Pearls and Irritations

With the nation’s worst state debt and the looming budget, we hear almost weekly of the Victorian Government’s desperate funding cuts to essential services. While, for example, our nurses, childcare and aged care workers and our police are very much valued and needed, they appear to come a poor second in financial support to the Grand Prix from the main political parties. Is this what Victorians want?

With up to 3000 public service jobs rumoured to be slashed and continued insufficient funding to fix dangerous potholes, I’m sure Victorians would overwhelmingly agree that a car race should not be a priority.

We should question why our Labor Government and Liberal Opposition persist with the Grand Prix — an event that has already cost Victorians more than $1 billion, with a further estimated $2 billion loss by the contract’s end in 2037 — and why they deem it more worthy than people’s livelihoods.

The yet to be announced $300 million expansion of the pit garages in the Albert Park Reserve will further massively encroach on public parkland. It will double the capacity of the exclusive Paddock Club corporate facility to 5000, but who benefits from this event for which Victorians pay billions?

The annual multi-million-dollar revenue from this expensive facility will go straight out of the country into the pockets of Formula One along with their yearly multi-million-dollar contract fees. Revenue from hotel hikes on Grand Prix weekend also goes to foreign owners.

Yes, the GP is a major event and, yes, it is an international event, but is it value for our money? The Auditor-General did not think so, neither do respected economists like Professor John Quiggin. They calculated Grand Prix costs outweigh benefits to Victoria. Professor Quiggin was particularly scathing of the government’s economic ‘impact’ studies of the Grand Prix saying they were “utterly discredited”.

The government’s own Grand Prix consultants, EY, have admitted that their ‘impact’ modelling has “limitations”. Indeed. Why do our leaders persist with sham GP economic studies?

Is it because these “impact” studies ignore costs and thus will always come up with a positive figure and be trumpeted a “winner”? Natural disasters, like the Grand Prix, generate an “impact” but disasters and the GP have shown they cause a net loss to the state in both economic and financial terms.

“Record” Grand Prix crowds? Well, yes, there are now bigger numbers, but what other major event would need to boost its numbers by giving away about 40,000 free tickets every year?

No other major event “estimates” its attendance numbers or “counts”, as does the Grand Prix, some 70,000 credentialed people, like security, caterers and delivery drivers, to the total attendance tallies. They are not ticket-paying spectators but misleadingly and artificially increase Grand Prix attendance number “estimates”.

What other event would “trial” crowd counting devices over three decades and would claim it a “national security risk” to tell us at what gates, if any, scanners are used?

What other major event, or any event, would hire a legal heavyweight and go to VCAT to keep its methodology of counting its attendances hidden from public scrutiny? And contend it is in the public interest to keep it secret from the public because of the level of public funding it receives?

Should attendance numbers be a reason for government to continue supporting an event that is an ever-increasing burden on Victoria and an event largely attended by Melburnians? Should we pay for “loss leader” entertainers like Robbie Williams to help boost attendance numbers?

“International exposure”? For 20 years, the AGPC claimed an entire F1 season’s audience for their Grand Prix, with successive Victorian premiers from Jeff Kennett to Daniel Andrews repeating those false boasts. How could they get it so wrong for so long and why weren’t the AGPC’s and the government’s claims fact-checked? Were GP contracts extended based on those false claims? Now, worldwide, all the Grands Prix have the same circuit advertising. Where the heck is Aramco?

Victoria’s other major events are not hosted in costly temporary venues at the expense of the proper and normal users of those venues. Nor do they rely on taxpayers to cover, by law, their annual operating losses – losses which are mounting alarmingly.

Why are Labor and the Liberals supporting a perennial loss-making car race that takes over an inner city public park from early December to late May and disrupts local sport for up to four months annually? The sporting clubs say they lose potential members, home-ground advantage and revenue annually, but no-one is listening.

Wouldn’t it be more profitable for government to promote the health and well-being of its citizens all year round, rather than paying for a very expensive four-day display of young men driving aggressively at speed on public roads?

More than $100 million lost annually on the Grand Prix could make Victoria a better place. There are many health and sport initiatives for school children that would go a long way to making a difference to their physical and mental health. The very many benefits would be on-going.

Victoria could save two billion dollars in forward losses. It’s time we were rid of this Grand Prix white elephant.

When it comes to the Grand Prix, Nobel Laureate, Patrick White’s quote at a 1972 rally in Centennial Park is particularly poignant and relevant: “Your parks are your breathing spaces. Guard them, cherish them. Parkland is valuable and greedy eyes see the money in it. So you must always be on the alert. Hang onto your breathing spaces in this developing and already over-congested city. Protect your parks from the pressure of political concrete.”

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT