Below is our coverage of the presentations made by the guest speakers at least week’s Community Forum. We invite debate and discussion on the points they raised.
Dr. Birrell – explicitly it is acknowledged that Melbourne 2030 is dead and that something different will take its place. …..we’ve seen a meteoric rise in Melbourne’s population growth….(but it’s going to fall)….because the reason why Melbourne’s population growth has accelerated is because of overseas migration. The dominant reason that overseas migration has contributed to the surge in Melbourne’s population is attributable to one group – overseas students. That acounted for about 60% of the migration growth in Victoria. …The overseas student industry is now in rapid decline and as a consequence it will affect Melbourne’s growth. No doubt about it. Melbourne could drop to the order of 50,000 or so….just because of this change in immigration policy. …But there’s more. One reason why Melbourne has been able to do so well as far as population growth is concerned ….because we have had the comparative advantage in the price of housing….that’s all changed. Prices of houses and land have escalated to the point where they are now more expensive than in Sth East Queensland. The possibility then of people leaving, particularly going to the west where land is cheaper than Melbourne and jobs are plentiful, to my mind is quite likely…..That may open up opportunities for rethinking the planning …that’s created the Phoenix Project.
DR. LAY – ‘we know that roads are congested….by any standard……We have a long time spent in traffic (by international standards). We have long distances,….The two things you can do when you are facing congestion is …to build a new road infrastructure and I don’t even know of any proposals to build new road infrastructure in this area. I couldn’t even think of what they might be. And the other is to make the roads work more efficiently. …Vic Roads is one of the world’s best authorities in terms of managing the road system…the traffic signal system is viewed around the world as one of the best….a model for elsewhere…..but what I’m saying is that we are already milking our road system as efficiently as possible….we are using our road system quite well at the moment and there’s really not a lot of reserve that they can fix the thing….I now want to … explain why you’ve got what you’ve got (in Glen Eira). …We all know that infrastructure like roAds and trains doesn’t happen overnight….what you’ve got in Glen Eira you’ve had since about 1840! …..it hasn’t changed much at all. Glen Eira wasn’t really the centre of the universe even when Melbourne was founded in 1834 and the big competition for Glen Eira was downtown Dandenong…as you headed from Dandenong to Melbourne as you look at the map it’s a straight line, until you get to Warrigal Rd. At Warrigal Rd they hit Gardiner’s Creek. And Gardiner’s Creek was a sloppy, muddy, impassable creek. And that’s where Dandenong Rd starts bending. Glen Eira was the pits. Glen Eira was a swamp. …..there were about 14 known swamps and in between the swamps there were wet stoppages. ….Dandenong Rd and the railway followed the edge of the swamp…all the bends are attempts at avoiding the worst bits of the swamp. …..Caulfield didn’t develop and what Dandenong Rd did and then the railway, was to make north south movement the popular route…but nothing here because of the swamp. …….You don’t have any decent connections running through! …The rest of Melbourne was divided on a mile square grid, but again because of the swamp and the other developments ……you’re stuck with a strange road system. It doesn’t really work as well as the rest of Melbourne and you’re also stuck with the fact that development happened around you. …..all sort of coming down on this area. And it was developed late….and the railways went through in about 1880 and again the railways weren’t built in this area to service Caulfield. They were built because down in Gippsland there was dairy farms, vegetables and then there was coal. So there was a market and private companies built the first railroad to get these products into Melbourne. …..The first shops weren’t in this area. They were along Hawthorn Rd. Camden Town was the first real (development) ….but they were not even strip shops in the way we understand them today like Glenferrie Rd (those active shopping strips) it didn’t develop the way the other side of the railway did. ….So you had a community which was very much a local community without any of the natural road infrastructure which was created elsewhere in Melbourne to provide the through traffic. You didn’t actually go through Caulfield to get to anywhere so there wasn’t any real demand….so nothing happened and the roads that you’ve got are very much a local road system. They’re flat so you put trams down them…but it is very much a local structure. There’s no way that you can conceive of that structure being any different in the future. There’s nothing that you can do; there are no fixes …..and I suppose that when I look at the future I don’t see any changes given the road infrastructure plans of Melbourne that there is any relationship to what happens in Glen Eira. ….You’ve inherited a road system….(all was in place) by the time motor cars came along about 1906. ……One of the propositions in 1906 was to ban cars in this area ……so even when cars came then it was recognised that this was not a community for fast rapid cars….
