A L E T T E D E K O K E R
WHY THE WAIT?
I N F R A S T R U C T U R E C O S T S : A B A R R I E R T O R E G I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T
P R E P A R E D F O R R U S S E L L N O R T H E M P
VICTORIAN PARLIAMENTARY INTERNSHIP 2020 I acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land which is the subject of this report, the Braiakaulung people of the Gunaikurnai Nation. I pay my respects to their Elders past, present and emerging.
Page | 1
Acknowledgments I would like to thank Russell Northe and Helen O’Brien for their ongoing support and encouragement. A special word of thanks to Helen for her invaluable assistance. I also wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Nick Barry, as well as to Debra Reeves and the parliamentary staff. Thank you also to Nick Anderson, Dan Simmonds and other interviewees for their participation in this study, to Anna Campbell for assisting with the cover art and to my parliamentary internship cohort for their support. Lastly, I wish to recognise the strength, resilience and grace the Latrobe City community displays in dealing with the challenges and opportunities that accompanied economic disruption over the past decade.
Written By: Alette De Koker La Trobe University
Commissioned By: Russell Northe Member for Morwell October 2020
Cover Art by: Zac Porter: https://unsplash.com/@zac_porter23
Disclaimer: This report is not an official report of the Parliament of Victoria. Parliamentary Intern Reports are prepared by political science students as part of the requirements for the Victorian Parliamentary Internship Program. The Program is jointly coordinated by the Department of Parliamentary Services through the Parliamentary Library & Information Service, the People Operations Unit and participating Victorian universities. The views expressed in this report are those of the author.
© 2020 Alette De Koker
Victorian Parliamentary Intern Reports are released under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs licence. By using this Creative Commons licence, you are free to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work under the following conditions:
. Attribution - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). . Non-Commercial - You may not use this work for commercial purposes without the author's permission. . No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work without the author's permission.
Page | 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 5 2. The Latrobe Valley ...... 6 2.1 Brief History of the Latrobe Valley Economy ...... 6 2.2 The LaTrobe Valley Today ...... 8 2.3 Impact of COVID-19 on the Latrobe Valley ...... 10 2.4 The Latrobe Valley Authority ...... 11 3. Development in the Context of Regional Victoria ...... 14 3.1 An Overview ...... 14 3.3 Growth Patterns in Regional Victoria ...... 16 3.4 Successful Economic Transition: Geelong ...... 17 3.4.1: The Committee for Geelong: Partnership with the Private Sector ...... 19 4. The Approved Plans ...... 21 4.1 Lake Narracan Precinct Structure Plan ...... 21 4.2 Morwell East Industrial Precinct Development Plan ...... 23 4.3 Infrastructure Costs as Barrier to Development ...... 24 4.4 The Queensland Solution ...... 26 5. Recommendations ...... 30 5.1 Make public the 2017 LVA Report ...... 30 5.2 Establish a public-private partnership which specifically focuses on the Latrobe Valley ...... 30 5.3 Implement a similar program to the BAF in Queensland ...... 31
Page | 3
Executive Summary
The Latrobe City local government area (“Latrobe City”), located within the Latrobe Valley, Gippsland, is one of many regions in Australia currently in a period of transition. As a result of the privatisation of the State Energy Commission of Victoria (SECV), coupled with changes in the global market and shifts to greener energy, a key regional industry – brown coal mining – is in decline. Latrobe City is now undergoing a period of economic transition and restructuring. It must find new ways in which to secure its future. As such, there have been a number of Development Plans (DPs) and Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs) developed and adopted by the local council to ensure that there is continued economic activity in the area. However, many of these plans have remained just that – plans.
This report seeks to investigate the significant barrier which infrastructure costs pose to the commencement of DPs and PSPs in the Latrobe City. The report is primarily a review of available literature, combined with qualitative data collected during interviews with experts conducted in October 2020.
The report begins by taking a broad look at the Latrobe City and the Latrobe Valley. It considers the economic and social history as well as the current transition period to contextualise the importance of development in the area. It also considers the role of the Latrobe Valley Authority in assisting the Valley with this transition and revitalisation.
Secondly, the report considers development, and particularly regional development, in the Victorian context and identifies the importance of place-based approaches to development. It examines the case study of Geelong – an example of a regional, Victorian city employing a highly successful place-based strategy in an economic transition.
The report then considers two important plans that have not commenced despite their approval:
Lake Narracan Precinct Structure Plan Morwell East Industrial Precinct Development Plan
The report identifies the lack of appropriate infrastructure financing as a barrier to the implementation of approved DPs and PSPs, and considers the approach taken in Queensland to address this barrier.
The report concludes by making three key recommendations which can lower the barriers posed by infrastructure costs and would allow DPs and PSPs such as the Lake Narracan and Morwell East plans to commence:
1. The Latrobe Valley Authority should make public the 2017 report completed on potential funding models for the two projects in question. 2. A Latrobe City private-public partnership which can advocate for its specific local needs should be established. 3. The Victorian Government should institute a co-investment scheme such as the Building Acceleration Fund (BAF), which has delivered value in Queensland by financing catalyst infrastructure for regional development.
Page | 4
1. Introduction
This report was commissioned to investigate the barrier which infrastructure financing poses to the commencement of Development Plans and Precinct Structure Plans in the Latrobe City local government area (LGA).
Latrobe City is an area in transition. Development and economic activity is crucial to sustaining the local economy. However, much-needed development has been impeded by Figure 1. Victorian Multicultural Commission. Gippsland accessed 10 October prohibitive infrastructure costs. 2020
The report considers two plans in particular, the Lake Narracan Precinct Structure Plan and the Morwell East Industrial Precinct Development Plan, to demonstrate the effect of this barrier. Both plans were prepared in consultation with the Metropolitan Planning Authority (now the Victorian Planning Authority) and have received endorsement from the Latrobe City Council. Despite the approval, there has been no progress on the implementation of the plans.
