Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Evidence of Housing Crisis in the Basscoast
The Star Newspaper March 30, 2010
The Sentinel Times Newspaper March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Here is an example of a Government letter and our response
Annoyed at the form responses you are getting from the government to your letters about the desalination plant? Feeling that you aren’t being listened to and your questions aren’t being answered? Write back anyway, at least it might give someone a job, cutting and pasting more form replies.
Here is an example of a Government letter and our response:
DESALINATION PROJECT
Thank you for your letter of XX XXXXX 2009 to the Premier regarding the Wonthaggi desalination plant. I am responding on the Premier’s behalf.
Victoria has a long history as a leader in developing innovative approaches to manage water resources.
Victoria hasn’t really sought a new source of water since the Thomson dam was proposed in the 1970’s, the Government have sat on their hands despite many, many years of warnings and continue to lag in the development of aquifer storage / recovery, purified recycled water and incentives for rainwater tanks and continue to waste 30 Gl per annum by allowing logging in our catchments.
For example, Victoria was the first jurisdiction in Australia to unbundle our water entitlements – which allows them to be bought and sold independently of land - enabling them to be traded more freely and to support farmers to manage their future more flexibly.
I’m not sure this is a good thing, water available to the highest bidder and in unregulated? quantities!
In keeping with this history of innovation, in 2007, the Victorian Government released Our Water Our Future: The Next Stage of the Government’s Water Plan – to secure water supplies for a growing population and economy in the face of drought and to add to climate change. Innovative approaches such as water recycling and conservation are a small important components of this plan.
And these options are likely to be further sidelined due to the excessive size of the desalination plant
For example, the Water Plan includes an upgrade of Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide more than 100 billion litres of Class A recycled water a year from 2012.
And then pumping the majority out to sea (more than 60% of it for decades to come).
The Government is investigating potential uses for this water including watering parks and gardens, irrigation projects and third-pipe systems in new housing estates.
But don’t have the foresight to allow the obvious and ultimate sustainable option; further treatment of the Class A water to purified recycled water to allow it to be safely used as drinking water via our reservoirs, or via Aquifer Storage / Recovery.
Investigations are currently underway to identify projects which are both cost effective and have significant community benefits.
Assistance is also being provided through the Smart Water Fund to encourage industry to develop innovative solutions to recycle water. For example, the Smart Water Fund has provided funding to the Melbourne Aquarium to recycle up to 20,000 litres (this is just the quantity of a single household water tank) of water per week, through a combination of rooftop rainwater collection, Melbourne Aquarium only have a tiny 5000 litre tank!, and why aren’t tanks being retrofitted as mandatory to all public buildings?
desalination and reclaimed water from freshwater displays.(what are the economics of doing this for such a small return, this ain’t going to solve Melbourne’s water sustainability)
As a result of Government investment in water recycling since 1999, Melbourne now uses more recycled water than any other Australian city.(but still at a level to be very ashamed of)
In 2007/08, Melbourne used 66.7 billion litres of recycled water – almost three times the amount used by the next closest Australian city.
And nearly half this is completely bogus use ‘on site’ at treatment plants, flushing pipes, etc. The rest is largely low grade agricultural use. South East QLD and Adelaide are way ahead.
The Government is also encouraging business and industry to reduce water use through a range of targeted programs, including the WaterMAP program, which requires large water users to develop a water savings plan,which the government doesn’t enforce, or penalise if targets not met and the provision of grants to innovative water saving projects through the Smart Water Fund. With this assistance, Melbourne’s business and industry have reduced their water use by 38 per cent compared with the 1990s.
They did this largely off their own bat early and there has been very little improvement over recent years with the ‘Smart Water’ Fund and other ‘initiatives’
As you can see, the Government has adopted a range of innovative approaches to secure Victoria’s water supplies. However, saving and recycling water is not enough and Victoria needs to increase its water supplies. This is why the Victorian Government committed to building a 150 GL desalination plant at Wonthaggi.
Ignoring the economic and environmental benefits available from the alternative augmentation options, and in fact excluding them by the obscene scale of desalination chosen.
The desalination plant is being delivered as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) under the Government’s Partnerships Victoria framework. The Partnerships Victoria framework requires that bids for the desalination plant project be tested against the Government’s benchmark, the Public Sector Comparator (PSC).
An instrument that is not transparent to public scrutiny and just a tool to justify poor government decision making, see: http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2009/07/08/1246732378094.html
It enables the Government to test whether a private investment proposal offers value for money in comparison with the most efficient form of public procurement. The PSC underscores the Victorian Government’s commitment to only use PPPs if they represent good value for money and are in the public interest.
Why can’t we see the figures then? The State Government refuse to release the business case for abandoned use of recycled water from the Eastern Treatment Plant. They haven’t even done a business case for the desalination plant. The public’s confidence in it’s government is seriously diminished by this kind of behaviour.
Desalinated water will be delivered from the private sector to the State Government owned water authorities who will deliver this water to households. The Government will own the water, thus the public interest and ownership of water is protected.
But the government has given this consortium guarantees to purchase their water ahead of cheaper options, and refuses to disclose the contracts around its supply (even after saying that the contracts would be made available after signing).
The AquaSure consortium has been awarded the contract to build the $3.5 billion
$4.8 billion at least, as admitted by AquaSure chairman on ABC’s Stateline program 31st July 2009. Click here to see a short segment. desalination plant which will result in as many as 1,700 direct new jobs.
Far fewer jobs than would have been secured by cheaper sustainable alternatives. And they would have been long term ongoing jobs where the desal plant will only have about 50 ongoing jobs long term.
The delivery of this project will provide a new drinking water supply that is not rainfall dependent.
Recycling and efficiency measures are also rainfall independant, and there is so much totally untapped stormwater that this argument becomes a bit pale.
Once in operation the plant will provide 150 billion litres of water each year to Melbourne and regional Victoria.
Which regions? South Gippsland Water doesn’t need it, having a water security plan in place to 2050 without desalination.
The project represents value for money for water users,
Not at five or more times current water price as would appear to be the case from the price tag ($4.8+billion) with AquaSure able to secure finance for the project in a challenging economic climate.
