Originally known as the Melbourne Concert Hall, the complex was designed by Sir Roy Grounds and opened in 1982 after a lengthy land dispute with the City of Melbourne, ongoing engineering problems and industrial action had hampered its construction for several years.

^{The exterior of Hamer Hall, illuminated at dusk}

After its opening, the Melbourne Concert Hall became a much-loved cultural hub, playing host to the world’s finest performers, orchestras and groups from Australia and abroad.

Whilst the Melbourne Concert Hall wasn’t very striking from the outside, the interior was fitted-out by expatriate designer John Truscott, who created a distinctive and luscious environment in which the public could enjoy a ‘special night out’ in the city.

^{Cadbury-Schweppes Room}

John Truscott’s opulent interiors are very special: The colours have been very carefully selected to create a rich atmosphere (a signature trait of Truscott’s).

From the box office with its gold-leaf ceiling to the lobby spaces with their rich red carpet or the verdant green of the Cadbury-Schweppes Room, Truscott created unique and distinctive interior spaces that contained only the finest of furnishings and fittings. The use of padded leather as a ‘wallpaper’ in many of the corridor spaces is certainly something I have never seen elsewhere, but suited the building extraordinarily well.

Sadly, it seems that most of Truscott’s legacy is to be destroyed during the renovations.

The huge glass chandelier in the foyer, created by Michel Santry and called Arcturus, is to be removed and won’t reappear. And if  the official preview images are anything to go by, there won’t be much of Truscott’s work left when the renovation is complete. The Victorian Arts Centre website states rather vaguely:

“The important contribution made to the interiors by interior designer John Truscott has been a key consideration in planning the redevelopment of Hamer Hall. The proposed changes to the interiors, both in the foyers and the auditorium, have been arrived at following considerable thought and care to ensure that the existing interiors are retained as much as possible”.

I don’t see much evidence of this.

^{Illustration of the planned refurbishment of Hamer Hall}

Last year I made a detailed photographic study of Hamer Hall as part of Melbourne Open House. Recognising the significance of Hamer Hall’s interior architecture, and suspicious that the State Government would trash yet another of our modern architectural masterpieces in it’s never-ending quest for the “modern” , I made a studious attempt to capture the essence of Hamer Hall, before it was all destroyed.

And destroyed it will be.

The original plans showed a horrible glass shard that would pierce the rear balcony to create a new entrance, but the latest renders seem to have omitted this particularly ugly feature.

^{The latest render of the redeveloped Hamer Hall.}

We can’t halt progress forever, but it seems a tragedy to me that we care so little about mid- to late- 20th century interior design. The National Gallery of Victoria had it’s interior destroyed, now it seems to be Hamer Hall’s turn. I wonder what we’ll have left from this period, if even John Truscott’s work is not considered significant enough to preserve?

Some pictures, for posterity:

I first attended this intriguing event in 2009, and was suitably impressed to make a return visit in 2010. The free festival, which runs for a week every July, provides an opportunity for artists to utilise the shops and buildings in Gertrude Street as a ‘projection screen’ upon which their electronic artworks can be presented for all to enjoy.

It works like this: An artist sets-up a projector or projectors from which emanates a light show. Projections range from those presented on a small screen in a shop window to small projections on trees or footpaths right up to elaborate patters over entire buildings. They can be animated, or static. It seems that the traders get right behind the festival each year, which adds to its charm.

There are so many impressive works which in 2010 have been contributed by 23 artists. The enjoyable part of the Gertrude Street Projection festival is that projections can be found in the most obscure of places, so the visitor has to be really observant so as not to miss anything.

Street projection is a democratic art form; projections can be enjoyed by children, parents and grandparents alike. The varied presentations can be appreciated for their simple luminescent beauty or the complex but subtle metaphors hidden in some of the more complicated pieces.

One of my favourite works in this year’s Festival was Ménage à Trois, by Nick Azidis. His work involved projecting a series of patterns over the Builders’ Arms Hotel from an upstairs shop window on the opposite side of the street which had the effect of draping the entire pub in luminescent patterns that were changed each day. His work is simple, but bold and eye-catching and it is his style of wallpapering whole buildings with light that I appreciate the most at the Festival. Fellow artist Kit Webster also illustrated an entire building with animated projections that rearranged like a deck of cards thrown across a table top. The effect was stunning, and it’s a pity that this treatment isn’t applied to more buildings.

