tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/east-west-link-13782/articlesEast-West Link – The Conversation2018-08-28T20:20:54Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1012462018-08-28T20:20:54Z2018-08-28T20:20:54ZWe hardly ever trust big transport announcements – here’s how politicians get it right<p>Australian governments regularly spend billions of dollars cancelling infrastructure projects, or dealing with delays and legal challenges. The NSW Berejiklian government, for instance, is mired in legal battles around Sydney’s light rail project – with the Spanish company building the rail line <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/spanish-builder-claims-state-failed-to-reveal-full-facts-on-light-rail-20180413-p4z9et.html?clicksource=inartcilelink">suing the government</a> for A$1.2 billion for costs and damages.</p>
<p>Other examples include the cancellations of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/opposition-reveals-new-plans-for-controversial-east-west-link/9918306">A$1.1 billion</a> East-West link in Melbourne and Perth’s <a href="https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/state-overturns-approvals-quashes-rumours-of-roe-8-by-stealth-20180606-p4zjtc.html">A$450 million Roe 8</a> project. </p>
<p>Research shows transport infrastructure is costly because of its size, complexity, and the <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1409/1409.0003.pdf">misrepresentation of project benefits</a>, resulting in cost overruns. But transport projects are also costly because they are controversial. Governments and project proponents can spend significant amounts of money to manage the risk of project cancellation, delays and legal challenges.</p>
<h2>Why the constant controversy?</h2>
<p>Transport will be a key policy battleground area in the upcoming Victorian election. Just this week, the Andrews’ government announced a A$50 billion <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/state-government-announces-massive-suburban-rail-loop-for-melbourne-20180828-p5005r.html">underground suburban rail loop</a>, which will link every major rail line in Melbourne and the new airport rail. </p>
<p>The announcement is politically motivated rather than being grounded in a publicly engaged strategic planning process attached to a clear evidence-base.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/east-west-link-shows-miserable-failure-of-planning-process-40232">East-West Link shows miserable failure of planning process</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Victoria is not alone in such political infrastructure planning. The NSW government is currently embarking on the largest transport infrastructure project in the country’s history, with the 33km <a href="https://www.westconnex.com.au/about">WestConnex</a>. The project continues to attract opposition from some parts of the community and from the <a href="http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/changing-urban-precincts/westconnex">City of Sydney</a>. </p>
<p>WestConnex is also currently subject to a <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2497#tab-timeline">parliamentary inquiry</a> into its impacts, including the adequacy of the business case for the project and the <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2497/Terms%20of%20reference%20-%20WestConnex%20inquiry.pdf">compulsory acquisition of property</a>. The inquiry comes following pressure from community groups and <a href="https://www.mehreenfaruqi.org.au/greens-secure-westconnex-inquiry/">some members of the state’s Greens</a>.</p>
<p>Large-scale transport infrastructure will always attract attention because it involves the distribution of a finite resource in complex regions pressed with significant infrastructure needs. But we need to consider why transport infrastructure is almost always so controversial, and how politicians can ensure they have the public’s trust when making announcements for all transport projects. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-fewer-drivers-are-likely-to-use-westconnex-than-predicted-38286">Why fewer drivers are likely to use WestConnex than predicted</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>1. History</h2>
<p>Australia has a history of anti-road activism that centred on the notion <a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/current-affairs-politics/Car-wars-Graeme-Davison-9781741142075">cities are for people</a> not cars, as large motorways <a href="http://www.umass.edu/umpress/title/street-fight">divide communities</a> and promote car dependency. In the 1960s and 70s, large urban motorways were set to pave over suburbs as part of a wider urban regeneration agenda, which set the anti-road agenda in motion.</p>
<p>When the East-West Link was proposed again in 2012, many of the same activists from the 1970s returned to the scene. One such activist, Tony Murphy, would lead a high-profile <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/east-west-link-details-may-come-out-in-court-20140519-38k82.html">legal challenge</a> to the project in 2014.</p>
<p>Inner-city motorways - such as the East West Link and Stage 3 of the WestConnex project – are underpinned by this historic opposition. And it’s strengthened by the privatisation of roads and the introduction of toll roads. Under these conditions concerns will continue to be put forward about who actually gains to benefit from such projects – private companies, the government or the people?</p>
<h2>2. Infrastructural symbolism</h2>
<p>Inner-city motorways crystallise competing visions for the Australian city. Should we be investing in roads or rail, or both? How do we prioritise delivery? Where should we be investing? How will we pay for these investments? And do the benefits - and we need to be clear about how we <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-closer-look-at-business-cases-raises-questions-about-priority-national-infrastructure-projects-94489">define these</a> - outweigh the costs of construction, the loss of natural assets and urban displacement?</p>
<p>The act of investing in one form of infrastructure over another becomes a symbol of what we value. Road based infrastructure planning is controversial because it’s often seen to value cars over non-road based alternatives.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233833/original/file-20180828-75984-1xu64cb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233833/original/file-20180828-75984-1xu64cb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233833/original/file-20180828-75984-1xu64cb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233833/original/file-20180828-75984-1xu64cb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233833/original/file-20180828-75984-1xu64cb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233833/original/file-20180828-75984-1xu64cb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233833/original/file-20180828-75984-1xu64cb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233833/original/file-20180828-75984-1xu64cb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We often see roads as controversial as they become a symbol of our value of cars.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The East-West Link, West Gate Tunnel, North East Link and WestConnex projects are symbols of past poor investment in integrated land use and transport planning. They are also a symbol of little clarity and coherency about what it is we are aspiring to, and how these expensive projects will help us get there.</p>
<h2>3. Trust in evidence</h2>
<p>There are concerns projects are being <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/events/the-right-infrastructure-at-the-right-price/">announced</a> before they are properly costed. And this has been further complicated by the introduction of public and private partnerships and more recently the use of <a href="https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/infrastructure-investment/market-led-proposals">market-led proposal schemes</a> (where a private firm makes an infrastructure proposal to goverment), which calls into question the role evidence and the business case plays in decisions about transport infrastructure. </p>
<p>These concerns are only exacerbated when public access to this data is difficult to obtain. And they will only intensify unless bodies such as the <a href="https://www.afr.com/business/infrastructure/roads/transurban-to-release-more-tollroad-data-to-try-and-win-over-accc-on-westconnex-20180809-h13qbz">ACCC demand</a> data accessibility, including from tolling operators and sharing platforms.</p>
<p>In Toronto, project business cases are written before investment announcements are made. The <a href="http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/benefits_case_analyses.aspx">business cases</a> are then used in wider discussions about what kinds of infrastructures the region should invest in. While every city and region has its challenges, the controversy in Australian cities has become as much about the role of evidence, including its accessibility and transparency, as it is about the contents of those documents. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-closer-look-at-business-cases-raises-questions-about-priority-national-infrastructure-projects-94489">A closer look at business cases raises questions about 'priority' national infrastructure projects</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What politicians should do</h2>
<p>As Australian cities continue to embark on ambitious infrastructure programs - both roads and public transport - governments must pause to ask themselves who these projects are really being built for. To abate future controversy, governments must:</p>
<ul>
<li>develop plans for public debate and engagement, which will help provide a strategic case for projects when they are announced</li>
<li>deliver business cases before projects are announced, not after. This must include a clear evidence-base for land use, affordable housing, employment and integrated transport</li>
<li>plan transport with a regional outlook, but also be mindful of stories and histories of the places and neighbourhoods that might be affected.</li>
</ul>
<p>Ultimately, residents must be engaged in discussions about urban scenarios and project alternatives. Infrastructure Australia <a href="http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/2018/2018_07_24.aspx">recently released</a> a set of guidelines for big projects. These guidelines are important.</p>
<p>We can also look to Infrastructure Victoria. They included a citizen jury method in the development of their 30-year strategy, which perhaps can be expanded into a larger planning exercise that ties the visions with short-term solutions – such as better quality bus integration. These can then be linked with the more ambitions ideas such as a suburban rail loop as announced this week.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/city-calls-on-jury-of-its-citizens-to-deliberate-on-melbournes-future-59620">City calls on jury of its citizens to deliberate on Melbourne's future</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101246/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Crystal Legacy has received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>We need to consider why transport infrastructure is so controversial, and how politicians can ensure they have the public’s trust when making announcements for all transport projects.Crystal Legacy, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/626172016-07-21T20:06:18Z2016-07-21T20:06:18ZInner-city bias: the suburbs need a fair go<p>One of the startling facts about the Brexit vote was the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-geography-of-brexit-what-the-vote-reveals-about-the-disunited-kingdom-61633">deep division</a> between the city of London and the rest of the country. There was clearly a sense that change was working to the advantage of the urban elites, and often to the detriment of people who lived outside those privileged areas. </p>
