As Melbourne’s growth rate continues to climb, with the city’s population expected to reach 7 million by 2050, the demand on our two major airports, Tullamarine and Avalon, will only continue to grow.

In order to manage this growth, VECCI believes the State Government should consider identifying a site for the long-term construction of a third airport to Melbourne’s south east, to serve the rapidly expanding region.

New residencies and businesses are being established in and around Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Pakenham, and it can be and will continue to be difficult for these people to access Tullamarine and Avalon, located to the north and west of Melbourne’s CBD.

An airport to the south east, which was suggested by some of our members at the VECCI Ideas Forum late last year, would immeasurably increase access for these business owners and residents, as well as those in the Gippsland region.

The airport need not be large and compete with Tullamarine and Avalon, but complement them by providing services only to major cities and nearby regional destinations.

Small airports already exist at Tooradin and Tyabb that could potentially be used as a site for the airport, and if the sites are too small and/or encroach on nearby residents, it could potentially be built in West or South Gippsland. A Gippsland airport could also be a boost for regional tourism.

At the very least, it would be worth a cost-benefit analysis and long-term planning to assess the idea’s merit. Cities like London and New York are far better off for having multiple airports servicing their cities, with smaller satellite airports complementing their major international hubs of Heathrow and JFK.

As Melbourne’s population reaches 7 million in less than 40 years, it would be prudent to start planning now, and consider a third airport as part of Victoria’s long-term future.

VECCI Chief Executive Mark Stone spoke to Sky News about the need to start planning for a third Melbourne airport – view the interview here. 

What do you think about the idea of planning for a third airport to be built in Melbourne’s south east or Gippsland? We’re interested in your views.

School vouchers have been popularised in the United States as a means to empower parents and help get children out of failing schools.

A concept first articulated in the 1950s, vouchers have since been implemented in a number of countries, including the US, Ireland, Chile, Columbia, Netherlands, Sweden, and others.

There are two straightforward principles that underpin school vouchers.

First, parents should have free choice in the school they select for their child’s education.

Second, funding mechanisms should be transparent and accountable.

Some argue that Australia should consider vouchers to drive reform and lift school performance. Proponents also argue they would eliminate the ongoing conflict over state and non-government school funding models.

However, critics believe that vouchers would undermine public education and likely penalise disadvantaged students while benefiting rich private schools. It is also argued that governments have an obligation to provide universal access to education and that it’s best achieved with a public school system.

Despite those differences there is, however, broad agreement that reform of some kind is needed. But are vouchers the reform that will achieve this?

Voucher-based funding models are seen as the right policy option in other areas of education policy at state and national levels.

The previous Brumby Government’s introduction of a demand-led funding model for vocational education incorporated the two fundamentals of a voucher system: choice and transparency. The Federal Government’s proposed National Partnership for VET funding agreement, detailed in the recent budget, pushes other states to consider similar reforms.

The same principles are the basis for the Government’s ‘un-capped’ university places, to be introduced next year to not only increase the number of Australians with degrees but also introduce greater choice and competition in the higher education sector.

The most significant development however is the Victorian Government’s announcement of its alternative education pilot for disengaged students which introduces, for the first time, student-tagged funding.

Under most voucher proposals, a base rate of funding is available to each student regardless of the school chosen, and top-up funding is provided to address disadvantage. For instance a child with a disability, identified special learning needs, or from a disadvantaged community would have additional money attached to their enrolment to support the provision of additional learning resources.

It is argued this would overcome the risk of government schools being left with more disadvantaged students, while more able students shift to private schools – the basis of the Victorian re-engagement pilot.

The Institute for Public Affairs estimates that the introduction of a voucher system could cost around $2 billion extra a year. While that is a significant amount, in comparison to the $36.4 billion spent each year by all governments on schools, and the $14 billion ‘Education Revolution’, it is affordable.