Page | 5
2. The Latrobe Valley
2.1 Brief History of the Latrobe Valley Economy
The Latrobe Valley is located in Gippsland in the east of Victoria. It is composed of three local government areas: Latrobe City, Baw Baw and Wellington.1 This report focuses specifically on two development plans in the Latrobe City local government area (LGA), which is comprised of Churchill, Moe- Newborough, Morwell and Traralgon.2
The area has been in a period of economic transition since the 1980s as a result of the decline of their key industries.3 Figure 2. Meinhardt, Latrobe Valley, accessed 10 October 2020. The Latrobe City is a resource rich area with agricultural land, significant water resources and brown coal deposits.4 The Latrobe Valley has the richest coal fields in Australia and one of the largest coal fields in the world.5 Owing to these deposits, it has been synonymous with heavy industry since 1918.6 The Hazelwood, Morwell and Yallourn power stations, using coal from the Yallourn and Morwell open cut mines, cemented the Latrobe Valley’s position as the
1 Clifford Manning, Beyond the Latrobe Valley: Improving how governments assist regions in transition (2018), 30. 2 ‘Latrobe City: Economy, Jobs and Business Insights’, RemPlan Online [website],
Page | 6
powerhouse of Victoria. Sir Henry Bolte likened the Latrobe Valley to the German Ruhr Valley – Germany’s industrial heart.7
Until 2017, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) was the major employer in the region. The SECV was established in 1918 following the government’s decision to utilise the brown coal reserves in the Latrobe Valley to power the state of Victoria. 8 In the mid-1970s, at the height of the SECV, it employed over 9000 people, or, “one third of the LaTrobe Valley’s labour force.”9 Despite having brown coal deposits estimated as sufficient to power the entire state of Victoria for the next 400 years, the industry in the region has been steadily declining since the privatisation of power companies in the 1990s.10 The shift towards renewable energy accelerated this decline.11
With the privatisation of the energy sector in the “The government’s actions 1990s, the “near full employment and continued should have done more to growth” enjoyed by the Valley came to a grinding take into account the effects halt.12 Power industry employment fell from about of privatisation of a long- established government- 11,000 in the late 1980s to about 2,600 in 2001.13 owned employer… on the Alternative employment was not readily available. As community.” a result, between 1991 and 1996, about 9% of the Jeff Kennett region’s residents left the area.14 A 2001 study found that the benefits derived from the restructuring of the industry went to consumers mostly
7 Sarah-Jane Collins et. al, ‘Renaissance in the Valley,’ ABC News, 12 September 2007, para. 10,
Page | 7 based in Melbourne, while the detriments were felt mostly in the Latrobe Valley. 15 Reflecting on the effects of the SECV’s privatisation, Jeff Kennett, the premier of Victoria who instituted the privatisation program, acknowledged that “the government’s actions should have done more to take into account the effects of privatisation of a long-established government-owned employer…on the community.”16
In 2016, the area experienced another economic shock when the closure of the Hazelwood mine announced. The mine was significant economically, but also culturally, as it was the “industrial heart of the La Trobe Valley.”17 Owned by French multinational Engie, the Hazelwood was deemed no longer economically viable and on the 31st March 3017 the mine officially closed.18 An estimated 1,600 jobs were lost directly. Another 4,500 jobs through supply chain employment were lost.19
Following the announcement of the Hazelwood mine closure, the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DP&C) established the Latrobe Valley Authority and announced that it would invest $266 million over four years in order to assist the region. The Authority and its work is discussed in Part 2.4.
2.2 The Latrobe Valley Today
The Latrobe City is home to 75,561 people. It supports 32,389 jobs and has an annual economic output of $12.058 billion.20
Employment is a particular concern in the area. In March 2019, unemployment was at 7.2%; where other regional hubs Geelong and Bendigo were at 6.8% and 4.2% respectively.21
15 Ibid. 16 Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Latrobe Valley Social History: Celebrating and recognizing Latrobe Valley’s history and heritage (2019),
Page | 8
However, the LGA average masks pockets of severe disadvantage. For example, Morwell has had periods of extremely high unemployment. The unemployment rate was at 21.1% in December 2016.22 To put this in context, if the same unemployment rate was reflected in Australia, it would translate to 5.25 million unemployed Australians.23 Although employment has stabilised since then – Morwell was at 10.1% unemployment in March 202024 – this serves to highlight the disproportionate disadvantage suffered during certain periods which may not be evident upon first glance.
Currently, the Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services industry sector is the largest contributor to economic output at $2.6 billion, or almost 22% of the total output.25 The Health Care and Social Assistance industry is the region’s largest employer, employing 5,385 people and
accounting for 16.6% of the area’s total employment.26
Census data highlights some concerning statistics 7.2% of people deal with pertaining to the region’s socioeconomic indicators. In food insecurity every week 2016, 7.2% of people dealt with food insecurity per week, 28% of households suffered 28% of households had rental insecurity and 62.4% of the rental insecurity population did not complete year 12.27 Life expectancy 62.4% of the population did was also among the lowest in Victoria. Further, Latrobe not complete Year 12 has the second highest drug usage in the state (first being
Metropolitan Melbourne) and suffers the fifth most gambling machine losses per week per adult.28 Latrobe City is the 7th most disadvantaged LGA in Victoria.29 This disadvantage is most concentrated in Morwell and Moe.30
22 Ibid. 23 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Population Clock,
Page | 9
2.3 Impact of COVID-19 on the Latrobe Valley
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated pre-existing socio-economic challenges and further entrenched social, economic and health inequalities in communities all over the world.31 The economic implications of the pandemic have been dire for the Australian economy. According to Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, “Australia’s economy contracted by 7 per cent in the June quarter…[and] COVID-19 will see [the budget] deficit reach $213.7 billion.”32
The consequences are particularly grave for Victoria, where the second wave of infections in July 2020 resulted in strict lockdowns and containment measures, especially in metropolitan Melbourne. An area like Latrobe, which is in a precarious economic and social position, is more vulnerable to the economic fallout effects of the pandemic.
Figure 3. Remplan, Economy, Jobs and Business Insights accessed 20 October 2020.
31 Max Fisher and Emma Bubola, ‘As Coronavirus Deepens Inequality, Inequality Worsens Its Spread’, New York Times, ‘The Interpreter’, 15 March 2020, para. 1,
Page | 10
Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas has estimated the cost of the pandemic on the State to be $55 billion, and the budget deficit for the first three-quarters of the financial year of 2019 – 2020 is estimated at $ 773 million.33
In Latrobe City, prior to COVID-19 total employment was estimated at 32,389 jobs.34 In July 2020, it was estimated at 30,546 jobs.35 This drop of 5.7%36 is more severe that the median drop in national employment in Australia which is estimated at 2.3%.37 As of July 2020, Latrobe also recorded a $78 million loss in its total output across local industry sectors.38
The pandemic is still unfolding but it is clear that it has already resulted in significant hardship for the residents and communities of the Latrobe City. Appropriate support for economic recovery, growth and development will be key, particularly in regional Victoria, in rebuilding local economies.