PROF CURRIE – one of the interesting positives about growth is that it’s helped the economy. And the CBD’s of capital cities have been a big part of growing the economy in Australia….the CBD’s have grown a huge amount. …There’s been a huge growth in the service sector and the knowledge economy….part of it was what Bob was talking about with international students…Australia is getting pretty good at using…universities as knowledge based economies with the service sector to actually feed off the economy of Asia in a very successful way. So it’s not just living off mining and so forth….When we talk about planning, there’s not a lot of success we can talk about, but here is one example we can. Growth in employment in the Melbourne CBD – it has skyrocketed…..(Then there is) the transport point of view….there’s been a lot of growth in usage, but also a growth in public transport usage..(the CBD) is now quite an interesting place; there’s a lot more people living there, and lots to do….the CBD has been very successful I think. ….We’re going to have some growth in different areas, but it’s mostly going to be in the outer suburbs…..in fact it has been. …Really it’s the fringe where growth is expected….It’s not going to be the same as it was in the past. We’ve got an ageing population and that ageing population is going to be in the outer suburbs. Why is it an issue? Well we won’t have the services and facilities in those places. …..What are the transport issues? Congestion! …the growth that has occurred has really been beyond what was originally forecast. …Business costs (because of congestion) are 3 billion dollars. …congestion is happening more and more in this area…We’ve got trams in the middle of traffic streams….so again slower…..traffic grows. Trains – massive meteoric growth in trains…..the trains in Melbourne are about 40% overloaded….(Question from audience: How does that compare with other countries?)…we’re about the same as Sydney….London would have similar congestion….
we haven’t talked about the environment ….you are surrounded by roads here and they are not nice things….accidents are still a major issue….there’s great concerns about how we’re going to drive in the future to get around….and one certain truth is affordability.. We’re experiencing another peak in fuel and we’re expecting much more…..when we have growth occurring in on the fringe this is a major concern…Also we’ve been walking less….Your area has got great sustainability. You’ve got great transport access, close to activities, within walking distance, ……There hasn’t been a great change in train travel in Glen eira, cars still dominate…..
Issues:…the bus service has no framework; rail crossings dominate. I think of Glen Eira as a suburb surrounded by transport problems and you’ve got through traffic that can’t get through….congestion is a real consequence. So what about the Phoenix project? One perspective is that we’re always talking about planning. You know, I often think that we don’t have planning in Melbourne. I think that whenever there’s growth and someone wants to develop they often, by any means possible, get what they want because they can get a market for it. I’m not saying that’s desirable, I just think that’s often what happens. But the real truth of where you are is that you are a mighty successful place. …..I think in the future that success will actually increase in many ways if your railway – you’ve got a very high quality railway -…..you’ve got great access in Melbourne to the CBD, and to developing areas, and regionally you’ve actually got direct connections to Gippsland and the rest of those areas. It’s quite staggering how well connected you are here. ….You guys are going to be a metro city that gives access to St. Kilda Rd and the CBD….Very desirable place in my opinion. And whether you are interested in development or not there will be a lot of pressure for it here. ….