A debate on school vouchers should not be seen as an alternative to other reforms, such as the Grattan Institute’s proposal to overhaul teacher appraisal systems that is linked to incentives, nor national teacher accreditation standards. Choice and accountability, be it delivered through vouchers or other means, are one element of a range of reforms that are needed to improve the performance of our schools.

Debate over school vouchers is usually only heard in education policy circles, and is rejected by traditionalists, teachers unions, and critics of private schools. However, with both sides of politics embracing national benchmarks, greater parental choice and looking for ways to lift performance, the benefits as well as risks of vouchers should be considered in the wider public debate on schools.

This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared on ABC’s The Drum on Monday 23 May.

Do you agree with the idea of school vouchers? Let us know!

The ‘old Australia’ is disappearing fast. 

This was the Australia of the ‘fair go’ and ‘she’ll be right mate’, where a bit of leeway was always given to citizens by those in authority.

This change has upsides, but also many downsides.

The upsides are increased efficiency, improved safety and less scope for corruption.

The downsides include more pressure on citizens to avoid the most minor of infractions, a nannying approach from Government verging on bullying and a simmering resentment and contempt for governments at all levels on the part of many citizens.

This is supercharged by the wasteful purposes that Government often directs its fine revenues to.

The whole idea of ‘representative Government’ is worth considering in this respect, because the notion of ‘citizen Government’ seems increasingly distant, and the divide between governors and the governed seems to be getting greater, perhaps an inevitable consequence of population growth and increasingly impersonal communications methods.

A recent example has been the Herald Sun’s extraordinarily popular campaign around speed cameras and fines for motorists doing only a few kilometres over the speed limit, with virtually no margin for error allowed.

Another is the issue of crime and how to deal with it – most people would like to see a tougher approach but elite and expert opinion, most notably the judiciary, diverges.

Citizens are also regularly infuriated when met with a wall of bureaucracy when trying to resolve an issue with Government – I remember parking in my own suburb under an ambiguous sign that could only be interpreted by a Philadelphia lawyer. 

My response to the inevitable fine was to write a letter to Council pointing this out – Council’s riposte centred on the sign being in line with ‘Australian Standards’, whatever that meant. Even as a relatively well-educated citizen, I felt quite helpless in dealing with such a response – what can one do?

The current issue de jour is the City of Melbourne’s proposed sensor technology that will detect those overstaying their allotted time in parking bays.

This will no doubt be more efficient, booking an extra 150 cars a day, or 53,000 a year.

It also raises a few questions:

• Is it appropriate to do this when retail is in the doldrums as a result of higher interest rates, a mild summer and online competition?
• How does it square with official aims to make Melbourne a retail destination of choice?
• Will this, and the increased overall charges for on-street CBD parking and reduction in free parking into the evening, drive shoppers to suburban locations instead?
• Is the City of Melbourne too reliant on parking fines for its revenue ($50m last year)?
• Is the emphasis on putting people on public transport and bicycles ‘one size fits all’ and is it fair to those who are making complex journeys or carrying loads of shopping?
• Is public transport abundant and efficient enough?
• Is on-street parking a thing of the past in the CBD? If so, are there enough economical off-street options?

All questions worth addressing in the long run.

What are your views? Have your say.

History is full of unsung heroes, including those who help others achieve their full measure of greatness.

Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), Australian speech therapist to Britain’s wartime King George VI (Colin Firth), is a recently discovered example, and his work is chronicled, with some poetic license I suspect, in the highly uplifting movie The King’s Speech.

So uplifting, in fact, that I was tempted to cheer throughout parts of the movie, which admittedly would have annoyed the other cinema patrons somewhat.

Logue who was not a qualified doctor, had set himself up in Harley Street and was sought out by the then Duchess of York (Helena Bonham Carter), soon to be Queen and later the centurion Queen Mother. Logue gained experience in speech therapy whilst treating World War One veterans with speech difficulties brought on by their horrific battle experiences.

His belief that stuttering was caused by emotional problems was a radical notion at the time.

