Round 2 results

2/3 in the football – the Women’s team putting together a strong game and unlucky not to get the W out at Officer while the Men’s teams now four wins from four games – a good start to the season!

The netballers went 3/5 with our A2 girls continuing to show their full court strength against a talented Edi-Asp side.

All back at home next weekend for Anzac round.

Prior to that, a similar encampment occupied the area for three months before the 2025 Grand Prix, but left mysteriously – only to reappear weeks later as the current camp.

Repeated response remains the same

The site is on Parks Victoria land and responsibility clearly lies with them rather than council. We again asked Parks Victoria for a response and received the same reply we have received three times before:

“As the land manager of Albert Park, Parks Victoria is working closely with a range of agencies, including specialist support organisations. This work is focused on a sustainable outcome that addresses health, safety, environment, and welfare considerations. Every Victorian deserves access to a safe and secure home, and that’s why we’re working closely with specialist agencies to support people who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness.”

On background, Parks Victoria also reminded us of the State’s commitment to homelessness services:

“We invest more than $300 million into specialist homelessness services every year, benefiting over 100,000 Victorians who are at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Victoria has the highest total recurrent expenditure on homelessness services across all jurisdictions. The Victorian Budget 2025–26 delivers $61 million to continue services including assertive outreach and housing support for people sleeping rough and Aboriginal‑specific homelessness entry points.”

Local MP Nina Taylor organised the response from Parks Victoria and added the following information about community safety:

“If urgent police assistance is required, the community should call 000. For non‑urgent assistance, the Police Assistance Line (131 444), online reporting, and Crime Stoppers (1800 333 000) are available.”

Out of sight, out of mind ain’t good enough

The encampment is meeting a basic need – shelter and community. The fact that it has lasted for over a year should raise serious questions about government and agency responses rather than disdain for the campers.

Sleeping in a park, in all weather and all seasons, without basic services or amenities, is not a ‘walk in the park’.

We can only commend the agencies that continue to reach out with compassion and concern. We must look to them – and to camp residents – for new ideas on how to respond to people camping out.

We must never forget that there are people in those tents, probably fewer than 20 individuals. People who, for one reason or another, are struggling to survive on the fringe.

Clearly, we need more than additional funding for assertive outreach. We need assertive cooperation between specialist agencies, council, police and the community.

That’s not going to happen if we pretend it’s not happening.

“Work is officially underway on the 12,000th home under Labor’s landmark Big Housing Build program,” the Premier declared in a media statement.

She said at least 95 Victorians would benefit from the Grosvenor Street homes, which are a mix of one, two and three‑bedroom apartments.

“They replace 20 older homes and are energy‑efficient and built to last, lowering bills for families doing it tough.”

Urgent relocation of former residents

Residents of the 20 townhouse‑style community housing homes previously on the site, were given short shrift in late 2023 to make way for the new development.

Following the relocation of tenants, the estate remained vacant for more than six months due to planning and project delays.

During this vacant period, the empty homes were broken into and heavily vandalised, attracting significant public attention after footage circulated on social media and was later reported by the ABC.

Link to TikTok video taken in the squats

In April 2024, local MP David Southwick presented a petition to Parliament from Grosvenor Street neighbours concerning the delays and their impact on the street.

It was not until later in 2024 that the redevelopment proceeded through the Victorian Government’s Development Facilitation Program, which by‑passes normal council planning processes, and a demolition order was granted.

Now, in 2026, after being little more than a hole in the ground for over a year, the Premier has declared that the “Big Housing Build Hits New Heights”, and the first sod has finally been turned.

The sod‑turning that social media forgot

TWiSK noted with interest that neither the Minister, local Labor MPs nor HousingFirst published photos of the sod‑turning – normally a routine feature of such events.

Perhaps this was due to the coincident Cabinet reshuffle that saw the housing portfolio change hands. It is also curious that Port Phillip Council, a major backer of HousingFirst, was not invited to the event.

