interface councils submission to the inquiry on growing ...€¦ · business development in outer...

Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne

1

Interface Councils Submission to the Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne February 2012 Cardinia Shire Council City of Casey Hume City Council Melton Shire Council Mitchell Shire Council Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Nillumbik Shire Council City of Whittlesea Wyndham City Council Yarra Ranges Council


2

Context

The Interface Councils are pleased to provide this submission to the Inquiry into Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne. As ten municipalities on the outer edge of metropolitan Melbourne, the Interface Councils have an intimate knowledge of suburban life and what it takes to create and sustain an outer suburb. We are well qualified to address the matters outlined within the inquiry’s terms of reference.

During the last decade the Interface Councils have experienced unprecedented growth. During

the period 2001-2010 the Interface Councils collectively accommodated some 332,660 new

residents. This represents around 55% of Melbourne’s growth during this period.

However during this period, investment in infrastructure services, and the provision of jobs has

not kept pace with growth in the Interface Councils. This has created a large number of

economically vulnerable Melbournians who do not have access to the same level of

infrastructure, services and opportunity as their inner suburban counterparts. According to

research commissioned on behalf of the Interface Councils by Essential Economics (EE) many

residents within our boundaries experience the following difficulties:

- Relatively high level of socio-economic disadvantage as highlighted through SEIFA and VAMPIRE

- Relatively low average incomes - Relatively low educational outcomes - Evidence of poorer health outcomes - Relatively high level of youth disengagement with regard to higher education and

workforce participation - Significant deficit in the provision of local employment opportunities - Relatively low provision of professional jobs - Relatively high unemployment rates - Relatively low provision of higher order services (hospitals, TAFEs, Courts etc) - Relatively low provision of arts and cultural services (libraries, arts centres etc) - Poor provision of public transport options - Heavy reliance on private vehicle-based travel

It is apparent from the EE report that Melbourne is slowly becoming a city of two tiers: Inner

and outer, haves and have-nots. The have-nots are not only financially less-secure, but also

must do without the services more readily available in ‘inner’ Melbourne such as greater access

to health care, public transport, employment opportunities and specialised services.

The report commissioned via Essential Economics entitled, A Plan for Melbourne’s Interface:

Implications of Population Growth for Infrastructure and Services, looks into gaps in services


3

and infrastructure. The research used a range of socio-economic indices to measure economic

influences in our communities.

The Socio Economic Indexes for Area (SEIFA) focuses primarily on disadvantage, measuring low

income, low educational attainment, unemployment, and dwellings without motor vehicles. It

indicates that average wages in the Interface regions are 12% lower than in Metropolitan areas

and only 11% of Interface residents hold a bachelor degree or higher qualification, compared to

24% in inner Melbourne.

Essential service provision in the Interface Councils are lagging across major SEIFA determinants

such as health, education, income, employment and transport options. For example the

number of public hospital beds per 10,000 residents in Interface Councils is 11, compared to 30

per 10,000 in inner Melbourne. Day procedure centres per 100,000 residents in the Interface

Councils are one tenth of Metropolitan Melbourne. All of Victoria’s residents deserve to be

afforded access to the same levels of care no matter where they live.

The Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage, Petroleum, and Inflation Risks and Expenditure

(VAMPIRE) 1 index clearly shows that high and very high vulnerability levels are principally

focused in Interface locations. In contrast, minimal and low vulnerability levels are almost

exclusively focused on inner and middle ring Metropolitan areas.

Our study shows that pockets of Interface residents are disadvantaged due to their exposure to

fluctuations in interest rates, petrol prices and inflation.

Public transport usage figures within the Interface Councils are at extremely low levels. At

present 1.5% of Interface residents use public transport for their daily commute as opposed to

12.1% in Metropolitan areas. Similarly 93% of the Interface population relies on motor vehicle

based transport to get to work as opposed to 76.2% of Metropolitan residents. Not only do

these figures demonstrate social disadvantage they undoubtedly impact on the environment,

road infrastructure, congestion, and vehicle costs for the Interface communities.

The Interface Councils are well placed to accommodate more of Melbourne’s growth. However

without the expenditure to create the infrastructure and supply services to these areas, the

quality of life for our residents will continue to decline. Essential Economics estimate that over

the coming 15 years to 2026, cumulative congestion (pressure on peripheral infrastructure and

service providers) costs on infrastructure and services are estimated to be approximately $42

1 As developed by Griffith University and using 2006 Census data


4

billion in the Interface Councils should arrestive action not be taken. In contrast the cost of

taking action and solving these issues before they burgeon is estimated at $5.1 billion.

The following table identifies key infrastructure and services shortfalls between the Interface

and Metropolitan areas.