There is an opportunity here to try and do this properly. I think it’s very hard for you to try and stop this (the Metro/Footscray link) ….and certainly the transport opportunities with the Metro and so forth will tie this into appropriate development….Melbourne doesn’t have a second CBD. With all the accessibility here and with all that’s happening particularly in the growth of knowledge centres …Caulfield would be a mighty attractive second CBD. I don’t think anybody wants it to be as big as Melbourne, or even as big as it is in North Sydney and Parramatta, but those places as well, don’t have the features that you have here already. you know, attractive development – a large university site. ….these will be a natural draw towards that…
JEREMY HEARN (architect/designer): I’ve worked on a fair number of master plans for activity centres all over Melbourne, going back to the original Docklands where I was on one of the teams that put a proposal in for one of the major segments of that development…..I had a bit of a look at the various influences that are coming to bear on the area around Caulfield station. …Our previous speakers have commented quite thoroughly on public transport and the road network and clearly they are two of the strongest influences on that area. The fact that Caulfield is a knuckle in a public transport system is quite critical and also, with Dandenong Rd a very major traffic route for cars. It will remain a transport hub. Not only will it remain…but we’ve all heard that there are plans for additional lines to go in on the Frankston line….Now all of those are going to require land. The area that has been designated for the Phoenix precinct is actually not very big. It’s been called up in the Melbourne 2030 plan as a major activity centre, but major activity centres are usually the size of something like Dandenong or even the Glenferrie Rd shopping centre. Chadstone actually jumps in as a major activity centre and that’s very dense now, but always wants to be bigger.
It’s unlikely that the size of land that the Phoenix Activity Centre represents is sufficient for a major activity centre. So the area that we’re looking at to be a major activity centre is not really there at all. It would have to take in a much larger area. Dandenong Rd and the railway are of course a huge barrier to any kind of general movement from one side, so it’s almost certain that any expansion of that area would go to the south. So I would see realistically, that any development for a major activity centre would actually have to rezone areas all the way down to the south end of the racecourse reserve at least. And with the same sort of width as well. So it would be a much, much larger area. …..
In a way it’s quite inappropriate …because there are so many issues of state significance involved in this particular area…first off it’s a transport interchange, with various additional lines which will require more land; secondly, it’s got the racecourse…..there is no doubt that the State Government and the major activities part of the state government consider that the Caulfield racecourse and the Caulfield cup to be a substantial leg of Melbourne’s party town atmosphere which houses our tourist industry…so the State government would have a very strong interest in maintaining Caulfield as a racecourse……(people) know about Caulfield on the other side of the world (by virtue of the Melbourne and then the Caulfield Cup)…..it’s also historic…and hence part of Melbourne’s fabric….it also has a major use as an exhibition centre….part of major events calendar there…
You then have the shopping centre which is usually considered the heart of a major activity centre. Well, frankly, I’ve done a lot of shopping centres in my time and I really can’t see the basics there for much increase in terms of retail. You’re competing against a very well established shopping centre in Glenferrie Rd which is 5 minutes away once you get on the road, and just down in the other direction you’re competing against Chadstone, which is the largest and best known shopping centre in the whole of Australia. So I really don’t see that there will be much development in the way of retail around Caulfield. It will remain as a local shopping centre, with a slightly struggling supermarket. But even if you bring in another 3000 people, …I don’t know how well that will go.
Then you’ve got the Monash University Caulfield Campus with their own plans to get bigger and stronger, and I would have thought that they had trouble with the amount of land they’ve got. A very condensed campus. Especially when you consider that it’s not in a major city centre. Normally you would expect in Australia that any kind of tertiary institution would have access to quite extensive playing fields to keep the youth of the day healthy and here there is really not a lot.
….So all in all, there seems to be three state level influences and one local…..Then there’s the State government’s intention in the Melbourne 2030 …..for the reasons I explained earlier I don’t think it’s going to be a Major Activity Centre unless the state government moves in and gets fairly serious about it and it would have to do some substantial (with) road operations and probably lose Caulfield Racecourse entirely for it to become big enough for it to classify as a Major Activity Centre. I think that one is just waiting to fall over.