I happened to be photographing Ménage à Trois when Nick Azidis introduced himself to me. He’d been setting up his display when he saw me set-up my tripod outside the Builders’ Arms Hotel and was curious to see what I was up to. After a friendly chat about the various aspects of projection art Nick Azidis kindly agreed to answer some of my questions for The Grapevine.

How long have you been projecting images onto buildings?
It all started when I lived in the city of Melbourne in 1992. Constant temptation, being surrounded by colossal buildings, set the inner spark.

What is the creative process from inspiration to execution?
Responding to the projection site and transforming it into an object of beauty that will inspire or provoke a new and different way of thinking, for a short moment in time.

How did you come across the Gertrude Street festival and how long  have you been participating?
This is the second year I’ve been involved with the Gertrude Street Projection Festival. In 2009, I was introduced to the co-founders of the festival, by a good friend of mine that I have worked on many show with over years, Olaf Myer (Technical Director for the GSPF).

Are you a full-time artist, or do you have a ‘day job’?
Always a struggle to find that balance from week to week. I do have a casual job in the television industry and most of my spare time is spent doing pre-production for commissioned projection work.

Is there a projectionist ‘community’ in Melbourne, or is it an individualistic pursuit?
Yes! The Projection art community has been growing every year in Melbourne, especially now with the Gertrude Street Projection festival on the calendar.
I find it interesting and always exciting working and collaborating with other projection artists. It can often lead to mysterious and unknown outcomes, which I like.

Do you  have artistic influences?
Yes. With projections, some of the things that inspire and influence me include architecture, photography and repetitive background patterns and motifs. I’m also influenced by symbols; logos; trademarks; geometrical and optical art; Chinese lattice designs; traditional Japanese stencils; silk fabric designs; textures; traditional Islamic designs and Aboriginal art.

You mentioned that you have some commissioned works? Where can we  see those?
Alumbra (Shed 14, Docklands) : 14 Kodak slide projection installation
The Lounge (Swanston Street, Melbourne) :11 Kodak slide and moving projection installation
La Di Da (Little Bourke Street, Melbourne) : 8  Kodak slide projection installation
Red Bennies (Chapel Street, South Yarra): 5 Kodak slide projection installation

^{Image: Nick Azidis}

Yesterday, I was watching the weather segment when I realised that my image of a cold morning on the Yarra River had been selected!

The ABC uses the same image for several nights in a row, so I was able to record the broadcast this evening. You can watch the segment below (or on YouTube):

If you’d like to have a photo considered for broadcast, you can upload your image to ABV2 via their “weather photo” website at http://www.abc.net.au/victoria/tvweather/upload.htm

One would consider that after Where the Bloody Hell are You? and Go Walkabout, the government’s tourism agency could produce something substantially better. Alas, they’ve remained true-to-form and produced an absolute shocker of an advertisement: A tuneless parade of clichéd scenes, sedated animals and people who really can’t sing. Take a look for yourself:

The problem I have with this woeful presentation is that it appears to be so astonishingly amateurish. For starters, the lyrics to the song are poorly-written. To suggest that kangaroos are “furry things that bounce around in herds” is neither factually correct (they form mobs) nor particularly cute. And “Da-da-da-daaaaa, da-da-da-daaaa” in place of half a verse suggests that we lack eloquence or even verbal skills. Is this really the best song-writing that several million dollars can produce?

What I also dislike about this embarrassing film is the lack of any real message. Apparently Australia consists almost entirely of larrikins, some sedated animals and various Outback landscapes. There are almost no references to our vast cultural heritage including aboriginal traditional painting, stage performances, our vast music scene, our architecture or our unique sports such as Australian Rules. Even the tokenistic opera singer at the Opera House is overshadowed by a Missy Higgins look-a-like in the front row!

But finally, I think the cinematography compares poorly to the previous advertisements. Couldn’t they at least film the rowers on Melbourne’s Yarra River on a sunny day? That aside, the overall presentation isn’t especially creative and lacks the crispness that one would expect from a national tourism campaign.