<p>The recent Australian election <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-what-were-the-issues-and-seats-that-mattered-in-australias-state-and-territories-61429">reveals some of the same division</a> but within the major cities rather than between city and the regions. Inner-city areas <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/why-the-housing-bubble-spells-big-trouble-for-labor-20160718-gq86wd.html">voted quite differently to the suburbs</a>.</p>
<p>The fight over Melbourne’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/government-adamant-on-east-west-link-revival-/7426330">East-West Link</a> road project played out in those terms. The plan was heavily opposed by inner-city residents who had access to good public transport (trams, trains, buses, bicycles etc) and supported by residents of the suburbs who wanted improved cross-city road transport. The inner-city elite won.</p>
<p>We now have a similar but more egregious case evolving in Melbourne. The state government is supporting the construction of a project called the <a href="http://westerndistributorproject.vic.gov.au/">Western Distributor</a>. It is basically a plan to improve the flow of goods in and out of the Port of Melbourne (which is in the CBD). This provides a significant benefit to the people of the western suburbs – that is, to the <a href="http://k46cs13u1432b9asz49wnhcx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/themes/dote2015/resources/melbourne.pdf">poorer half of the city</a>.</p>
<p>There are two advantages to the city’s west. It will dramatically reduce the number of trucks passing along suburban streets and it will reduce travel times from the west to the north of the city. The <a href="http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/major-projects/western-distributor">government’s evaluation</a> is that it will:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… take 22,000 vehicles including 6,000 trucks off the West Gate Bridge daily, remove up to 6,000 trucks from local streets in the inner west, improving amenity, air quality and safety … [and] reduce serious injury crashes by 20%.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3D_TxjF_rwI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Victorian government promotes the benefits of the Western Distributor Project.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is also a broad economic advantage to Victoria as a result of better logistics flows. Melbourne is a major container port and improvements to the movement of freight produce advantages for all Victorians: the project will “cut travel time to the port by up to 50%, and deliver an annual A$35 million saving to the freight industry”.</p>
<h2>Opposition based on self-interest</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-city-council-set-to-oppose-55-billion-western-distributor-toll-road-20160714-gq5zn7.html">inner city is opposed</a> to the project. The grounds put forward are revealing. City of Melbourne Greens councillor <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/western-distributor-threatens-melbournes-status-as-most-liveable-city-councillor-warns/news-story/1030d985caae1ee92e80916f019a3f6e">Cathy Oke said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No city in the world is encouraging cars into the CBD so I can’t see how this project is a winner for our liveability status.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The state Greens MP for inner-city Melbourne, Ellen Sandell, <a href="http://www.ellensandell.com/western_distributor">makes the same argument</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No modern, global city is trying to bring more cars into its CBD. We should be investing even more in public transport, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and ways to get trucks off streets in the west – not new freeways that bring cars into the city.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These are clearly selfish propositions. Inner-city residents do not want any more cars in the city regardless of the benefits that might accrue to other residents of Melbourne, and regardless of any broader economic benefits for the city and the state. The fact that the people of the west <a href="http://k46cs13u1432b9asz49wnhcx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/themes/dote2015/resources/melbourne.pdf">are poorer</a>, have <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/warning-not-to-let-transurban-toll-road-crowd-out-tram-plan-for-west-20160718-gq88eg.html">worse public transport</a>, <a href="https://www.rdv.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1195718/BHCMW-final-report.pdf">worse health outcomes</a> and <a href="http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/LFR_SAFOUR/VIC_LFR_LM_byLFR_UnemploymentRate">high levels of unemployment</a>, is seen as unimportant. </p>
<h2>A recipe for social divisions</h2>
<p>These are the sort of elite positions that created Brexit and the broader political unhappiness in Europe and the US. If the inner-city residents are going to be this selfish, then we can expect to see some political response from the suburbs.</p>
<p>The inner city is spoilt. Inner-city residents have <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/tickets/zones/#FTZ">free trams in Melbourne</a>, paid for by people in the suburbs. Inner-city residents have all of the Melbourne arts precincts and all of the cultural venues, also all subsidised by people in the suburbs. The inner city also has all of the major sporting venues, again all subsidised by the suburbs.</p>
<p>If we are to avoid the rise of populist concerns seen in other countries, the inner-city elite need to change its attitude. Rather than dividing the society by rejecting change that might hurt rich inner-city dwellers a little but provide substantial benefits for the rest of the city, these sorts of changes need to be considered fairly and discussed reasonably. </p>
<p>Residents in inner-city Melbourne (and inner-city Sydney and Brisbane too) have <a href="http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/LFR_SAFOUR/VIC_LFR_LM_byLFR_UnemploymentRate">lower unemployment</a>, <a href="http://thefingeronthepulse.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/the-demography-of-employment-part-3.html">higher pay</a> and much better cultural amenity than people in the suburbs. Fairness requires some change and better support for the poorer parts of the city, not the richer parts.</p>
<p>Governments need to respond too by reducing the subsidies to the inner city. Even some clearer presentation of the state budgets to separate out the impact of spending on a geographical basis would help. Let us start spreading the benefits more widely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62617/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodney Maddock is a director of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia.</span></em></p>It’s a project that creates benefits for Melbourne’s western suburbs and the state as a whole. But the inner-city elite don’t like it and recent experience suggests their opinion holds sway.Rodney Maddock, Vice Chancellor's Fellow at Victoria University and Adjunct Professor of Economics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/591612016-05-24T00:54:35Z2016-05-24T00:54:35Z‘30-minute city’? Not in my backyard! Smart Cities Plan must let people have their say<p>The federal government’s <a href="https://cities.dpmc.gov.au/smart-cities-plan">Smart Cities Plan</a> is framed around the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-30-minute-city-how-do-we-put-the-political-rhetoric-into-practice-56136">30-minute city</a>”. In this city, journeys will <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/malcolm-turnbull-to-borrow-big-in-multibilliondollar-smart-cities-plan-20160428-gohbym.html">take no more than half an hour</a>, regardless of your location.</p>
<p>The recently released plan has significant implications for population, transport provision and land-use intensity in neighbourhoods – the places where people live and how they get around. The realisation of its goals will require ongoing densification of Australian suburbs.</p>
<h2>Cities with more houses, more people, more NIMBYs</h2>
<p>The doubling of the population in some Australian cities by 2045 is likely to generate fierce opposition to housing and transport projects.</p>
<p>Many medium-density housing projects prompt residents <a href="http://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/2238/AHURI_Final_Report_No197_Resident_third_party_objections_and_appeals_against_planning_applications.pdf">to act strategically to protect their neighbourhoods</a>, even when these projects improve housing affordability and access to jobs and services.</p>
<p>Resistance is also directed at major infrastructure. Fierce campaigns are being (or have been) waged against Melbourne’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-sky-rail-saga-can-big-new-transport-projects-ever-run-smoothly-54383">“sky rail” project</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/east-west-link-shows-miserable-failure-of-planning-process-40232">East West Link</a>, Sydney’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/trees-versus-light-rail-we-need-to-rethink-skewed-urban-planning-values-57206">ANZAC Parade light rail</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/opposition-to-westconnex-grows-as-council-blocks-contractors-from-streets-20160407-go0j3i.html">Westconnex</a> projects, and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-23/shorten-to-commit-to-1bn-metronet-rail-in-wa-if-elected/7436062">Perth Freight Link</a>.</p>
<p>Such opposition is not only felt through the planning system. Residents also <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08111146.2015.1081845">use political channels</a> to stop projects, <a href="http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/08/27/0042098015602649.abstract">as with the East West Link</a>.</p>
<h2>How should government respond to community resistance?</h2>
<p>Contestation over city planning should not be shut down. Rather, we need to think about citizen opposition as a constructive process for working through difference. Here are five points to consider when including people in the delivery of the 30-minute city.</p>
<p><strong>Point 1: We need active governments and active citizens</strong></p>
<p>Private-sector lobbyists argue government is poorly placed to deliver small- and large-scale infrastructure. But think about a city with no roads, sewers, hospitals or schools. Without government-led planning, our cities would be dysfunctional places to live.</p>