So when you stand and look at all those, you have to look as a resident and ask ‘what do we want for the area?’ Should the Monash University campus become bigger and take over more area? Should the racecourse move in and extend itself towards the tramline and create some sort of entertainment precinct which seems to be almost, reading between the lines, being a competitor for the casino? Or should we land bank a lot of the land around there for future transport infrastructure? A very legitimate thing to do but without the state government stepping in and doing the planning work it’s hard to see. I have difficulties with the plan that’s been proposed because it doesn’t seem to address any of those issues. It addresses the land that is owned by the MRC and its specifically dedicated to allowing the increase of density of that area….I had a look at the Incorporated plan which is when you draw little boxes and say ‘that’s what it’s going to be’ and I’ve worked on a number of those, and they never end up like that., because when you actually look at details you find that they don’t work. So you end up having to go back and get another planning permit anyway. So the Incorporated Plan overlays don’t really work ……
What’s been proposed is to increase the densities and to reduce the required car parking under the planning regulations. I don’t know that that’s a terrifically good idea. Essentially it seems to me that the MRC has been acquiring that land over the last 40 or 50 years for the purpose of car parking to make sure the racecourse has adequate parking on race days. and I imagine most of you, if you are residents, and have driven past on a raceday, you know that they need every bit of it. So, taking up that land that they’ve got for carparking and putting buildings on it and reducing the required car parking seems to be not a really good idea….I had a look at the MRC aims for their organisation …and they were to ensure they had a cash flow to provide prizes for races….selling off the land in order to have the prizes….it doesn’t seem to me that the whole thing has been thought out. ….I haven’t come across anyone in the community who has said ‘wow I’m just waiting for them to redevelop that land’…’I really wanted 20 storey buildings there, that’s why I moved in’….
It should be done over a very much larger area than just that limited area that they’re talking about. …(20 storey) has another disadvantage….the only thing that will be built there are lots of units…..when you allow a building to be sold off as own your own units it’s almost impossible to redevelop that site later on. Because to do that you have to go and deal with 20,40,100 owners of individual units to buy that block of land. …..If you want an activity centre that you want to develop over time as this was units, now it’s going to be an office block…if you allow that plan to be developed as own your own units – forget it. You can’t do it. It’s just locked in forever. So essentially we’re looking at a proposal to create a very high density set of units in that area and to reduce the carparking availability for the other purposes. So when…they want to move the roads so they can put an extra railroad line in, they won’t be able to without buying 80 odd owners of units. which doesn’t seem to me to be very smart. ….We should be working to convince the State Government that they ….need to have a look at this from their own point of view because too many state level interests are being overridden by this local and very specifically owner based proposal.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM
Reading these comments a couple of things stare you in the face.(1) most of these experts believe that the assumptions underpinning the C60 development are wrong, and (2) the land and size isn’t ‘appropriate’ – to use the favourite word of Lipshutz and Pilling. Further, roads aren’t there and will never be there to cater for the increased congestion; high rise density isn’t enough for commercial viability given the competition. Even Currie’s vision of a smaller CBD is depeendent on so many variables that it’s pie in the sky. All in all, the take home message is that it won’t work and these so called incorporated plans aren’t worth anything. The tragedy is that this council did not even bother to seek such expert advice. They simply let the MRC do all the dirty work for them. All the criticisms that have been levelled at Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff and Hyams (and throw in Newton) are richly deserved.
May 5, 2011 at 1:34 AM
The forum was one of the best discussions for planning of Glen Eira ever held- well to be honest, probably the only one ever held. The fact that it was arranged by residents is a blight on this Council and in particular the planning administration including Newton. We really have a pathetic Council and I like a lot of other residents I know cannot wait for the next elections to get some real positive change.
May 5, 2011 at 6:12 AM
Thank you for your informative posting, Gleneira. Could you please tell me if any members of Glen Eira Council, either Councillors or Management were in attendance.
May 5, 2011 at 10:27 AM
To the best of our knowledge, the only ‘council’ people who attended were Crs. Penhalluriack and Forge
May 5, 2011 at 11:08 AM
More comments from the Leader Online:
simone jensen
writes:
Posted on
4 May 11 at 10:35pm
Time to sack the council again -TOO MUCH CORRUPTION!!!
Lex
writes:
Posted on
4 May 11 at 10:29pm
Thanks to the Council failure to truly consult with the community, and to their failure to allow for panel participation by elected representatives who may have opposed the C60 decision, we now face a development which the citizens of the area simply dont want.
Where are the words of community support? Why does the council not listen to the community they supposedly consulted? The whole process is a sham and makes a mockery of the our democratic systems. The council and the panel in particular should be ashamed of the outcome.