2.4 The Latrobe Valley Authority
On the 3rd of November 2016, following the announcement of the Hazelwood mine closure, the DP&C established the Latrobe Valley Authority (LVA) and promised $266 million over four years in order to assist the region.39 Of that support fund, $20 million was allocated to the LVA for “setup” costs and the body was due to operate until 30 June 2020.40
The LVA is a government body tasked with supporting the Latrobe Valley region throughout its economic transition and mitigating the impact of the Hazelwood mine closure. Their mandate extends to “[promoting] economic diversification and growth, [fostering] the resilience of local businesses, and [supporting] the regeneration of the supply chain.”41 The LVA is also in charge
33 Richard Willingham, 'Coronavirus impact on Victorian economy to be 140 times worse than bushfires, Treasury expects', ABC News, 15 May 2020, para. 9,
Page | 11
of the $50 million Latrobe Valley Economic Growth Zone, as well as the $40 million Latrobe Valley Economic Development Program.42 The Authority is managed by “local talent and expertise” to ensure that the interests of those actually living in Latrobe are represented.43
In February 2017, the then interim chief executive of the LVA, Kylie White, told the Latrobe Valley Express that the Authority had already “provided information and support to more than 110 people through the Worker Transition Centre.”44 By 2018, the $22 million Worker Transition Service had assisted 1,141 workers and their families find new work.45 Another back- to-work scheme gave 485 grants of $9000 as an incentive to employers who hired and retrained ex-Hazelwood employees.46 A report leased by the Authority in 2019 found that its work between 2019 and 2019 had created “2,500 new jobs and helped generate more than $99 million of private investment in the Latrobe Valley.” 47
However, the Authority’s efficacy has been questioned by some interviewees who provided input into this study.48 A 2019 parliamentary intern report commissioned by Russell Northe also found some frustration among local stakeholders regarding the work of the LVA and the benefit they have really derived from it.49 There is sentiment in the community and among local businesses that there has been a “mismanagement of funds.”50 Although the state government injected a significant amount of money into the region through the LVA, there are
42 Latrobe Valley Authority, Latrobe Valley New Energy: Jobs and Investment Prospectus (2018),
Page | 12
often instances where local workers are unable to work on government-funded projects in the area.51 In other cases, preference has been given to businesses from outside the region rather than prioritising local workers.52 In April 2018, the $20 million dollar Worker Transfer Scheme had seen only 48 former Hazelwood workers actually redeployed to other power stations and the LVA was not able to put a “dollar-figure” on how much of the $266 million fund had actually been spent,53 further exacerbating frustrations among the local community.
The complex relationship between the LVA and private enterprise has resulted in “poor rapport between local businesses and State Government…initiatives within the Latrobe Valley region.”54 Although the LVA was well-received at its inception, the expectations of the local community were not fulfilled. 55 Two out of four of the businesspeople who were interviewed for the 2019 report had only engaged with the LVA once and did not intend to do so again as they felt it did not result in an “added advantage for their business.”56
The COVID-19 pandemic has added an additional layer of uncertainty. The end-date of the LVA’s $266 million support package was 2020. Given the pandemic has resulted in state government budget announcement delays, there is uncertainty has to the LVA will have further funding and whether their mandate will be extended. 57
51 Ibid. 52 Heidi Kraak, ‘Locals not on Local Jobs, Latrobe Valley Express, 19 June 2017, para. 1,
Page | 13
3. Development in the Context of Regional Victoria
3.1 An Overview
Regional development is described by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED) as “a general effort to reduce regional disparities by supporting (employment and wealth-generating) economic activities in regions.”58 Failing to reduce these disparities results in “under-used economic potential and weakened social cohesion.”59
It is common for regional areas to experience a higher level of disadvantage in comparison to cities (often referred to as the “urban-regional/rural divide”). 60 The divide is evidenced by “lower incomes of those living in these regions; reduced access to services such as health, education and transport, and declining employment opportunities.”61 The disadvantage is further exacerbated by “problems of distance and isolation.”62 As such, there is a concerted effort being made to reduce the disadvantage and level the playing field between the state’s regional areas and metropolitan Melbourne.
Historically, Victoria’s regional development policy aimed to relieve pressure on Melbourne, rather than to create benefits for regional Victoria. In 1967, for example, the Victorian Advisory Committee stated that “the principal benefit of decentralisation was reducing the cost of metropolitan congestion.”63 A similar sentiment was reiterated more recently by the Regional Australia Institute.64
58 ‘Regional Development Policy’, OECD [website],
Page | 14
However, there has been a shift to “place-based policy” that “emphasises the identification and mobilization of the endogenous potential of an area.”65 This involves tapping into unused economic potential in a region which outside agencies may not be aware of or have the WHAT IS PLACE-BASED? expertise to fully capitalise on. This aligns with the LOCATION-SPECIFIC POLICY notion expressed by Fairbrother, who has done OUTCOMES extensive research on the Latrobe Valley, that EMPHASISES IDENTITY OF A policy needs to take into consideration the “assets REGION 66 BUILD’S ON REGION’S that define regional economies.” In Victoria, COMPETITIVE STRENGTHS similar thinking was advocated for in a 2017 report by Infrastructure Victoria which argued that investment in regional Victoria should not be solely focused on a strategy to relieve pressure on Melbourne. Rather, investment in regional Victoria should target and build upon “a region’s competitive strengths.”67
It is recognised that the way in which a region transitions from traditional industries into new economic opportunities and the trajectory of development is location dependent. There is no “one size fits all” solution that can be applied as policy should be nuanced and designed to address the unique and specific needs of an area. The final policy outcomes for a region is “an outcome of a complex interplay … of factors.” These factors range from “… the various sources of capital in play as well as local leadership and decision-making and community understanding and involvement …” 68 The Latrobe Valley’s transition has generated significant interest from a variety of stakeholders. It has been the topic of “regional development conferences and papers” advocating a suggested route forward.69
65 John Tomaney, Place-Based Approaches to Regional Development: Global Trends and Australian Implications (2010)
Page | 15
However, although policy should be specifically tailored, there are lessons that can be learnt from the experiences of other cities and states as they have undergone similar transitions. Particularly so if they share similarities in location, population or traditional industry. A case study of Geelong is briefly considered in this report at 3.4 to determine whether it may offer lessons in successfully transitioning from traditional industry.