<p>However, governments are not benevolent institutions. Active citizenries have long scrutinised the efficacy of government decisions. </p>
<p>The introduction of private and non-government infrastructure providers <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-uneasy-marriage-planners-public-and-the-market-struggle-to-work-well-together-54405">further complicates</a> the relationship between citizens and governments. Whose interests does urban development then serve – a local community, regional community, or developers?</p>
<p>Governments need to be ready to answer questions about the role of the private sector and to change their plans following <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07293682.2015.1135816">community input</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Point 2: More than finding better participation tools</strong></p>
<p>Urban planning systems play important roles in engaging residents. However, community consultation has been sporadic. Neighbourhood meetings and letterbox notifications often fail to ignite engagement. </p>
<p>Then there is the question of representation. Community consultations attract the “usual suspects”. Time-poor working-age households and young professionals find it difficult to fit engagement with planning into their busy lives. Even more rarely does planning engage with youth and children about their visions and hopes for cities.</p>
<p>Local and state governments are aware of the need for new ways to bring citizens into decision-making. Infrastructure Victoria’s <a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/citizen-jury">citizen jury panels</a> are meeting mid-2016. Social media is also being considered as a way to <a href="http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/future">engage a broader public about city futures</a>. </p>
<p>However, when planning departments use social media the uptake by communities is poor. Our research suggests <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07293682.2015.1019755">opponents to planned projects</a>, rather than planning departments, are more likely to use social media.</p>
<p>The problem with current participation tools is their failure to account for conversations, debates and protests that <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08111146.2015.1077804">take place outside</a> the formal planning process. We need ways to include these discussions.</p>
<p><strong>Point 3: Moving beyond NIMBYism</strong></p>
<p>Not all community campaigns are the same. The dominant narrative around community participation in urban planning centres on the pejorative idea of “the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2012.00751.x/abstract">NIMBY</a>” (not in my backyard). </p>
<p>The term NIMBY is frequently used to delegitimise the claims of citizens opposing planned developments. They are characterised as self-interested residents who resist the inclusion of new social groups in their neighbourhoods, or any change to the built or natural environment.</p>
<p>Deliberately labelling these residents as self-interested fails to recognise the positive roles they can play. Local resident campaigns can focus on city-wide or local issues. They can range from <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07293682.2013.776982">unwavering opposition to more flexible and reflexive engagement</a> in an urban discussion. </p>
<p>Some community campaigns might be viewed as vital forms of urban citizenship. Others are seen as “protecting their patch” against the best interests of the broader citizenry. Both views should be part of our discussion about city planning.</p>
<p><strong>Point 4: The conversation never stops</strong></p>
<p>An active citizenry is involved in short-term “one-off” planning and long-term strategic planning. Too often, public participation roles are confined to one end of this spectrum. For example, the NSW government recently attempted to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07293682.2014.889183">limit public participation</a> to high-level strategic planning documents, reducing community input into individual developments.</p>
<p>Most people have little knowledge of the urban planning system. A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837714000301">recent study</a> found only 24% of Sydney residents surveyed were aware of the <a href="http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-Your-Area/Sydney/A-Plan-for-Growing-Sydney">Sydney metropolitan plan</a>. Confining participation to upfront strategic consultation limits community involvement.</p>
<p>For most people, engagement with planning and development issues will be reactionary. People engage with the planning system when a development is proposed for their area.</p>
<p>However, a recent national survey revealed that 65% of responses believed urban residents should be involved in each stage of the strategy-making process. Most will not be involved, but options for participation should not be confined to upfront consultation.</p>
<p>By engaging the community in an ongoing discussion we can listen and respond to local interests without compromising the broader strategic and long-term vision for our cities.</p>
<p><strong>Point 5: Metropolitan-wide but locally situated debate</strong></p>
<p>There will be winners and losers in the 30-minute city. Houses will be acquired, buildings will be demolished and sections of the natural environment will make way for new infrastructure.</p>
<p>Over the last decade, the idea of consensus has dominated participatory approaches. However, consensus-seeking is not always the best way to work through community disagreement. In some cases, consensus can be manipulative, or useful for mobilising resident opposition. </p>
<p>We need to recognise that cities are home to many different people who hold diverse views and values, and who will not always agree. Rather than aiming for consensus, we should set our sights on metropolitan-wide, locally situated debate, which supports an active citizenry. </p>
<p>In the end, the difference between no action and implementation may be in “agreeing to disagree” through open discussion about the planning of the city.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article draws on research by the authors and recent discussions about a possible crisis of participation in Australian cities at a <a href="http://cur.org.au/events/urban-theory-symposium-series/">symposium in Sydney in April 2016</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59161/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Crystal Legacy receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dallas Rogers receives funding from the Henry Halloran Trust.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristian Ruming receives funding from the Australian Research Council and UrbanGrowth NSW.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Cook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cities are home to many different people who will not always agree. We need to learn to embrace public debate as an ongoing, constructive process for working through diverse views and values.Crystal Legacy, Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT UniversityDallas Rogers, Lecturer in Urban Studies, Western Sydney UniversityKristian Ruming, Associate Professor in Urban Geography, Macquarie UniversityNicole Cook, Researcher, School of Geography, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/503112015-12-17T23:34:57Z2015-12-17T23:34:57ZNational spotlight on cities must not leave local input in the shade<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105020/original/image-20151209-3251-1in7hwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A community-led advocacy campaign helped steer the Victorian government away from building the East West Link.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government’s recent <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-governments-cities-portfolio-what-does-it-mean-and-will-it-work-20150921-gjr5ub.html">turn to cities</a> is largely driven by its recognition that Australia’s cities are valuable economic assets. Cities Minister Jamie Briggs called his new job <a href="http://environment.gov.au/minister/briggs/2015/speeches/pubs/sp20151008.pdf">“fundamentally an economic portfolio”</a>.</p>
<p>Since the call for significant investment in cities, there has been no shortage of <a href="https://theconversation.com/urban-policy-could-the-federal-government-finally-get-cities-47858">great ideas</a> on how the government might tackle the intertwined urban, economic and prosperity priorities. And cohesive policies are needed to unlock cities’ productivity potential.</p>
<p>But little is being said about the governance arrangements needed to support these policies. In particular, there is a need for integrated planning and infrastructure funding. </p>
<p>Urban governance arrangements ought to acknowledge both the federal government’s important role and the critical role of local citizens and community interest groups. They should be seen as co-operative players in crafting urban policies. </p>
<p>In setting the national urban policy agenda, is the whole not greater than the sum of its parts?</p>
<h2>A national focus, but with a local impact</h2>
<p>The investment priorities set by federal and state governments uniquely impact local neighbourhoods and local identity. </p>
<p>The construction of mega urban infrastructure projects temporarily disrupts local life. But such projects also promise long-term transformation and renewal. This happens through development, population and jobs growth, and the revitalisation of neighbourhoods. </p>
<p>And the whole is better for it. Nationally significant urban economic priorities are advanced through bit-by-bit local outcomes. </p>
<p>But when the impact on communities is not well considered – such as when urban infrastructure projects are prioritised beyond the public domain and social or political assessments are cut off from public discussion – community protests loom. </p>
<p>Across this landscape, <a href="http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/08/27/0042098015602649.abstract">community-led advocacy</a> campaigns will emerge to steer governments toward a different approach. This happened recently in Melbourne with protests against the <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-east-west-link-is-dead-a-victory-for-21st-century-thinking-34914">East West Link</a>. </p>
<p>More of the same is unfolding in Sydney over the WestConnex project. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/westconnex-protest-trails-splendour-in-the-grass-for-noise-20151119-gl2wnh.html">Community groups</a> continue to denounce the NSW government’s road-building agenda as a poor solution to the city’s transport problems. </p>
<h2>Cannot ‘manage out’ community opposition</h2>