Displace and develop is the fashion

Relocating tenants before approvals, contracts and timelines are locked in appears to be the political and administrative decision of choice in Victoria.

Resident advocates say the consequences of rapid relocation are profound. Residents lose their homes and communities, while neighbours are left living beside decaying sites.

Lengthy hiatus periods often mean that any promise of a first right of return once new homes are built is hollow.

HousingFirst, however, says construction timelines are due to ‘typical project complexities’. It anticipates that construction will actually commence in mid‑May 2026, with completion scheduled for mid‑2027.

What’s being built

The $36m+ Grosvenor Street project will deliver:

• 68 new social housing apartments, replacing the original 20 dwellings
• a mix of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom homes
• architect‑designed buildings (H2O Architects)
• energy‑efficient and environmentally sustainable design features

The redevelopment is being delivered by HousingFirst, in partnership with Homes Victoria, under the State Government’s Big Housing Build program.

See Government Officer Assessment Report and Development Approvals & Design (Redacted) for details and some plans

When “More Homes” Means Losing What Was Already There

Based on submissions from residents’ advocates, TWiSK presents a social housing resident’s view of this process.

From the footpath, it was easy to miss what once stood behind the temporary fencing. A small row of homes, modest and weathered, but full. People lived there: long‑term tenants who knew their neighbours, the rhythm of the street, the sound of the tram at night, the short stroll to the pub.

It was community housing, quietly doing its job in a low‑rise neighbourhood of single‑storey cottages and trees that had taken decades to grow.

Now those homes are gone.

In their place is a promise: three‑storey buildings, higher density, more units. More homes, we are told, in the middle of a housing crisis. The logic seems unquestionable at first glance. But standing on a street where scale and calm once defined the neighbourhood, questions linger uncomfortably in the air.

Why did these homes need to be pulled down at all?

The original buildings were not crumbling towers or dangerous high‑rises. They were low‑rise, stable, and already doing what housing policy claims it wants to do – keeping people housed in well‑located areas close to transport, services and jobs.

Could they have been refurbished? Expanded gently? Built upon in stages, without evicting everyone first?

Instead, residents were abruptly asked to leave. Months passed. Empty houses sat vacant. Windows were broken. Walls were defaced. The street absorbed the silence – and squatters -creating uncertainty and disquiet.

Supporters of redevelopment argue that three storeys are modest, and that density must increase somewhere. That is true. But density is not just a number. It is also about sequencing, care and continuity. It is about whether growth comes by adding homes – or by first subtracting them.

There is also the quiet reshaping of ownership and control. What was once community housing embedded in the neighbourhood becomes something different: a larger project, financed differently, managed more remotely, branded as progress.

The land remains for social housing. The rhetoric remains generous. But something has shifted.

Who benefits most from this transformation? The future tenants who may return years later – or the system that finds it easier to clear sites than to work around the lives already thriving there?

And does the flow of State and Federal funding favour new builds over refurbishment? Yes, it does. But these townhouses were relatively recent (1993). Does that mean any or all older HousingFirst housing stock is now a target for abrupt relocation and higher density?

You need only look at the Oasis story for an answer to that question.

Volunteers raised serious concerns last week after Bayside City Council contractors altered and removed nest boxes that had been installed to support native wildlife, sparking a bitter dispute over consultation, animal welfare and responsibility for the reserve’s management.

After a decade of careful and dedicated work installing dozens of nest boxes, many volunteers were heartbroken to discover that boxes showing evidence of wildlife young had been removed.

Members of the Yalukit Willam Nature Association (YWNA), a volunteer group that has worked for years to restore habitat at the former Elsternwick Park golf course, say nest box alteration works carried out in March caused distress to wildlife and breached assurances given by council officers.

According to the association, volunteers were told ahead of the works that boxes showing signs of occupancy would be left in place and that no nest boxes would be completely removed. However, YWNA says those assurances proved empty. Boxes were moved regardless of whether they were occupied, and at least seven nest boxes were removed entirely.

“When we checked after the works, every box that had been altered was empty,” said a spokesperson for the association. Volunteers reported that the boxes had recently housed sugar gliders, ringtail and brushtail possums, rainbow lorikeets and lorikeet chicks, with at least one box appearing ready for nesting by red‑rumped parrots.

The association says it was not adequately consulted prior to the works and believes the outcome could have been avoided if volunteers had been treated as equal partners in wildlife management. Members also described witnessing boxes being lowered to the ground without checks for wildlife, and some boxes being poorly reinstalled, creating safety risks.

Bayside City Council has rejected claims of wrongdoing, stating it is not responsible for injuries to native wildlife in what it describes as “unsafe nesting boxes placed without permission”. In a statement released on 16 April, council said it acted responsibly and in line with its legislative obligations, following advice from an ecological consultant.

Council maintains that only three empty nest boxes were removed or relocated, citing safety and construction issues. It said inspections confirmed various species were using boxes across the reserve and reported that one ringtail possum was found stuck in an unsafe box and one rainbow lorikeet was taken to a veterinarian. Council denied that other animals were removed or handled during the process.

A passionate volunteer told TWiSK that the volunteer community was distressed. “First they kicked out the wildlife – we fear we may be next to get kicked out,” the volunteer said.

Despite the dispute, the Yalukit Willam Nature Association says it hopes to repair its relationship with council, emphasising the emotional toll the situation has had on volunteers. “We value our work at the reserve and want a genuine partnership,” the group said, calling for greater transparency and collaboration to ensure wildlife protection moving forward.

Link to Bayside Council statement
Bayside disappointed with misinformation on Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve management

Link to text of Yalukit Willam Nature Association statement
Link to YWNA Facebook

YWNA President Gio Fitzpatrick published this video on Facebook on 16 April 2026

Now in its 36th year, the Postcard Show has become a much‑loved fixture of Linden’s exhibition calendar, annually attracting hundreds of artists and presenting up to 1,000 works. The exhibition is open to everyone, with no selection process—once an entry is submitted and paid, it is guaranteed inclusion.

Artists may submit up to three works across 2D and 3D formats, with modest size limits designed to encourage diversity and accessibility. Entry fees start at $45 for one work, with discounted rates available for students and free entry for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists.

The 2026 exhibition coincides with Linden’s 40th anniversary, and participants are invited to make an optional donation to support the organisation’s ongoing artistic program. All proceeds from entry fees and sales commissions contribute directly to future exhibitions and artist opportunities.

More info

Questions?

If you need any further assistance, please contact postcard@lindenarts.org

ENTRIES CLOSE
Sunday 3 May 2026, 11:59pm

ARTWORK
drop-off DATES
5 > 17 May 2026

OPENING CELEBRATION
Saturday 6 June 2026, 1 – 4pm

Exhibition Dates
6 June > 1 August 2026

It’s love, ethics and neuroscience in Lucy Prebble’s high-voltage psychological drama The Effect, presented by Theatre Works until Saturday 18 April. Reviewer Olivia Di Grazia grapples with the side-effects of the staging.

It’s not real love, Connie insists, pacing back and forth, itching from within. She’s a psychology student, after all; she should know. Tristan – wired and flustered, dopamine flooding his system – counters her half-hearted argument: “Can we tell the difference between a side effect and who we are?”

It’s love, ethics and neuroscience in Lucy Prebble’s high-voltage psychological drama The Effect, presented by Theatre Works and Key Conspirators as part of the former’s diverse 2026 season. The Effect follows two young volunteers as they enter a four-week clinical drug trial, succumbing to a chemically-induced whirlwind of attraction and infatuation that threatens the very foundation of the trial itself. Lightly recontextualised for the Australian stage, this sleek and stylish interpretation of Prebble’s surgically-sharp script promises a night of strikingly sensorial, thought-provoking theatre, even as it fails to fully embody the cerebral and emotional complexity of its material.

While the stage at first appears to be composed simply of two black rectangular boxes, six vertical poles and a horizontal beam of light that cuts across them, the play’s opening reveals something more interesting: a clinical terrarium. A stark white, sanitized room, its left side mirrors the right perfectly, right down to the single decorative plant that cuts through the white, gesturing towards life that’s otherwise absent. Behind the glass of this mini-ecosystem is Dr. Lorna James (Emma Choy) – the psychologist overseeing the trial – and the two volunteers, Connie (Jessica Martin) and Tristan (Damon Baudin), who are being read a series of introductory survey questions. As the patients begin the experiment, emerging from the contained terrarium to the free space in front of it, Dr. James remains within, observing and recording from behind the divide. This already intriguing staging conceit is made even more so when the structure is revealed to be two-tiered – the upper half a simple black contrast to the bottom’s white severity – providing another vantage point for the doctors to observe and converse in their own right.

This visual ingenuity, though, also inadvertently serves as one of the play’s drawbacks. While Tom Vulcan’s set boldly positions the audience within the same detached “objectivity” as the doctors, frequently containing the characters behind glass and thus rendering us witnesses to the experiment ourselves, there is a level of intimacy and immersion obscured by this configuration. This forced distance, though dramaturgically sound, ultimately inhibits the emotional investment on which the play depends, making it difficult to connect with the characters. But importantly, this distance isn’t just physical; it bleeds into the marrow of the piece itself. Even when, for pivotal scenes, the characters emerge from behind this divide, an intangible barrier remains, rendering them emotionally inaccessible even at their most vulnerable.

Director Alonso Pineda’s vision for The Effect clearly aims to conjure a heightened sense of unreality – one that captures the complexity of brain chemistry under the influence and the limitations of medicine to distil the human experience – and, for the most part, it succeeds. The atmosphere is striking, evoking a sterile nightclub with its thunderous, thumping music and frenetic flashes of light like neural pathways ablaze. Vulcan’s lighting and vision design is perhaps the play’s most valuable asset, working in tandem with Jack Burmeister’s compositions and sound design to not just convey the effects of the chemicals coursing through Connie and Tristan’s systems but embody them. The contrast between their intense somatic experience and their clinical surroundings – soundtracked by quiet yet incessant beeping to ground us back in reality – is executed with impressive control. Where the production falters, however, is in the believability of its relationships.

While each of the four performers is convincing and committed in their respective portrayals, the interpersonal dynamics between the central pairings never feel fully realised, instead teetering on the edge of immersion. In turn, the increasingly high stakes are never fully felt, even as the staging tries – to varying degrees of success – to feel it for you. Jessica Martin’s Connie is an everywoman of sorts: an amalgam of confidence, insecurity and neuroticism; the kind of woman who prioritises her head over her heart, believing logic to be more valuable than feeling. Damon Baudin’s spontaneous, free-spirited Tristan is her foil.

While both actors do an impeccable job with their physicality – speech accelerating, bodies growing agitated, feelings becoming uncontainable as the doses increase and their attraction intensifies – their connection feels more implied than viscerally experienced. Though chemically understandable, their constant movement and fidgeting are ultimately a distraction from the dialogue, which already hurtles at breakneck speed. Without moments of stillness or tension to balance the intensity, the romance feels chemical rather than natural, lessening the impact of their deliberately blurred “reality vs drug” storyline.

Connie and Tristan’s relationship runs parallel to that of Dr. James and Dr. Toby Sealey, both of whom oversee the trial and share a complicated relationship that extends beyond the professional. Philip Hayden’s Dr. Sealey – touting a so-called “psychopharmacological revolution” with the vigour of an evangelical preacher – is the most one-dimensional character on paper. Yet, Hayden manages to render this controlling, condescending psychiatrist with just enough humanity to ground him in the real world. The true humanity of the piece, though, shines through in Choy’s anxious, deeply compassionate Dr. James. We witness her progression from a highly structured, analytical doctor with a mere whisper of an interior life to a troubled, three-dimensional woman on the verge of mental collapse.

Given the play’s aesthetic intensity, the choice to let Dr. James’ heart-wrenching monologue near the play’s conclusion stand on its own – delivered in pure silence with no lights to distract, only stillness – was a powerful one. As Choy spirals, sitting on the floor all alone, brain in hand, we see a window into the true precarity of the human mind, the complexity of mental illness that clinical trials and medicine at large cannot possibly contain. In this moment of stark restraint, The Effect finds the emotional clarity that much of the production otherwise struggles to sustain.

It appears no one is providing effective oversight, including Council despite providing HousingFirst with decades of crucial financial and institutional support.

This lack of oversight has come into sharp focus with the recent revelation that HousingFirst is selling 25 social housing units in the Inkerman Oasis. These units were originally the result of a land-for-homes swap between the Council and the developer of the apartment complex on a former council depot.

Residents of the 25 units were shocked when HousingFirst staff unexpectedly knocked on their doors to deliver news of the sale last month. When residents contacted TWISK, we were equally surprised and immediately questioned the Council about the sale.

The Council’s response proved even more unsettling. It became clear that the existing “governance arrangements” meant the Council had no say in the sale, let alone in the treatment of residents profoundly impacted by the sudden housing uncertainty.

Even more concerning was the fact that the Council was informed about the proposed sale at least 18 months prior, during the term of the previous council.

HousingFirst told the residents about the planned sale only weeks ago even though it had ample opportunity to do otherwise, especially in December 2024 when it sold an accessible apartment in the block. We now know that reassurances given to the residents at the time were shallow and worthless.

A doppelganger committee with a $477M property portfolio

As reported last week, the responsible officers of the Port Phillip Housing Trust and HousingFirst are identical, forming what is best described as a “doppelganger” or “mirror committee.” In practice, these individuals simply conclude one meeting and immediately begin another, effectively serving as both entities.

Investigations reveal that HousingFirst (formally known as Port Phillip Housing Association) acts as the trustee for the Port Phillip Housing Trust. The Trust Deed grants the Council the right to appoint two delegates to the Board of HousingFirst (currently two councillors). The public rationale for this structure, as explained by the Council in response to TWISK’s questions, was to meet the requirements for potential State Government grants. It also acknowledged the inherent conflict of being both the project deliverer and the statutory planning authority.

Ironically, there is speculation that this arrangement also serves a hidden agenda: to protect social housing sales from future councils that might be less supportive or cash strapped.

Success has consequences

Indeed, funding flowed, and HousingFirst became a significant player in social housing, boasting an impressive $477 million property portfolio across Melbourne, comprising over 2300 units for rent.

This portfolio is extensive, covering areas such as Moonee Valley, Merri-bek, Darebin, Maribyrnong, Hobsons Bay, Wyndham, Manningham, Melbourne, Stonnington, Maroondah, Whitehorse, Monash, Glen Eira, Bayside, Kingston, and Knox.

Housing First’s most recent annual report indicates they operate 682 properties in Port Phillip, representing 29.59% of their total housing units.

Measured by the number of social housing units created, HousingFirst appears to be a successful developer.

However, cracks are beginning to appear in this seemingly rosy picture.

Misplaced trust in Deed

The governance arrangements are a key concern. The “doppelganger” responsible officer committees, with the Council acting as “Governor” in name only, effectively allow HousingFirst to “mark its own homework.”

It sets its own criteria for success and approves its own performance. Its claim to social license is based on its ability to develop more properties. The massive growth since 2005 has significantly challenged the structures necessary to provide oversight of an organisation primarily spending public money from federal, state, and council sources, in addition to rental income from thousands of residents.

The Trust Deeds supplied by the Council state that the purpose of the Trust is to provide affordable housing in the City of Port Phillip to “Eligible Residents,” defined as individuals with significant links to the city who meet the criteria for affordable housing. The Trust Fund is intended to be maintained in perpetuity exclusively for these public charitable purposes.

TWiSK is reminded of the philosophy that “charity begins at home” but in this case the quest for scale has changed the fundamental mission.

Council voted to investigate in 2024 but hid the report from public view

In June 2024, the Council voted to “request officers to provide a report to Council on the governance arrangements and considerations of Council’s involvement in HousingFirst, the Port Phillip Housing Trust and related entities including options and advice.” (See minutes).

TWISK sought information about this report, but the Council evaded the question in this response. We believe the response given is disingenuous and that a report was produced in September 2024 and tabled at Council as the minutes show albeit deemed confidential. TWiSK believes that report should be released.

Meanwhile, partly prompted by recent news coverage, former Councillor Bond has expressed serious concerns. In a statement to TWISK, he wrote:

“It’s become clear that Housing First has very different objectives to those of the Port Phillip Housing Trust, and it’s time that the City of Port Phillip – as the Governor of the Trust – took the necessary steps to ensure that PPHT is represented by a completely separate and independent board to that of Housing First.
“This would ensure that the Trust prioritises the interests of the residents and ratepayers of Port Phillip ahead of the sometimes competing priorities of Housing First. It would also eliminate the difficult position that Cr Halliday and Cr Jay have found themselves in whereby their obligations as Councillors to the City of Port Phillip and its residents have been compromised by their legal obligations as directors of Housing First.
“On the 19 June 2024 a Notice of Motion was passed by the previous Council to investigate the Governance arrangements for PPHT, so much of the work to outline the process for a separate board for the Trust should be completed and available to Councillors should they wish to pursue this path.”

HousingFirst may have exceeded expectations and also its mandate

An examination of Housing First’s most recent annual report lends significant weight to the concern that its activities have outgrown its original scope.

As we will report in future weeks, the significant delay in the HousingFirst’s long promised Grosvenor Street development, currently no more than a large hole in the ground without recent progress, is evidence that Port Phillip might not be receiving adequate attention.

But Housing First’s financial position demonstrates a strong and growing asset base.

As of June 30, 2025, the total consolidated assets for HousingFirst Ltd stood at $645,243,887, an increase from $628,893,430 in the previous year. A substantial portion of these assets is in property, plant, and equipment, valued at $476,509,247, alongside investment property worth $129,905,000. The organisation also maintains a healthy level of current assets, including cash and cash equivalents of $8,103,295 and term deposits of $15,454,242.

In terms of liabilities, HousingFirst has total liabilities of $265,640,806, with the majority being non-current borrowings amounting to $256,586,764. Despite these liabilities, Housing First’s net assets are substantial at $379,603,080, indicating a solid equity position. The retained surplus is $306,557,420, and reserves are $73,045,661.

The Port Phillip Housing Trust, for which HousingFirst is the Trustee, also contributes to the overall financial picture. The Trust’s property assets were valued at $118,677,325 as of June 30, 2025, with total assets at $119,979,622. The Trust’s net assets are $108,995,070. This indicates that Housing First, both as a consolidated entity and through the Trust, possesses a robust financial foundation with significant property holdings and a healthy equity base.

Who cares about governance when financial performance is positive?

The adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” might be an option, but more is at stake than just growth metrics. For example, do residents feel at home in their housing? Do they feel secure in their tenancy? Are the housing units aligning with the original vision of the PP housing association to maintain local diversity in the face of escalating rents?

It may be that HousingFirst excels as a developer but is less effective as a property manager or landlord, suggesting that this aspect of the “business” might be under-resourced.

We note with interest that HousingFirst conducts a biennial Resident Satisfaction Survey, yet none of the results are mentioned in their annual report.

TWISK is concerned that success is being measured by the number of units rather than by quality, liveability and location. We are also concerned that HousingFirst provides housing rather than secure homes, as the Oasis experience dramatically demonstrates.

Further, any organisation building assets on this scale with public money requires independent scrutiny.