With liberal amounts of Australian irreverence and informality, Logue breaks the future George VI’s stutter – just in time for the abdication of the feckless Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), Hitler’s rise, George VI’s accession to the throne and World War Two.

The title of the film refers to both the King’s radio broadcast at the start of World War Two and his improving ability to speak, courtesy of Logue.  George VI soon becomes the key unifying symbol in the British and Commonwealth effort to smite the foul Hitler, and his allies the Imperial Japanese.

Geoffrey Rush (Munich, Shine, Quills, Pirates of the Caribbean), in many ways the finest actor of his generation, puts in the performance of a lifetime as Logue.  In many ways, this is Rush’s most important film, his “finest hour” to coin a phrase.

The cast bats down the order, with an equally remarkable performance from Colin Firth as George VI – Firth seems to specialize in playing priggish characters like George VI and Mr D’Árcy who have to be coaxed out of their natural state.  Supporting are Helena Bonham Carter (Room With A View, Fight Club), Derek Jacobi (I Claudius, Gladiator) as the unctuous Archbishop of Canterbury, Timothy Spall (The Street, Secrets and Lies, The Last Samurai, Quadrophenia) as the magnificent Churchill and Anthony Andrews (Brideshead Revisited, The Scarlet Pimpernel) as Prime Minister and failed appeaser Baldwin.

Arriving late, we gingerly tiptoed past a sea of grey heads and realized we (my wife and I) were probably among the youngest persons in the cinema.

I left thinking that all schoolchildren should be encouraged, nay forced, to watch this film to obtain some inkling of history and how close Australia and its allies came to enslavement, although the massed ranks of politically-correct educationalist types might not see the point.

After all, the new national history curriculum seems to believe that history began in 1945 or with the advent of Lady GaGa.  Perhaps the designers of the current curriculum should also be forced to watch it.

Whatever the case, seeing this film would be a worthwhile Australia Day activity.

Postscript – at the time of writing, Geoffrey Rush and Colin Firth have been nominated for Academy Awards

The Age has thrown another curve ball into the debate about the future of Victoria’s commercial ports.

In Saturday’s Age, it is suggested that key stevedore Asciano has made a submission to an expressions of interest process into expanding Melbourne’s container capacity that the Victorian Government decommission the Port of Melbourne by 2040, while moving container trade to Geelong and Hastings.

The benefits of this would include more land for residential dwellings in Melbourne, a regional development bonus for Geelong and Hastings, and allegedly less congestion for Melbourne.  Oh, and it won’t spoil the views of those who live in Williamstown, which would otherwise be incommoded by the sight of working cranes at Webb Dock.

It could also appeal to a narrowly-elected Labor or Coalition Government desperate for Green support in a hung Parliament.

However, this process is not as simple as it sounds.  It will involve:

• A channel widening process for Corio Bay, something that would be very unpalatable to the Greens.
• More truck traffic in the Geelong and Hastings regions – don’t forget that Melbourne is likely to be shifting 8 million containers by 2030, up from 2.2 million now.  This is different from Hastings being a supplementary port to Melbourne.
• More trucks dragged across suburban Melbourne to actually get to Geelong and Hastings, leading to possibly more truck movements, not less – remember that Melbourne’s freeways intersect nicely behind the current Port of Melbourne.
• Moving the national rail freight hub from Dynon railyards, which sits conveniently behind the current Port.
• Possibly not meeting the Government’s target for increased rail movement of cargo, although connecting Hastings to the national standard gauge rail network between Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney is a monster problem we face anyway under current plans.  There are serious questions as to whether this could be done either via a rail line from Dandenong to Dynon, having to pass through Flinders Street Station and the CBD, or to Donnybrook via Eastlink – Eastlink is apparently too narrow in parts for a heavy gauge rail line, which would also have to negotiate the green wedge through Eltham and Warrandyte, and the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Tunnels are most likely out of the question because freight trains can only easily handle a one per cent gradient.
• Hastings’ RAMSAR-listed wetlands, the status of which is sure to provoke environmental opposition to any major expansion of Hastings.
• The billions upon billions of dollars worth of sunk costs that have been poured into the Swanson/Dynon precinct, not only by the stevedores, but by exporters and importers who have built their own container hubs within a convenient distance of the Port.