<p>The cities minister has noted the importance of a national-local relationship for strong urban policy. In a keynote address at the <a href="http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/MayoMedia/Media/tabid/64/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1694/Speech-Developing-Greater-Sydney-conference-Australias-Future-Cities-Challenge-Thursday-8-October-2015.aspx">Developing Greater Sydney Conference</a> in October, Briggs said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The outcome we seek is to deliver policies that attract and keep the best global talent, address the growing intergenerational inequity in our suburbs and ultimately improve the opportunities and lifestyles for all. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Briggs also said the new Cities and Built Environment Taskforce would consider “the challenge of community opposition” to urban infrastructure. What this actually means, and how it might be addressed, is unclear.</p>
<p>Briggs recognises the need to work co-operatively across state and local government. He said to expect the federal government to be not only:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a very co-operative partner but one focused and willing to act to achieve outcomes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But to mitigate community opposition, a careful rethink is needed on how governments and infrastructure agencies – such as Infrastructure Australia and its state equivalents – invite residents and community groups to engage in national and state-level decision-making on urban policy. </p>
<p>Crucially, greater attention must be given to how infrastructure delivery decisions align with the objectives of the local – often community-driven – strategic planning vision. </p>
<p>A transparent approach to the sequencing of infrastructure delivery will ensure communities get the right projects at the right time in the right place.</p>
<h2>Placing residents and communities at the agenda’s core</h2>
<p>Large urban infrastructure proposals will always attract nuanced degrees of support and opposition from community groups and residents. </p>
<p>Despite efforts to engage citizens early in planning processes, if concern mounts around a project deemed not right for the community, or advocacy groups caution that other possibilities were not considered, community opposition will certainly grow. Briggs called this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a problem that continues to hold our cities’ growth back and particularly challenges the capacity of governments to deliver the amenity required for greater density.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Briggs and the taskforce will seek to work collaboratively with all levels of government to fulfil its mandate. But there has been scant mention of how national-level interests will work with resident and neighbourhood groups. There needs to be a clear push for <a href="https://theconversation.com/without-a-national-cities-policy-who-joins-all-the-planning-dots-24634">inclusion in city planning</a>. </p>
<p>The collaborative dimensions of urban policy development and delivery are often neglected. Governments commit to “good” governance with little explanation of what that may look like in practice and what role communities may play. </p>
<p>But it is certainly within governments’ capacity to work with the community. In fact, it is their responsibility to ensure genuine local representation on the urban agenda.</p>
<p>Failing to tap the rich local knowledge and diverse expertise of groups with an interest in planning the places most meaningful to them risks a failure of democracy. It’s not a risk worth taking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50311/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Crystal Legacy receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniela Minicucci does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Communities want urban policy to deliver the right projects at the right time in the right place. Governments should embrace local citizens and interest groups as key players in crafting such policy.Crystal Legacy, Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT UniversityDaniela Minicucci, Research Assistant, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/464092015-08-27T19:59:01Z2015-08-27T19:59:01ZSpeaking with: Crystal Legacy on the politics of transport infrastructure<p>As anyone who travels to work would probably realise, Australia’s transport infrastructure needs urgent upgrades. </p>
<p>As our cities continue to grow, it is virtually impossible to escape the tangle of peak-hour congestion. But with governments focused on reducing deficits, only one or two transport infrastructure projects are likely to be implemented.</p>
<p>So how are decisions about which infrastructure to build made? And how much of a say do the people who actually use the transport system have in which projects are prioritised?</p>
<p>Dallas Rogers spoke with Crystal Legacy about the politics of transport infrastructure, and the role urban planning can play in democratising the process of funding and implementing projects.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/speaking-with.../id934267338">Subscribe</a> to The Conversation’s Speaking With podcasts on iTunes, or <a href="http://tunein.com/radio/Speaking-with---The-Conversation-Podcast-p671452/">follow</a> on Tunein Radio.</em></p>
<p>Music: Free Music Archive/<a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Blue_Dot_Sessions/Union_Hall">Blue Dot Sessions: Union Hall</a>,
<a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Anitek/Luna/32_Transfusion">Transfusion by Anitek</a>, <a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Asthmatic_Astronaut/BLM50_RAISE_THE_BLACK_LANTERN/Black_Lantern_Music_-_BLM-50_RAISE_THE_BLACK_LANTERN_-_01_Run_The_Tape">Run the Tape by Asthmatic Astronaut</a> (CC BY-NC)</p>
<p>Additional audio:
The Today Show (Channel 9), Channel 10 News, ABC News, Nine News, Channel 7 News, GreenLeftTV (Sydney Protests Against the WestConnex Project)</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46409/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dallas Rogers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia's transport infrastructure needs urgent upgrades. But with governments willing to fund only one or two major projects, how do we decide which infrastructure project to prioritise?Dallas Rogers, Urban Studies Lecturer, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/417702015-05-15T01:57:58Z2015-05-15T01:57:58ZThere are no green shoots for sustainability in this Budget<p><em>Budget: The Longer View. The dust has begun to settle on Tuesday’s federal budget – and some key issues and themes are emerging. What are they? This long-read essay is part of a special package intended to answer that question.</em></p>
<p>The 2015-16 Budget is very disappointing in the broad area of environmental protection. Last year’s cuts to important bodies like <a href="http://www.edo.org.au/">Environmental Defenders Offices</a> have not been reversed. Even the funding of a core Coalition initiative, the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/land/green-army">Green Army</a>, has been cut by A$73 million over four years. </p>
<p>While it is not in the Budget, government members are running a <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-inquiry-takes-aim-at-green-charities-that-get-political-40166">parliamentary inquiry</a> which seems to be aimed at removing charitable status from environmental groups, sparked by claims from the <a href="http://www.minerals.org.au/">Minerals Council of Australia</a> that environmental objections are adding to the cost of new projects. </p>
<p>The argument being run by some Coalition politicians is that it is quite acceptable for community groups to plant trees or rehabilitate degraded landscapes, but unreasonable for them to campaign against logging old-growth forests or degrading the land with new open-cut mines. Presumably they hope that removing charitable status would make it less likely that the public would donate to environmental groups, reducing their capacity to embarrass the government or slow down new proposals with destructive impacts. </p>
<p>Like the withdrawal of funds from EDOs, it suggests that the government really believes its rhetoric about “green tape”, the claim that we have been over-zealous about protecting the environment and consequently have held back desirable investments. On the contrary, successive reports on the state of the environment and ABS reports on measures of progress all show that the most significant environmental indicators are all getting worse while the economy continues to grow. </p>
<p>While there is an extra A$100 million over four years for measures to protect the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/great-barrier-reef">Great Barrier Reef</a>, the cuts to Landcare and the continued promotion of the export coal industry put the reef under increased pressure. There is no new money for the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/">Clean Energy Finance Corporation</a>, which has been making a real difference. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/small-business-tax-should-be-cut-by-5-shorten-41831">Bill Shorten’s Budget in Reply</a> was no better on environmental issues. While there was a welcome commitment to funding science and science education, which contrasts with the apparent government hostility to the science which keeps providing inconvenient evidence about the environmental costs of current approaches, I did not hear any concrete plans to apply science to protect the integrity of our ecosystems.</p>
<h2>Still not serious about climate</h2>
<p>Critically, the government’s budget still shows no sign that it is taking seriously our responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The allocation for the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> will not meet <a href="https://theconversation.com/on-these-numbers-australias-emissions-auction-wont-get-the-job-done-40761">even the present inadequate target</a>, let alone the sort of goal Australia will be <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-objective-way-to-decide-on-a-fair-australian-emissions-pledge-41241">expected to take to the Paris talks later this year</a>. </p>
<p>There is no funding for urban public transport, but the government will spend billions on roads. This is possibly not surprising, given that the ministers who drew up and approved the Budget have probably not been on a train, bus or tram for decades, but it is gross negligence in the context of urban development. Not only is public transport critical for millions of city-dwellers today; it is the only credible way of coping with the increasing numbers in our cities that the government is proposing. </p>
<p>Transport also links directly to questions of energy use, urban air quality and our contribution to climate change. Unless there is a dramatic shift to electric cars or hydrogen vehicles, road traffic will continue to burn petroleum fuels, polluting the city atmosphere and driving climate change. </p>