Only with the State (us) taking a substantial chunk of the risk. What was that about PPP’s allowing the private sector to bear the risk?
The project will have the flexibility to supply between 0 and 100 per cent of the plant’s capacity in block increments.
However the government have said the desal must operate at full capacity until dam levels at the lowest time of year are 65%, equivalent to up to 80% at the wettest part of the year! And we will pay a fee to AquaSure if no, or anything less than 100% of capacity is ordered. Possibly even if it is operating at full capacity, we aren’t being given any of these details.
The project includes innovative features such as a secure underground power supply;
Another EES advantage for the region, i.e. having our ‘at capacity’ grid infrastructure improved, being reneged on with power being delivered to the plant only, a commitment to undertake renewable energy projects to offset the plant’s energy use;
Thus tying up a huge chunk of renewables to cover new and unnecessary energy consumption, rather than using renewables to actually offset existing emissions to allow a reduction in overall emissions, and a chance at a safe climate future, and delivering benefits to the local community, including a new broadband fibre optic cable will this be the next promise (like upgrading our power infrastructure) to be reneged on? AquaSure employees are telling us the broadband cable to be laid is just to service sensor, valve actuation, etc, of the pipe and pumping infrastructure, and not to be available for communities along the pipe route. and a secure
unsustainable local water supply.
While via 8000 litres of effluent discharge, disruptive underwater noise and 30 tonnes per day of killed sealife contributing to an environmental marine tragedy; shameful while sustainable and cheaper alternatives are not being fulfilled.
Thank you for writing to the Premier to express your interest in Victoria’s water supplies.
Yours sincerely,
XXXX
Here is an example of a Government letter and our response:
DESALINATION PROJECT
Thank you for your letter of XX XXXXX 2009 to the Premier regarding the Wonthaggi desalination plant. I am responding on the Premier’s behalf.
Victoria has a long history as a leader in developing innovative approaches to manage water resources.
Victoria hasn’t really sought a new source of water since the Thomson dam was proposed in the 1970’s, the Government have sat on their hands despite many, many years of warnings and continue to lag in the development of aquifer storage / recovery, purified recycled water and incentives for rainwater tanks and continue to waste 30 Gl per annum by allowing logging in our catchments.
For example, Victoria was the first jurisdiction in Australia to unbundle our water entitlements – which allows them to be bought and sold independently of land - enabling them to be traded more freely and to support farmers to manage their future more flexibly.
I’m not sure this is a good thing, water available to the highest bidder and in unregulated? quantities!
In keeping with this history of innovation, in 2007, the Victorian Government released Our Water Our Future: The Next Stage of the Government’s Water Plan – to secure water supplies for a growing population and economy in the face of drought and to add to climate change. Innovative approaches such as water recycling and conservation are a small important components of this plan.
And these options are likely to be further sidelined due to the excessive size of the desalination plant
For example, the Water Plan includes an upgrade of Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide more than 100 billion litres of Class A recycled water a year from 2012.
And then pumping the majority out to sea (more than 60% of it for decades to come).
The Government is investigating potential uses for this water including watering parks and gardens, irrigation projects and third-pipe systems in new housing estates.
But don’t have the foresight to allow the obvious and ultimate sustainable option; further treatment of the Class A water to purified recycled water to allow it to be safely used as drinking water via our reservoirs, or via Aquifer Storage / Recovery.
Investigations are currently underway to identify projects which are both cost effective and have significant community benefits.
Assistance is also being provided through the Smart Water Fund to encourage industry to develop innovative solutions to recycle water. For example, the Smart Water Fund has provided funding to the Melbourne Aquarium to recycle up to 20,000 litres (this is just the quantity of a single household water tank) of water per week, through a combination of rooftop rainwater collection, Melbourne Aquarium only have a tiny 5000 litre tank!, and why aren’t tanks being retrofitted as mandatory to all public buildings?
desalination and reclaimed water from freshwater displays.(what are the economics of doing this for such a small return, this ain’t going to solve Melbourne’s water sustainability)
As a result of Government investment in water recycling since 1999, Melbourne now uses more recycled water than any other Australian city.(but still at a level to be very ashamed of)
In 2007/08, Melbourne used 66.7 billion litres of recycled water – almost three times the amount used by the next closest Australian city.
And nearly half this is completely bogus use ‘on site’ at treatment plants, flushing pipes, etc. The rest is largely low grade agricultural use. South East QLD and Adelaide are way ahead.
The Government is also encouraging business and industry to reduce water use through a range of targeted programs, including the WaterMAP program, which requires large water users to develop a water savings plan,which the government doesn’t enforce, or penalise if targets not met and the provision of grants to innovative water saving projects through the Smart Water Fund. With this assistance, Melbourne’s business and industry have reduced their water use by 38 per cent compared with the 1990s.
They did this largely off their own bat early and there has been very little improvement over recent years with the ‘Smart Water’ Fund and other ‘initiatives’
As you can see, the Government has adopted a range of innovative approaches to secure Victoria’s water supplies. However, saving and recycling water is not enough and Victoria needs to increase its water supplies. This is why the Victorian Government committed to building a 150 GL desalination plant at Wonthaggi.
Ignoring the economic and environmental benefits available from the alternative augmentation options, and in fact excluding them by the obscene scale of desalination chosen.
The desalination plant is being delivered as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) under the Government’s Partnerships Victoria framework. The Partnerships Victoria framework requires that bids for the desalination plant project be tested against the Government’s benchmark, the Public Sector Comparator (PSC).
An instrument that is not transparent to public scrutiny and just a tool to justify poor government decision making, see: http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2009/07/08/1246732378094.html
It enables the Government to test whether a private investment proposal offers value for money in comparison with the most efficient form of public procurement. The PSC underscores the Victorian Government’s commitment to only use PPPs if they represent good value for money and are in the public interest.
Why can’t we see the figures then? The State Government refuse to release the business case for abandoned use of recycled water from the Eastern Treatment Plant. They haven’t even done a business case for the desalination plant. The public’s confidence in it’s government is seriously diminished by this kind of behaviour.