Ray
writes:
Posted on
4 May 11 at 09:28pm
Details of the project are light, especially the number of car parking spaces they propose to provide. Day parking is already expensive and at a premium when using the train, how much harder is it going to be with all the additional casual parking required by the development. The car park spaces required by councils, usually one space per apartment, or sometimes less, is a joke that has no relationship to reality.
adam townsend
writes:
Posted on
4 May 11 at 09:25pm
20 storey’s high! This is absolutly diabolical…..can you imagine 2000 extra residents driving in and out of this location on race days, animal expo’s and caravan and garden demo’s, exams for monash students etc. ! good luck to you if you buy into that. Caulfield park will be grid locked with runners and walkers….I used to live on Kambrook Rd across from that site 10 years ago and although we loved the area we had to go as we were being issued with parking tickets on race days. (parking out the front of our homes) This could go down as the worst council decision of all time….Caulfield is sadly losing its charm with these many over develpoments.
Michelle
writes:
Posted on
4 May 11 at 01:59pm
A fantastic opportunity for the community, turning a tired, outdated section of Caulfield into a vibrant, thriving one. Cannot wait for the cafes and supermarket. About time – well done!
Jason
writes:
Posted on
4 May 11 at 11:22am
All approved without any major changes or concessions for the community. You really have to wonder what went on behind closed doors. Time for a royal commision – NOW!
Sandy Anderson
writes:
Posted on
3 May 11 at 04:01pm
Meeting poorly advertised, which makes me wonder why? What is the sudden rush?
This is the biggest holding of land in our municipality, and Council says this is the best negotiations they can do? Are they kidding?
The CEO & the officers & Councillors concerned should hang their head in shame.
More explanation/consultation is necessary for the community to come on board.
Simon
writes:
Posted on
2 May 11 at 12:27pm
Nice artist’s impression, they just forgot to draw in the 20 storey buildings behind the grandstands!
Mark
writes:
Posted on
2 May 11 at 11:51am
I went to the meeting and they didn’t go out of there way to advertise it. That’s why the crowd was so small. When the locals residents letter box dropped the area about the meeting three weeks ago, almost 150 people attended. They don’t want residents views on this. Something is quite wrong. As for 20 stories, this is Caulfield, not the CBD!
Elsa
writes:
Posted on
2 May 11 at 11:15am
How absolutely terrible this well be for all of us in Caulfield.
And to be approved without any changes, you have to wonder what has gone on behind the scenes. Councillors are elected to represent community views last time I checked. And that hasn’t happened here.
A commission of enquiry is long overdue here.
May 5, 2011 at 11:39 AM
I still would like to know if there is a link between Frank and Orik other than disgraced Ex Councillor Goudge.The other question is who funded the $2400.00 Leader Add?
May 5, 2011 at 2:36 PM
Shucks Anon, what a pathetic, pathetic soul you are. You just can’t accept the fact that there are possibly hundreds and hundreds of residents who are outraged at and with this council and 10 bucks each from everyone would cover costs of advertising. Anyway, what it cost, and who paid for it is totally irrelevant to the issues of what’s happened and how they’ve happened. Why don’t you for once simply stop attacking people and start analysing what’s right under your nose – a lousy council and lousy councillors. And as far as previously disgraced councillors, the list is endless.
May 5, 2011 at 5:23 PM
I hadn’t noticed this before, but the Planning Scheme amendments for the Monash part of the Phoenix Precinct really strikes fear into my heart. They are so vague and useless that anything that Monash wants to do, will become a reality if this is accepted by the Minister. I’ve copied out some of these –
Recognise that there are residential development opportunities within the area and promote MEDIUM DENSITY residential uses that respect landscape values. (I don’t reckon that 20 plus storeys is ‘medium density’)
Maintain FLEXIBILITYin the implementation of the long-term Monash University building program. (Does this mean they can do anything they like and council will rubber stamp it?)
ENCOURAGE the provision of sufficient traffic measures and car parking to minimise the impact on traders and residents.
ENCOURAGE vehicular access to Dandenong Road and reduce reliance on Sir John Monash Drive. (As if Dandenong Road hasn’t already got enough traffic!)
It just goes on and on and on. I dread to think what is going to happen in this area.