<p>A political fight on transport policy is looming in Victoria, where the budget retains A$3 billion for the cancelled <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/east-west-link">East-West Link</a> road project. The Commonwealth government is reportedly <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-15/victoria-must-return-east-west-link-funds-hockey-says/6472172">demanding that Victoria return the A$1.5 billion</a> that was allocated before the state election. With Prime Minister Tony Abbott having said before that election that it would be a <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/vic-election-referendum-on-ew-link-pm/story-fni0xqi4-1227116976197">referendum on the road project</a>, the new Victorian government feels it has a mandate to use the funds for other transport projects. The Coalition’s polling in Victoria is looking dire, so it will be interesting to see if they try to take transport money from the state government.</p>
<p>Public transport not only uses energy much more efficiently, it can also be driven by cleaner forms of energy from the sun and wind. While ordinary Australians are still voting with their roofs in unprecedented numbers, installing more solar panels in the first quarter of this year than in the corresponding period last year, the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/planned-cut-to-renewable-energy-target-a-free-kick-for-fossil-fuels-33317">attack on the Renewable Energy Target</a> has predictably all but halted investment in large-scale wind and solar projects. </p>
<p>The Opposition has made very <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-will-the-reduced-renewable-energy-target-affect-investment-41505">significant, arguably borderline irresponsible, concessions</a> to try to end the impasse, but the Coalition’s proposed conditions of allowing forestry residues to count as renewable energy and requiring further reviews every two years has proved a bridge too far. </p>
<p>While the government is openly attacking investment in clean energy technologies, the budget made no attempt to wind back the massive subsidies of fossil fuel supply and use. In fact, a question in the Senate revealed a possible further subsidy that was not noticed in the initial discussions of the Budget. The promised <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2015-northern-australia-to-receive-5-billion-in-infrastructure-loans-20150512-1mzhdq.html">multibillion-dollar fund for infrastructure in northern Australia</a> could be used to pump public funds into the struggling proposals for massive new coal mines in Queensland. </p>
<p>With financial institutions increasingly unwilling to support projects that look dubious investments in strictly financial terms, finance minister Mathias Cormann <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2015-greens-blast-northern-australia-plan-20150514-gh1hpv.html">refused to rule out</a> the possibility that the infrastructure fund could be used to help kickstart coal mines. He repeated <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/coal-is-good-for-humanity-pm-tony-abbott-says/5810244">Abbott’s famous assertion</a> that “coal is good”, not just pointing to the export revenue the mines provide but also claiming that new coal mines will “lift millions out of poverty”. </p>
<h2>Still under the influence of denial</h2>
<p>Underlying the deafening silence about climate change in the budget and the continuing promotion of coal exports is the lingering suspicion that the government isn’t serious about the most urgent global environmental problem. The <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/the-un-is-using-climate-change-as-a-tool-not-an-issue/story-e6frg6zo-1227343839905">latest intervention by Abbott’s chief business adviser Maurice Newman</a> bordered on farce, not just denying the science but claiming that the world’s scientists are part of a gigantic conspiracy organised by the United Nations. That assertion makes ideas that the Moon landings were faked on a back lot in Hollywood, or the CIA organised the 2011 attacks on the World Trade Centre, seem comparatively rational. </p>
<p>More worrying than Newman’s bizarre public statement was a subsequent letter to the editor from a Coalition politician, Senator Cory Bernadi, praising Newman for his contribution to the debate. That reveals openly that sections of the Coalition party room are still in denial about the scientific evidence which has now been clear for decades.</p>
<p>In 1992, the <a href="https://www.coag.gov.au/">Council of Australian Governments</a> adopted the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy">National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD</a>. It committed the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments to a pattern of development that would not reduce opportunities for future generations. The current emphasis on minerals exports sits uncomfortably with this goal, as it is systematically reducing the capital stock available to future generations to provide money for this generation. </p>
<p>More fundamentally, the NSESD says explicitly that economic development should recognise the need to protect our unique Australian biodiversity and maintain the integrity of our ecological systems. We are <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-could-empty-wildlife-from-australias-rainforests-41023">still losing biodiversity</a>, mainly because of the destruction of habitat, compounded by the impacts of introduced species and now increasingly by the changes to the climate. </p>
<p>The Budget and the Opposition’s response suggests that neither side recognises the imperatives of the NSESD. The government clearly thinks that the economy is supremely important and that the integrity of our environment is an optional extra. What is portrayed as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/path-to-budget-surplus-built-on-shifting-foundations-41350">path back to surplus</a> makes several heroic assumptions, most fundamentally ignoring the inevitable limits to growth and the impacts of proposed economic developments on our ecological systems. People often find economic forecasting a bit depressing. But what is most depressing is the diminishing prospect of a sustainable future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41770/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe is a past president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.</span></em></p>Amid talk of paths to surplus and investing in infrastructure, both sides of politics seem to have forgotten Australia’s longstanding responsibility to govern sustainably, and not just for the economy.Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402322015-04-16T20:25:29Z2015-04-16T20:25:29ZEast-West Link shows miserable failure of planning process<p>Two cheers for resolving the East-West toll road project mess. The agreement reached by the Andrews Government in Victoria to pay the consortium $339 million for its bid costs and early work is unprecedented, but also honourable and transparent. It was always going to involve considerable pain on all sides, because it was created by Labor, by the Coalition and by the consortium in the first place. But what a tangled government-business ‘partnership’! </p>
<p>Signed contract deals, a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-05/east-west-link-victorian-opposition-releases-secret-side-letter/6072904">hurried side letter</a>, four court challenges and an election fought and won over whether the five kilometre East-West toll road was good for Victorians or not… The signed business contract said “yes”, the democratic verdict was “no!” All the hallmarks of a comedy show on television. But it was our reality; $339 million down the drain. Opportunistic behaviour on all sides fanned along by a bunch of voracious bankers and eager businesses counting their future revenues.</p>
<h2>Payout is lesser of two evils</h2>
<p>Perhaps this agreement is the lesser of two evils, though. After all, with a benefit cost ratio for the project of just 0.45, after spending $10 billion we would also be losing around $5.5 billion straight down the drain. No-one in their right mind would “invest” in such a massive waste. In this respect, the price tag of only a few hundred million dollars to stop this financial catastrophe may be cheap.</p>
<p>But let’s talk about the bigger picture here. The past two Victorian elections have resulted in huge Public-Private Partnership controversies - firstly over a $5 billion desalination plant (which the conservatives apparently tried to renegotiate) and the second over the East-West toll road (which Labor, smelling the blood of infrastructure politics, did renegotiate.) </p>
<p>Both episodes have put into doubt the State’s professional planning capacity and resulted in arguably illegitimate project proposals being implemented through long-term privately funded infrastructure contracts. </p>
<h2>Stop burning money</h2>
<p>A new approach is needed so that we can make better infrastructure decisions. It is only by doing this that we will avoid burning so much of our money on stupid “Taj Mahals”. Business Councils can also play a role here by stopping their self-serving calls for new projects to replace the current failed ones. Perhaps they could devote their energy to ensure current businesses pay their tax bills here instead of sheltering in faraway tax havens? </p>
<p>Contract renegotiations of this size are extraordinary. And they are also tough because of our dual expectations. On the one hand, we expect government to maintain commercial legitimacy, drive a hard deal in our name, and behave in legally responsible ways. And as part of this we assume that governments believe in the sanctity of commercial contracts. After all, private contracts are the building block of the economy. </p>
<p>But on the other hand, we equally expect governments to take their democratic mandate and carry out policies taken into an election. In big projects such as the Desal plant and the East-West toll road, there is a clash of expectations. We want government to be both commercially sensible on our behalf, and democratically responsible on our behalf.</p>
<h2>Legitimate projects, not ministerial favourites</h2>
<p>Of course governments have always been able to sign us up to long-term projects and long-term debts - whether aluminium plants, hospitals or dams. And we will never take all the politics out of public infrastructure projects - this would be naive. </p>
<p>We do though need governments to put infrastructure priorities into a bipartisan process in which legitimate projects gravitate towards the top (instead of just the Minister’s personal favourites), undertake competent economic assessments (instead of back-of-the-envelope trumped-up business cases worth less than the napkin on which they were developed) and seriously consider whether dozens of smaller expenditures are likely to be better than the “Taj Mahal” mentality that government egos still seem to thrust on Victorian citizens. </p>
<p>It would also be better if governments could leave aside their <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/911b-melbourne-metro-swanston-street-project-to-go-ahead-daniel-andrews-20150416-1mm3wh.html">love of long-term infrastructure contracts</a>, private finance and commercial secrets and level with us. We are not mugs. Citizens expect to know what governments are doing in their name, how they are behaving with the power they temporarily hold and how the relationship they have with businesses is being employed. </p>
<h2>Big secrets?</h2>