Desalinated water will be delivered from the private sector to the State Government owned water authorities who will deliver this water to households. The Government will own the water, thus the public interest and ownership of water is protected.
But the government has given this consortium guarantees to purchase their water ahead of cheaper options, and refuses to disclose the contracts around its supply (even after saying that the contracts would be made available after signing).
The AquaSure consortium has been awarded the contract to build the $3.5 billion
$4.8 billion at least, as admitted by AquaSure chairman on ABC’s Stateline program 31st July 2009. Click here to see a short segment. desalination plant which will result in as many as 1,700 direct new jobs.
Far fewer jobs than would have been secured by cheaper sustainable alternatives. And they would have been long term ongoing jobs where the desal plant will only have about 50 ongoing jobs long term.
The delivery of this project will provide a new drinking water supply that is not rainfall dependent.
Recycling and efficiency measures are also rainfall independant, and there is so much totally untapped stormwater that this argument becomes a bit pale.
Once in operation the plant will provide 150 billion litres of water each year to Melbourne and regional Victoria.
Which regions? South Gippsland Water doesn’t need it, having a water security plan in place to 2050 without desalination.
The project represents value for money for water users,
Not at five or more times current water price as would appear to be the case from the price tag ($4.8+billion) with AquaSure able to secure finance for the project in a challenging economic climate.
Only with the State (us) taking a substantial chunk of the risk. What was that about PPP’s allowing the private sector to bear the risk?
The project will have the flexibility to supply between 0 and 100 per cent of the plant’s capacity in block increments.
However the government have said the desal must operate at full capacity until dam levels at the lowest time of year are 65%, equivalent to up to 80% at the wettest part of the year! And we will pay a fee to AquaSure if no, or anything less than 100% of capacity is ordered. Possibly even if it is operating at full capacity, we aren’t being given any of these details.
The project includes innovative features such as a secure underground power supply;
Another EES advantage for the region, i.e. having our ‘at capacity’ grid infrastructure improved, being reneged on with power being delivered to the plant only, a commitment to undertake renewable energy projects to offset the plant’s energy use;
Thus tying up a huge chunk of renewables to cover new and unnecessary energy consumption, rather than using renewables to actually offset existing emissions to allow a reduction in overall emissions, and a chance at a safe climate future, and delivering benefits to the local community, including a new broadband fibre optic cable will this be the next promise (like upgrading our power infrastructure) to be reneged on? AquaSure employees are telling us the broadband cable to be laid is just to service sensor, valve actuation, etc, of the pipe and pumping infrastructure, and not to be available for communities along the pipe route. and a secure
unsustainable local water supply.
While via 8000 litres of effluent discharge, disruptive underwater noise and 30 tonnes per day of killed sealife contributing to an environmental marine tragedy; shameful while sustainable and cheaper alternatives are not being fulfilled.
Thank you for writing to the Premier to express your interest in Victoria’s water supplies.
Yours sincerely,
XXXX
WATERSHED VICTORIA - New Group
YOUR WATER YOUR SAY ACTION GROUP INC. - FUTURE FOCUS.
As a result of the inability or unwillingness of the Federal or State Governments - Peter Garrett & Tim Holding respectively - to make a decision as to whether to pursue YWYS for court costs or not, YWYS is now unable to continue to "trade" or campaign against the desalination plant proposed for the Bass Coast.
As an incorporated group we have legal obligations under the Corporations Act and as a result of having potential debts that we cannot service we need to ensure that we are not 'trading whilst insolvent'. If we were then there is a chance the individual directors or committee or management could be held liable and obviously this is not a course of action that we can sanction.
YWYS will continue to exist up until a time when the court cost issue is resolved either through a negotiated settlement with the Governments or through a winding up if the Governments decide to pursue costs that we do not have. YWYS can continue to campaign against the court cost issue and we believe this is a very important issue that has implications for all community groups across Victoria. We will not be challenging the cost order through legal channels as we believe this would be very unlikely to succeed so we will pursue this issue through the court of public opinion.
We are continuing to work through our lawyers - Arnold Bloch & Leibler - to try to resolve the issue so it is hoped I can update everyone on a successful outcome at some point in time but there is no guarantee.
As a result of this the community decided last week to start a new community group to continue to fight the campaign and they are:
WATERSHED VICTORIA.
I believe they are putting together a new website which might be up and running urgently.
A dedicated and enthusiastic team is working hard to get the group up and running and as a result your support is needed to continue this campaign. Due to privacy issues it is necessary for YWYS subscribers to resubscribe to the new group so PLEASE send your contact details to dominic.gilligan@bigpond.com who will be setting up the database etc. for the new group.
YWYS and I thank you for your support and urge everyone to email dominic.gilligan@bigpond.com to continue to support the campaign as without your support the Government will build whatever monstrosity, at whatever cost and sustainable water options for Melbourne's water supply will be discarded to the waste bin.
Kind regards
Andrea Bolch
President
Your Water Your Say Action Group Inc.
abolch@austarnet.com.au
As a result of the inability or unwillingness of the Federal or State Governments - Peter Garrett & Tim Holding respectively - to make a decision as to whether to pursue YWYS for court costs or not, YWYS is now unable to continue to "trade" or campaign against the desalination plant proposed for the Bass Coast.
As an incorporated group we have legal obligations under the Corporations Act and as a result of having potential debts that we cannot service we need to ensure that we are not 'trading whilst insolvent'. If we were then there is a chance the individual directors or committee or management could be held liable and obviously this is not a course of action that we can sanction.
YWYS will continue to exist up until a time when the court cost issue is resolved either through a negotiated settlement with the Governments or through a winding up if the Governments decide to pursue costs that we do not have. YWYS can continue to campaign against the court cost issue and we believe this is a very important issue that has implications for all community groups across Victoria. We will not be challenging the cost order through legal channels as we believe this would be very unlikely to succeed so we will pursue this issue through the court of public opinion.
We are continuing to work through our lawyers - Arnold Bloch & Leibler - to try to resolve the issue so it is hoped I can update everyone on a successful outcome at some point in time but there is no guarantee.