May 5, 2011 at 10:29 PM
I find it quite amusing Smart Aleck that it is OK to continuously question and critisise the Council and it’s Officers, and yet, when the same is applied to Frank , Orik and others, you are horrified. The fact is that Goudge(convicted in the Magistrates Court and successfully sued by Council) was Frank’s Nomminee.Goudge and Orik were close. You may think that the question of who paid for the Add is irrelevant but many others feel that the answer is vital.
May 6, 2011 at 12:39 AM
Lordy, lordy, lordy. When are you going to get some help with your spelling Anon? 7 errors this time! You’re really going backwards. Pressure must be getting to you! Your argument is as poor as your spelling. In the first place, there was no “successful” prosecution of Goudge – in fact Council backed right off when they realised that it would cost them more in legal fees than the total sum that was owed. That’s real success, don’t you think? Let’s just for the sake of argument say that “Orik” did pay for the ad. So what? It’s not a capital crime, or are you perhaps suggesting that it is ex councillor Goudge at the back of all this? That he still gives a damn about Glen Eira? Even if it was Penhalluriack, so what again? Not a crime by any means and many would argue that it shows a councillor who is ready to put his money where his mouth is and to support community events. Your problem Anon is that you cling to the past. Things are changing. Face it. The marriage with Newton, Burke, and the other lackeys is fast coming to an end.
May 6, 2011 at 9:42 AM
Smart Aleck why have you got a problem with the truth.Goudge,I should say Peter Raymond Goudge was prosecuted in the Melbourne Magistrates Court where he pleaded guilty. That is fact. As for my spelling it has to do with a lack of formal education. Sorry. As for the past let me quote a very old saying. History Repeats Itself.
May 6, 2011 at 10:15 PM
But, what about Pokies and problem gambling at the Racecourse?
VATC t/a MRC has applied for more Poker machines last year. They can’t use it on Crown land. So up they propose commercial buildings outside Crown Land. Social effects? Not a worry, the Minister for Gaming Michael O’Brien is in favour of Clubs with pokies. And Glen Eira Council will always pick the easy target of ‘prostitution’ , but Pokies NOT a ‘pipsqueak’. READ ON
Sports clubs accused of rorting tax concessions
Jason Dowling May 6, 2011
SPORTING and social clubs – including AFL clubs – have been accused of continuing to rort tax concessions on their poker machines profits despite new rules that were supposed to have eliminated the abuse.
Clubs pay 8.33 per cent less tax on their poker machine takings than hotels in Victoria but must demonstrate in annual returns that they have provided community benefits equal to the tax concession.
An analysis of claims made by clubs last financial year by Monash University gambling expert Charles Livingstone shows 80 per cent of community benefit claims made by clubs were for operating expenses, financing costs and capital works. Operating costs include staff wages, venue management fees, electricity and rent costs and payments to players and officials.
Hawthorn Football Club’s Vegas at Waverley Gardens venue claimed $1.16 million in operating costs and $464,643 in donations, gifts and sponsorship; Collingwood Football Club’s The Coach and Horses venue at Ringwood claimed $1.15 million in operating costs and zero in donations gifts and sponsorship; and Richmond Football Club’s Wantirna Club claimed $938,954 in operating costs and zero in donations, gifts and sponsorship.
In 2007, the then gaming minister tried to tighten what clubs could claim as a community benefit by limiting operating cost claims.
But the first comprehensive analysis of club community benefit claims since the changes show the limit had little effect, with operating expenses making up the bulk of community benefits claimed by clubs. ”Donations and sponsorships and the provision of sporting facilities combined amounted to less than one fifth of the amount claimed by clubs for normal operating expenses,” Dr Livingstone’s report found. ”At the moment the classes of things they [clubs] are allowed to include and claim as benefits to the community is ridiculous and far too broad. I think you could describe it as a rort, I think it is a rort,” Dr Livingstone told The Age.
He urged a new government investigation of club community benefit tax arrangements. Attempts to tighten ”community benefit” criteria are fiercely opposed by the clubs sector.
