Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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
1
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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
2
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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
3
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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
Bachelor degree of higher
No. of TAFE enrollments per
thousand
No. of Public Hospital beds
per 10,000 population
Access to Public Transport
options per 10,000 population
% of population using Public
Transport for work commute
Unemployment rate
Interface
10.9%
50
Metropolitan
23.9%
120
11
30
1.5
3.0
1.5%
12.1%
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 twotiered 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.
4
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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.
5
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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 nonInterface Councils.
Figure 1.1:
Share of Post-School Qualifications for Residents Aged 15 years +, Selected Areas, 2006
Bachelor Degree or Higher
No Post-School Qualifications
60
51.6
50
45.9
43.2
40
30
23.9
19.6
20
10.9
10
0
Interface Councils
Source:
Metropolitan Melbourne
(ex Interface Councils)
ABS Census of Population and Housing, 2006
6
Melbourne Statistical
Division
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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
7
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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
35
30
30
24
25
20
15
11
10
5
0
Interface Councils
Source:
Metropolitan Melbourne
(ex Interface Councils)
Melbourne Statistical
Division
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.
TOTAL COST TO GOVERNMENT (In 2011 dollars)
 $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.
8
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
Figure 2.1:
Access to Public Transport Options per 10,000 Population, Selected Locations 2011
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Interface Councils
Source:
Metropolitan Melbourne
(ex Interface Councils)
Melbourne Statistical
Division
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 6am9pm 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
9
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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
Interface Councils
Metropolitan Melbourne (ex Interface Councils)
100.0%
Melbourne Statistical Division
93.0%
90.0%
76.2%
80.0%
79.3%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
12.1%
11.7% 10.6%
10.1%
10.0%
5.4%
1.5%
0.0%
Public transport
Source:
Notes:
travel
Vehicle-based
Other methods
ABS Census - Journey to Work 2006
Excludes labour force participants working from home, not working on Census day and those not stating their mode of
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.
TOTAL COST TO GOVERNMENT (In 2011 dollars)
 $1.4 billion (based on average annual State Government subsidy of $1,200 per public
transport user)
10
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
(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.
11
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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 Share Accessing Employment Share Using Public
to Access Employment
Exclusively by Private Vehicle 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.
12
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
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%
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
Blue Collar Occupations
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.
13
Inquiry on Growing the Suburbs: Infrastructure and
Business Development in Outer Suburban Melbourne
Table 6.1:
Job Deficit by Occupation, Interface Councils 2006
Jobs Provided in Local Jobs
Interface Councils Required
Jobs
Deficit
Share of Total
Deficit
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%
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%
Occupation
White Collar Occupations
Blue Collar Occupations
Source:
ABS Census of Population and Housing 2006, ABS Journey to Work 2006. Note:
14
Figures rounded