3.3 Growth Patterns in Regional Victoria
It is also important to note the role that regions will play in housing Victoria’s population. This is highlighted in current Australian population growth and migration patterns.
Victoria is the most densely populated state in Australia.70 The population of Victoria is clustered around Melbourne where 75% of the State’s population live.71 This is not an uncommon trend in Australia, where a state’s population tends to centre around its capital city.72
Victoria is the fastest growing state in Australia, growing by up to 150,000 per annum before COVID-19.73 Since 2011, Victoria has grown by a million people.74 Pre-COVID-19 it was expected to add another million people by 2026.75 As the population increases, so will the need for housing. It was estimated that between 2016 to 2056 Victoria will require 2.3 million new dwellings to house the growing population.76 Over 400,000 of these dwellings will be in regional Victoria.77
In recent years, regional living has also been increasingly popular for a number of reasons. The “desirability of a capital city lifestyle” has been questioned as a result of increasing pressure on
70 Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Population and Housing in Regional Victoria: Trends and Policy Implications (2020),
Page | 16
infrastructure and inaccessible housing prices.78 This has coincided with improvements in regional cities and town which “enhance their liveability.”79 Between 2011 and 2016, 650,000 residents of capital cities in Australia relocated, and of the 650,000, 63% relocated to regional areas.80
There are early indications that the interest in shifting to regional areas increased during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.81 A report commissioned by property analysis firm CoreLogic found that house prices in regional centres across Australia have been more stable than that of capital city markets throughout the pandemic.82 This trend is expected to continue post-COVID as working remotely rather than commuting may become more prevalent. If many workplaces become more flexible regarding remote working, the need to live in an urban area may decline.83
3.4 Successful Economic Transition: Geelong
The southern Victorian city of Geelong is undergoing an economic transition and there are similarities between the economic shocks that Geelong has had to navigate, and the economic shocks experienced by Latrobe City.
Geelong suffered particularly from the decline of the textile industries in the 1970s followed by the decline in manufacturing.84 More recent economic shocks included the closures of the
78 Regional Australia Institute, National Population Plan for Regional Australia (2019)
Page | 17
Alcoa Smelter in August, 201485 and the Ford Australia plant in October 2016.86 A 2017 Productivity Commission report found however, that although Geelong did rely heavily on manufacturing, the “capabilities of the region’s residents” has meant that Geelong did not suffer as much a detriment as other communities where manufacturing declined, such as North Adelaide.87 The region has been therefore been able to thrive despite losing some of its major industries.
The differences in capabilities of residents among regions naturally mean certain regions are able to adapt better in transition periods. Several demographic factors can contribute to an easier transition, including education, age, English proficiency and labour mobility.88 These factors worked in Geelong’s favour.
Geelong was also able to encourage skilled workers to relocate into the area by “promoting the lifestyle benefits … and improving its amenity and attractiveness.”89 Geelong’s bay-side location coupled with its short commute (roughly 60 minutes) into the Melbourne CBD, combined with a concerted effort to rebrand as a “vibrant and active region” enabled the city to attract skilled people. 90 Improving the social infrastructure such as quality of health and education services is also an important step in attracting new workers to a region.
There has been considerable population growth in Geelong, largely due to retirees leaving Melbourne. Geelong is one of the most popular location for retirees. Young people aged (aged 15 24 years) moving from other areas in regional Victoria has also constituted relative population growth.91
85 ‘Alcoa Geelong smelter closes, putting 500 out of work’, Guardian, 1 August 2014, para. 1,
Page | 18
Despite losing traditional industries, Geelong was able to use its distinguishing strengths and regional assets to employ a place-based approach to sustaining its economy.
While there are similarities between the economic shocks suffered by the Latrobe Valley and Geelong, there are important differences in their capacity to respond to these challenges. These include worker capacity as a result of the aging population as well as the lack of skill transferability among workers; the location of Geelong (it is notably closer to the Melbourne CBD than Latrobe and it’s bayside location makes it attractive for those seeking a sea change) and the difference socioeconomic profile of the areas.
Despite these differences, Geelong provides a regional Victorian example of the efficacy of optimising local assets in development policy. The optimisation of assets has been facilitated by groups such as the Committee for Geelong.
3.4.1: The Committee for Geelong: Partnership with the Private Sector
The Committee for Geelong (CfG) has been instrumental in securing a sustainable future for Geelong. The Committee is an apolitical, non-governmental organisation which “[provides] a united voice on the issues facing Geelong.”92 The CfG’s membership comprises local, national and international organisations and individuals who work towards the betterment of Geelong. 93
The CfG has advocated for a range of projects in Geelong. In 2018, their efforts to implement a trial commuter ferry route from Geelong – Melbourne was so successful that a ferry route has since been permanently secured.94 They have also worked with companies such as AirAsia X and partnered with Commonwealth Bank.
Premier Daniel Andrews as well as Leader of the Opposition, Matthew Guy, have recognised the work of the Committee and praise their efforts. The Hon. Matthew Guy stated that it has
92 Committee for Geelong, Annual Report 2017-18 (2019)
Page | 19
been “exceptionally important” to “advocate a consistent line to everyone in Spring St about what is needed” in the area.95
Dan Simmonds, in his capacity as immediate past chair of the CfG, is an advocate for public- private partnerships to address regional development.96 The success of the CfG demonstrates the value of an impartial, local public-private partnership which is active, engaged and focused on local needs and development.
Although there is a Committee for Gippsland (C4G) which has a similar operation to the CfG, the C4G covers a much larger geographical area comprising of regions with different priorities. The narrower geographic focus of the CfG has allowed it to provide more targeted outcomes for Geelong and secured higher level of local engagement.
Establishing a local public-private partnership specific to Latrobe which could advocate for community-specific needs and work with a range of stakeholders to secure development opportunities may bolster economic activity in the area.