Most current industry thinking is that the Port of Melbourne remain where it is,  with Geelong continuing to specialise as a bulk port, Webb Dock taking up excess container capacity at Melbourne around 2015, and Hastings coming on stream as a supplementary container port around 2030.

VECCI largely supports this vision, although we believe that options for container movements at Geelong should be investigated, given its proximity to the national rail network – although shifting the car trade to Geelong faces the natural barrier of high winds in Corio Bay, which could menace car carriers with a high centre of gravity.

It will also raise in some people’s minds the issue of why we all went through the drama of channel deepening.  This is probably a red herring, as channel deepening will have more than paid for itself by 2040.

Channel deepening was actually needed five to ten years ago, with 60 percent of the vessels entering the Port in the March quarter 2009 potentially draught-affected, and has since been justified by the arrival of massive ships such as the Xin Yan Tai, that would not have got through the heads otherwise.

A vessel is using the extra draught every second day, which will increase over the project’s life.

Whatever the case, don’t expect any controversial decisions out of the State Government before the 2010 State Election.

What are your thoughts on this key issue for Victoria’s economic future? Let us know in comments below.

A new safety campaign aimed at international students studying in Australia is designed to ensure cities like Melbourne continue to be an attractive destination for people seeking to further their studies.

The Victorian-led ‘Think Before’ website was launched last week and is designed to help international students “sharpen safety skills when travelling at night” and avoid placing themselves in “high risk situations”.

The advice includes basic safety tips like travelling in groups, travelling in the front carriage of near-empty trains, walking in well lit areas and keeping valuables well hidden.

The campaign received criticism in Saturday’s Herald Sun for portraying Melbourne as unsafe, but we believe any initiative promoting the safety of students in Melbourne will enhance its reputation among the student community.

However the campaign needs to be backed up by proper policing, which includes adequate numbers of police officers and public transport safety staff, stop and search powers for police, and proper sentencing of offenders.

VECCI is currently looking at ways employers of international students and education providers can also assist in raising awareness of safety initiatives among students. The ‘Think Before’ campaign, coupled with these actions, will be a very useful informative tool for students who may have been hesitant to come to Melbourne.

The current Federal Election campaign is turning into a very uninspiring display indeed, and the so-called ‘debate’ between the parties on population is verging on ugly.

The Coalition has indicated that it would slash net immigration to Australia from the current level of 300,000 a year to 170,000, and the ALP has dumped its `Big Australia’ principle in favour of a ‘Little Australia’, whatever that may mean.

As VECCI’s CEO Wayne Kayler-Thomson said yesterday, “Our primary concerns with the population debate are the blatant pandering to populism of both major parties, the craven cop outs with regards to proper infrastructure and planning, and the direct impact of proposed cuts in numbers on the international student market, a key economic strength for Victoria”.

There is very little recognition of the following facts:

• An expanding population may put pressure on infrastructure but, conversely, a small population with a low density militates against infrastructure provision in areas such as public transport.
• Australia’s small domestic market has counted against the growth of homegrown global-sized businesses, including knowledge industries such as Information and Communications Technology.
• The projected average annual rate of population growth of 1.2 per cent over the next 40 years is slightly lower than the average annual rate of 1.4 per cent over the previous 40 years.  Under this scenario, Australia’s population is projected to grow from around 22 million people currently to 35.9 million people in 2050.

Then we have the skills debate.

Yesterday’s release of Treasury and Finances Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) indicates the labour market will “[reach] full capacity over the next year”, exacerbating skill and labour shortages for business across Australia.