As a result of this the community decided last week to start a new community group to continue to fight the campaign and they are:
WATERSHED VICTORIA.
I believe they are putting together a new website which might be up and running urgently.
A dedicated and enthusiastic team is working hard to get the group up and running and as a result your support is needed to continue this campaign. Due to privacy issues it is necessary for YWYS subscribers to resubscribe to the new group so PLEASE send your contact details to dominic.gilligan@bigpond.com who will be setting up the database etc. for the new group.
YWYS and I thank you for your support and urge everyone to email dominic.gilligan@bigpond.com to continue to support the campaign as without your support the Government will build whatever monstrosity, at whatever cost and sustainable water options for Melbourne's water supply will be discarded to the waste bin.
Kind regards
Andrea Bolch
President
Your Water Your Say Action Group Inc.
abolch@austarnet.com.au
Brumby's water plan savaged.
Written by: MELISSA FYFE
The Age.
March 28, 2010
JOHN Brumby's multibillion-dollar plan to save water in northern Victoria and boost Melbourne's supply has been rubbished by Australia's top economists and water experts.
They say that the project is based on ''spurious'' claims and will result in the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money.
The government's controversial Foodbowl Modernisation Project is already pushing water bills higher and will drain a further $1.6 billion from state and federal coffers. But experts say taxpayers are forking out four times the money necessary to provide more water for the city and the environment.
''At the end of the day we will all pay because we will have fewer hospitals and fewer schools and a whole heap of irrigation infrastructure that will sit there like a giant white elephant,'' said La Trobe University water expert Professor Lin Crase.
Alistair Watson, one of Australia's most respected agricultural experts, said fellow economists were now calling the project ''the northern dog''.
The project, personally championed by Mr Brumby since he was treasurer as a historic opportunity to deliver more water for regional Victoria, Melbourne and the environment, will modernise the Goulburn-Murray's irrigation infrastructure by replacing old meters and lining channels.
The $1 billion first stage, expected to be finished by 2014, will deliver 225 billion litres in ''saved'' water, divided equally between irrigators, Melbourne and the environment. Melbourne's 75 billion litres will come down the already-completed $750 million north-south pipeline, which, since last month, has delivered water to the city from older rural water-saving projects and environmental reserves. Stage two, costing another $1 billion, will be funded by Commonwealth taxpayers, with 100 billion litres of water savings going to the environment and 100 billion litres to irrigators.
The damning criticism of the project comes as a government source familiar with the business case for stage two told The Sunday Age that the Victorian government had exaggerated how much more productive farmers will be under a better irrigation system, and that the productivity figures were ''not credible''.
The business case for stage two is now before the federal government, which is assessing the taxpayer value of the project. It is due to make a decision soon. The source, who declined to be named, described the project as a ''scandalous waste of billions of dollars''.
The project began in 2007 but it was only last month that the government released its business case for the first stage. It said that, over the next 20 years, the project's benefits will be twice as valuable as its $1 billion price tag. The Sunday Age asked a panel of 10 top public policy economists, water experts and agricultural economists to assess the claim.
The experts included some of the nation's leading economists, such as the University of Melbourne's John Freebairn, who said the money should be spent on other regional projects, and the University of Queensland's John Quiggin, who said the project did not ''stack up'' for the taxpayer and political pressure against going into the water market had forced the Victorian government to find ''high-cost solutions'' to Melbourne's water crisis.
The experts also included Oliver Gyles, a foodbowl irrigator who worked for the Victorian government as a senior economist for 14 years. He said the water savings did not appear possible.
The government declined to suggest an independent expert who would publicly back the project.
With the exception of one, the experts slammed the project, broadly echoing the Productivity Commission's December draft report into recovering water in the Murray-Darling basin.
This report found that the Foodbowl Modernisation Project ''seems to be at odds with due diligence requirements'' because taxpayers would be paying $10,000 for every million litres for Melbourne and the environment, instead of $2500 that federal Water Minister Penny Wong is paying for water from farmers who are willing to sell. This compares to $3300 per million litres for widespread retrofitting of rainwater tanks and up to $3230 for desalination water.
The experts said a cheaper solution to Melbourne's water crisis would be to forget expensive irrigation upgrades and instead buy the water from willing farmers in the north - although this is politically controversial - and deliver it through the north-south pipeline. They also say the economics of the pipeline will make little sense when less expensive desalination plant water comes online.
One of the economists, Professor Quentin Grafton, director of the Australian National University's Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, raised concerns about the business case. He said the bottom-line figures presented could not be properly evaluated, that they must be taken on ''trust''.
Monash University economist Glyn Wittwer, who was contracted by government consultants to model the economic benefit of the construction and maintenance phase in stage one, said the business case was confusing. He had estimated the project's construction value to be worth an extra $381 million to the Victorian economy to 2020, but the business case, he said, had inexplicably added another $624 million.
The panel of experts also attacked Mr Brumby's claim that the project is about ''creating new water'' and that large amounts of water are now ''lost''. Mr Brumby has often compared the irrigation district to a 44-gallon drum. ''The top half of it is punched full of holes; every time you fill it, it'll go empty, it'll go down to half-full, and that's exactly the position in the Goulburn-Murray system.''
But the experts said there were few real ''losses'' in over-allocated districts, such as Victoria's Murray basin areas.
Water flows off farms into drains, which are used by other farmers, or water leaks into soil through channels then travels underground in aquifers and is pumped out by farmers downstream or used by the river and wetlands as environmental flows.
Professor Crase described the government's claim of creating ''new'' water as ''spurious in the extreme''. ''When water is purportedly 'lost' in the irrigation district, it does not go to Mars. It is not lost at all, it has just gone somewhere else.''
Visiting fellow at the Australian National University, Donna Brennan, said: ''The benefits to the environment would need to be seriously questioned. Some of the water 'leaking' was actually returning to the system and ending up further down the river.''
The experts added that taxpayers should not be subsidising irrigation infrastructure - that if it was a good investment, irrigators would have committed the money themselves (they are contributing $100 million of the $2 billion cost).
