|
|
|
Go your own way
Can Do. That was the credo of the Kennett Government, and a necessary consequence was disregard for community consultation.
I think that this disregard was a major factor in the Coalition's loss in the September 1999 State election.
Genuine democracy does not stop at the ballot box; it is a method of government, and a style of government. Between elections the main medium of democracy is consultation.
My dictionary defines consultation as not only seeking information and advice, but also showing regard and respect for that information and advice.
Since the State ALP came to power in late 1999, Save Albert Park has met with Government Ministers but we
have no evidence that our information and advice have been regarded or respected. We were involved in what we trusted was a genuine consultative process on the evaluation of the economic impact of the 2000 Grand Prix.
Our input was ultimately disregarded. The final report was released on the very day that the new Grand Prix contract was announced, thereby removing any opportunity for public scrutiny.
In April 2000 the Sports Minister promised community consultation on the expansion of the Melbourne Sports & Aquatic
Centre in the Park, but a year later that consultation has yet to start.
There is no excuse when unelected bodies bypass consult-ation. This occurred recently when, without any community consultation, Parks Victoria supported a proposal that part
of the Army barracks in Albert Park should become the
permanent home of the State Orchestra of Victoria rather
than being returned to parkland.
Given all this, one cannot be confident that Minister Pandazopoulos' Albert Park Advisory Committee, or Parks Victoria's review of the Albert Park Strategy Plan, or the Government's forthcoming delineation of a Parklands Code, will be true consultative processes.
No doubt the community will provide its information and advice, but will that information and advice be regarded and respected? We'll see.
SAP will be making a submission to the Albert Park Advisory Committee and in turn expects the Government to act on the concerns of residents, local businesses and Park users.
SAP also expects that Parks Victoria's review of the Albert Park Strategy Plan will be an open process, which will go beyond a few selected stakeholders. The draft plan must be available to all interested citizens to read and comment upon. This process must precede, not follow, major decisions about the Park.
It may not be coincidental that Ansett Airlines safety and commercial difficulties have come at the time when its
advertising slogan is GO YOUR OWN WAY.
If governments and their agencies go their own way,
disregarding unwelcome messages from the community, then the losers are democracy and its citizens, and ultimately
governments.
Ross Ulman, Convenor
Top of this page
SEND YOUR SUBMISSION NOW!
Albert Park Advisory Committee
Members who use the Park or live or work in the City of Port Phillip are reminded that submissions to the Government's Advisory Committee on the running of the Grand Prix must be made before 15th May 2001. It is important that the Committee gets sufficient
submissions to demonstrate the full impact of the event on the community, businesses and Park users and the message that a range of citizens are affected and concerned.
The Committee has only a limited role, namely to "consider and advise on mechanisms for maintaining an
appropriate balance between the needs of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation and the needs of the public while maximising the benefit and minimising any inconvenience".
But this should not deter individuals from making strong submissions that point out the impact of running such an event in an inner-city public park.
Specific issues listed under the Terms of Reference are:
Submissions may also address safety concerns or management of the set-up and take-down program.
Submissions must be forwarded by 15 May to the:
Top of this page
The Hazards of Using a Park
The Grand Prix infrastructure has at last been removed from Albert Park; the whole Park can again be used in peace and safety, but just remember to
"keep off the grass" here, there and everywhere while large areas undergo
"restoration". During the best weather of the year, that is, during the GP works period, using the Park presents a challenge most Park users could well do without.
If you take a ride along the bicycle path next to the light rail, you travel past the works site office and through the works compound; cycling practice in peak-hour traffic is strongly recommended. Most useful of all would be an extra pair of eyes; while one pair looks out for vehicles which may or may not be observing the speed limit, the other scans the path for debris and temporary speed humps (the latter have an unnerving habit of relocating themselves from time to time).
You may prefer to run around the lake on the jogging path, but you are advised not to drift into a runner's
"high" because at any moment you could meet infrastructure across the path, detours, works vehicles, debris or occasional unfenced holes.
Perhaps a walk would be safer; the GP-free section of the Park is still definitely the safest place for this
- other areas require first-rate eyesight and agility. Take only very obedient dogs to the off-leash area because of traffic hazards on Park paths and the unattended or unsecured work sites complete with
"Danger - Structure Incomplete" signs. The same applies to any children you may have with you.
You could, of course, take the children to the Community Playground, although the location is a bit of a worry
- in the middle of major infrastructure, traffic, etc.