The big question we have to ask is “Why are Australians so poor at marketing themselves?”

Look at our last effort: Filmed by Baz  Luhrmann, it starred a stressed American woman (played by an Australian) who is stalked by a creepy Aboriginal girl in the middle of the night:

The Walkabout campaign was regarded as a failure despite it being linked to the release of the film Australia. Tourist numbers declined, and few people understood the true message of the advertisements. (In addition, walkabout can be a racist reference to the supposed lack of discipline and work ethic that Aborigines are said to possess; they’d rather ‘go walkabout’ or wander off).

Before Go Walkabout, there was the much-criticised Where the Bloody Hell Are You? campaign that was banned in Britain and censored in other markets such as Singapore:

Whilst in Australia the word bloody is just considered course, in most English-speaking countries it is considered offensive. So whilst creating a controversy might have seemed like clever advertising tactic by media-savvy marketing boffins at the time, it backfired in most markets and tourist numbers fell.

Looking back now, Where the Bloody Hell Are You? looks like the work of a genius when compared to There’s Nothing like Australia. The music was better, there was more personality expressed, a more representative image of Australia was shown and the cinematography was polished.

So what should we do? I guess we have three options; 1. Give up and accept that Australia is ‘out of vogue’ as a holiday destination; 2. Consider asking foreigners to make our ads, since they are probably more in touch with what works than we are or 3. Consider a serious brand transformation (i.e. no more clichés and the development of a memorable slogan).

We weren’t always so poor at marketing ourselves. Despite the fact that Australians call shrimps prawns and rarely barbecue them, Throw Another Shrimp on the Barbie was a worldwide hit because it increased brand recognition and tourist numbers.

I have no idea whether this advertisement will work. And as an Australian, I am admittedly not the best person to judge. But the reception domestically hasn’t been too good thus far. But for what it’s worth, I reckon we’re going to have to do a lot better than this if we’re seriously going to get recession-affected foreigners to come to Australia for a holiday.

Without question, this is a significant breakthrough. Yet, it raises many moral, ethical and philosophical questions, in particular about the true nature of life itself.

^{Scanning electron micrographs of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1. Samples were post-fixed in osmium tetroxide, dehydrated and critical point dried with CO2 , then visualised using a Hitachi SU6600 scanning electron microscope at 2.0 keV. Electron micrographs were provided by Tom Deerinck and Mark Ellisman of the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research at the University of California at San Diego. (Image: JCVI)}

Craig Venter’s revolutionary project cost US$30 million (A$36 million) to fund and has taken 15 years to achieve. The research programme was lead by Dr. Daniel Gibson (under the guidance of Dr. Craig Venter, one of this century’s most distinguished geneticists) and has involved more than 20 scientists. The team has successfully created an entire bacterial genome synthetically and then transferred that genome into a different species of bacterium, which has then replicated itself in the lab under the control of the synthetic genome.

^{Dr. Daniel Gibson. (Image: JCVI)}

The science behind this development is complicated, and almost impossible for a lay person to comprehend without a good understanding of biology and molecular genetics. Therefore, I have tried to summarise the concepts to a level that a person with high school or first year biology should mostly understand.

Developing the Synthetic Genome (In brief)

To achieve the synthetic genome, Craig Venter and his team sequenced the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides subsp. capri (strain GM12), a bacterium that causes lung disease in cows and goats. Using computer software, the genome sequence was ‘corrected’ so that a consensus sequence was generated. In addition, to allow for future identification of this synthetic genome, four ‘watermark’ sequences were inserted. The ‘watermark’ sequences encode unique identifiers whilst limiting their translation into peptides.

From there, small gene fragments (cassettes) of approximately 1080bp length were prepared from chemically-synthesised oligonucleotides manufactured by Blue Heron. A total of 1078 of these small gene cassettes were incorporated into yeast cells and cultured.

From these, 10kb synthetic intermediate cassettes were generated by extracting the 1kb cassettes from yeast, joining them within a vector and inserting them into E. coli which was then cultured. The E. coli strains that contained the synthetic inserts were then identified.

Form those 10kb fragments, eleven 100kb synthetic intermediates were assembled and transformed back into yeast. An electrophoresis gel was used to confirm which yeast plasmids contained the full insert. The plasmids were then purified to remove all traces of yeast chromosomal DNA.