The University of Adelaide's Professor Mike Young said it was likely that some Victorian irrigation districts that missed out on the government subsidy would be sent to the wall.
Victorian Water Minister Tim Holding refused to answer questions from The Sunday Age, including where the water losses from inefficient irrigation were currently going and whether the government compared the foodbowl project to the cost of other options for boosting Melbourne's water supplies.
In a statement, Mr Holding said: "It is obvious that if the Victorian government just wanted water for Melbourne or for the environment we could have just bought it off irrigators and let farming die in Victoria.
''Superficially, this may have looked like cheap water, but in truth it would have come at a catastrophic cost. I believe the people of Melbourne and all Victorian taxpayers are proud to help fund a project that will secure our foodbowl, boost exports and create jobs in the decades ahead."
Respected water expert John Langford, an engineer from the universities of Melbourne and Monash, was positive about the project because he said it provided better service delivery for irrigators. The key benefit, he said, was not water savings. Asked why Victorian taxpayers and higher water bills should pay for better service for irrigators, Professor Langford agreed Melburnians were paying a premium for the annual 75 billion litres in water savings coming down the north-south pipeline. But the government probably thought it was a good insurance policy for the city while the desalination plant was finished, he said.
Shepparton irrigator and businessman John Corboy defended the use of taxpayers' money on irrigation upgrades - likening it to government support for the car industry or freeway infrastructure for cities. He said the Goulburn-Murray irrigation community could not pay for its own infrastructure because of the long drought, low food prices, free trade and global market pressures.
Ask the experts: Is the foodbowl modernisation project good value for taxpayers?
PROFESSOR JOHN FREEBAIRN University of Melbourne economist, 35 years' experience
''The government could have bought water for the environment and Melbourne for a third of the cost. They then would have had more money to spend on potentially more productive projects in rural Victoria such as expanding tourism, better roads, better hospitals, better education.''
DR ALISTAIR WATSON Senior agricultural consultant
''Economists call the project the northern dog. The stuff about food security is an absolute furphy.''
PROFESSOR QUENTIN GRAFTON Director, Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Australian National University
''The business case just does not provide the information to make a proper evaluation. We have to accept the benefits and costs of the project on trust.''
PROFESSOR LIN CRASE La Trobe University professor of applied economics, specialising in water policy
''The government's claim that it is creating 'new' water is spurious in the extreme. When water is purportedly 'lost' in the irrigation district, it does not go to Mars. It is not lost at all, it has just gone somewhere else.''
PROFESSOR MIKE YOUNG Executive director of the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute
''This is gold-plating irrigation systems which will result in other irrigation systems in Victoria shutting down. If you are an irrigator who benefits from this you are very lucky - you are getting a huge [taxpayer] subsidy and a tremendous competitive advantage. But it is a huge loss to all other people in Australia because it is such an expensive way to solve a problem.''
PROFESSOR JOHN QUIGGIN University of Queensland economist
''The amount that is being paid by the taxpayer to get water for Melbourne is very high and in that sense this does not stack up.''
PROFESSOR JOHN LANGFORD Director of Uniwater, a joint initiative of the University of Melbourne and Monash x''The key benefit is not water savings, it is improving the level of service to irrigators … it is a good deal for the irrigators … we should end up with a more productive irrigation industry than we've got now.''
DR GLYN WITTWER Director of Uniwater, a joint initiative of the University of Melbourne and Monash University
''When the desalination plant becomes operational, there will be zero economic gains from the Sugarloaf (north-south) pipeline."
PROFESSOR DONNA BRENNAN ''Economist, visiting fellow at the Australian National University
''The benefits to the environment would need to be seriously questioned. Some of the water that was 'leaking' was actually returning to the system and ending up further down the river. As for the cost-benefit analysis, the results are very suspicious.''
OLIVER GYLES Foodbowl irrigator, worked as a senior economist with the Victorian government for 14 years
''I've looked at the veracity of the foodbowl project's claims to achieve real water savings … and I can't see that there will be any significant real savings.''
Extra water for Melbourne - how much do the options cost? (Cost per million litres)
Savings from foodbowl project $10,000
Buying water from willing farmers $2500
Rainwater tanks $3300
Stormwater recycling from streams $4500 up to $32,306
Desalination Recycled water into the drinking system about $1500
SOURCES: 1, 2: PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION 3: MELBOURNE WATER AND UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE PILOT PROGRAM, 2009 4: AVERAGE OF OPTIONS ASSESSED IN 2007 MELBOURNE WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY 5: RODERICK CAMPBELL, CONSULTING ECONOMIST 6: BASED ON SINGAPORE MODEL, VIA PROFESSOR JOHN LANGFORD
The Age.
March 28, 2010
JOHN Brumby's multibillion-dollar plan to save water in northern Victoria and boost Melbourne's supply has been rubbished by Australia's top economists and water experts.
They say that the project is based on ''spurious'' claims and will result in the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money.
The government's controversial Foodbowl Modernisation Project is already pushing water bills higher and will drain a further $1.6 billion from state and federal coffers. But experts say taxpayers are forking out four times the money necessary to provide more water for the city and the environment.
''At the end of the day we will all pay because we will have fewer hospitals and fewer schools and a whole heap of irrigation infrastructure that will sit there like a giant white elephant,'' said La Trobe University water expert Professor Lin Crase.
Alistair Watson, one of Australia's most respected agricultural experts, said fellow economists were now calling the project ''the northern dog''.
The project, personally championed by Mr Brumby since he was treasurer as a historic opportunity to deliver more water for regional Victoria, Melbourne and the environment, will modernise the Goulburn-Murray's irrigation infrastructure by replacing old meters and lining channels.
The $1 billion first stage, expected to be finished by 2014, will deliver 225 billion litres in ''saved'' water, divided equally between irrigators, Melbourne and the environment. Melbourne's 75 billion litres will come down the already-completed $750 million north-south pipeline, which, since last month, has delivered water to the city from older rural water-saving projects and environmental reserves. Stage two, costing another $1 billion, will be funded by Commonwealth taxpayers, with 100 billion litres of water savings going to the environment and 100 billion litres to irrigators.