<p>Can this be solved through legislation stopping governments from signing contracts before elections? I doubt it. Business and politics are both incredibly innovative in getting around new rules. But let’s try anyway. Big infrastructure projects imply big decisions, with big risks. Public risks. </p>
<p>Our current Victorian PPP habit, though seems to imply big secrets, and big “success” fees, even for failed public projects! These are particularly galling. But together, these form a cocktail of complex ongoing deals that could cripple the state if we keep going like this. If we can’t improve our infrastructure priority planning, our assessments, our transparency and bipartisan discourse we will repeat the recent history many times over in coming decades. So the real task here is to take another road. </p>
<p>Independent institutionalised professional planning needs to be reintroduced into the picture, not sidelined. Consultation needs to be undertaken. And priorities need to be re-established so that debates around medium and long-term project options, alternatives and relative timing can occur. Not just the immediate personal choices of ministers as if they were purchasing something in a retail shop. </p>
<p>We need to get on and re-professionalise for a more democratic approach to medium and long-term infrastructure success. And quickly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40232/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graeme Hodge receives funding from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government for research into the long term governance of public-private partnerships. He is affiliated with the Accountability Roundtable.</span></em></p>How many times do taxpayers have to go down the same road before governments seriously assess how expensive infrastructure decisions are made?Graeme Hodge, Professor, Monash Centre for Commercial Law and Regulatory Studies, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/356662014-12-18T19:47:29Z2014-12-18T19:47:29ZFOI reform needed in Victoria amid East West Link fallout<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67611/original/image-20141218-31043-30ps44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There is tension between the need for governments to be trusted to govern and the public’s right to know.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mal Fairclough</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The disclosure of the <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/east-west-link-announcement">full business case</a> for the East West road link in Melbourne confirmed what many had suspected – the project is a dud. The release also unequivocally shows that the Victorian Freedom of Information (FOI) system failed on its most basic task – that is, to facilitate the disclosure of information that is in the utmost public interest.</p>
<p>It is hard to conceive, apart from the reasons for bringing the country to war, of what could carry a higher public interest than how a government proposes to use <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/15/east-west-link-business-case-revealed">A$5 billion</a> in taxpayer money for a major infrastructure project. The very least you would expect as part of engaging with the public is that the government is totally open about how the money would be put to use.</p>
<p>The disclosure of the business case by the new Andrews government revealed a number of staggering <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/analysis-why-the-east-west-link-proved-such-a-hard-sell-20141215-127dfm.html">facts</a>, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The initial business case showed that the benefit to cost ratio was only 0.45: so, for every dollar spent, the return would be 45 cents. This was consequently massaged by the former Napthine government using a number of dubious economic forecasting methods and what was eventually released to the public in the lead-up to the election was clearly misleading.</p></li>
<li><p>The road was so expensive to build (estimated total cost $15-18 billion) that it would take 56 years to pay off. This is significantly longer than previous projects such as CityLink, eight years, and EastLink, 20 years.</p></li>
<li><p>The most extraordinary revelation in the 9000-page full business case is a note to cabinet observing that a full submission of the business case to the independent umpire Infrastructure Australia disclosing the low benefit-cost ratio “may be used as a justification for not supporting the project”.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The Victorian and Australian public clearly had a right to know these facts before the construction contracts were signed. Not disclosing these basic facts is akin to your super fund refusing to tell you how your super money is invested. You’d leave such a fund, wouldn’t you? This is exactly what the people of Victoria did in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-wins-victorian-election-but-watch-for-upper-house-chaos-34796">recent election</a>.</p>
<p>In the best of worlds, governments can create a win-win situation proactively disclosing information needed for the public to make informed decisions. The win-win occurs when information disclosure is used as a trust-building tool between government and the governed. Independent access to government-held information makes the public feel trusted and more engaged in the political process.</p>
<p>In reality, however, there is tension between the need for governments to be trusted to govern and the public’s right to know. This is where FOI laws come in.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/foia1982222/s3.html">Section 3 (1) (b)</a> of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/foia1982222/">Victorian Freedom of Information Act 1982</a> states that the act’s intention is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… creating a general right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of Ministers and agencies limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by agencies.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The East West link debacle again clearly illustrates that the current FOI system in Victoria does not create this general right of access – at least not when it comes to controversial matters.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to the election, a number of local councils, members of the public, journalists and academic researchers lodged FOI applications. The most <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/contested-east-west-link-business-case-tantalisingly-close-20140813-103r2q.html">high-profile</a> application was submitted by the Victorian ALP. The then-opposition spokesperson for roads, Luke Donnellan, got the same reply as the other applicants: the documents could not be released as they had been prepared for and submitted to the cabinet and hence fell under the exemption clause for current cabinet documents.</p>
<p>The cabinet document exemption is one of the areas in the Victorian FOI law that need re-assessment. Should a public interest test apply to whether cabinet documents are released or not?</p>
<p>The last Victorian government promised extensive reforms to the Victorian information access system while in opposition, but delivered very little when in government. This pattern is unfortunately far too common. Let’s hope the new Andrews government will deliver more far-reaching information access reforms.</p>
<p>My comparative <a href="http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=843684861149252;res=IELLCC">FOI functionality</a> research, spanning 15 years, shows that you can change the law until the end of days with little effect on the practical access to information. The legal changes need to be coupled to an FOI advocate – such as a well-resourced and vigorously independent FOI Commissioner.</p>
<p>There is some <a href="https://theconversation.com/transparency-trade-off-means-foi-will-get-more-expensive-26742">evidence</a> that FOI culture can be changed. The federal Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has made some progress in this regard. Unfortunately, the OAIC has been nominated as a saving in the federal budget and will most likely be closed in 2015.</p>
<p>The failure of Victorian FOI to deliver access to the full business case provides the new Victorian government with a reason and window of opportunity to enact meaningful reforms. </p>
<p>These reforms would involve some legislative changes. But most importantly, the culture of the administration of FOI in Victoria needs to change from one of secrecy to one of facilitating access to the information that the government generates and holds on behalf of the people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35666/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Johan Lidberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The disclosure of the full business case for the East West road link in Melbourne confirmed what many had suspected – the project is a dud. The release also unequivocally shows that the Victorian Freedom…Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/350312014-12-14T19:12:10Z2014-12-14T19:12:10ZRip up the contracts? Why public-private infrastructure deals need to change<p>Victoria’s public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a mess. Their democratic standing has never been lower. They have always trumpeted better value for money and more timely delivery, but with the contract for the estimated <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/east-west-link-cost-to-taxpayers-should-be-released-experts-20141119-11ps1w.html">$17.8 billion</a> <a href="http://www.linkingmelbourne.vic.gov.au/east-west-link/overview">East West Link</a> about to be “ripped up” it now looks more like a circus. </p>
<p>Few winners will emerge from the coming fight. Though incoming Labor Premier Daniel Andrews should be applauded for planning to release the East West contract, the deadline for doing so has long past.</p>
<p>Details reportedly to be released today will allow Victorians to judge whether their political leaders and bureaucrats have been stewards of the public’s interest or been lubricating the business gravy train. </p>
<p>Amidst government cutbacks, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/east-west-link-contract-winners-shout-top-public-servants-dinner-at-vue-de-monde-20141008-10rscg.html">$250 per head dinners</a> between public servants and the project’s financiers certainly appears to the public like snouts in the trough. The real issue here, however, is not the East West project itself, but how it is a symptom of a much larger problem.</p>
<p>Infrastructure policy and debates around PPPs are inherently political. While citizens tend to dismiss politicians as hopeless, governing in the public realm is actually a tough job. It is also probably more complex and difficult now than it has ever been. </p>
<h2>An ‘expectations gap’ for infrastructure projects</h2>
<p>Australian governments are increasingly constrained by existing financial outlays and policies. They also face highly skilled interest groups and the public’s increasing expectations in a hungry media cycle. </p>
<p>In reality, there is an increasing “<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00434.x/abstract">expectations gap</a>” between what is promised or expected and what can realistically be delivered by politicians.</p>