From those eleven 100kb intermediates, the synthetic genome was assembled, then re-inserted into yeast. From there, the M. mycoides synthetic genome was transformed into M. capricolum cells.

Under the total control of the M. mycoides synthetic genome, the M. capricolum cells were proliferated in the lab.

Because the M. capricolum cells weren’t created de nov0 (ie: the synthetic genome was inserted into existing cells), the proteins for the original genome remained in the cells for a while. But with the passing of several generations, the new synthetic genome took over and the cells took on an appearance (phenotype) consistent with the new synthetic genome.

^{The assembly of a synthetic M. mycoides genome in yeast. (Image: JCVI)}

Implications

Whilst from a biological perspective, this is a brilliant scientific endeavour, it raises a lot of very deep philosophical questions. Most importantly: What is the essence of life?

Some argue that genetic engineering is “tampering with nature”. I reject such an argument, as hybridisation and ‘traditional’ breeding are essentially a less-efficient form of the same process of selecting genes in and out of populations with the exception that it has been practised for several thousand years.

But the process of adding an entirely synthetic genome (even if it is a copy of an existing genome) provides a deeper moral conundrum on two levels: (1) Will this lead to the de novo synthesis of life (ie. “playing God”) and (2) How will such technology be used?

On an ethical level, I cannot immediately say whether there is a legitimate moral objection to this technology based on an interpretation of Christian theology and/or general ethics. That said, some Bishops in Rome have expressed some concerns.

To understand the nature of de novo life, we first have to ask ourselves about the nature of death, and in the case of higher organisms, murder or killing. Under ordinary circumstances, causing cells to stop respiring almost always causes them to die, and therefore that is an act of killing those cells (and potentially the organism if certain cells are targeted). Such non-respiring cells are unquestionably dead. But what if we instead substitute those cells’ (or organism’s) entire genome with another?

The cells are still alive because they are still respiring, and therefore they haven’t died. But their fundamental character or nature has been destroyed.  Under such a scenario where we replace the genome of an entire organism with another, we have to ask ourselves, have we then killed that organism’s character (and therefore them) by destroying their genome?

To illustrate this point, imagine that a brain transplant were possible. Would the substitution of a person’s brain with another be an act of murder, when the body remains alive? If we accept that the person’s nature/character/soul exists within their brain, then perhaps yes, it is murder. If we argue on biological terms that respiration continues and the body remains alive, then it surely isn’t murder at all.

This is the conundrum that we as a society will have to grapple with, as synthetic genome technology is further developed and applied to mammalian (and possibly human) cells in future, such as embryos (for example). If the technology is imported into existing cells/organisms, and we feel that this could be interpreted as an act of murder, then moral objections will probably make the technology ethically bankrupt. If we don’t accept this viewpoint, then there is possibly no direct ethical problem with proceeding. The ethical issue might then lie with how the technology would be used rather than the technology itself.

At present, we can only import a genome into an existing yeast cell (created by God/existing in nature). If we were also eventually able to synthesise functional cell membranes, organelles, and cytoplasm artificially to compliment our synthetic genome, then perhaps we are not guilty of murder or killing when the genome is added, as no organism has been destroyed.

That said, if  such ‘synthetic cells’ can be created so that they can respire on their own, are we then really creating de novo life at odds with God’s Law/The Law of Nature? Or are we merely creating a sophisticated robot that is capable of ‘synthetic respiration’ and therefore we’re crossing no moral-ethical boundary? To decide whether such an approach is morally/ethically legitimate, we need to decide the boundaries between robot and organism and living or non-living. In essence: We need to define life.

At this moment in time, I really have no firm view other than to say that the creation of de novo life forms leaves me feeling quite uneasy. I will require further time to consider my full position on this matter. I will be listening carefully to the public debate that will no doubt follow.

So what is the point of this technology, really?

With all these potential ethical-moral problems, we really need to step back and ask ourselves, “What do we have to gain from this technology?”.

As it turns out, quite a lot.

Aside from its application in better understanding cell biology and genetics, such technology could be used to do considerable good.