The damning criticism of the project comes as a government source familiar with the business case for stage two told The Sunday Age that the Victorian government had exaggerated how much more productive farmers will be under a better irrigation system, and that the productivity figures were ''not credible''.
The business case for stage two is now before the federal government, which is assessing the taxpayer value of the project. It is due to make a decision soon. The source, who declined to be named, described the project as a ''scandalous waste of billions of dollars''.
The project began in 2007 but it was only last month that the government released its business case for the first stage. It said that, over the next 20 years, the project's benefits will be twice as valuable as its $1 billion price tag. The Sunday Age asked a panel of 10 top public policy economists, water experts and agricultural economists to assess the claim.
The experts included some of the nation's leading economists, such as the University of Melbourne's John Freebairn, who said the money should be spent on other regional projects, and the University of Queensland's John Quiggin, who said the project did not ''stack up'' for the taxpayer and political pressure against going into the water market had forced the Victorian government to find ''high-cost solutions'' to Melbourne's water crisis.
The experts also included Oliver Gyles, a foodbowl irrigator who worked for the Victorian government as a senior economist for 14 years. He said the water savings did not appear possible.
The government declined to suggest an independent expert who would publicly back the project.
With the exception of one, the experts slammed the project, broadly echoing the Productivity Commission's December draft report into recovering water in the Murray-Darling basin.
This report found that the Foodbowl Modernisation Project ''seems to be at odds with due diligence requirements'' because taxpayers would be paying $10,000 for every million litres for Melbourne and the environment, instead of $2500 that federal Water Minister Penny Wong is paying for water from farmers who are willing to sell. This compares to $3300 per million litres for widespread retrofitting of rainwater tanks and up to $3230 for desalination water.
The experts said a cheaper solution to Melbourne's water crisis would be to forget expensive irrigation upgrades and instead buy the water from willing farmers in the north - although this is politically controversial - and deliver it through the north-south pipeline. They also say the economics of the pipeline will make little sense when less expensive desalination plant water comes online.
One of the economists, Professor Quentin Grafton, director of the Australian National University's Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, raised concerns about the business case. He said the bottom-line figures presented could not be properly evaluated, that they must be taken on ''trust''.
Monash University economist Glyn Wittwer, who was contracted by government consultants to model the economic benefit of the construction and maintenance phase in stage one, said the business case was confusing. He had estimated the project's construction value to be worth an extra $381 million to the Victorian economy to 2020, but the business case, he said, had inexplicably added another $624 million.
The panel of experts also attacked Mr Brumby's claim that the project is about ''creating new water'' and that large amounts of water are now ''lost''. Mr Brumby has often compared the irrigation district to a 44-gallon drum. ''The top half of it is punched full of holes; every time you fill it, it'll go empty, it'll go down to half-full, and that's exactly the position in the Goulburn-Murray system.''
But the experts said there were few real ''losses'' in over-allocated districts, such as Victoria's Murray basin areas.
Water flows off farms into drains, which are used by other farmers, or water leaks into soil through channels then travels underground in aquifers and is pumped out by farmers downstream or used by the river and wetlands as environmental flows.
Professor Crase described the government's claim of creating ''new'' water as ''spurious in the extreme''. ''When water is purportedly 'lost' in the irrigation district, it does not go to Mars. It is not lost at all, it has just gone somewhere else.''
Visiting fellow at the Australian National University, Donna Brennan, said: ''The benefits to the environment would need to be seriously questioned. Some of the water 'leaking' was actually returning to the system and ending up further down the river.''
The experts added that taxpayers should not be subsidising irrigation infrastructure - that if it was a good investment, irrigators would have committed the money themselves (they are contributing $100 million of the $2 billion cost).
The University of Adelaide's Professor Mike Young said it was likely that some Victorian irrigation districts that missed out on the government subsidy would be sent to the wall.
Victorian Water Minister Tim Holding refused to answer questions from The Sunday Age, including where the water losses from inefficient irrigation were currently going and whether the government compared the foodbowl project to the cost of other options for boosting Melbourne's water supplies.
In a statement, Mr Holding said: "It is obvious that if the Victorian government just wanted water for Melbourne or for the environment we could have just bought it off irrigators and let farming die in Victoria.
''Superficially, this may have looked like cheap water, but in truth it would have come at a catastrophic cost. I believe the people of Melbourne and all Victorian taxpayers are proud to help fund a project that will secure our foodbowl, boost exports and create jobs in the decades ahead."
Respected water expert John Langford, an engineer from the universities of Melbourne and Monash, was positive about the project because he said it provided better service delivery for irrigators. The key benefit, he said, was not water savings. Asked why Victorian taxpayers and higher water bills should pay for better service for irrigators, Professor Langford agreed Melburnians were paying a premium for the annual 75 billion litres in water savings coming down the north-south pipeline. But the government probably thought it was a good insurance policy for the city while the desalination plant was finished, he said.
Shepparton irrigator and businessman John Corboy defended the use of taxpayers' money on irrigation upgrades - likening it to government support for the car industry or freeway infrastructure for cities. He said the Goulburn-Murray irrigation community could not pay for its own infrastructure because of the long drought, low food prices, free trade and global market pressures.
Ask the experts: Is the foodbowl modernisation project good value for taxpayers?
PROFESSOR JOHN FREEBAIRN University of Melbourne economist, 35 years' experience
''The government could have bought water for the environment and Melbourne for a third of the cost. They then would have had more money to spend on potentially more productive projects in rural Victoria such as expanding tourism, better roads, better hospitals, better education.''
DR ALISTAIR WATSON Senior agricultural consultant
''Economists call the project the northern dog. The stuff about food security is an absolute furphy.''
PROFESSOR QUENTIN GRAFTON Director, Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Australian National University
''The business case just does not provide the information to make a proper evaluation. We have to accept the benefits and costs of the project on trust.''
PROFESSOR LIN CRASE La Trobe University professor of applied economics, specialising in water policy
''The government's claim that it is creating 'new' water is spurious in the extreme. When water is purportedly 'lost' in the irrigation district, it does not go to Mars. It is not lost at all, it has just gone somewhere else.''