Unless business is able to access skilled workers through the full range of policy options, including migration, Australia faces a breakout in wage and consumer inflation, placing upward pressure on interest rates and household costs of living pressures.

In light of the populist statements made by both sides of politics on immigration during the current election campaign, these figures provide a sobering message for our policy makers to align their rhetoric and policies to address the short, medium and long term skill and population needs of Australia.

The PEFO states that, “Employment is expected to grow strongly, with the unemployment rate declining to 4¾ per cent in late 2011-12, around its full-employment level.” While improving workforce participation rates and upskilling and retraining existing workers and jobseekers will be a critical component of meeting labour demand, it will not be met without transparent and timely access to skilled migrants from both employer sponsored and independent visa categories.

A new inquiry by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission into streamlining the regulatory framework was announced by Treasurer John Lenders this week.

Mr Lenders said “the inquiry was another demonstration of Victoria’s leadership in driving regulatory reform and the Brumby Government’s commitment to simplifying the regulatory requirements for Victorian businesses and not-for-profit organisations”.

Under the existing Reducing the Regulatory Burden initiative, the Government has already committed to a target of cutting red tape by $500 million per annum by July 2012.  The current figure is over $246 million worth of red tape per annum.

“The review will continue Victoria’s reform agenda by identifying a clear set of priority areas for further reductions in regulatory burden”, says Treasurer Lenders.

“It will examine opportunities to reduce the red tape burden on businesses, especially small businesses, by focusing on areas of Victoria’s regulation that are unnecessarily complex, redundant or duplicative.

It will “build upon existing reform initiatives to help Victorian businesses capitalise on the worldwide recovery from the Global Financial Crisis” and “engagement with stakeholders in business and industry would be an important part of the inquiry”.

The Commission will release a draft report for consultation, and a final report is to be provided to the Treasurer no later than 29 June 2011. For more information about the inquiry visit www.vcec.vic.gov.au.

The release yesterday of details of the proposed routes for the Regional Rail Link, WestLink, Truck Action Plan and the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel is good for business.

These projects will make Melbourne and the western suburbs more liveable and industry more competitive. However, we see WestLink as only the first step in a link right through to the Eastern Freeway, to create a much-needed second city bypass.

We also have some concerns about the truck tax (Freight Access Charge) and its effect on export competitiveness.

Please stay tuned for our infrastructure policy to be released ahead of the State Election.

As recently reported in The Age , the NSW Greens are heading to the State Election with an unusual plan for workplace relations reform – the introduction (and enforcement) of a four-day working week. The Greens propose that legislation be introduced to legislate for a compressed working week.

The enforcement of reduced working hours by legislative instrument is both a contentious and flawed proposal. This view has been expressed by both employee and employer representatives.

The experiment of a 35-hour working week was introduced in France in 2000 by the Jospin administration. The plan was to deliver productivity and employment benefits. As well enabling a better work-life balance and improved productivity, the Jospin administration claimed that reducing ordinary hours from 39 to 35 per week would require firms to engage additional employees to accommodate the resulting 10.2 per cent gap in hours worked.

On the ten year anniversary of the policy, the economic loss resulting from the policy is estimated to be 15 billion euros. The policy has since been denounced by Jospin, who labelled it an ‘economic error’ and current President Nicolas Sarkozy, who levelled a savage critique, labelling the policy an ‘historic error’.

Sarkozy’s administration weakened the policy in 2007, acknowledging the impact on economic growth and competitiveness. The Sarkozy Government is now tasked with examining the reversal of the policy.

In the instance of France recounted here, the reduction of the working week to 35 hours was to the detriment of employers and employees and resulted in quite spectacular fiscal losses. The loss of jobs and the reduction in productivity that resulted – along with associated business and Government cost imposts -  is certainly something to which the NSW Greens should have regard.

As the experience of France has demonstrated, poorly constructed social policy – contingent upon speculative argument about work/life balance and the salvation afforded by technology – does not translate to substantive improvements in labour market participation and economic competitiveness.