It does have a temporary security fence and gates, but don't lower your guard here either. The gates may have dropped, so that the childproof locks don't work, or someone may have left a gate chained with the padlock open.
It is probably not a good idea for the children to use
the structure built inside the safety fence as alternative play equipment.
Top of this page
ALP Branches Speak Out
The Age reported on April 21 that, in opposition to Government-sponsored actions, the Kilsyth-Mooroolbark Branch of the ALP has voted to end clearfelling in the Otways. It was not reported that the ALP branch of which Premier Bracks is a member passed the following motion at its April meeting:
"That the Williamstown Branch of the ALP recommends to the policy committee that the Formula One Grand Prix be
relocated to a purpose-built race track."
Top of this page
Michael Danby (MHR Melbourne Ports) has again lodged a question on notice to the Minister for Defence on the costs of the RAAF flyovers at the 2001 Grand Prix. Apparently the "full costs" were $634,090, whatever this means, and the "direct costs" were $106,365. Presumably if the flyovers are not accepted as justifiable training flights, they should be costed at $634,090. The direct costs alone since 1996 now total $884,000. If there is a change in government at the end of 2001, the residents of the City of Port Phillip will be hoping for an end to this dangerous, deafening and expensive intrusion into their lives.
Top of this page
Television Ratings: The Big Switch-Off
"Continuing a downward trend over the last few years, TV ratings for Nine's coverage of the Formula One Australian Grand Prix were again down on the previous year."
(Total Tattler, 28 March 2000)
That comment could again be applied to the 2001 race. Details of the global television audience remain highly
confidential, although the AGPC continues to trot out large global numbers that no-one else takes seriously.
Once again, however, the domestic ratings show how localised is the audience and how the national interest is
steadily declining.
Average ratings per households (%)
1996 1999 2000 2001
Sydney 29 18.6 13.5 10.5
Melbourne 42 28.7 23.5 21.7
Brisbane 24 19.3 16.8 13.9
Adelaide 39 26.5 25.2 14.8
Perth 20 18.2 13.5 10.4
Australia-wide 30.8 22.3 18.5 14.3
Top of this page
Assessment of Major Events
In August 2000 Premier Bracks announced as part of
the Government's "New Major Events Strategy" that it would develop a
"standard methodology to estimate the economic impact of events".
Assessment was to be based on employment and industry impacts, tourism benefits, and the opportunity to profile
Melbourne and Victoria internationally.
SAP has information that the Department of State and Regional Development is "close to finalising a framework of analysis" for use with events such as the Formula One Grand Prix. We believe that Dr Trevor Mules from the University of Canberra, who co-authored the 1985 study of the Adelaide Grand Prix, has been commissioned to develop the method-ology. While we are relieved that the old favourites of the Kennett Government have not been used for this task, SAP is disappointed that this project has remained an internal one with no opportunity for community or expert input or for comment on a draft framework. At this stage we have advice that the new methodology has produced a lower estimate of the economic benefits of the Grand Prix than that contained in NIEIR's 2000 report.
However, we understand that the analysis is still based on gross state product or economic impact measure. While this can be used to compare the value of events, our advice is that gross impact is an inadequate measure of the true net value of an event to the State's economy.
Judging by his contribution to a recent Bureau of Tourism Research paper,
"Valuing Tourism: Methods and Techniques, August 1999", Dr Mules may have some messages that will be unpalatable to the Grand Prix Corporation and its political
masters. Among the "pitfalls" of economic impact studies,
he lists:
In particular he noted that:
"The arrival of the Formula One Grand Prix at Melbourne's Albert Park Lake caused the removal of hundreds of trees and the incursion of noise and crowds into an area where residents had previously enjoyed the natural serenity."
He has also words of caution about the value of television exposure. (See below)
What is the real value of the Grand Prix?
The finding that the 2000 Grand Prix cost $16.14 million to earn net benefits to Victoria of $7.59 million has put the spotlight on the claims that it puts Melbourne on the map.
It is interesting that in the past Trevor Mules (see story above) has been sceptical of
"place promotion" claims:
"If spending taxpayers" money on an event
cannot be justified in terms of its direct
benefits, falling back on
"Promotional benefits' is risky."
In his recent "Valuing Tourism" Paper (see above) he stated, (page 40) in reference to claims that events get media exposure worth millions of dollars:
"This approach is not very satisfactory because the media exposure is not directed at potential visitors. It is unfocussed marketing of the host region: even with focussed marketing, where the message is directed at the socio-economic group in the population most likely to visit, there is no clear connection between awareness of a destination and the decision to visit a destination."