Maryland biophysicist Dr David Thirumalai told the ABC’s AM programme that such technology could be used to create synthetic cells to heal particular parts of the body or to create synthetic organisms to clean up an oil spill. Many would argue that this is a decent, humane and ethical application of the technology.

Perhaps we could create blood cell lines that destroy viruses such as HIV? Or use those cells to create industrial biofuels? Perhaps we could create tiny organisms that convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen more efficiently than plants or synthetic trees, thus reversing the effects of Climate Change.

That said, such technology could also be used to enable despotic regimes to create nastier and more virulent forms of biological weapons.

The possibilities of this technology are endless, as are the ethical, moral and philosophical questions. Already today, the US president has announced an investigation into the use of synthetic genome technology. No doubt Australian authorities will announce a similar investigation soon.

Venter’s team have announced that their next target will be to apply their technique in adding a synthetic genome to an algae.

In their scientific manuscript, Dr. Daniel Gibson and Dr. Craig Venter write that their approach to creating synthetic cells might eventually “be applicable to the synthesis and transplantation of more novel genomes as genome design progresses” but counsel that they “… anticipate that (their) work will continue to raise philosophical issues that have broad societal and ethical implications”.

Lets hope that synthetic genomic technology, if adopted, will be used for good instead of evil. Lets hope that as a global community, we can have an inclusive debate about the proper use of such technologies.

Further Information

This article is based on the manuscript published in Science today:

D.G. Gibson, J.I. Glass et al. (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesised genome. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.1190719

Google Maps Earth View requires the installation of a small plugin to enable it to function on individual computers. Once installed, a person can ‘fly’ around a city, looking at a landscape of buildings and hills that is rendered in 3D in varying degrees of accuracy.

^{Render of Sydney, NSW, Australia, showing the Opera House and Harbour Bridge.}

So far, detailed CBD Earth renders been added to the maps of Brisbane (Qld.), Melbourne (Vic.) and Sydney (NSW). A small amount of 3D rendering has been applied to maps of Adelaide (SA), Cairns (Qld.), Canberra (ACT), Gold Coast City (Qld.), Hobart (Tas.), Launceston (Tas.), Perth (WA) and Wollongong (NSW).

Google Maps Earth View is a fun website to use, but the difficult directions control  panel makes navigation a challenge sometimes. In the window above, you can watch a 5-minute video presentation that I have created, demonstrating some of the features and problems.

Alternatively,  you can watch a high-resolution version of the video on YouTube.

^{Render of Brisbane, Qld., Australia.}

Because it is in its infancy, the amount of rendering is minimal, But in time, it will be possible to travel around Australia and the world, looking at the various sites.

On an international level, particular detail can be seen in the renders of Tokyo (Japan), Washington D.C. (USA), Paris (France) and London (UK). One of the funniest renders is  of the Kim Il-sung monument in Pyongyang, North Korea, which is very reminiscent of Flat Stanley!

^{Parliament House in Canberra, ACT, Australia.}

No doubt many people will enjoy this website as it grows and develops. You can access the website via http://maps.google.com.au and the plugin can be downloaded from http://earth.google.com/plugin/.

Do you work with hazardous chemicals and reagents?

I manage these risks by reading the appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets, using safety equipment and wearing suitable personal protective equipment. I also rely on appropriate chemical labelling and safety signage in the lab and on reagent bottles. Unfortunately, erecting appropriate signage or providing appropriate labelling can sometimes be problematic if the supply of labels, stickers or signs is exhausted or there are specialised labelling requirements.

In response to these challenges, I have designed the free HazChem TrueType font.

Now, safety signage or chemical labelling are just a font-change away!

The HazChem font is ideal for generating OH&S-compliant labels for reagent bottles, writing Material Safety Data Sheets or Standard Operating Procedures as well as general chemical safety labelling around your lab, industrial site or educational facility.

My HazChem font comes with a range of hazmat and hazchem symbols including Cytotoxic, Explosive, Radioactive, Biohazard, Corrosive, Flammable (Solid, Liquid, Gas), Oxidising Agent, Non-Flammable Gas, Cytotoxic, Poisonous, Toxic, Harmful and Ionising Radiation. For convenience, Attention, No Smoking, No Food and Exit glyphs have also been included.