<p>Developing big infrastructure projects will always be controversial. However, current infrastructure debates are leaving the cabinet table and banking boardrooms and entering the kitchens and supermarkets. Citizens rightly have strong opinions on PPPs. The government may well have behaved legally, despite a number of <a href="http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-council/news-media/news-and-notices/moreland-takes-legal-action-east-west-link.html">court challenges</a>, in regards to the East West link, but we expect more. We expect legitimate democratic decisions and transparency around how the government has been acting on our behalf. </p>
<p>Under private contract law, governments can decide what is secret and what is not, what financial returns work for the private sector and what do not. Many governments and bureaucrats have also invested huge political capital in the PPP brand.</p>
<h2>PPPs allow governments to focus on the short-term gain</h2>
<p>Victoria is now one of the world’s leading proponents of PPPs. It has lots of showpiece projects including the $5.7 billion desalination plant and $2.5 billion Eastlink road. The PPP idea is to create a long-term private finance arrangement and bundle many smaller contracts and multiple firms into one consortium deal. </p>
<p>This is despite history suggesting these structures can lead to cash windfalls for smart financial executives while public benefits are left languishing to the long-term. More importantly, PPPs help deliver short-term gains to politicians eager to provide visible big infrastructure projects to an expectant public. I acknowledged a decade ago that PPPs play an immediate political role. </p>
<p>They help governments set the public agenda and put infrastructure funding at the forefront of political debate; they help get projects implemented; and they help crash through existing policy settings. So at a time when the business of government around the world has become more difficult, long-term infrastructure contracts put governments back in the driver’s seat. It is little wonder that many politicians join the PPP cheer squad.</p>
<p>While PPPs are in one sense politically successful for project delivery, they remain to my mind, financially and democratically dubious. <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1201/1201.pdf">As the UK Public Accounts Committee warned</a>, “PFI deals look better value for the private sector than for the taxpayer”.</p>
<p>Transport projects which lack economic sense are wasteful, too. <a href="http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/55_hodge_2006.pdf">Several years ago I labelled</a> Victoria’s private finance deals “the illegitimate child of the PPP infrastructure family”. </p>
<p>I have also argued for governments to move from their standard private finance model and experiment with new arrangements to get a better deal for citizens. My voice was drowned out by those of consultant advisers and technocrats.</p>
<p>It is great to see debate in many countries now increasingly turn away from pseudo-technical contests around PPP performance and addressing more fundamental issues of legitimacy and political power. PPP contracts are being acknowledged as a primary long-term governing tool not just a temporary project delivery mechanism.</p>
<p>The United Kingdom is also facing similar PPP issues. In 2012, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-new-approach-to-public-private-partnerships-consultation-on-the-terms-of-public-sector-equity-participation-in-pf2-projects">UK Treasury acknowledged</a> widespread concerns that taxpayers had “not been getting a fair deal now and over the longer-term”. </p>
<h2>So where should Victorian PPP policy go to from here?</h2>
<p>We need more “partnership” options to be put on the table. There are thousands of different ways to shape long-term PPP contracts, despite Victoria’s strident belief that its particular approach is the “one best way”. State borrowing for projects should also be considered.</p>
<p>There needs to be some new policy experiments in public finance and capacity building. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-to-save-the-worlds-most-liveable-city-20141019-117jx5.html">Infrastructure bonds</a> are a great idea. Another option is to benchmark unit costs across different delivery options and publish these results for peer review. Governments need to stop telling us how good PPPs are and show us.</p>
<p>This involves greater transparency where our Auditor-General can follow the money trail and publishing PPP contracts with all their inconvenient details. A more consistent infrastructure prioritisation process also needs to be established. </p>
<p>If we want new infrastructure in Australia that is worthwhile and legitimate, we need better ideas than secret contracts and politicians influenced by private capital and high-priced dinners. We need them urgently.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35031/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graeme Hodge receives funding from The Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). </span></em></p>Victoria’s public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a mess. Their democratic standing has never been lower. They have always trumpeted better value for money and more timely delivery, but with the contract…Graeme Hodge, Professor, Monash Centre for Commercial Law and Regulatory Studies, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/349142014-12-02T19:22:36Z2014-12-02T19:22:36ZThe East-West Link is dead – a victory for 21st-century thinking<p>Labor’s state election victory in Victoria has fatally undermined Melbourne’s most controversial tunnel, the now-doomed <a href="http://www.linkingmelbourne.vic.gov.au/east-west-link">East-West Link</a>, with new Premier Daniel Andrews pledging to rip up the contracts for the project.</p>
<p>His decision is a victory for anyone who values 21st-century urban thinking over the outdated car-first mentality. </p>
<p>It’s also a financial relief, because – as the project’s back story shows – the East-West Link was always more about politics than economics.</p>
<h2>Courting cars</h2>
<p>For many years, the only groups calling for a tunnel to link Melbourne’s Eastern and Citylink freeways were the <a href="http://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/racv/Internet/Primary/home">RAC of Victoria</a> and <a href="https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/">VicRoads</a>. The problem was that the tunnel never made economic sense when it was just a freight project, yet most attention in the transport planning system was on public transport, where demand was growing rapidly. The East-West tunnel needed a large dose of cars to justify it. </p>
<p>Enter Tony Abbott, who <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/tollfree-eastwest-link-preferable-tony-abbott-20130902-2t0ff.html">pledged A$1.5 billion</a> before last year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/federal-election-2013">federal election</a> for the East-West plan, arguing that Australians love their cars and public transport was not in his federal knitting. </p>
<p>The East-West project grew in concept and soon became a massive capital cost, with the price tag for the whole plan, including the western extension to Melbourne’s port, threatening to <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-budget-2014-major-road-and-rail-projects-worth-24b-to-transform-melbourne-20140506-zr5mj.html">hit A$10 billion</a> and swamp the transport budget. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, in the waning days of the first <a href="http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au">Infrastructure Australia</a> (on which I was privileged to serve for four years), it became obvious that the East-West tunnel and Sydney’s <a href="http://www.westconnex.com.au">WestConnex</a> would never be subject to the scrutiny of our process. They were to be seen as purely political projects and the case for their going ahead would depend on their popularity, not on value for money. </p>
<h2>Why tunnelling Melbourne was a bad idea</h2>
<p>The old shibboleth that building roads is vital for improving the economy is no longer true. Economic growth has divorced itself from car dependence (my new book with <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeff-kenworthy-15708">Jeff Kenworthy</a>, <a href="http://www.bibliovault.org/BV.book.epl?ISBN=9781610914635">The End of Automobile Dependence</a>, traces the fall of the empire of car-based planning). </p>
<p>Growth in the Victorian and Australian economies now depends on the growth in “knowledge economy” jobs. These jobs at the creative, productive, innovative edge of our economy are now firmly enmeshed in the dense centres of our cities. </p>
<p>As the US urban economists Ed Glaeser and Richard Florida have <a href="blog.ted.com/2012/02/29/cities-ed-glaeser-at-ted2012">shown</a>, the knowledge economy depends on close interactions between creative people and those who can deliver projects. This work requires intensive spaces in cities, which in turn need intensive modes of transport to enable them. This means that rail, cycling and walking are critical to the knowledge economy. Although heavily into digital communications, knowledge economy workers need face-to-face contact and are now shifting back into central and inner city locations to optimise this process. </p>
<p>In contrast, cars and trucks are dispersive modes of transport, and are needed for the consumption economy. These jobs are important too, but are essentially based in the dispersed spaces of the suburbs. These jobs are not the ones we are seeking as much as those in the knowledge economy, because they do not drive productivity growth as effectively. </p>
<p>It is no wonder that around the world, we are seeing <a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38472#.VH1FI2SUdgA">declining car use per capita and growing public transport use</a>, as well as a widespread return to formerly neglected inner cities.</p>
<p>The six most walkable US cities have <a href="http://urbanful.org/2014/06/20/walkable-cities/">38% higher gross domestic product than the national average</a>. Cities now compete on new measures such as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/opinion/sunday/now-coveted-a-walkable-convenient-place.html?_r=0">walkability</a> and <a href="http://www.livablecities.org/blog/value-rankings-and-meaning-livability">livability</a>. Governments everywhere are aiming to build quality rail projects and make city centres more human in scale. Even <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-780m-light-rail-line-gets-final-go-ahead-business-case-to-be-released-20140915-10gzr3.html">Canberra</a> and <a href="http://www.parracity.nsw.gov.au/work/business_in_parramatta/strategy/solving_transport_problems/light_rail_for_western_sydney">Paramatta</a> are joining in, as they work out how to build light rail. </p>
<p>Melbourne has one of the most attractive city centres in the world for knowledge economy jobs. It needs to ensure that this is not lost by tipping more cars into its walkable centre. Instead it needs to encourage commuting by rail, bike and on foot. </p>
<h2>Change in the air</h2>