95 Committee for Geelong, loc. cit. 96 Dan Simmonds, immediate past-chair of the Committee for Geelong interview, ‘Dan Simmonds interviewed by Alette De Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (5 October 2020).
Page | 20
4. The Approved Plans
Latrobe City, like many of Australia’s regional areas, is going through a period of economic restructuring. Traditional economic activities are being disrupted and employment opportunities are changing. To ensure economic prosperity for the region, it is important to support appropriate, targeted developments.
This report considers two approved development plans in the Latrobe City:
⇒ The Lake Narracan Precinct Structure Plan ⇒ The Morwell East Industrial Precinct Development Plan
Current development best practice focuses on a place-based approach which capitalises on the unique assets possessed by a given area. Both of the proposed plans aim to tap into unused local potential in Latrobe City.
However, these plans have remained just that – plans. Five years after Council endorsement of the Lake Narracan plans and nine years after that of the Morwell East plans, there has still been no progress made.97 This is as a result of one significant barrier: the prohibitive nature of infrastructure costs.98 Infrastructure costs as well as the resulting hindrance it poses for crucial development efforts will be will be further discussed at 4.4.
4.1 Lake Narracan Precinct Structure Plan
The Lake Narracan Precinct Structure Plan, Native Vegetation Precinct Plan and Development Contributions Plan (“Lake Narracan plans”) were approved in December 2015 by the Victorian Planning Authority. The plans were prepared by the Latrobe City Council and the Metropolitan Planning Authority (now the Victorian Planning Authority) in consultation with Government agencies, service authorities and major stakeholders.”99 They aim to guide the development between Lake Narracan and the townships of Moe and Newborough.
97 ‘Endorsed Development Plans (DPs) and Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs),’ Latrobe City Council Online [website],
Page | 21
The Lake Narracan plans include approximately 604 hectares of land which is currently used for grazing.100 The plans would transform that into an urban area encompassing residential housing, green space, sporting reserves and village centres.101 Given the size of the proposed development, it promises to be transformative in relation to the regional economy.
The new residential neighbourhoods will draw on the identity of Latrobe and reference the township of Yallourn by using key historical names.102 The amenity offered by the Lake creates waterfront residential property opportunity that is not available elsewhere in the region. The Lake Narracan plans would ultimately accommodate approximately 8,935 people and 3,723 dwellings.103
The residential element of the plans are crucial. Housing plays a key role in “overcoming regional disadvantage” 104 and providing “appropriate and affordable housing is a vital component of the responses by government and industry to local socio-economic change in … areas” which are undergoing economic restructuring.105
Moreover, as discussed at 3.3, regional living has becoming increasingly popular in recent years. This is a trend that is likely to continue in the post-COVID period and the Lake Narracan plans provide prime opportunity for those looking to relocate to the regions post-COVID, according to planning consultant Nick Anderson.
As outlined in the plans, further development of the Lake Narracan foreshore area also allows for increased community access and use of the Lake, as well as provide an important an opportunity to bolster tourism. It is a suitable location for “a holiday park offering short stay accommodation for visitors” and can build on the current popular use of the Lake for water
100 Ibid, 5. 101 Ibid, 7. 102 Ibid. 103 Latrobe City, Metropolitan Planning Authority, Development Contributions Plan (2015),
Page | 22
sport activities.106 A council spokesperson explained that “[the Lake Narracan plan] … is a product we don’t have…it can attract people [to the Latrobe City.]”107
This slots well into policy recommendations of the current State government. The 2015 Victorian Statement included several recommendations pertaining to boosting regional economies, one of which was “growing the…tourism sector.”108 Moreover, it aligns with the place-based policy approach discussed earlier and optimising the unique assets of a region to secure its economic future.
The Lake Narracan plans are also expected to create approximately 336 new jobs in the precinct. Ultimately, the Lake Narracan plan will “assist in the long-term revitalisation and enhancement of the Moe and Newborough area,” as well as “[reinforcing] the Latrobe City as the regional capital of Gippsland.”109
4.2 Morwell East Industrial Precinct Development Plan
The Morwell East Industrial Precinct (“Morwell East plan”) comprises an area of 104 acres bordering the township of Morwell.110 The plan proposes a “modern industrial development to cater for larger, high amenity, low density, manufacturing industries.”111 The plans are composed of forty-four industrial lots which vary in size in order to cater to a variety of businesses.112
The plan was prepared to “cater for existing known demand requirements…and the emerging industries seeking to take advantage of the existing infrastructure” in Latrobe City.113
The Morwell East plan is a Council priority. To see the land developed would be transformative for the local area. A council spokesperson explained that upon completion of the Morwell East
106 Latrobe City, Metropolitan Planning Authority, op. cit., 7. 107 Latrobe City spokesperson interview, ‘Latrobe City spokesperson interviewed by Alette de Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (6 October 2020). 108 State Government Victoria, Victoria’s Regional Statement: Your Voice, Your Region, Your State (2015),
Page | 23
Precinct, it is estimated that the Commercial 2 Zone and Industrial 1 Zone land within the Development Plan area has the capacity to accommodate 1,787 jobs, equating to an estimated $140 million in wages and salaries and resulting in over $1 billion in economic output at full development. 114 The fact that the plans have not progressed has been frustrating for developers and local government alike. Particularly as the plans have generated interest from potential industries as a result of the competitive pricing of the lots. The location – on a rail line and in close proximity to the freeway – is also attractive to industries seeking to relocate.115
4.3 Infrastructure Costs as Barrier to Development
The case for development in the Latrobe City is strong. The projects have support from the Council, the local community and the Victorian Planning Authority. The benefits of development in the area will flow to local and state government as well as the Latrobe City community. This begs the question: why have they not yet commenced?
According the stakeholders interviewed in this report, the prime reason is the lack of appropriate funding for key infrastructure. Nick Anderson explains that “the infrastructure is…behind where it needs to be for these large-scale projects to get off the ground.” Developers have to provide the funding to bridge the gap between the “antiquated, out of date and over capacity infrastructure and the modern requirements that the system imposes on [new] developments.” 116 As the Lake Narracan plans diverge from the development route of the relevant authorities, the costs of establishing road, sewerage and water infrastructure to link the development with the existing regional infrastructure have to be borne by the developers. 117 The key infrastructural challenge for the Morwell East plan is the building of an intersection to link the development with the current road system and updating the sewer system.118
Financing for the development plans themselves are available. The developers have received strong interest from investors who accept that the investment requires a medium to long term
114 Latrobe City spokesperson interview, ‘Latrobe City spokesperson interviewed by Alette de Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (6 October 2020). 115 Nick Anderson, planning consultant interview, ‘Nick Anderson interviewed by Alette De Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (6 October 2020). 116 Nick Anderson, planning consultant interview, ‘Nick Anderson interviewed by Alette De Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (6 October 2020). 117 Ibid. 118 Ibid.