Infrastructure/Service Interface Metropolitan

Bachelor degree of higher 10.9% 23.9%

No. of TAFE enrollments per

thousand

50 120

No. of Public Hospital beds

per 10,000 population

11 30

Access to Public Transport

options per 10,000 population

1.5 3.0

% of population using Public

Transport for work commute

1.5% 12.1%

Unemployment rate 5.5% 4.5%

*Victorian Government and ABS Census 2006 statistics used

The above statistics highlight the need for immediate action to be taken to ensure that the

inequality faced by Interface residents does not continue to grow. It is the Interface Councils

recommendation to the Committee that State Government investment into outer Melbourne

should be brought into line with the growth rate of our population. Investment into job

creation, health, education, and public transport are key pillars to ensuring that the Victorians

of the Interface Councils are not left behind.

This submission aims to assist the Committee in identifying the key areas in which the provision

of essential services and facilities, to approximately one third of Victoria’s population, need to

be improved by 50% over the next 15 years, if we are to avoid exacerbating Melbourne’s two-

tiered society.

Victoria In Future (VIF) figures project that the Interface municipalities can expect to

accommodate a further 60% of Melbourne’s growth over the period 2011-26. Investment in

Interface areas over this period must support the population increase so that these new

Victorians do not find themselves exposed to the inequality currently experienced by some in

outer Melbourne.


5

The creation of a $5.1 billion ‘Interface fund’ to be rolled out over 15 years would ensure that

the gap between Interface residents and Metropolitan residents would be reduced by 50%. The

fund would focus on job creation, health service provision, public transport, and education.


6

Responses to the Terms of Reference

The following section provides a response to the terms of reference of the inquiry.

(a) identify existing public and private infrastructure provision, including schools, hospitals,

commercial and shopping precincts, transport and roads, telecommunications, water and

power.

Research undertaken by Essential Economics found that the 1.3 million residents of Victoria’s

Interface regions are at a considerable disadvantage when compared to the population of the

Metropolitan municipalities across all of the major determinants identified above.

EDUCATION

As Figure 1.1 describes just 11% of Interface Council residents hold a bachelor degree or higher

qualification compared to 24% for non-Interface Councils. Additionally, 52% of Interface Council

residents aged 15 years and over hold no post-school qualifications, compared to 43% for non-

Interface Councils.

Figure 1.1: Share of Post-School Qualifications for Residents Aged 15 years +, Selected Areas, 2006

Source: ABS Census of Population and Housing, 2006

10.9

23.9

19.6

51.6

43.2 45.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Interface Councils Metropolitan Melbourne (ex Interface Councils)

Melbourne Statistical Division

Bachelor Degree or Higher No Post-School Qualifications


7

There is an opportunity to investigate and invest in programs that increase the education levels

of students in Interface areas.

Detailed data is not available to the Interface Councils at the Local Government Area (LGA) level

relating to the provision of primary and secondary school places. However, analysis undertaken

by Essential Economics assumes that one place per school aged child is currently provided

Interface areas.

Using this approach, an additional 72,000 primary school and 50,000 secondary school places

will be required in the Interface Council area over the period 2011 to 2016 (based on Forecast

id Scenarios).

Currently there are 47,500 places associated with TAFE facilities in the Interface Councils area.

This represents approximately 50 places per 1,000 population aged 15-64 years. If this ratio is

maintained, then between 15,300 (VIF Scenario) and 19,700 (Forecast id Scenario) additional

places will be required over the period 2011 to 2026.

In comparison, non Interface Council residents enjoy 120 places per 1,000. To close the gap by

50% a ratio of 85 places per 1,000 population would need to be provided. Applying this ratio

leads to a requirement of between 56,300 (VIF Scenario) and 61,000 (Forecast id Scenario)

additional places.

COSTS (In 2011 dollars)

Primary Schools - 72, 070 places - Construction costs of $520 million (derived from Davis

Langdon Blue Book 2011)

Secondary Schools - 50, 250 places - Construction costs of $425 million (derived from

Davis Langdon Blue Book 2011

TAFE - 58, 635 places- Construction costs of $300 million (derived from Davis Langdon

Blue Book 2011

TOTAL COST TO GOVERNMENT (In 2011 dollars)

$1.2 billion over 15 years


8

HEALTH

Based on the existing provision of public hospital beds, 11 per 10,000 population as outlined in

Figure 1.2, between 640 (VIF Scenario) and 680 (Forecast id Scenario) additional beds will be

required in the Interface Council areas between 2011 and 2026.

Figure 1.2: Estimated No. of Public Hospital Beds per 10,000 Population, Selected Locations, 2011

11

30

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Interface Councils Metropolitan Melbourne(ex Interface Councils)

Melbourne StatisticalDivision

Source: Public hospital and health services annual reports (various); DPCD Victoria in Future 2008

To close the gap by 50% with non-Interface Council areas (30 beds per 10,000), a ratio of 20.5

places per 10,000 would need to be provided. Applying this ratio leads to a requirement of

between 2,455 (VIF Scenario) and 2,525 (Forecast id Scenario) additional places.