Clubs Victoria executive director Richard Evans attacked Dr Livingstone’s findings. The report showed ”a lack of understanding to the community benefit clubs provide a community”, he said and firmly denied that clubs were rorting the system. ”Clubs exist for the benefit of the community and they raise funds for that club to provide services to the community and thus provide benefit such as employment,” he said. Mr Evans said there was no need to review what could be claimed as a community benefit. ”All staff employed at a club provide benefit for the community – greenkeepers, for instance, are employed by a club and thus have a direct benefit for the community,” he said.
Minister for Gaming Michael O’Brien said the government ”supports community sporting and social clubs being able to use gaming revenue to support clubs in their activities”.
Poker machine restrictions threaten clubs
05 May, 2011 04:00 AM
Most clubs would not fight a move to decrease problem gambling, but the cost of the proposed Federal Government’s move threatened to put clubs out of business, Nambucca Heads RSL Secretary-Manager Bill Larkey said.
The changes proposed by Tasmanian independent member Andrew Wilkie include installing technology that would ask gamblers to nominate an amount they were prepared to lose before each session.
Mr Larkey said the RSL club’s particular problem lay in the age of the poker machines on the site. Of the 103 the club had, around 30 of them would not be new enough to have the technology installed. To purchase new machines would cost more than $20,000 each, before the cost of the change itself.
Mr Larkey predicted that many Mid North Coast clubs would face the same hurdle, and said the proposal to force those changes immediately could put clubs under financial strain.
Already servicing a $6 million debt for renovations, Mr Larkey said the immediate hits of the price of the machines as well as the predicted drop in revenue would be damaging.
“If we could not service that debt, and became insolvent, it puts in jeopardy 52 jobs,” he said.
A fall in revenue would also lower the contributions the club gave to the local community, which at present were $40,000 to $50,000 a year.
“Most in the industry are not averse to changes, if they are introduced gradually – if they were phased in so the price to purchase the machines weren’t out of the ballpark,” Mr Larkey said.
“We could slowly turn the machines around.”
The Nambucca Heads RSL Club would be approaching smaller clubs around the Nambucca Valley to compare their situations and evaluate the local impact, Mr Larkey said, allowing the larger clubs to take the “battle” to the Federal Government to fight the changes.
Mandatory Pre-Commitment on Pokies a Must : Churches
Mandatory pre-commitment technology for poker machines will limit the economic and social impact of problem gambling on individuals, families and communities, according to the Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce.
Taskforce chair and World Vision CEO Rev Tim Costello says the mandatory pre-commitment technology will help problem gamblers to help themselves.
The comments were made by Costello ahead of the launch of what the Churches expect to be an aggressive and well funded campaign by clubs and pubs in Sydney to fight moves towards mandatory pre-commitment technology.
In the Sydney Morning Herald last month, Adele Horin estimated the advertising blitz to be worth more than $20 million over two years.
Costello says the public face of the campaign paints a picture of the hard worker having a ‘flutter’ on the pokies with mates over a quiet beer at the end of the day, but this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the reality for many people.
He says around 600,000 Australians play poker machines on a weekly basis, but 15 per cent of these regular gamblers are problem gamblers and account for 40 per cent of expenditure on poker machines. An additional 15 per cent are at high risk of problem gambling.
The 2008 Productivity Commission into gambling estimated that problem gamblers spend an average of $21,000 a year on gambling – and that the social cost of problem gambling is at least $4.7 billion per year.
The Federal Government’s proposed gambling reforms are based on the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, including:
• Implement a full pre-commitment scheme for poker machines as recommended by the Productivity Commission. Implementation of pre-commitment arrangements will commence in 2012, with the full scheme commencing in 2014.
• Support the Productivity Commission’s recommendations to implement poker machine dynamic warning and ‘cost of play’ displays to provide more information to players.
• Implement a $250 daily withdrawal limit from ATMs in venues with poker machines except for casinos.
According to the Department of Family, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in a full pre-commitment scheme, poker machine players will be asked to set a limit on how much money (and possibly time) they want to spend on the pokies in a set period.
Players would still have control over their own money and can set the limit as high or low as they like. They could also change their limits but would not be able to revoke or increase them within their agreed set period.
In the model recommended by the Productivity Commission, players can choose not to set a limit at all if this is their preference.