Because there are many regulatory regimes in existence, I have created symbols that work within the Australian/British and USA/Canadian systems. Symbols from the European Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations (CHIP) and Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) systems have been included, as well as the United Nations’ new Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).

As a result of these many systems, I have made a handy printable reference sheet that summarises what keyboard characters correspond to each symbol. All symbols can be accessed on a US-Style computer keyboard without having to access the Character Map or “insert special character” functions.

Whilst my HazChem font won’t resolve your chemical safety issues, I trust that it will be an invaluable tool for promoting safety in laboratories, industrial sites and educational institutions.

You can find out more about the HazChem font, access installation instructions and get your free download at http://www.adonline.id.au/fonts/hazchem/

Ron Mueck (1958-) is an Australian-born hyper-realist sculptor who now works in the United Kingdom. His latest exhibition displays 11 of his key works.

Mueck’s sculptures attempt to reproduce the minute detail of the human body, but play with scale to produce disconcertingly jarring visual images. His characters are often naked and suspended in states of self-consciousness, introspection or deep contemplation. Viewing them almost  breeds embarrassment or empathy at the vulnerability of the individual.

The technical skill in producing such detailed works is impressive. The head, with it’s fine strands of hair and small patches of blood on A Girl (an oversized newborn baby, complete with remains of an umbilical cord) has to be seen to be believed, because aside from the gigantic scale, looks entirely real.

Of course, not everyone likes Mueck’s work. Guardian columnist Jonathan Jones described his works in 2006 as “blank, empty and brainless” and Mueck’s admirers as people who needed to get out more. Naturally, others disagree, including myself.

One of my favourite sculptures was Old Woman in Bed (2000), which I consider the most evocative of Mueck’s works.

Ron Mueck’s exhibition is showing at the National Gallery of Victoria until 18 April 2010. Entry for adults is $15.

After the fiasco surrounding a leaked government memo that revealed a plot to hold a “sham public consultation“, approval from the Minister already seemed like a fait accomplis. Then last Wednesday (16 March 2010), the Heritage Council of Victoria granted approval for the redevelopment plans, subject to various revisions. So it came as no surprise when the Minister made his announcement today.

The following ABC News Victoria clip outlines the whole saga beautifully, including the Minister’s woeful performance at today’s press conference.

I won’t outline my objections to this project again, as they’re already outlined in my previous blog post.

I’ll just reiterate my disappointment at the vandalism that’s about to be wreaked upon the grand Windsor Hotel. I made the effort to write a lengthy submission to the Heritage Council, objecting to this proposal, but it seems it was in vain. Nevertheless, they have removed some of the “rough edges” from the design, which is of some value.

To those in Melbourne, I say enjoy this view, one last time… because it won’t be there for much longer.

In an election year where voter dissatisfaction with the government is growing, I cannot help but wonder whether this is just another cynical ploy to win votes, rather than consider the future of Melbourne’s water supply.

I care a lot about this issue. As a person with a deep concern for the health of the environment as well as the health of our agricultural sector, water policy is of particular interest. I have written previous blog posts documenting rainfall patterns, El Niño and the drought. Given the importance of water to Australia, the driest inhabited continent, I expect water policy decisions to based on science and data, not politics.

Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that today’s announcement that Stage 3A would be reduced to Stage 3 has a lot more to do with politics than science. Here’s why:

Let’s look at the data. Shown below is a graph illustrating the overall amount of water stored in Melbourne’s reservoirs as a percentage of total reservoir holding capacity at this time of year, for the past decade. The data has been taken from Melbourne Water, who publish weekly statistics in their Weekly Water Report.

^{Melbourne’s total water storage levels as a percentage of capacity on or around 16 March for the past 10 years. The period where “Stage 3A” restrictions have been in place is marked in red. (Data supplied by Melbourne Water Corporation, based on readings from Cardinia, Greenvale, Maroondah, O’Shannassy, Silvan, Sugarloaf, Tarago, Thomson, Upper Yarra and Yan Yean reservoirs.)}

The graph clearly illustrates a drop in Melbourne’s water from 2007, but Melbourne’s water supplies had been dwindling prior to that. As a response (and in accordance with legislation), Stage 1 water restrictions were introduced on 1 September 2006 after that year’s dry winter. As the effects of the drought continued, Stage 2 restrictions were introduced on 1 November 2006, and Stage 3 commenced on 1 January 2007.