$945m over 15 years

TRANSPORT

In order to ease the pressure on the roads and the environment government investment into

greater public transport options in the Interface Council’s is paramount. At present (in Figure

2.1) Interface residents have access to half of the public transport options as the inner

Metropolitan population.


9

Figure 2.1: Access to Public Transport Options per 10,000 Population, Selected Locations 2011

1.5

3.0

2.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Interface Councils Metropolitan Melbourne(ex Interface Councils)

Melbourne StatisticalDivision

Source: Metlink; Connecting Mitchell

Approximately 20% of bus routes in the Interface Councils do not achieve Minimum Service

Levels (MSL) this is characterised as a minimum of one-hourly service interval between 6am-

9pm Monday-Friday, 8am-9pm Saturday and 9am-9pm Sunday and a stop every 400m along

the route. The Interface Councils feel that raising this level of services is critical to increasing

bridging the gap between inner and outer Melbournians.

With Melbourne’s population expanding at rapid rates, the transport needs of the Interface

communities continue to be of increased significance for our communities. As stated in the

Victorian Families Statement, ‘We also need infrastructure that works and services that deliver.

Having a road network and transport system which are reliable, efficient, affordable and safe is

essential to the daily lives of families’.

Much of the improvements identified in the report Meeting Our Transport Challenges are in

outer-suburban and interface areas and are urgently needed to bring the frequency of the bus

services up to the minimum service levels experienced by metropolitan councils.

ABS Journey To Work data shows that in 2006 only 2% of workers located in the Interface

Councils area used public transport as their main mode of travel to work compared to 12% for


10

non-Interface Council areas. These ratios are used as a proxy for general public transport use

across the community.

Under the existing usage ratio (2%), provision would need to be made for between 7,360 (VIF

Scenario) and 8,500 (Forecast id) additional public transport users over the period 2011 to 2026

in the Interface Council area.

Figure 1.3: Comparison of Mode of Travel to Work, by Location of Employment, 2006

1.5%

93.0%

5.4%

12.1%

76.2%

11.7%10.1%

79.3%

10.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Public transport Vehicle-based Other methods

Interface Councils Metropolitan Melbourne (ex Interface Councils) Melbourne Statistical Division

Source: ABS Census - Journey to Work 2006

Notes: Excludes labour force participants working from home, not working on Census day and those not stating their mode of

travel

To close the gap by 50%, public transport usage needs to increase to 7%. Applying this ratio,

provision would need to be made for between 104,300 (VIF Scenario) and 107,200 (Forecast id)

additional public transport users by the end of the 15 year period.


$1.4 billion (based on average annual State Government subsidy of $1,200 per public

transport user)


11

(b) assess the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate increased population

growth

Whilst there is raw land capacity for population expansion within Interface boundaries there is

also a need for investment into essential services, job creation and investment in infrastructure.

Without investment into additional services to close the gap between the Interface and

Metropolitan areas the growth will continue to create a two tiered city and the congestion

costs (pressure on peripheral infrastructure and service providers) to the state will be as much

as $41 billion dollars in the Interface by 2026.

(c) investigate options, based on intrastate, interstate and international evidence, which

reduce pressures on infrastructure and essential services

Analysis of 2006 data shows the Interface Councils have a job provision ratio of 0.55 jobs/per

resident labour force participant, this is approximately half the provision for Metropolitan

Melbourne which has a 1:1 ratio. This presents a significant issue for the people of outer

suburban Melbourne. It is the Interface Councils argument that the government needs to focus

on an Economic Development strategy to create jobs and or move them out of the Melbourne

CBD.

In order to reduce the pressure on Melbourne, and increase employment outcomes in the

Interface Councils, we need to move towards a poly-centric city model with investment to be

directed towards regional ‘mini-cities’ for example investment in the Werribee Employment

Precinct or WEP as outlined in the Wyndham city submission to the inquiry.

Less reliance upon the Melbourne CBD would have flow on effects for the state with reduced

toll being put on infrastructure and services. Meanwhile the avoidable social costs of

congestion for Australia were estimated at $9.4 billion in 2005, a figure which is forecast to

increase to $20.4 billion in 2020, according to research undertaken by the Department of

Transport and Regional Service - Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE –

Estimating urban traffic congestion costs trends for Australian Cities, Working Paper No.712).

ABS Journey to Work data provides information on the number of jobs provided in a particular

location. This data – when combined with ABS Census data relating to labour force numbers –

enables an assessment of job provision or ‘employment sustainability’ to be made for a

particular location.