FACSIA says the Productivity Commission Report found that a pre commitment scheme is a strong, practicable and effective way to minimise harm caused by problem gambling, while still allowing recreational players to enjoy poker machines.
Tim Costello says three quarters of people classified as severe problem gamblers play poker machines – and it is possible to lose $1,500 an hour on modern machines.
Costello says the Churches – whose agencies deal every day with the fallout of failed public policy at the coalface – are not interested in stopping people enjoying recreational gambling.
He says the Churches want clubs and pubs to ensure that gambling in their venues does not cause harm by allowing gamblers to set themselves enforceable limits in all gaming machine venues.
He says this will help people help themselves to set and stick to their self-imposed limits, which can be as high or low as they chose.
Costello says mandatory pre-commitment does not promise to solve every problem but it does mean the industry could say it has put in place an important measure to protect consumers from harm.
He says at present they make no such claim, and until they can, their industry is unsustainable on ethical and business grounds.
May 7, 2011 at 4:44 PM
hey ‘poker face’, you are onto something here. me thinks mrc is all about pokies, parking, and possession. whether is’s pokies or parking issues it’s all to do with possession. they will not give an inch to anyone, god forbid. from the start the caulfield amateur turf club has monopolised the racecourse in 1850’s and restricted its use by hunters of melbourne hunters club. the rest is history that repeats itself. once vatc took over in 1875, they just continued with more fencing, more restrictions for other users, and greater control of the reserve land. it did not matter who was in the state government. they had the money and influence, just as they do now. what’s new? NOTHING
May 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM
The Glen Eira municipality is a bright, balanced and welcoming place. There is a vibe which somehow gels the community together. This divisive move to impose a multi-storey complex at the Caulfield racecourse will set a very bad precedence. Collectively the community does not oppose development or growth, however it needs to be considered and thoughtful. Balancing the needs of the existing community with those moving into the area. The council whilst trying to accommodate the needs of everyone is placing the future direction of our much loved area into an area of high risk. Over zealous developers will use this precedence to justify future unacceptable developments. Caulfield train station will become almost inaccessible for commuters due to congestion in the area. Currently council have identified the environment and transportation as the two major areas of significance to voters. Over congestion will have a negative impact on these two areas. There is a complete and utter contradiction between what has been identified as key issues of importance the focus on growth. Existing rate-payers represent a greater voice than the smaller percentage of transient residence into high-level dense housing. The council have made a fundamental error in this decision and it is heartbreaking to sit by and watch this unfold.
May 19, 2011 at 7:17 PM
Hear hear well said. Unfortunately the elections are not until November next year so if Esakoff has any more dodgy heritage planning removals, Pilling has any useless water saving or insulation ideas, Lipshutz and Tang exclusive use of all Caulfield ovals for frisbee throwing or Hyams more rhetoric, then they had better do it now because they will not be in office in December 2012 – guaranteed!
May 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM
Oh but do not forget that he MRC is being very “gracious” and “giving” us 15% of the total racecourse reserve to play on. It is going to spend the princely sum of $1.5 million on cleaning out the rubbish’ constructing a one and a half kilometre long by three metre wide concretised path, guess what for… parking 1,200 cars on racedays and 10 other days of year and constructing many other fences(maybe several kilometres) of black wire mesh so after that EXPENDITURE, WHICH IS REALLY TO ENSURE THE MRC HAS SECURITY IN THE LANDGRAB, there will be a little change for we the public of Victoria.
It is really unbeleviable that our specially chosen councillors who live nowhere near here and the majority outside our ward were empowered to make this gift to the MRC so graciously along with the C60.
On the scales of justice , with Glen EIRA WITH THE LEAST OPEN SPACE IN THE WHOLE OF Victoria it does not add up.
CAMDEN RESIDENTS WILL EXPERIENCE AT LEAST 8,000-10,000 EXTRA RESIDENTS,SHOPPERS, and visitors daily and we are not being given any compensating open space only silver coins which will be used to buil more “pavilions and car parks on other parks’,mmore than likely a long way from here, rather than purchase green grass in this area. It all seems senseless to those who need open space in this area.