Should HousingFirst and the Port Phillip Housing Trust be allowed to mark their own homework. TWiSK thinks not. What do you think?

TWISK extends a right of reply to both Council and HousingFirst. We will happily publish any statement they wish to make in full.

HousingFirst right of reply (in full)

A spokesperson for HousingFirst provided this statement which we present in full:

HousingFirst is a registered community housing provider and  a registered charity with the ACNC operating within a regulated framework in Victoria. We are independently overseen by the Victorian Housing Registrar and formally assessed against six statutory performance standards, covering tenant outcomes, housing quality and maintenance, community engagement, governance, and financial viability.

Our focus is on delivering long-term, secure housing. In practice, stability is the norm, around 80 per cent of residents remain in the same home for the duration of their tenancy. This reflects settled, sustained housing outcomes rather than short-term or transitional accommodation.

HousingFirst is also subject to ongoing regulatory monitoring and annual independent financial audit. These processes are embedded in legislation and ensure transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement across our services.

As housing need has grown more complex, HousingFirst has expanded its activities to meet that demand. This has strengthened, rather than altered, our core purpose, which remains the delivery of safe, secure, and affordable housing for people who need it most.

(Supplied16 April 2026)

Council responses to TWiSK in full (10 April 2026)

Q: Please explain this relationship, its purpose and selection of responsible officers. Please also detail when this relationship started and provide the minutes / public facing paperwork related to that initial decision.  

Council established the Port Phillip Housing Trust in December 2005 when it executed the Trust Deed for the Port Phillip Housing Trust (PPHT).  Parties to this Deed were Council, as ‘Governor’, and the Port Phillip Housing Association – now HousingFirst, as ‘Trustee’. 

The PPHT was established because it was no longer suitable for Council to continue to directly develop community housing projects, a role it had undertaken since 1985.  This is because: 

• It was considered to no longer be appropriate for Council to be both the project deliverer and the statutory planning authority  
• An entity with a sole focus and expertise in community housing would be able to scale delivery of housing projects more effectively than Council  
• It would have been unsuitable for Council to be registered and regulated by the Registrar of Housing Agencies (the Housing Registrar) – which became a requirement for receipt of future project capital funding from the Office of Housing. 

The Trust Deed includes the right for Council to appoint two delegates to the Board of HousingFirst. The remainder of the Board is appointed by HousingFirst in line with the constitution. Initially, Council was represented on the Board of PPHA by a Councillor and a Council officer, the (then titled) Housing Development Officer, and later this changed to the current arrangement for Council representation by two Councillors. 

Q: How does The Trustee for HousingFirst Subtrust 1 Trust fit in the structure? 

This is a question for HousingFirst.   

Q. What is the nature of the financial and commercial relationship between the Trust/s and HF? 

This is a question for HousingFirst.

Q: What is the nature of the flow of funds between them and the quantum in the FY25 period? 

The flow and quantum of funds under the PPHT is a matter for HousingFirst. This may be clarified by reviewing the annual reports of HousingFirst for the 2024/25 financial year.   

Q: Has the Council prepared a report for councillors on the governance structure relating to HF at any time in the past? Can I have copies please. 

Successive Councils have discussed matters associated with the Port Phillip Housing Trust including its constitution.  Publicly available Council reports until 2022 can be accessed through Council’s website and our governance team can be contacted to request reports before then.

Q: When decisions are being made on commercial matters between HF and PPHT, how does it work given the responsible officers are identical?  

These are governance matters relating to how HousingFirst manages its responsibilities for the PPHT as distinct from managing its responsibilities for the other non-Trust matters.  Questions on this matter should be referred to HousingFirst. 

Q: In the event of the units being sold, who gets to decide on the sale, price, timing etc?  

HousingFirst is fully responsible for deciding which properties (or units within properties such as at Inkerman Oasis) under the PPHT it wishes to sell, when these properties are sold and the sale price. 