Page | 24
view to profit from regional development. 119 However, in addition to the costs of development of the land there are additional costs to link the developments with the existing infrastructure of the servicing authorities. When infrastructure required for developments is not aligned with the long-term development plans of the relevant authorities, the cost of that infrastructure must be carried by the developers. A council spokesperson expressed that the current “user- pays principle…is slanted against regional development.”120
These additional costs are significant. Nick Anderson stated that infrastructure adds an extra $10 million to the total cost of the Lake Narracan and Morwell East plans, as well as creating further difficulty in receiving development financing from banks and other lending institutions.121 The financing of these costs, rather than the actual development costs of the plans, have proved to be the major stumbling block.
These cost barriers should be viewed in a broader context of challenges regarding infrastructure and development in regional Australia. A 2019 audit on infrastructure in Australia identified several challenges regarding infrastructure in regional areas. Firstly, that developments in our economy and society means that infrastructure needs are changing.122 However, there are certain gaps between the necessary infrastructure and the available infrastructure, thus “regional centres at risk of being left behind.”123 Lags in infrastructure quality and access to services in smaller cities and regional centres could lead to a growing gap in productivity and liveability, relative to larger cities.”124 This is certainly the case in the Latrobe City, where the infrastructural gap is posing a significant impediment to development.
There is also a certain paradox in regional areas because infrastructure is more costly to insert in low density locations, but populations in those areas are actually more dependent on the
119 Ibid. 120 Latrobe City spokesperson interview, ‘Latrobe City spokesperson interviewed by Alette de Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (6 October 2020). 121 Nick Anderson explained in an interview that the long-term nature of regional development projects and the greater risk associated projects means that banks are reluctant to lend money. The reluctance of banks to provide funding for regional developers is further exacerbated when there needs to be large amounts of money spent on infrastructure before development can commence. 122 Infrastructure Australia, An Assessment of Australia’s Future Infrastructure Needs: The Australian Infrastructure Audit 2019 (2019),
Page | 25
infrastructure than those in cities and built up areas.125 Failure to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is available will limit “opportunities for employment and growth and [erode] confidence in the future viability” of a given area.126
There have been reports commissioned by the state government regarding the Morwell East and Lake Narracan plans. Notably, a report was completed in 2017 by the Latrobe Valley Authority regarding appropriate funding models for these plans. The purpose of the report was to investigate potential strategies to enable the commencement of these plans, however, they have not been made available to developers nor the Latrobe City Council, despite their requests.127 Three years on, stakeholders still do not know the outcome of this report.128
To address the barrier of infrastructure costs, there are two stand-out potential solutions:
⇒ That the local authority should provide the necessary infrastructure for approved development plans. While this solution will be attractive for developers it may not be a viable general option for public financing; ⇒ That the State government provide a financing model for key infrastructure in order to unlock development projects
The provision of the necessary infrastructure will enable the Lake Narracan and Morwell East plans to commence. Both projects have the ability to be transformative on the Latrobe local economy. The cost of infrastructure is not an uncommon obstacle faced by regional developers and policy outcomes similar to the second solution above has been replicated in other jurisdictions, as elaborated on in 4.5.
4.4 The Queensland Solution
The key barrier to the implementation of the Lake Narracan and Morwell East plans is the lack of financing for additional infrastructure to link the developments with the existing infrastructure of the local authorities. A policy solution that addresses this financing barrier will enable development which can transform the Latrobe City and the local economy.
125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 127 Latrobe City spokesperson interview, ‘Latrobe City spokesperson interviewed by Alette de Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (6 October 2020). 128 Ibid.
Page | 26
The Queensland state government has established the Building Acceleration Fund (BAF) as they understand that the provision of infrastructure is likely to improve productivity and competition – a “win-win” for both regions and the wider economy.129
The BAF is a $200 million infrastructure initiative which aims to “partner with the private sector to fast-track projects that will create jobs,” according to the Honourable Kate Jones (Minister for Development, Tourism and Innovation).130 The BAF will focus on funding so-called “catalyst” infrastructure – this is key infrastructure such as water, sewage and roads, that, once built, will allow for development in an area.131
The predecessor to the BAF is the Catalyst Infrastructure Program which was first implemented in 2017. The Catalyst program saw huge success, including the state government investing $15 million in the provision of a new intersection for the Elliot Springs development in Townsville. 132 The State government’s co-investment with the developer would ultimately provide $23.9 million worth of connecting infrastructure, sewer pump station and reservoir for the development. 133
The BAF will provide co-investment funds “…worthwhile projects get delayed or through interest-free loans to Queensland scrapped as supplying the initial… local governments, utility providers, infrastructure is too expensive, making projects unviable” developers and industry for infrastructure projects that will unlock development and Chris Mountford, Queensland Executive 134 Director of the Property Council construction. The BAF initiative will enable the building of catalyst infrastructure such as construction of roads,
129 Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Government Interventions in pursuit of Regional Development: Learning from Experience (2003),
Page | 27
water distribution, sewerage, stormwater and transport infrastructure, as well as public realm and building facilities.135
The scheme aims to stimulate the economy via “increasing construction activity and supporting long-term jobs.”136 This is particularly pertinent as the Australian economy begins the long road to recovery post-COVID.
“Many worthwhile projects get delayed or scrapped as supplying the initial trunk infrastructure is too expensive, making projects unviable,” says Queensland Executive Director of the Property Council, Chris Mountford.137 This rings true for both Lake Narracan and Morwell East. The inclusion of a program similar to BAF would mean that projects such as the two in question would be able to get off the ground. Given it is a co-investment strategy, the full cost of development is not borne by the state, however, it alleviates the pressure on smaller developers.