PROFESSOR MIKE YOUNG Executive director of the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute
''This is gold-plating irrigation systems which will result in other irrigation systems in Victoria shutting down. If you are an irrigator who benefits from this you are very lucky - you are getting a huge [taxpayer] subsidy and a tremendous competitive advantage. But it is a huge loss to all other people in Australia because it is such an expensive way to solve a problem.''
PROFESSOR JOHN QUIGGIN University of Queensland economist
''The amount that is being paid by the taxpayer to get water for Melbourne is very high and in that sense this does not stack up.''
PROFESSOR JOHN LANGFORD Director of Uniwater, a joint initiative of the University of Melbourne and Monash x''The key benefit is not water savings, it is improving the level of service to irrigators … it is a good deal for the irrigators … we should end up with a more productive irrigation industry than we've got now.''
DR GLYN WITTWER Director of Uniwater, a joint initiative of the University of Melbourne and Monash University
''When the desalination plant becomes operational, there will be zero economic gains from the Sugarloaf (north-south) pipeline."
PROFESSOR DONNA BRENNAN ''Economist, visiting fellow at the Australian National University
''The benefits to the environment would need to be seriously questioned. Some of the water that was 'leaking' was actually returning to the system and ending up further down the river. As for the cost-benefit analysis, the results are very suspicious.''
OLIVER GYLES Foodbowl irrigator, worked as a senior economist with the Victorian government for 14 years
''I've looked at the veracity of the foodbowl project's claims to achieve real water savings … and I can't see that there will be any significant real savings.''
Extra water for Melbourne - how much do the options cost? (Cost per million litres)
Savings from foodbowl project $10,000
Buying water from willing farmers $2500
Rainwater tanks $3300
Stormwater recycling from streams $4500 up to $32,306
Desalination Recycled water into the drinking system about $1500
SOURCES: 1, 2: PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION 3: MELBOURNE WATER AND UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE PILOT PROGRAM, 2009 4: AVERAGE OF OPTIONS ASSESSED IN 2007 MELBOURNE WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY 5: RODERICK CAMPBELL, CONSULTING ECONOMIST 6: BASED ON SINGAPORE MODEL, VIA PROFESSOR JOHN LANGFORD
Friday, March 26, 2010
Basscoast Rental Crisis 2010_0001.wmv
Video showing an update on the housing crisis being experianced at the moment.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
$150m desal pay bonanza
The Age
Written by: BEN SCHNEIDERS AND ROYCE MILLAR
March 22, 2010
THE developer of Victoria's controversial desalination plant will pay workers as
much as $150 million above industry standards in its bid to meet the deadline for
water to flow from the plant by 2011.
Extravagant pay and conditions for the plant's 1700 building workers - including a
$700 weekly allowance for living away from home - have sparked industry concerns
that the labour deals set a precedent that will blow out costs for infrastructure projects.
Under the deals, a labourer will be paid about 25 per cent above the standard and,
for a 56-hour week, a carpenter will earn more than $200,000 in wages and benefits,
nearly 30 per cent over the standard.
Some workers will be paid over 40 per cent more than their equivalents on the
Sydney desalination project.
A spokesman for Water Minister Tim Holding said yesterday: "Victorian taxpayers
will not pay one extra cent as a result of agreements for workers' pay and conditions
on the desalination project because we agreed to a fixed-price contract."
The Aquasure consortium, including French company Degremont and builder Thiess,
last year won the right to build and operate the plant over the BassWater group,
which included international water giant Veolia and Australian builder John Holland.
A senior government insider close to the project confirmed the state was well
aware that its tight deadline of December next year would come at a cost.
The source said Victoria's diminishing water supplies had led to a "desperate"
need for the plant to be finished quickly. "They [bidders] were told: 'You're
meeting this deadline.' "
But with improved rainfall in recent months, the government is finding the premium
paid for urgent desalination less palatable than when drought was a more pressing
issue.
Industry and government sources told The Age that failure to meet the deadline
would cost the consortium at least $2 million a day in lost revenue.
Aquasure sources said that while the labour costs were high, the severe penalties
for missing the deadline were of more concern. "I'm sure Thiess were no more
generous than they felt they had to be to achieve the flexibility they needed to
complete a massive project in a very short space of time."
An industry analysis of the agreement between Aquasure and five unions, obtained by
The Age, reveals total labour costs will be at least $100 million to $150 million above
the industry standard, based on the estimated 6 million labour hours required to
complete the plant.
The favourable conditions at Wonthaggi include an agreement for unions to be
consulted on contractors, broader right of entry for union officials and weaker
rules on industrial action.
Inquiries by The Age reveal that desalination plants in Queensland and New South
Wales were developed under the building industry's "civil" classification. By contrast,
a senior union source said the Wonthaggi plant was classified as a "mixed metals" or
metal construction rate, ensuring higher pay. He said the desalination project should
be measured against metal construction, not civil building projects.
Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch warned that
the "exorbitant" pay rates would set an artificially high bar for the rest of the industry.
"This job should have been completed at similar rates of pay as the Eastlink project,
was delivered ahead of time and on budget," he said.
‘‘Instead, we’re seeing taxpayers again held to ransom by militant unions and their
unreasonable demands.’’
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union state secretary Bill Oliver said the
deal set a high standard in the industry - but only for very large infrastructure projects.
Mr Oliver said unions were mindful of completing the project on time without industrial
strife. ‘‘The unions are concerned that it is important to the people of Victoria.’’
The major building companies in both short-listed bids - Thiess and John Holland -
are owned by Leighton Holdings.
Industry sources said the imperative for industrial peace suited Aquasure and
builder Thiess in particular.
‘‘Thiess’s traditional approach on such projects is, ‘How much do the bastards [unions]
want? Give them what they want and remove them as an issue,’ ’’ he said.
But John Holland, involved at the time of the bid process in a bitter dispute
over the widening of the West Gate Bridge, is renowned for taking a more aggressive
approach to industrial relations.