Then a curious thing happened.

Just as it appeared Melbourne would head into Stage 4 water restrictions (which would prohibit almost any outdoor water use), the then Premier, Steve Bracks, announced the creation of a new level: Stage 3A. Unlike Stage 4 (which was in place throughout much of the state, and in the city of Geelong), Stage 3A still allowed some watering of plants. But the real change in water policy was not the creation of Stage 3A, but how the restrictions were decided in the first place.

Up until that point, the various government water authorities made a decision about implementing water restrictions as per the Water Industry Act 1994. Whilst each decision about water restrictions had to be approved by the Minister for Water, the actual decision rested with the various water authorities who were at arms-length from government. This is detailed in the Victorian Uniform Drought Water Restriction Guidelines (PDF) which clearly specifies four water restriction levels (ie. Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4).

In 2007, the Premier announced that the government would make the decision about water restrictions in Melbourne in consultation with the water authorities. Suddenly, there was a chance for politics to enter the decision-making process, and suddenly Stage 3A was born.

Look at that graph again. You will notice that water storages were at 33.0% on 15 March 2007, just before “Stage 3A” was announced. Now, three years later, the levels are 34.6% and 3A is to be abandoned for Stage 3.

A paltry 1.6% more water seems to be the difference between Stage 3A and Stage 3. I wonder what threshold was crossed in that small rise? According to Yarra Valley Water’s Drought Response Plan (PDF), no threshold was crossed.

The table below is taken from Schedule 1 (p.8) of Yarra Valley Water’s Drought Response Plan. It shows the “trigger levels” for the four legislated stages of water restriction. You will notice no mention of “Stage 3A” in this document, any other water authority’s Drought Response Plan, in the Victorian Uniform Drought Water Restriction Guidelines or in the Water Industry Act 1994.

What you will note is that the trigger for Stage 3 water restrictions in March is a storage volume of 629 GL (gigalitres). Our current water storage is at 34.6% full, equivalent to 626 GL. Technically, this means we should be on Stage 2 restrictions!

Of course, this can’t really happen. The dams need to re-fill after dry periods, before we can reduce restrictions. We also need to ensure that Victorians learn from the experience of the drought, rather than redeveloping ‘bad habits’.  The Victorian Uniform Drought Water Restriction Guidelines and Water Industry Act 1994 both provide for consideration of these factors.

Those published documents mandate that water authorities must consider how quickly the reservoirs are refilling, patterns of consumer water consumption, recent climate patterns and predictions of future rainfall before reducing restrictions. In addition, the Drought Response Plan for each of Melbourne’s various water authorities actually provides a very sensible scientific evidence-based decision-making process.

Unfortunately this system has been corrupted by a State Government only too keen to use water policy to secure votes.

In its defence, the State Government had cited the commissioning of the (much hated) North-South (Sugarloaf) Pipeline, the ‘success’ of Target 155 and the construction of the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant as reasons to remove Stage 3A restrictions. I don’t wish to make comment on these various policy decisions nor their effectiveness, other than to remind you that there’s been no real change in water storage levels between 2008 and 2010 to justify a change in water restrictions.

The truth is that in Victoria, the setting of water restrictions is a complicated process described variously in Drought Response Plans, the Water Industry Act 1994 and the Victorian Uniform Drought Water Restriction Guidelines. It is my view that the Water Industry Act 1994 should be amended so that: (1) Trigger points are clearly published in law; (2) The decision about the imposition and removal of water restrictions are made independent of government; (3) that government water authorities are given legislative independence from government; (4) environmental considerations and consumption behaviour be considered in the decision-making process and (5) only the Governor of Victoria may revoke decisions.

It is only with these measures that we can have full confidence in the impartiality of water restriction decisions.

As it currently stands with a State election in November, declining government popularity and a government with a recent (alleged) history of corrupting public processes, I have little faith that the removal of State 3A was nothing more than a cynical pre-election ploy.

Water is our most precious resource. We need to start treating it that way at both the consumer and political levels.