For Glen Eira it doesn’t seem to matter that over 7000 individuals signed an online petition to keep the early learning centres open, or that a hard copy petition of over 2000 was recently tabled at council meetings. Further, that 94% of participants in the online surveys also were of this viewpoint, plus letters from MP’s and other organisations. The recommendation remains that these centres be closed.

The only compromise was that instead of a December 2023 closure, this be delayed until March 2024! How magnanimous!!!!!

The report highlights again and again ‘financial viability’ and that maintaining the centres will amount to a cost to council of nearly $600,000 per annum. With a 94% of responses in favour of keeping the centres open, council still finds it appropriate to state:

Whilst acknowledging the views and feedback expressed by directly impacted staff, families and the community, additional information has not come to light which materially alters the assessment that the combination of factors surrounding Council’s service provision still present unresolvable challenges for Council to continue deliver a contemporary, financially viable ELC service.

Council has also rejected the option of building a new hub, stating:

Initial estimates of the capital investment that would be required to construct a child and family hub on the Murrumbeena ELC site was conservatively estimated at $9.5M if the infrastructure project was built in 2024, rising to $10.04M if it was built in 2025. However, this could be higher depending on construction industry pricing escalation trends.

Consequently, the costs associated with building a new centre would have significant impact on Council’s budget and would reduce the capacity of Council to meet its current infrastructure commitments, including investment to unlock more open space, infrastructure improvements in Glen Eira’s parks and the ability to effectively maintain existing assets such as roads, footpaths, and community facilities.

Even with the potential for a $4.5M government grant the conclusion is – Council’s adopted Long Term Financial Plan has no budget provision for major building investments relating to the three ELCs.

What this final sentence does not acknowledge of course is that councils are free to amend their long term financial plans as they see fit and has been done repeatedly in the past.

As far as the consultation feedback report goes, we again have been denied the raw data, all the comments and emails. The employee consultation is deemed ‘confidential’ so all we get is a very short ‘summary’!!!!!!

If the only option to cut costs is seen as removing services, then we are in deep trouble. Yes, there are financial constraints on all councils, and yes, costs are rising. But how hard has this council tried to either increase their revenue, or cut costs in other areas? Staff numbers keep rising; consultant costs keep rising; and imposing levies on developers for car parking waivers, and community infrastructure both remain in the land of never-never.  Council’s simple solution is to withdraw services from the most vulnerable (aged care) and child care. Surely it should be up to communities to determine which services they believe should be subsidised and not a bunch of bureaucrats who earn over $200,000 per annum and a CEO who is rumoured to be on about $450,000 per year! Whilst other councils include statements about ‘savings’ in their budgets and annual reports, we can find nothing of this ilk in anything Glen Eira publishes.

What has also occurred here is the cart before the horse scenario. Our priorities consultation is yet to be published so that this decision is made BEFORE the community response is available – this assumes of course that the ‘consultation’ asked relevant questions!!!! Similar things occurred with structure planning and land use frameworks prior to the endorsement of the Housing Strategy. It would seem that this orchestrated approach is there to ensure that predetermined decisions are cemented despite what the community might think and want.

It is now over to councillors to make their decision. We can only hope that their primary objective is to represent the thousands of constituents who want this service to remain.