Senior executives at Thiess Degremont declined to be interviewed for this story
or to provide a written statement answering questions.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/150m-desal-pay-bonanza-20100321-qo2p.html
Written by: BEN SCHNEIDERS AND ROYCE MILLAR
March 22, 2010
THE developer of Victoria's controversial desalination plant will pay workers as
much as $150 million above industry standards in its bid to meet the deadline for
water to flow from the plant by 2011.
Extravagant pay and conditions for the plant's 1700 building workers - including a
$700 weekly allowance for living away from home - have sparked industry concerns
that the labour deals set a precedent that will blow out costs for infrastructure projects.
Under the deals, a labourer will be paid about 25 per cent above the standard and,
for a 56-hour week, a carpenter will earn more than $200,000 in wages and benefits,
nearly 30 per cent over the standard.
Some workers will be paid over 40 per cent more than their equivalents on the
Sydney desalination project.
A spokesman for Water Minister Tim Holding said yesterday: "Victorian taxpayers
will not pay one extra cent as a result of agreements for workers' pay and conditions
on the desalination project because we agreed to a fixed-price contract."
The Aquasure consortium, including French company Degremont and builder Thiess,
last year won the right to build and operate the plant over the BassWater group,
which included international water giant Veolia and Australian builder John Holland.
A senior government insider close to the project confirmed the state was well
aware that its tight deadline of December next year would come at a cost.
The source said Victoria's diminishing water supplies had led to a "desperate"
need for the plant to be finished quickly. "They [bidders] were told: 'You're
meeting this deadline.' "
But with improved rainfall in recent months, the government is finding the premium
paid for urgent desalination less palatable than when drought was a more pressing
issue.
Industry and government sources told The Age that failure to meet the deadline
would cost the consortium at least $2 million a day in lost revenue.
Aquasure sources said that while the labour costs were high, the severe penalties
for missing the deadline were of more concern. "I'm sure Thiess were no more
generous than they felt they had to be to achieve the flexibility they needed to
complete a massive project in a very short space of time."
An industry analysis of the agreement between Aquasure and five unions, obtained by
The Age, reveals total labour costs will be at least $100 million to $150 million above
the industry standard, based on the estimated 6 million labour hours required to
complete the plant.
The favourable conditions at Wonthaggi include an agreement for unions to be
consulted on contractors, broader right of entry for union officials and weaker
rules on industrial action.
Inquiries by The Age reveal that desalination plants in Queensland and New South
Wales were developed under the building industry's "civil" classification. By contrast,
a senior union source said the Wonthaggi plant was classified as a "mixed metals" or
metal construction rate, ensuring higher pay. He said the desalination project should
be measured against metal construction, not civil building projects.
Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch warned that
the "exorbitant" pay rates would set an artificially high bar for the rest of the industry.
"This job should have been completed at similar rates of pay as the Eastlink project,
was delivered ahead of time and on budget," he said.
‘‘Instead, we’re seeing taxpayers again held to ransom by militant unions and their
unreasonable demands.’’
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union state secretary Bill Oliver said the
deal set a high standard in the industry - but only for very large infrastructure projects.
Mr Oliver said unions were mindful of completing the project on time without industrial
strife. ‘‘The unions are concerned that it is important to the people of Victoria.’’
The major building companies in both short-listed bids - Thiess and John Holland -
are owned by Leighton Holdings.
Industry sources said the imperative for industrial peace suited Aquasure and
builder Thiess in particular.
‘‘Thiess’s traditional approach on such projects is, ‘How much do the bastards [unions]
want? Give them what they want and remove them as an issue,’ ’’ he said.
But John Holland, involved at the time of the bid process in a bitter dispute
over the widening of the West Gate Bridge, is renowned for taking a more aggressive
approach to industrial relations.
Senior executives at Thiess Degremont declined to be interviewed for this story
or to provide a written statement answering questions.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/150m-desal-pay-bonanza-20100321-qo2p.html
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Wynne annouces funding for Basscoast homes
There has been plans made to build low cost housing in the basscoast.
The catch is they wont be built for two years, so where do those being
forced from their homes go until then?
The council didnt want an accomodation camp built beside the desal plant
because they didnt want wonthaggi to look like a crappy town !
Now, there is no where to go and no emergency housing, so many will be living
in their cars or on the streets, how will that make the basscoast look, Mr Mayor?
The catch is they wont be built for two years, so where do those being
forced from their homes go until then?
The council didnt want an accomodation camp built beside the desal plant
because they didnt want wonthaggi to look like a crappy town !
Now, there is no where to go and no emergency housing, so many will be living
in their cars or on the streets, how will that make the basscoast look, Mr Mayor?
Melbournes water more important than people of the Basscoast
Why didn't the Brumby Government spend 3.5 billion on building
more homes in the Basscoast instead of 3.5 billion on supplying
Melbourne with water ?
more homes in the Basscoast instead of 3.5 billion on supplying
Melbourne with water ?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Why Squat? Why Not?
Are you being squeezed out by ridiculously high rents?
Tired of waiting for disinterested governments to come to your assistance?
Fed up with sleeping in parks/bus shelters/friends’ lounge room floors?
Take matters into your own hands — Go squat!
Despite government policies aimed at promoting ‘affordable’ housing, it’s clear that
the number of low-income people able to afford housing is rapidly decreasing.
The cost of private rental accommodation is increasing exponentially, pushing many
low-income earners away from the areas in which they and their friends live.
The private rental market is largely deregulated and tenancy laws afford low-income
earners little protection from the increasingly exorbitant rents demanded by landowners
and their real estate agents. It’s profit margins that count
Tired of waiting for disinterested governments to come to your assistance?
Fed up with sleeping in parks/bus shelters/friends’ lounge room floors?
Take matters into your own hands — Go squat!
Despite government policies aimed at promoting ‘affordable’ housing, it’s clear that
the number of low-income people able to afford housing is rapidly decreasing.
The cost of private rental accommodation is increasing exponentially, pushing many
low-income earners away from the areas in which they and their friends live.
The private rental market is largely deregulated and tenancy laws afford low-income
earners little protection from the increasingly exorbitant rents demanded by landowners
and their real estate agents. It’s profit margins that count
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
