Protecting the Yarra River (Birrarung) Discussion Paper submission form
Your details and visits to the Yarra River To select a field, double click on the box and select ‘checked’.
The following best describes me: Regular user of Yarra River corridor
I am a permanent resident of Victoria
I am a resident of another Australian state
I am a visitor from overseas
Do you live within one kilometre or 10-15 minutes’ walk of the Yarra River?
Yes
No
In the past 12 months, how often have you visited the Yarra River?
zero
once
2-5 times
6-10 times
11-20 times
21-30 times
31-50 times
50-75 times
76-100 times
100-200 times
More than 200 times
What aspect of the Yarra River and its environs would you most like to see protected?



In lower Yarra reaches, vistas and landscapes that are currently under threat from high rise apartment
developments that create overshadowing and light pollution that threaten ecosystem processes/habitats.
Water quality and river flows that are increasingly compromised by developments creating impervious surfaces
and habitat modification that increases run off rates and pollution/rubbish transmission.
Public use amenity currently under threat/compromised by private use development/encroachment on the public
realm
What aspect of the Yarra River and its environs would you most like to see improved?
Targets for improved water quality/ecosystem health/public amenity & access, based on evidence of likely cumulative
impact of both high rise redevelopment and greenfield developments required to accommodate currently projected
population growth and climate change impacts to mid-century. The discussion paper provides no analysis of default
outlook/impacts or how these might be ameliorated or improved.
What would you like to see included in a vision for the Yarra River?
Australia’s ESD principles (the current MAC proposals poorly reinvent the wheel )
What elements would you like to see covered in a Yarra River strategic plan?
See comments above and below
What would you like to see included in legislation to protect the Yarra River?
Clear accountabilities for outcomes
Requirements for transparent analysis of proposed actions and for monitoring progress
What do you think are the key criteria for the evaluation of the options for management arrangements of
the Yarra River and its riverscape (as outlined in section 5.4 of the discussion paper)?
The currently proposed general principles effectively assume away a number of major challenges (how do we know
what resources/funding is required in the absence of analysis?) and don’t reflect Australia’s ESD framework , which
should replace those in Table 9, i.e.







decision making processes should effectively integrate both long and short-term economic, environmental, social
and equity considerations [NB this addresses costing of externalities which is currently ignored in the discussion
paper]
where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not
be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation
the global dimension of environmental impacts of actions and policies should be recognised and considered
the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy which can enhance the capacity for environmental
protection should be recognised
the need to maintain and enhance international competitiveness in an environmentally sound manner should be
recognised
cost effective and flexible policy instruments should be adopted, such as improved valuation, pricing and
incentive mechanisms [EMPHASIS ADDED]
decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect them
What are your thoughts on the options for a new management model for the Yarra River and its environs?


Not based on any systemic analysis of the scale of the problems facing the Yarra River corridor
In the absence of this critical analysis, any proposals for organisational realignment will be unlikely to solve the
underlying problems; new bodies will likely just generate duplication of effort and higher costs/lower cost
effectiveness.
Are there other management options and models we should consider?
See below
Is there any information or issues you feel we have missed?
The MAC framework, which (via its principles) neatly, but inappropriately, places a financial/accounting bound around
the challenges of protecting and restoring the Yarra River system with absolutely no discussion, let alone analysis of:
 The physical implications of a doubling of Melbourne’s population by mid-century (most of which growth will
occur in the Yarra River catchments), in particular some sense of the default outlook created by both
densification and landscape modification from greenfields developments in terms of volume/quantity of
runoff, habitat destruction, coupled with climate change impacts.
 The river and its environs as part of an interconnected economic system, in Adam Smith’s original meaning of
the term (not the narrow neo-liberal/DTF interpretation thereof). Hence, in thinking about the future of the
river, the discussion paper excludes any discussion of economics, pricing, incentives/disincentives,
externalities, tax, offsets, betterment gain, cost benefit analysis.
As such, it effectively ignores long established ESD principles (see above).
These two issues listed above are intimately connected since they go to the heart of the likely effectiveness of existing
levels of spend and/or regulatory controls/standards. A deep understanding of them is certainly required if any
proposed legislative/organisational fix is not to be set up for failure. The MAC has had six months to ponder on the
systemic issues but has come up with nothing to guide public thinking about the challenges ahead and how they might
be dealt with. As such, the exercise looks to be highly vulnerable to attack from the DTF, particularly given that the
MAC’s own principles involve cost neutrality (in an accounting or economic sense – are they really clear about what
this means?) and DTF are doctrinally opposed to hypothecation and pay little or no regard to externalities (positive or
negative). The currently proposed starting point implies the current level of spending/funding is appropriate/optimal
and matched to the scale of existing, let alone potential future, challenges facing the corridor. No evidence is
presented to support this critical assumption.
For example, there is no examination in the paper of the economics of apartment development along the Yarra that
leads to the overbearing apartment blocks, such as the Green Square development. This includes both the highly
advantageous incremental impact on developer profit of each additional floor (courtesy, among other things, of the
CFMEU stranglehold on all construction sites requiring lifts) but also the fiscal benefit to both the State Government
(stamp duty) and the relevant Council (rates). Add to that the default developer preference of VCAT (built partially on
pernicious precedent) and you have a system that is heavily stacked against corridor preservation. And this is before
you factor in completely opaque developer contributions to political parties.
 The likely default outcome is manifest in the recent VCAT decision on 647-9 Victoria Street that effectively
overrode the new design limits, Ministerial intervention and heavy scientific advice on the deleterious light
impacts on the riparian ecosystem.
So, coming back to proposals for a Yarra Trust, Act and Monitoring, they effectively assume away the underlying
problems compromising the preservation of the corridor, at least as this relates to intrusive high rise developments.
Yes, better coordination/planning is desirable but much more would be needed to deal with the systemic drivers. The
starting point for this should be redesigning the playing field to include explicit valuation of the riparian environment
before and after development at different intensities, including disclosure of the developer returns under different
options. If the developer argues commercial confidentiality, then use arms-length consultants to recommend
template valuations that the developer would either have to accept or challenge with alternative data. (if you want an
analogy, think about how the public debate is evolving around the need for much more transparency about the
behaviour of the banks and the very generous ROEs they are delivering compared with overseas banks. Or the way
that the ATO deal with non-disclosure by errant taxpayers) Once a developer has secured control over a site, they are
effectively a monopoly supplier, with enhanced value opportunities conferred by site and regulatory rent seeking (via
VCAT etc).
There are also issues with any proposed new bodies about the scope for bureaucratic duplication under a
Trust/Monitor model. On the former, why wouldn’t you merge Melbourne Water and Port Phillip CMA responsibilities
and make them responsible for administering the main functions of the Act? On the latter, what are we paying the EPA
for (particularly given their regulatory responsibilities for SEPPs)?
Do you have any other suggestions or feedback for the Yarra MAC that has not been addressed in previous
questions?