The BAF, along with the original Catalyst program, provide viable policy solutions for the issues being faced in Latrobe City. The proven success of these programs should be considered by Victorian policymakers when they review current infrastructure schemes. Regional Development Victoria, for example, has a Regional Infrastructure Fund which is a grant scheme aimed at stimulating regional economies through building infrastructure.138 However, the grants are capped at $500,000.139 As a result, it is not sufficient to substantially assist in the mitigation of significant catalyst infrastructure costs. A BAF-like program could operate in addition to the current RDV scheme.
The value of a program such as BAF is that it operates in partnership with local government and the private sector, rather than mandating from above. This reinforces the idea of place-
135 ‘Building Acceleration Fund’, Queensland Government, Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation [website],
Page | 28 based development and gives local government scope to apply for funding for the projects which they deem the priority for their area.
Page | 29
5. Recommendations
These recommendations pertain specifically to the barriers in commencing the Lake Narracan and Morwell East plans. The major impediment has been the cost of additional infrastructure needed to link the developments with existing local infrastructure such as roads, sewerage and water connections.
5.1 Make public the 2017 LVA Report
Firstly, this report strongly recommends that the LVA make available the reports completed on potential funding models for the Lake Narracan and Morwell East plans. The report was drafted by government-commissioned independent experts. The report has, however, not been made publicly available and the LVA has denied the Latrobe City Council access. The findings of the report may play a vital role in getting the plans underway. At the very least, the report should be made available to those directly involved with the Lake Narracan and Morwell East plans.
For the purposes of this report, the LVA was contacted. However, no response was received and thus the report has not been taken into consideration in the completion of this report.
The recommendations in this report should be considered in conjunction with any findings in the 2017 report which deal with specific financing models.
5.2 Establish a public-private partnership which specifically focuses on the Latrobe Valley
The LVA was established in 2016 to ensure that former Hazelwood workers can transition successfully into new employment. It also administers other local projects and was tasked with the broader aim of assisting the region as it transitions. Although the LVA has done some work already in this regard, securing more engagement with the private sector will be crucial in ensuring better outcomes for the local community. The establishment of a public-private partnership could be very beneficial, as demonstrated by the success of the CfG in Geelong.
Page | 30
The role of local businesses is well-recognised in relation to economic development and there has been success with generating growth from within struggling regions.140 The CfG has been working closely with the state and federal government as well as Regional Development Australia to provide local expertise and address Geelong’s needs from within. Creating a specific a Committee for Latrobe would provide a united voice to advocate for the needs of the area, including the need for financing the insertion of infrastructure which would unlock large development projects. Having a Latrobe-focused group would ensure that the outcomes secured are the ones which will confer the most benefit on the local community.
Although there is a Committee for Gippsland (C4G), it covers six local government areas and therefore covers much wider ground than that of the CfG. It also does address the specific exigencies of the Latrobe Valley given its broad jurisdiction. A Latrobe-specific Committee would work in partnership or alongside the existing C4G.
5.3 Implement a similar program to the BAF in Queensland
A BAF-like imitative offers a proven policy solution to the obstacle posed by infrastructure costs. Catalyst, the predecessor of the BAF, unlocked necessary infrastructure in Queensland to support development and bolster the economy. Between 2017–18, $34.81 million worth of infrastructure was funded across Queensland by Catalyst.141
Instituting a similar program in Victoria would provide an opportunity for developers to co- fund the requisite infrastructure that will allow the Lake Narracan and Morwell East plans to progress. This will be crucial for the Latrobe City economy, particularly in the next few years as Victoria, along with the rest of the world, grapples with the devastating effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic.
The co-investment strategy embedded in the BAF aligns with current literature regarding regional development and facilitates a tailored, ‘place-based’ approach which aims to stimulate a struggling region from within. The co-investment strategy means that although
140 Ibid. 141 Cameron Dick, loc. cit.
Page | 31 assistance is provided, regions are not reliant on the State government and the installation of infrastructure will ultimately empower them to further develop.
Page | 32
Bibliography
Journal articles, books and reports
Abbott, Malcolm, ‘The Performance of an Electricity Utility: The Case of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, 1925-93’, Australian Economic History Review, 46/1 (2006), 23-36.
‘Alcoa Geelong smelter closes, putting 500 out of work’, Guardian, 1 August 2014,
Asher, Nicole, 'Authority unable to say how much of $266m Hazelwood fund remains one year after closure', ABC News, 11 April 2018,
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Population Clock,
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Rural housing, regional development and policy integration: an evaluation of alternative policy responses to regional disadvantage (2002)
Blakkarly, Jarni, ‘Can a Tiny Australian Coal Town Reinvent itself? Life Beyond Coal’, Earth Island Journal, 31/3 (2016), 40-45.
Beer, Andrew, Maude, Alaric, and William, Pritchard, Developing Australia’s Regions: Theory & Practice, (Sydney: UNSW Press, 2003).
Boucher-Hill, Thomas, “Local Jobs for Local Workers?”: The Efficacy of Local Construction Participation in State Funded Construction Projects in the Latrobe Valley Region (2019)
Page | 33
‘Building Acceleration Fund’, Queensland Government, Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation [website],
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Government Interventions in pursuit of Regional Development: Learning from Experience (2003),
Cockfield, Geoff, ‘From state direction to community self-efficacy: The devolution of responsibility for regional development in Australia’ in Anthony Hogan and Michelle Young (eds.), Rural and Regional Futures (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2014).
Committee for Geelong, Annual Report 2017-18 (2019)
‘Covid-19 Impacts Explorer’, RemPlan Online [website],
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Transforming opportunity in Geelong (2017),
Department of Health & Human Services, Geographical profiles and planning products, 2015 Local Government Area (LGA) Statistical Profiles (2017-20),
Cameron, Dick (Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning), New intersection unlocks Elliot Springs residential development [media release], 30 August 2018, Queensland Government,
Clifford, Manning, Beyond the Latrobe Valley: Improving how governments assist regions in transition (2018).
Collins, Sarah-Jane et al, ‘Renaissance in the Valley,’ ABC News, 12 September 2007, para. 10,
Page | 34
Department of Education, Skills and Employment, LGA Data tables - Small Area Labour Markets - March quarter 2020 (2020), cat. No. 6291.0.55.001,
Duffy, Michelle, and White, Sue, ‘The Latrobe valley: The politics of loss and hope in a region of transition’, Australian Journal of Regional Studies, 23/3 (2017), 421-446.