<p>Victoria’s people have now spoken. The East-West Link will be scrapped, and should be replaced by more sensible transport planning. Melbourne does need to improve east-west access for people and freight, but it should not be beyond us to find some solutions that do not break the bank. </p>
<p>Clearly there are plans for upgrading rail access through several proposed rail projects, including the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-19/melbourne-rail-a-better-deal-than-east-west-toll-planners-say/5902268">original Melbourne Metro plan</a>, and the <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PTV/PTV%20docs/Melbourne-Airport/Melbourne-Airport-Rail-Link-Study-Overview.pdf">Airport Rail Link</a>. <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/rail-projects/doncaster-rail-study">Doncaster Rail</a> should remain on the table, hopefully not for another 100 years, as it is a simple and direct way to move passengers east-west. </p>
<p>The freight system seems to be amenable to much simpler concepts than the East-West Tunnel, like those <a href="http://habitattrustmelbourne.org.au">presented by the Habitat Trust</a>, using several inland rail interchange facilities.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/spinifex/bays-precinct-five-principles-emerge-from-summit/69895">same principles</a> should lead New South Wales to modify the Connex West project, especially where it spills traffic into Sydney’s central and inner areas. Such traffic “solutions” actually harm the economy of inner urban areas, burying investment opportunities under bitumen for parking and road-widening, and congesting areas that already have too many cars. </p>
<p>The public can sense that we have to update the way we travel and how we build cities so they are not car-dependent. The road-building brigade needs to take a deep breath and see that their plans are old-fashioned. Perhaps the legacy of the East-West Tunnel will be that such projects will never again be foisted on the Australian public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34914/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Newman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labor’s state election victory in Victoria has fatally undermined Melbourne’s most controversial tunnel, the now-doomed East-West Link, with new Premier Daniel Andrews pledging to rip up the contracts…Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/343642014-12-01T02:59:18Z2014-12-01T02:59:18ZVictorian election: Labor triumph or Coalition disaster – or neither?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65865/original/image-20141130-20565-1nv8c9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Victorian premier-elect Daniel Andrews and his colleagues now have the chance to demonstrate unity, discipline and functionality to a swinging electorate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joe Castro</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After Daniel Andrews and Labor’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-wins-victorian-election-but-watch-for-upper-house-chaos-34796">decisive victory</a> in the Victorian state election at the weekend, there has been – not unexpectedly – a welter of post-election opinion trying to account for the rather unusual outcome in which a government was tipped from office after only one term. </p>
<p>In these analyses, the federal government has loomed large as a target. This suits Labor, which hopes to replicate the Victorian outcome at the next federal contest. But it also suits the Victorian Liberals, who would rather blame their New South Wales-based federal counterparts for this spectacular failure. </p>
<p>With the exception of the seat of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/vic-election-2014/guide/shep/">Shepparton</a> – where Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/spc-ardmona-rejects-abbott-governments-blistering-attack-on-working-conditions/story-fncynjr2-1226817781267">insensitive comments</a> about workers at the SPC Ardmona food processing plant clearly helped re-align former National voters to the independent candidate – it is doubtful that the Victorian outcome was profoundly influenced by Abbott and his federal colleagues. Opinion polling showed that the Victorian coalition government was losing support from the moment it came to office in 2010 and this trend did not alter.</p>
<p>The causes of the result were essentially Victorian. The Liberal government <a href="https://theconversation.com/baillieus-bombshell-resignation-where-to-now-for-victoria-12676">lost its first leader</a>, Ted Baillieu, amid intrigues about a leadership challenge. Into the breach stepped the avuncular but not particularly inspiring Denis Napthine.</p>
<p>Far from solving the internal tensions, Baillieu’s departure seemed to indicate that the rogue Liberal-turned-independent member for the marginal seat of Frankston, Geoff Shaw, had a taste for upsetting the operation of his (now former) party and he was prepared to go on with it. </p>
<p>Angry about being pursued for allegedly misusing parliamentary entitlements, Shaw proceeded to pursue his former Liberal comrades in retaliation. On at least two occasions he threatened to bring down the government. Shaw was able to add the scalps of lower house speaker <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/victorian-parliamentary-speaker-ken-smith-resigns/5237488">Ken Smith</a> and corrective services minister <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/napthines-crew-in-the-sights-of-a-loose-cannon-20130427-2ilbe.html">Andrew McIntosh</a> – both forced to resign – to that of Baillieu. </p>
<p>With friends like this, the Liberal Party hardly needed enemies.</p>
<h2>Policy challenges</h2>
<p>The Liberal and National parties now have four years to reflect on their lost opportunity. Labor returns to government with a narrow majority and possibly facing an upper house in which the balance of power will be held by minor parties of the left (especially the Greens) and populist and socially conservative parties of the right. </p>
<p>The policy themes discussed during the campaign were standard Labor promises. This included putting <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/victoria-election-2014-well-get-you-back-to-work-vows-daniel-andrews/story-fnqetyrp-1227138219259">more resources</a> into the public sector and trying to alleviate the industrial hostility in the <a href="http://www.danielandrews.com.au/policy/only-labor-will-end-the-ambulance-crisis/">emergency services sector</a> left behind by the Napthine government. </p>
<p>Arguably the most contentious matter to arise from the campaign was the question of transport policy. Both sides committed themselves to infrastructure projects. The major point of difference, however, was over the proposed East West Link between the Eastern and Tullamarine freeways by way of a tunnel to be constructed under the inner-city suburbs of Collingwood and Parkville. </p>
<p>These suburbs are part of the state seat of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/vic-election-2014/guide/melb/">Melbourne</a> – the epicentre of concentrated support for the Greens. That may have led to the formerly Labor stronghold potentially <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/victorian-election-2014-greens-win-melbourne-in-historic-victory-20141130-11wvc6.html">being lost</a>. </p>
<p>Alert to the electoral problem and anxious to attack the Coalition for the way it approached building the tunnel, Labor changed its policy from initially saying that it would honour any construction contract entered in to by the Coalition to instead taking a <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/labor-says-no-to-the-tunnel-but-uncertainty-remains-20141122-11rxog.html">“no tunnel” position</a>. This was a high-risk strategy for Labor. The policy shift was roundly condemned by business interests and at least one of the state’s two daily <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/coalition-has-the-best-policies-for-the-state-20141127-11vjq3.html">newspapers</a> as irresponsible and a poor signal to send to investors. </p>
<p>The election result, however, vindicated Labor’s strategy. Andrews can at least expect that the parliament – including the upper house, with what might be a phalanx of Greens – will support him in any legislative exercise to <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/victoria-election-2014-daniel-andrews-to-release-east-west-link-documents-20141130-11wzn6.html">extricate Victoria</a> from whatever contracts the former government signed. </p>
<h2>A complex upper house</h2>
<p>The make-up of the Legislative Council will take some time to determine, but the key feature of the Victorian upper house election was that it replicated the voting behaviour of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-2013-senate-contest-australia-lurches-to-the-right-17535">last year’s Senate election</a>. </p>
<p>Both major parties have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/vic-election-2014/results/legislative-council/">lost ground</a> to the minor parties of the left and right. The re-alignment of former Labor voters to the Greens continued in this election. It seems that the Sex Party also took votes away. The Coalition has lost significant support in rural districts to the plethora of socially conservative and right-wing populist parties. </p>
<p>These parties will have the balance of power in the upper house, but this may not really matter to Labor as it has a lower house majority. The removal of the Legislative Council’s ability to block supply was one of the main consequences of the <a href="http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/51dea49770555ea6ca256da4001b90cd/75a044f7328eae28ca256e5b00214042/$FILE/03-002a.pdf">reform of the Victorian constitution</a> in 2003. To become law, an appropriation bill need only pass the Legislative Assembly.</p>
<p>Even on other legislative matters, the new government has some constitutional tools at its disposal to try to get its way, although negotiation and bargaining will still be the order of the day. After Andrews, the next most important person in the government could well be Gavin Jennings, who will lead the government in the Legislative Council and will be the negotiator-in-chief.</p>
<p>Labor is at the beginning of a guaranteed four-year term that can’t be disrupted by external forces. Andrews and his colleagues have the chance to demonstrate unity, discipline and functionality to a Victorian electorate whose swinging voters have shown that they value this above promises, circuses and vilifying opponents. </p>
<p>The Liberals, meanwhile, will have to undertake the painful task of rejuvenation. The National Party needs to re-connect with its constituents, lest the oft-made claim that Victoria really is something of a naturally Labor state proves to be true.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34364/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Economou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After Daniel Andrews and Labor’s decisive victory in the Victorian state election at the weekend, there has been – not unexpectedly – a welter of post-election opinion trying to account for the rather…Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.