Save Albert Park has long been sceptical of the claims that the Formula One Grand Prix promotes Melbourne. Our factsheet on tourism raises several pertinent questions that are worth repeating:
The Malaysian Government has answered these questions; it sees the event as Malaysian and as a way to promote Malaysia and its automotive and services industries. One of our members in the US tells us that his only
television exposure to the 2001 GP was an interview with one of the drivers on the steps of the Sydney Opera House! This is just one of many stories of television coverage which puts the lie to the benefit of Melbourne's
"place promotion".
SAP would like to hear from any members who have reports from friends and relatives overseas about the reporting of the Melbourne Grand Prix.
It's time we re-focussed attention on the unsubstantiated claims of the Victorian Major Events Company and the AGPC.
This is an event that markets sponsors, not the city.
Top of this page
Review of the Albert Park Master Plan
Parks Victoria has commenced a review of the Albert Park Master Plan (as amended in 1998)
"to ensure that the overall planning for the Park is meeting community expectations and addresses the needs of its many users".
Clearly some users' needs have been "addressed" more than others, which is one of the great distortions of the original plans for the Park.
The review is intended to:
Two consultants (Collaborations and Barly Consulting Services) have been engaged to undertake a process of
community consultation and to review the Plan. A Reference group consisting of representatives from the City of Port Phillip, Office of Planning of the Department of State and Regional Development, and Parks Victoria has been established to monitor the review process and advise Parks Victoria on:
While the Australian Grand Prix Corporation has no direct representation, the Department of State and Regional Development (which has responsibility for the GP) can be expected to keep an eye on the outcome. Save Albert Park questions why this review did not precede the Albert Park Advisory Committee process. A draft will be ready by the end of May. However, the Brief appears to provide for a very controlled consultation process:
1. There will be a series of "stakeholder" workshops, and a residents' focus group/workshop.
2. The draft will be made available only to stakeholders and participants in workshops, with requests for submissions from these only.
Save Albert Park will be seeking not only a place at the table, but also some assurance that the draft will be made available for comments from the general community.
Top of this page
Army Barracks in Albert Park
Discussions are currently being held on the future of the disused Army barracks in Albert Park. We are encouraged that Parks Victoria is at least considering demolition of some of the 1960s classrooms and walls/fencing to create additional parkland. Parks Victoria is reserving its position on the older buildings considered of heritage value, and has foreshadowed use of the officers mess buildings for its own administration and the Drill Hall for permanent use by the State Orchestra. We are concerned that the Army site is not to be included as part of the Master Plan review.
Top of this page
VOLUNTEERS NEEDED!
This year's Parks Festival, organised by Parks Victoria, will be held again in Albert Park on Sunday, 6th May. Save Albert Park will have a presence at the Festival. Volunteers are needed for setting up and to be present throughout the day. If you can help, please call the SAP office.
May Day
Save Albert Park will again be taking part in the May Day March as we have done every year since 1995.
2 pm, Sunday 6th May
Trades Hall, cnr Victoria and Lygon Streets
Look for the green, yellow and blue Parklands Flags in Lygon Street outside the Victorian Horticultural Hall. The March will finish at the Treasury Gardens.
Top of this page
Copy deadline for the June Newsletter is Tuesday, 22nd May 2001. The editorial group welcomes articles from members, news of community group events and other campaigns.
Top of this page
From the Vigil
The Vigil has been on a well-earned break over the Easter and school holidays in preparation for the testing winter season.
How bleak the Albert Road corner looks without it. No umbrella! No ribbons! No splendid banners, which, as well being visually arresting, provide the campaign with the opportunity to draw attention to aspects of our major strategies in succinct one-liners.
It has been a break, too, for those local office workers who seem to find the sight of committed protestors a bit embarrassing. They either scurry past with eyes averted to avoid being confronted by the issues or uncomfortable new facts, or read the new banners surreptitiously for fear of appearing to engage with a dissident group.
Some, though, do stop. There is the man who stopped recently, furiously angry and aggrieved at our continued presence in the Park, and presented vigillers with bags of yellow ribbons cut into small pieces while verbally attacking them for wasting their time.
The Vigil clearly continues to get its message across! Who is wasting his time and why does our continued opposition to a Grand Prix in public parkland make that person so uncomfortable?
The vigillers will be back, re-invigorated and as determined as ever, on Monday, 30th April.
Top of this page
Back to our Newsletters
