CANNINGTON, Ms Jo, Director City Strategy and Urban Planning, City of Melbourne DAPIRAN, Ms Rachel, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Hume City Council GARDHAM, Ms Karen, Executive Officer, Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action MOORE, Councillor Carly, Mayor, Hume City Council ROMASZKO, Ms Samantha, Director, City Futures, Melton City Council SEMRA, Mr Mohamed, Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council WALSH, Mr Kelvin, Director, City Futures, Brimbank City Council CHAIR: Welcome. Melton City Council, do you have an opening statement? Ms Romaszko : Yes, we do. Thank you for the opportunity to present Melton City Council's position on AI and data centres. Melton City Council recognises that data centres represent an important component of Victoria's future digital infrastructure and economic development. The City of Melton is emerging as a location of interest for data centre development due to its strategic position in Melbourne's west, access to industrial land, major transport corridors, and proximity to electricity and water infrastructure. There is currently one data centre under construction within the City of Melton and there are a number of applications with the Victorian government. There are no applications currently with Melton City Council as the responsible authority. Council welcomes the new framework announcements made by the Victorian government on 22 September and recognises that, whilst data centres can attract substantial capital investment and support the broader digital economy, they raise local planning, infrastructure, environmental and community issues. While we welcome yesterday's announcement as a positive step forward, council is seeking a moratorium on the determination of all planning permit applications for data centres in the City of Melton until such time as the development of a coordinated framework in collaboration with all levels of government is completed. It is intended that the framework would guide the assessment, approval and delivery of future data centre development. This framework must include early formal and meaningful involvement of local councils in pre-application planning and impact assessment processes; strategic planning for data centre precincts; a robust and meaningful community engagement process; greater transparency and mandatory disclosure of energy and water capacity; clear proponent and government investment requirements for enabling infrastructure; consistent and enforceable design outcomes; emergency management resilience and risk management requirements; local employment training and procurement commitments; and a requirement that major data centre proposals demonstrate a net community benefit. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. CHAIR: Brimbank. Mr Walsh : Melbourne's west is experiencing rapid growth in data centres, with many large facilities in the planning stages. All data centres have the potential to unlock significant new infrastructure investment. Without proper planning and regulation, they risk significant impacts on the electricity grid, local communities, nature, water and climate. Brimbank City Council recently voted to call for a moratorium on all new data centre applications until binding planning controls and mandatory sustainability standards are in place. Currently, many data centres are being approved with little or no consultation with the surrounding communities and, more recently, are being approved through the state government and bypassing local councils. Local government needs to retain an effective decision-making role in assessing and determining applications. Councils have detailed local knowledge of land-use issues, infrastructure capacity and community risk. Engaging councils early in the approval process would reduce project risk and improve outcomes for everyone. Data centre growth must be environmentally sustainable and matched with integrated planning for renewable energy and storage, electricity grid capacity, water supply and the natural environment. This requires stronger coordination between the state, local councils, distribution network service providers, the Australian Energy Market Operator and water authorities. Brimbank City Council is a member of the Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action, an alliance of seven councils in Melbourne's west. WAGA submitted a detailed submission to this inquiry, and we have Karen Gardham here, WAGA's executive officer, for any questions that the committee would like to ask on that particular submission. The key ask of WAGA councils is for a pause on approvals for new hyperscale data centres until appropriate safeguards and policy reforms are implemented. This aligns with Brimbank's call for a moratorium. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee today on this important topic. Councillor Moore : Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today on behalf of the Hume City community. Hume is one of Australia's fastest growing municipalities and is increasingly becoming a strategic location for data centre development. Few municipalities are experiencing the scale of proposed investment that Hume is currently facing, and, as a result, our community is at the front line of this emerging policy challenge. We recognise the important role that AI and data centres play in supporting Australia's digital economy, innovation ambitions and future prosperity. We are not opposed to this industry. We understand its importance to Australia's future and the opportunities it can create. However, our submission is based on a simple principle: nationally significant infrastructure must also have a social licence to operate within local communities. The communities we