the differences in assessment methodologies than differences in actual value.
SAP believes that the development of an agreed assessment model should be under the auspices of a body with no interest in boosterism, e.g. the Auditor-General. 
Where public moneys are involved, assessment should be at arm's length from the promoter and be transparent, and be subject to scrutiny by the Office of the Auditor General.

"Economic impact studies 
provide 'best guesses' 
rather than 
inviolable accuracy. Different procedures and underlying assumptions may be adopted, and often these are 
inappropriate because study sponsors are more interested in generating high estimates of economic impact that 
will legitimise a position rather than searching 
for truth."
(Journal of Park and 
Recreation Administration, 
vol 18, no.2, 2000).

Top of this page

Parks Victoria Report On Grand Prix 2000

SAP has now received a copy of the Parks Victoria report to their Board on the 2000 Grand Prix and the new recurrent licence agreement between Parks Victoria and the AGPC.
The report to the Board acknowledges that "Save Albert Park continually raised issues to Parks Victoria concerning the AGPC occupation of Albert Park". 
While SAP does not fully share Park Victoria's satisfaction with the "key improvements", we should be encouraged by the evidence that the Park custodian is responding to 
pressures to reduce the occupation and impact, and to 
monitor and control the activities of contractors.
The report lists more efficient "irrigation methods", post-event visitor safety, pedestrian access, open space restoration and protection of trees as areas needing improvement. SAP remains concerned about pre-event visitor safety in what is a huge construction site with multiple poorly-protected individual sites serviced by dozens of vehicles.
This year has seen some improvements. There has been a drop in the number of contractors' vehicles observed speeding in the Park. 
Contractors are paying more attention to the protection of trees. SAP's continual pressure has been rewarded by an additional sub-clause to the recurrent licence agreement covering the watering of trees, and Parks Victoria is paying more attention to their protection.
The report notes that there was a reduced period of "oval occupation" and that fields were handed back a little earlier. Unfortunately, subsequent to the report (May 2000), the "hand back" proved to be premature in the case of four ovals which did not recover well. 
SAP is not persuaded by the claim that Parks Victoria "received no complaints from sporting clubs relocated during this year's event". Sporting clubs shackled with 21-year leases on their pavilions and 3-year leases on the fields are in no position to rock the boat. 
SAP remains concerned that while there are detailed 
procedures covering the occupation and restoration of sports fields there is no comparable procedure for other open space areas affected by Grand Prix works. 
Parks Victoria acknowledged at the December liaison meeting with SAP that there are problems of progressive degradation in some areas, and stated its plan to reverse this and to require that the AGPC make improvements before the areas are handed back to Parks Victoria. 
Parks Victoria, despite its best efforts and the "close consultation" with the AGPC, will continue to face an impossible task to maintain safe and reasonable access when the Park is a "building site" and to restore the Park to the condition that one would expect of Parks Victoria's premier urban park.

Top of this page

Challenge Melbourne 

SAP has made a submission on the issue of green open space and parkland to the Metropolitan Strategy for Melbourne. 
In general, SAP called for provision of open green space in developmental planning (new or redevelopment) and the 
protection of open space from incremental occupational by inappropriate buildings and commercialisation. 
We emphasised that any strategy must protect valuable parkland from the perception by any level of government or private developers and entrepreneurs that it is cheap or even free land for non-recreational uses. 
The submission called for legislative protection and 
adequate funding.
SAP is pleased to read that the issues paper, "Challenge Melbourne", noted the importance of the quality and maintenance of the public realm (including parks) for the "image" of the city and for "our sense of place and community". 
Open space is deemed "essential in a liveable city to 
provide recreational space and sustain environmental and 
cultural values".

Top of this page

Newsletter Contributions

Copy deadline for the April Newsletter is Tuesday, 20th March 2001. The editorial group welcomes articles from members, news of community group events and other 
campaigns.

Top of this page

Fundraiser

Easter Raffle Prize 
A Basket of Gourmet Delights
Contributions from all our creative makers of cakes, biscuits, preserves and other delicacies
are needed.
Please deliver items to the SAP office.

Top of this page

Dates For Your Diary

SAP MEMBERS FORUM
Planning and Strategy Day
Saturday, 31 March, 1pm - 5pm.
Members are asked to ring the SAP office for 
information on the venue.

Top of this page

SAP General Meetings

SAP office, 195 Bank Street, South Melbourne. 7.30pm 
FEBRUARY - Tuesday 27
IMPORTANT! Because of the timing of the 
2001 Grand Prix, the normal 
March General Meeting has been brought forward to 
Tuesday, 27 February 2001. 
APRIL - Tuesday 3

Top of this page