12

The successful relocation of the Transport Accident Commission to Geelong acts as a primary

example for both the creation of regional employment and as an example for reducing

pressures on infrastructure and services. The Interface Councils believe that the relocation of

government departments to our areas would have a similar affect. Not only would the pressure

be reduced upon the CBD but also:

Increased employment option for Interface residents

Reduced commuting distances for Interface residents

Diversification of workforce in Interface areas

Flow-on industries due to the arrival of new large player e.g. logistics, construction, and

retail industries

Table 3.1: Average Commuting Distance for Journey to Work and Principal Mode of Travel to Work, 2006

Average Commuting Distance to Access Employment

Share Accessing Employment Exclusively by Private Vehicle

Share Using Public Transport Exclusively

Inner 7.5km 46.2% 26.0%

Middle 12.5km 72.6% 16.6%

Outer 19.1km 83.4% 7.6%

Melbourne Statistical Division 14.8km 79.3% 10.1%

Source: Australian Government - Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Population growth, jobs growth and commuting flows in Melbourne (October 2011)

Table 3.1 underscores the length of time that Interface residents are spending on roads in order

to get where they are going. With the encouragement of industry relocation, or indeed

government department relocation to Interface areas the reduction in congestion, increased

productivity, and quality of life would be felt state-wide.

(d) catalogue the skills mix of outer suburban residents to identify those areas with a skills

shortage and provide options for skills training and retention, especially as it relates to both

younger and semi retired people

The Interface areas have long been known as being blue collar heartland and this phenomena

remains more or less the same to this day. The Interface areas have a need to attract greater

numbers of young professionals and entrepreneurs to our borders in order to increase the mix

and diversity of our population.


13

Table 4.1 emphasizes this point, highlighting the divide between the inner Metropolitan skill

offerings and those in the Interface.

Table 4.1: Job Provision by Occupation, Selected Locations 2006

Interface Councils

Metropolitan Melbourne (excluding Interface Councils)

No. % No. %

White Collar Occupations

Managers 36,045 12.2% 166,425 13.5%

Professionals 46,245 15.7% 312,075 25.3%

Sales Workers 34,610 11.7% 125,420 10.2%

Community and Personal Service Workers 27,625 9.4% 95,875 7.8%

Clerical and Administrative Workers 39,410 13.4% 216,895 17.6%

Sub-total 183,935 62% 916,690 74%

Blue Collar Occupations

Technicians and Trades Workers 45,395 15.4% 141,455 11.4%

Machinery Operators and Drivers 27,410 9.3% 73,390 5.9%

Labourers 35,175 11.9% 89,555 7.2%

Sub-total 107,980 37% 304,400 25%

Not Stated 465 0.2% 1,695 0.1%

Inadequately Described 2,540 0.9% 12,685 1.0%

Total 294,920 100.0% 1,235,470 100.0%

The Interface Councils believe that attraction and education within our regions of higher order

skills sets will be critical to improving the liveability, attracting new investment, and for

increasing employment outlook for future generations.

(g) identify local manufacturing capacity and highlight export development opportunities

available for businesses operating in the outer suburbs

The Interface Councils accommodate the vast majority of Melbourne's agricultural land

holdings, and the activities from this land contribute significantly to metropolitan agricultural

production.

The gross value of agricultural production in the Melbourne Statistical Division (MSD) in 2006

was $1.017 billion, with the nine Interface Councils of the MSD contributing 94% of the total.

The gross value of agricultural production in the Interface Councils was $993 million, in contrast

to just $58 million from the remainder of the city, reflecting the fact that land use priorities are

significantly different in inner and middle Melbourne.


14

Table 6.1: Job Deficit by Occupation, Interface Councils 2006

Occupation Jobs Provided in Interface Councils

Local Jobs Required

Jobs Deficit

Share of Total Deficit

White Collar Occupations

Managers 36,050 56,640 -20,590 10.0%

Professionals 46,250 72,130 -25,880 12.5%

Community and Personal Service Workers 27,630 43,660 -16,030 7.8%

Clerical and Administrative Workers 39,410 81,170 -41,760 20.2%

Sales Workers 34,610 53,400 -18,790 9.1%

Sub-total 183,950 307,000 -123,050 59.6%

Blue Collar Occupations

Technicians and Trades Workers 45,400 88,290 -42,890 20.8%

Machinery Operators and Drivers 27,410 46,040 -18,630 9.0%

Labourers 35,180 57,040 -21,860 10.6%

Sub-total 107,990 191,370 -83,380 40.4%

Total 291,940 498,370 -206,430 100.0%

Source: ABS Census of Population and Housing 2006, ABS Journey to Work 2006. Note: Figures rounded

interface councils submission to the inquiry on growing ...€¦ · business development in outer...

Documents