represent are asking reasonable questions about the environmental, infrastructure, employment and amenity impacts. They want to understand what these developments mean for energy consumption, water security, local roads, noise, long-term employment opportunities and neighbourhood wellbeing. While data centres bring investment and construction activity, our residents are increasingly asking whether the long-term employment outcomes are proportionate to the scale of land, energy and infrastructure that they consume. Yet too often communities feel they are not receiving clear, independent information or meaningful opportunities to participate in the decision-making. As the level of government closest to the community, council sees firsthand the concern that exists when major developments are proposed without adequate transparency or engagement. We believe government and industry must do more to bring communities into the conversation earlier and more effectively. Our submission makes six recommendations. Central among these are stronger community engagement requirements; greater transparency regarding environmental and employment impacts; minimum buffer zones, informed by independent scientific evidence; the establishment of a joint federal, state and local government taskforce; and mechanisms to ensure communities share in the benefits of these developments through local investment and community outcomes. While our recommendations focus on improving transparency, engagement and planning, council's view is that these measures are urgently needed. In the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework, we are calling for a temporary moratorium on the approval of new data centres and the expansion of existing facilities until much clearer state and federal guardrails are established regarding where, when and how these developments should occur. Ultimately, our message to the committee is that Australia can successfully grow its AI and data centre industry while also maintaining community confidence. Achieving that balance will require stronger leadership, better planning frameworks and a commitment to ensuring local communities have a genuine voice in the decisions that will affect their future. Local government has a role to play, industry has a role to play, and communities also have a role to play, but ultimately it is the responsibility of state and federal governments to establish the policy settings that provide certainty for industry while protecting the interests of local communities. The true measure of success will not be the number of data centres we approve or the amount of data that they process. It will be whether, years from now, the communities that host this infrastructure can look back and say they were listened to, they shared in the benefits and they are better off because of the decisions that we made today. Mr Semra : Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of Maribyrnong City Council. I want to begin by saying clearly that we are not opposed to technology, innovation or Australia's digital future. Data centres are an important part of our economy, and we understand Australia needs digital infrastructure. But, as mayor, my responsibility is also to speak for the communities being asked to host that infrastructure. In Melbourne's west, people are asking a simple question: what happens when you have not just one data centre but many? Communities don't experience these projects one planning application at a time. They experience the cumulative impact on our electricity networks, roads, waterways, air quality, neighbourhoods and ultimately people's quality of life. Maribyrnong already carries a significant share of industrial activity, freight movements and environmental pressures, so, when major new infrastructure comes into our neighbourhoods, our residents are asking: are we simply going to keep adding to that burden, or are we going to plan differently? We've already seen the infrastructure required to support this growth. In West Footscray, Tottenham and Yarraville, residents have seen electricity infrastructure expand, including power poles increasing substantially in height. That goes to the heart of what council is asking for. People should not feel that major national infrastructure is being done to their community. They should feel that it is being planned with their community. So what are we asking for? Firstly, transparency—we want consistent national reporting of data centre energy use, emissions and water consumption; secondly, cumulative assessment—we want governments to assess multiple data centres and the infrastructure supporting them together, not project by project in isolation; and, thirdly, better planning. Victoria needs a dedicated framework for data centres, and we welcome the state government's new framework, but we require stronger and consistent standards around heat, stormwater, biodiversity and air quality. Finally, we are asking for a meaningful local voice. Councils and communities need access to the information and planning pathways necessary to participate in decisions that fundamentally affect their neighbourhoods. Alongside other councillors, council's position is that all planning applications before the minister should be under a moratorium until we understand the full impact and the cumulative impacts that this is having on the community. The technology is moving quickly. Our planning framework needs to catch up. We can support Australia's digital future without asking the same communities to continually absorb the cost of that growth. We should be ambitious enough to build a digital future that is innovative, sustainable and fair to the communities that host it. CHAIR: Thank you. You've all called for a pause or a moratorium until there are a clear set of rules and until the information is known and until there is a real understanding of the cumulative impacts and therefore assessment on these projects. Do you feel at this point that councils are being left in the dark without these rules and processes in place? Mr Semra : It's very important that council have a seat at the table when decisions are being made, because councils understand the conditions on the ground. When issues are brought forward, they're brought to council initially. We understand existing infrastructure, environmental pressures and the communities experiencing the impacts, but councils are constrained when we don't have sufficient information or meaningful planning pathways. Like I said, national infrastructure still has a local footprint. Sometimes statewide or nationwide agendas are made not entirely understanding the needs of the community, and I think that's where local government comes into play and that's where we can contribute. Ms Cannington : Just to add to that, what the planning system is not successfully doing at the moment is dealing with the scale of this infrastructure. I think we've got to be really careful of the terminology we use when we talk about data centres, because they come in all shapes and sizes. I think the thing that most communities are most concerned about is the hyperscale infrastructure, and I think that distinguishing factor isn't within the planning scheme, so all data centres are treated equally. I think there's an element of hierarchy that needs to be incorporated and that could be incorporated through definitions and scale, with a practice note around that scale. CHAIR: I think that you're correct, in relation to needing to make a distinction between the various sizes. We are very much focused on those megahyperscale facilities. That is what we're hearing a lot of community concern around, and that is directly related to those big, largely American, AI based companies. One of the things that has struck me, listening to the evidence both this morning and yesterday and in reading through the submissions, is how many gaps there are in the various different planning approval processes. These AI data companies are looking for the gap and then driving through it. I think we need to be careful, if it's just based on size, to make sure that they don't all get just under that threshold so that then they build the next one across the road with, effectively, the same cumulative impact. So we need a proper framework that takes all of this into consideration. In terms of your engagement with state government, do you feel you've got a direct line into state government on these issues to raise concerns or to get clarification about the questions that your residents are asking you? The community is getting a barrier. Are the councils getting a barrier as well? Mr Semra : I would say the existing planning framework is not fit for purpose, and we're finding that local government, to an extent, is being sidelined and being thought of as an afterthought. It's very frustrating on our part because we hear daily from residents that are experiencing this in their daily lives, and it's impacting their communities and their families. So that direct line, I think, is very important. And that's why we're asking for this framework that brings in local government and has us at the table. Mr Walsh : What we're increasingly seeing is that the state is stepping in and approving, taking the responsible authority role in assessing, considering and, in many cases, approving data centres, regardless of the scale. Fundamentally, local government and the city of Brimbank see the responsible authority role, in relation to planning applications, as being our bailiwick, our jurisdiction. So we're increasingly concerned that, with the state assessing more of the applications, our local communities are being left out of the process. In addition to that, the value that gets added to applications through that process—in terms of local knowledge, understanding risks and understanding local infrastructure needs—is actually not being considered as part of the applications. And that presents a risk not only for our local community but also for the investment into our local community, both in the short and immediate term and also the longer term. CHAIR: You've actually just pre-empted my next set of questions, which is about the pressure on community and local infrastructure. Obviously these mega data centres are building on their footprint, but then they're connecting to the grid, they're using mains water and there are a whole lot of other impacts on the infrastructure that's already built. What are your major concerns in terms of the pressure on broader infrastructure? Ms Cannington : We're really interested in ensuring that the data centre proponent actually bears the cost of that infrastructure upgrade, that the application includes an obligation to report on the anticipated energy and water costs to actually run and operate the facility. At the moment, through the planning process, a lot of the planning is for permission to use or build the facility. It doesn't actually always obligate the proponent to declare the operational implications. And I think if the advice were to ensure that that is considered as part of the obligation and continually monitored, we could then actually determine the volume of the capacity of the networks to actually accommodate that new use. That's where I think it's falling over a little bit, because that's not necessarily understood. So the existing grid or the existing water supply is then under pressure, not understanding the potential utilisation of that operating component. CHAIR: Can I put this scenario to you. It was put to us by the deputy mayor in Sydney yesterday that a proposed facility in Ultimo needs access to the grid, so then there is extra pressure on that local substation. It's almost a first-in best-served customer ranking to access the amount of credit out of that substation power. The data centre gets built very quickly. It's 60 or 80 megawatts or maybe more—maybe 120. That is then power from that substation that is not available for the next lot of housing development that's being done. She was making the point that housing development is actually going to be fundamentally undermined because of how quickly this is rolling out without understanding the overall pressures. Is that something that your councils are having to question and weigh up right now? Ms Cannington : Yes. Mr Walsh : I would add that in the Victorian system that is a problem with the framework that we actually are missing. So what we're seeing is that individual applications are assessed on a case-by-case or merit-by-merit basis. In doing that, there's no cumulative understanding of the impact on electricity supply or water supply. That's a particular problem in Melbourne's west, where we see a high concentration of data centres being sought and coming online. It's also one of the fastest growing residential corridors in the country. So without a clear framework, either nationally or at a state level, we are not seeing, within the assessment processes, that weighing of the cumulative impact and the balancing of the benefits and disbenefits of data centres in relation to other growth demands or other development demands in the west. And that's particularly concerning when you think about economic development. We do know that data centres have low employment concentrations, and there's no framework for clear flow-on community benefit from that investment. So what we're seeing in Melbourne's west is the complete absence of being able to assess the cumulative impact or what that will deliver for our communities into the future in terms of public value. Ms Dapiran : I think it's really important, from our point of view—it's in our submission—to have that national-state framework. It would be even better if it were the three levels of government, because it is hard for an individual council to assess the cumulative impact when you're looking at a broader network. So whilst we would absolutely want to be part of the decision-making process, bringing community in, you do need that. And that can only be done with others when you're talking about things like energy and water. So that's been very front and centre, in terms of what we've put in our submission. I think the state government have taken some steps towards looking at things in a far more networked way, because things don't end at boundaries. So that's why you need both. Ms Cannington : Just to build on that, I think the terminology that might be useful to think about is the urban readiness of the site to actually accommodate this type of use. I think that's where, collectively, we can look across municipal boundaries. As a council, we're also looking at electrification, and there's a whole range of other pressures on the grid beyond this particular use. We have a lot of hats to wear and we have a lot of balancing to do. It's about how we enable this infrastructure, but, at the same time, understand the implications of it so that the costs and the impacts are fairly distributed. CHAIR: It seems crazy to me that, at the moment, there's no hierarchy that puts housing ahead of a mega data centre. If we're talking about valuable land in communities, pressures on the power grid, water supply and the liveability of a community, then surely housing should be given a higher priority than a US data centre. Mr Semra : I'll add to that. If we want an example, we don't need to look far. In this very community of Yarraville, infrastructure needed to power data centres is being put in local streets without consultation or transparency with the community. Twenty-two-metre-high power poles are towering over homes and reducing the tree canopy. I think this is one example of where the community feels like this is happening to them. That's a very clear example that is happening right here in our community. CHAIR: Senator Henderson. Senator HENDERSON: I want to pick up on the earlier questions. It seems that all the data centres are going into the west of Melbourne. I understand there's probably more industrial land, but it's very disproportionate. Today's Senate inquiry hearing is a very good opportunity for your voice to be heard by the parliament. Frankly, I don't think you've been listened to by the Victorian government. What needs to be done? There's the so-called action plan that's been announced. What's your response to what Ben Carroll announced yesterday, Councillor Semra? Mr Semra : Like I said, we welcome this new framework, especially understanding that water use and the cost of infrastructure are big issues for the community. Council is advocating for the infrastructure that's put in Yarraville to go underground, and we want that paid for by the user. Having a framework that sets out how data centres operate when conducting business is, I think, very important. That is welcome. What we're asking— Senator HENDERSON: What about the 150-metre buffer zone? Surely that's not enough between a data centre and residential homes. Mr Semra : If you look at West Footscray, for example, homes that are 150 metres away are still feeling those impacts or feeling concerned, so I think that should be thought of holistically. The City of Maribyrnong— Senator HENDERSON: Do you support that buffer zone, that 150-metre limit? Mr Semra : It's a start, but we need more to be done. I think 150 metres might not be what the community wants, and it isn't enough to, potentially, stop those impacts. Councillor Moore : In Melbourne's north, we've currently got eight data centres that have either been built, are planned to be built or are in the current approval process. We've certainly got a significant representation of data centres out there also. I want to pick up on the point around the 150 metres. I think we are heading in the right direction. I think the announcements yesterday are absolutely a step in the right direction, but I do not think that 150 metres is very far. I haven't seen any scientific research that that 150 metres is based on. I feel like it's just a number that has been chosen. Certainly, I was hearing from the community yesterday that 150 metres isn't very far. I spoke to that on ABC radio yesterday. I don't think 150 metres goes very far, and I don't think anybody who lives 150 metres away from a data centre or a proposed data centre would say it's far enough. Senator HENDERSON: What do you think is the appropriate buffer? Councillor Moore : I think it needs to be based on evidence and research. I'm the mayor of the city; I represent the community's views. When I'm not the mayor, I work as an accountant. So I'm not the expert. I can't speak on how far is far enough. But, certainly, if I lived 150 metres away from a proposed site, I would be saying it is not far enough. We need to have some evidence before we can determine what the right number is. Senator HENDERSON: Does anyone else have any comments in relation to the plan that's been announced? Ms Cannington : I think there's more detail. We haven't been briefed yet on the detail beyond the primary announcement. I think that it's really important to link both spatial and built-form considerations, because a distance from something is really relevant to its height, in terms of its scale. For the city of Melbourne, we don't actually have a lot of zones that are just residential, so we're really curious about how this works in a mixed-use zone or in industrial zones. There's a whole scale of detail that we're really curious to learn more about. We welcome that there's some discussion about this that can create more of a decision guideline for assessing the applications in more detail. But we, collectively, need to work together about what 'good' looks like and what is reasonable for our communities in accommodating these uses, because they're externalities, right? They're things that communities typically don't want to be near but most of us need and use. So there's this balance that's happening. We've got a discussion paper out with our community at the moment to get that information in, and we're happy to provide that feedback to this inquiry as we get more detail. But this is the beginning of a bit of a journey I think we need to make to really work out what the number is, what that number means, how that plays out in terms of the assessment and what is then reasonable for our communities. Senator HENDERSON: Ms Cannington, the city of Melbourne would not be as much of a target for a data centre development as other parts of western Melbourne, I assume. Ms Cannington : We have two at the moment. Fishermans Bend and our innovation precincts are actually under a lot of pressure for this. They look a bit different to what's being experienced in other areas. But, in terms of us being, I guess, an attractive, innovative future and driving what the role of this technology in the city is, we are actually getting a lot of pressure in our mixed-use and innovation precincts. Senator HENDERSON: Mr Walsh? Mr Walsh : On the City of Brimbank's position, the Premier's announcement yesterday was, in part, strongly aligned with our council's position. With regard to renewable energy requirements, water use control, setbacks, location controls and community benefit distribution, there was strong alignment with our position and what we've been calling for. Where the Premier's announcement fell short of our expectations was in relation to a clear, dedicated planning framework. We're yet to see how the announcement will actually translate into legislation and regulation and meaningful controls for our community that are aligned with our community expectations and aspirations. It fell short in terms of an assessment of community impacts, and it certainly fell short of what we've been calling for in relation to stronger council involvement. They're three things that we would like to see stronger statements on from the state. Most importantly, my council has been calling for a moratorium on approvals until those things are in place, and, of course, the Premier's announcement did not call for a moratorium on the assessment and approvals. Senator HENDERSON: Ms Romaszko, what about Melton? Could you give us the lie of the land in Melton. Ms Romaszko : Yes, sure. In the city of Melton, we have extensive vacant industrial land at this point in time that adjoins already developed land within the city of Wyndham, where we see extensive data centres being built at the moment or permitted to be built. That presents significant challenges for us when we are looking at industrial land that's directly adjacent to residential land. We've spoken a little bit about that and heard a little bit about that. That is challenging for us. One application in particular that's been determined by the Victorian government is very much within close proximity to our residential areas. So, whilst we acknowledge that the announcement yesterday was a step forward for us, we're really continuing to seek a moratorium on the determination of our planning permit applications and data centres within the city of Melton until that coordinated framework, in collaboration with all levels of