Eklund, Erik, 'Hazelwood power station: from modernist icon to greenhouse pariah', Conversation, 30 March 2017,
‘Endorsed Development Plans (DPs) and Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs),’ Latrobe City Council Online [website],
Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Latrobe Valley Social History: Celebrating and recognizing Latrobe Valley’s history and heritage (2019),
Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria in Future 2019 Population Projections 2016 to 2056 (2019),
Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Population and Housing in Regional Victoria: Trends and Policy Implications (2020),
European Commission, Case Study: Latrobe Valley Authority, Australia (2019)
Page | 35
Everingham, Jo-Anne, and Franks, Daniel M., ‘Development of mining-affected regions: The influence of the Commonwealth in a state dominated sphere’ in Anthony Hogan and Michelle Young (eds.), Rural and Regional Futures (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2014).
Fisher, Max, and Bubola, Emma, ‘As Coronavirus Deepens Inequality, Inequality Worsens Its Spread’, New York Times, ‘The Interpreter’, 15 March 2020, para. 1,
Fairbrother, Peter, When Politics Meets Economic Complexity: Doing Things Differently in the Gippsland Region, Australia, Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 23/3 (2017), 400-420.
Frydenberg, Josh (MP), ‘Budget Speech 2020-21’, 6 October 2020,
G21 Geelong Region Alliance, G21 Region Economic Development Strategy (2014)
Hogan, Anthony, and Young, Michelle, ‘Country futures: Framing a policy agenda for rural and regional Australia’ in Anthony Hogan and Michelle Young (eds.), Rural and Regional Futures (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2014).
Hogan, Anthony et al, ‘Reclaiming livelihoods Initial steps to re-institute a viable socio-economic base for living in country settings’ in Anthony Hogan and Michelle Young (eds.), Rural and Regional Futures (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2014)’.
Infrastructure Australia, An Assessment of Australia’s Future Infrastructure Needs: The Australian Infrastructure Audit 2019 (2019),
Infrastructure Victoria, Gippsland Regional Profile: An analysis of regional strengths and challenges (2019),
Page | 36
Infrastructure Victoria, Growing Victoria’s Potential (2019)
Institute for Resilient Regions, Submission: Transitioning Regional Economies Study (2017),
Johnson, Louise, ‘The Geelong suburban dream: Origins, history and future’ in David Jones and Phillip Roös (eds), Geelong’s Changing Landscape: Ecology, Development and Conservation (Geelong: CSIRO Publishing, 2019), 222-23.
Jones, Kate (Minister for State Development, Tourism and Innovation), Applications open on $200 million Building Acceleration Fund [media release], 31 July 2020, Queensland Government,
Kraak, Heidi, ‘Locals not on Local Jobs, Latrobe Valley Express, 19 June 2017, para. 1,
‘Latrobe City: Economy, Jobs and Business Insights’, RemPlan Online [website],
Latrobe City, Metropolitan Planning Authority, Lake Narracan Precinct Structure Plan (2015),
Latrobe Valley Authority, Latrobe Valley New Energy: Jobs and Investment Prospectus (2018),
Latrobe Valley Authority, Latrobe Valley Community Report: Transitioning to a strong future (2019),
Lennox, James, ‘More urban sprawl while jobs cluster: working from home will reshape the nation’, Conversation, 19 August 2020, para. 10, Page | 37 while-jobs-cluster-working-from-home-will-reshape-the-nation-144409>, accessed 6 October 2020. NBA Group Planning and Implementing Success, Morwell East Industrial Precinct Development Plan (2010) Productivity Commission, Transitioning Regional Economies (2017), ‘Queensland Government announces $200 million for Building Acceleration Fund’, BusinessMoretonbayRegion [website], Regional Australia Institute, National Population Plan for Regional Australia (2019) ‘Regional Development Policy’, OECD [website], Regional Development Victoria, Regional Infrastructure Fund (2019), Robin, Jo, ‘The Melbourne-to-Geelong Commuter Ferry Is Finally Sailing’, Broadsheet, 2 December 2019, ‘SECV: Welcome to the SECV,’ SECV Online [website], Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, A hand up not a hand out: Renewing the fight against poverty (Report on poverty and financial hardship) (2004), Page | 38 State Government Victoria, Victoria’s Regional Statement: Your Voice, Your Region, Your State (2015), Terzon, Emilia, ‘Could coronavirus have a silver lining for regional housing markets as people flee to the country?’, ABC News, 26 August 2020, Tomaney, John, Place-Based Approaches to Regional Development: Global Trends and Australian Implications (2010) Victoria, 2016–17 Financial and Performance Outcomes Hearing, Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, 15 February 2018, (DPMC). Parliament, Victoria, Budget Estimates (2017), Victoria, Parliament, Members of Parliament (Victoria) Annual Adjustment Determination 2020, Melbourne, 2020, Wahlquist, Calla, 'Hazelwood workers hang up their hats as power station closes', Guardian, 31 March 2017, Weller, Sally, ‘The Regional Dimensions of the ‘Transition to a Low-carbon Economy’: The Case of Australia’s Latrobe Valley’ (Pt Routledge) Regional Studies, 46/9 (2012), 1261-1272. Page | 39 Willingham, Richard, 'Coronavirus impact on Victorian economy to be 140 times worse than bushfires, Treasury expects', ABC News, 15 May 2020, Whittaker, Jarrod, 'Authority defends role', Latrobe Valley Express, 20 February 2017, Whittaker, Jarrod, 'Latrobe Valley population numbers fall after privatisation of Victorian power industry', ABC News, 15 April 2019, Wadley, David, and Ballock, Michael, ‘Satisfaction and Positive Resettlement: Evidence from Yallourn, Latrobe Valley, Australia’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 46/1 (1980), 64-75. Interviews (cited) Dan Simmonds, immediate past-chair of the Committee for Geelong interview, ‘Dan Simmonds interviewed by Alette De Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (5 October 2020). Latrobe City spokesperson interview, ‘Latrobe City spokesperson interviewed by Alette de Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (6 October 2020). Nick Anderson, planning consultant interview, ‘Nick Anderson interviewed by Alette De Koker’ [sound recording/transcript] (6 October 2020). Page | 40