government, is completed. Senator HENDERSON: Can you explain council's powers in relation to these developments. Is the state effectively overriding local council planning laws? Ms Romaszko : There are two pathways for data centre approvals from a planning lens. All data centres within the City of Melton at this point in time have gone through the Victorian government's Development Facilitation Program. As such, we are a municipal council. We are referred the application as a municipal council and not a formal referral authority as such. Therefore, we have a very limited timeframe to assess an application and to provide feedback back through to the Department of Transport and Planning. As such, as a council, we have not considered or made any determination on these applications. Senator HENDERSON: Councils are being completely sidelined from any local controls that you may want to impose. Ms Romaszko : We have an opportunity to provide feedback to the Department of Transport and Planning through the process— Senator HENDERSON: Sure, but you're not the decision-maker. Ms Romaszko : No, we're not the decision-maker. Ms Dapiran : Who makes that decision is up to the proponent. We have had them come through and ask us, the decision-maker, a year or two ago, but, more recently, we're finding they're all going through the development facilitation program, so the proponent gets to choose. Senator HENDERSON: Probably because Jacinta Allan was saying, 'Come on down; we want to be the data centre capital of the world,' that their proponents are now electing not to go through local councils. Have you made any representations in relation to changing the way the planning scheme works so that local councils can have more control, or have you sought to do so? Councillor Moore : I believe it's up to the developer to choose which pathway they are going to follow. If they choose to follow the Victorian government's pathway, then, as was already said, we just become a referral agency—and that is an office's comments on the proposal. It very much takes away the councillors' ability to comment or to provide that feedback and really takes away the local community's opportunity to have their say. Senator HENDERSON: Have you sought to change that current option or made representations that that current option should change such that council should be the first port of call? Councillor Moore : No, we have not had any opportunity to— Senator HENDERSON: You haven't challenged the current framework? Councillor Moore : No. Ms Dapiran : The focus has been on getting the framework right rather than who makes the decision from Hume's point of view. Mr Semra : We've been very clear that it's not fit for purpose and we believe that local councils need to have a seat at the table, and that should come through us because of the community consultation needed to ensure that the outcomes work for everyone. Senator HENDERSON: But, Councillor Semra, isn't it the case that, if you're just providing feedback and you're not the decision-maker, you have very little influence in the outcome? Mr Semra : Yes, absolutely. That's what we want to change. Senator HENDERSON: Do you want to change that? Mr Semra : Yes. Senator HENDERSON: How do you want to change that? Mr Semra : We don't believe that it should bypass council. In the event that it does, we want our view to be taken seriously. We believe now that it's not. Senator HENDERSON: Have you made representations to the Victorian government that you don't believe there should be this two-pathway process? Mr Semra : There has been advocacy in this space. Senator HENDERSON: Could you provide us with a copy of what you've done in relation to that particular issue? Have you had conversations? Have you made submissions? Have you written letters? When you say 'advocacy', how have you advocated that councils should be the decision-maker? Mr Semra : We've made public comments directed to the government. Senator HENDERSON: That council should be the decision-maker? Mr Semra : Not the decision-maker, but that the system is not fit for purpose as is because of how it doesn't allow for us to have our views considered. Senator HENDERSON: So you want your feedback to have greater weight if someone decides to go through the Victorian government pathway. Ms Dapiran : Some weight, I think. They don't have any weight at the moment. Senator HENDERSON: Of course. They could just disregard all of the feedback the Victorian government receives. There's no compulsion to listen to anyone, really, is there? CHAIR: Senator Hodgins-May. Senator HODGINS-MAY: Our infrastructure costs for data centres are currently falling on ratepayers. Have you had any evidence of that, or do you have any information to suggest that those costs might soon be falling onto ratepayers? Councillor Moore : I can't provide an example of that. I'm not sure whether anybody else here is able to. Senator HODGINS-MAY: Okay. Does your council have views on developer claims about permanent employment arising from data centres? Have you been provided with any substantial information to back up those claims? Councillor Moore : We've certainly had conversations with some of the proponents around what would be the employment during construction and post construction but no evidence to back those claims up either. Senator HODGINS-MAY: That's the same for all counts? No one's received anything to support that claim? No. Okay. I know we have talked quite a lot about the Development Facilitation Program which was obviously implemented as a way of fast-tracking good projects like housing that we need. Just listening today, it does sound like a bit of a con job, if I'm honest. I suppose you're saying that you've made representations that that needs to be adjusted. Does that apply for all councils in that you believe that you should have more of a say in that development process fast-track? Yes. You've all made representations to council in that regard. Thank you. For Hume, back in August, Hume council unanimously endorsed a moratorium on new and expanding data centres, which is a pretty, I think, significant coming together of the community across party divides. Would you say this is something that the community is united around, and has the Victorian government responded to that moratorium motion? Councillor Moore : It is something that the community is very united about. What I would say about data centres is in my time in Hume I've never seen our community come out so strongly to have conversations about a particular issue that really affects our entire city. I would say our community is absolutely united in our call for a pause before we have got a clear framework on where these should be built and the impacts that they will create. Our community is absolutely united in 'let's have a pause and let's think about this before we proceed'. But I've not had a formal response to our request for a moratorium. And that was issued via a letter. Senator HODGINS-MAY: So it's safe to say you were disappointed by the government's announcement not going far enough in terms of that moratorium? Councillor Moore : I don't think it goes far enough. I don't think we want to see any new approvals or any expansions until we have that clear framework, and we haven't had any advice back about whether a moratorium will be supported. I suggest that means probably not. Senator HODGINS-MAY: Presumably they haven't provided the data that you requested supporting their data centre plan. The state government hasn't provided that data to you? Councillor Moore : I've had no response as far as I'm aware. Senator HODGINS-MAY: No response at all. Okay. Just finally, I know we're running short on time— Councillor Moore : I actually probably should say one more thing which is that we did have the Victorian planning minister come out to Hume to meet with residents to hear their concerns directly just last week. It's not that we have had zero response, but certainly to my formal correspondence I've not had a response. But the minister did visit the city of Hume last week. Senator HODGINS-MAY: Just going to consultation, Councillor John Haddad, whose ward takes in Campbellfield, supported the motion and said residents told him they didn't fully understand what was being proposed at the former Ford site. He said Lebanese, Arabic, Italian, Chaldean and Turkish languages are the most commonly spoken languages in the area but yet nothing was sent to households in languages that they could understand. Council is very experienced at consulting with communities of different language groups. Would you agree that not having that council involvement has essentially meant that huge portions of the community really have little to no understanding of what is being proposed in these areas? Councillor Moore : I think that's fair. I think Hume is certainly a very diverse community, and we have residents speaking more than 150 different languages in their homes within our city. Being able to meaningfully consult is absolutely very important. It's not just about putting something in somebody's letterbox and saying that's consultation. I was aware of the consultation plan for this particular development. But, certainly, what the community has reported to me was not consistent with what I was expecting the consultation to look like. I can't speak to what actually happened. Senator HODGINS-MAY: Thanks, Chair. CHAIR: Ms Cannington, I think I missed you for your opening statement and I apologise for that. I thought you were with Maribyrnong and not the City of Melbourne. Is there anything extra that you wanted to say that you haven't been able to say, or would you like to table your opening statement if you have something written. Ms Cannington : I can table it later. That's fine. CHAIR: Are you sure? Ms Cannington : I think we've covered most things. The key thing that we really just wanted to get across today is that this whole application process and its impact on understanding the operational impacts is really a missed opportunity through the approval process. I think that would just give everyone more transparency and actually understanding about 'what is this proposal?' and 'what is the impact on the longer term outside of the built form?' There's this visual bulk element that people—it's really hard for communities to understand how big something is until it's built. I think that the way that the Development Facilitation Program works is the referral or an opportunity for council to provide input. The timing doesn't actually allow us to actually communicate that with our communities. The way that we're tackling that is getting a bit more of a position paper, so we can respond a bit faster and we have a better insight into what our community's concerns or wishes are. It's just how we balance that. I think it's a really good point around how we can work on our agency to make decisions, and I think we should be working a bit harder on that. But the facilitation program is challenging for councils to engage with in the way that it's set up. I think most councils work in helping influence the decision-making framework rather than the decision-maker so that we have consistency regardless of who makes the decision. CHAIR: Thank you all for being here today and giving us your local government perspective. I understand the difficulties when you're not the decision-maker, and yet the community is feeling very, very frustrated and very under pressure. All strength to your arm. Proceedings suspended from 12:07 to 13:15 .