This power is reflected in the Trust Deed, Section 5 – Powers of the Trustee, part (c), where this states that The Trustee can generally deal with property (refer to enclosed Trust Deed). 

Q: Looking forward, is it possible that PPHT could engage another provider to manage their portfolio and tenants? What happens if HF is acquired or merges or changes operations significantly, can PPHT separate from HF? 

The PPHT is not an entity in itself and is controlled by HousingFirst as its Trustee.  Council could only remove HousingFirst as Trustee of the PPHT if it was not meeting the intention of the Trust Deed. If HousingFirst is acquired by or merges with another organisation, the purpose of the PPHT and its Trust Fund (containing assets under the PPHT) must be maintained by any new organisation.  Under the Trust Deed, the Trustee (HousingFirst) can join or merge with any other Trust if that is consistent with the objects of the Trust (refer to part 5 – Powers of the Trustee, part 5.1 (k)). 

“This is why Prahran is so important,” she said, emphasising that more Greens MPs in Spring Street could prompt initiatives like more free PT. “But because Prahran overlaps with the Federal seat of Melbourne, this campaign is part of our efforts to win back Melbourne [at the national level],” she said to rousing cheers. She emphasised the high chance of winning back Prahran: “The unpopular Premier, the Liberals in disarray, we have great community support.” Interestingly, it wasn’t until after the 10-minute mark that she mentioned the environment.

Upper House Sarah speaks

State Parliament was represented at the launch by Upper House Western Victorian MP Sarah Mansfield. She opened with comments about her pride in being in Parliament to support the treaty. She also talked extensively about the bin fire and war anxiety. Formerly a GP in Geelong, she talked about the impact of inequality and the grim news about politics and the climate. “More people are looking to the future and seeing a negative trajectory,” she warned. But she said, “we could change that trajectory with different priorities.” Housing, healthcare, and climate change were amongst the topics she held out hope for. “The Greens are an alternative to doomscrolling,” she said.

Hope in Prahran

Angelica Di Camillo’s presentation was more humble than the seasoned politicians before her. She told a more personal story of a journey into being a political candidate. Noting that her mum was in the audience, she said her environmental passion started in the family garden, ‘loving plants with mum’. She learned about the First Nations people and their care of the land. Later, she was inspired by the Leonardo DiCaprio documentary about climate change, ‘Before The Flood’.

“I had no political knowledge or ambition, I just knew Greens equalled Environment,” she said in wide-eyed honesty. She volunteered to hand out how-to-vote cards at a polling booth – and the rest is history. After working in local government and other jobs for a while, she moved into East St Kilda with her partner and loved the community. “And then the Prahran by-election hit. We won the ground campaign, we had the energy but we lost on preferences,” she mused. “But we can win it back.”

With generous live fundraising from a crowd delivering serious support, the Senator said the dollars would go to the first big step towards the win – opening a campaign office.

TWISK looks forward to reporting on other campaign launches.

All images by Julian Meehan. Julianmeehan.com

The Positives: Music, Economy, and Community Pride

The festival is widely recognized for its positive contributions, with a significant majority of respondents (74.5%) identifying the promotion of live music as a key benefit. Supporting artists also ranked high, selected by 63.2% of participants. Beyond the arts, the festival is seen as an economic driver, with 51.9% believing it improves the local economy and 49% stating it boosts tourism in St Kilda and the City of Port Phillip. Many residents also feel a sense of community (48.1%) and pride in their local area (46.2%) due to the event.

Areas for Improvement: Scale, Noise, and Resident Impact

Despite the positive feedback, the report also reveals several concerns. A notable 30.9% of respondents expressed a desire for the festival to be “smaller and more compact,” while 5.9% even suggested its cessation. Concerns about the festival’s impact on residents were also prominent among those who provided “other” comments. Eight respondents (7.5%) perceived no benefit from the festival, and five (4.7%) raised concerns about ratepayer value. Crowding, noise, and access issues were also highlighted by five respondents (4.7%), with some discussing negative effects on local community cohesion, daily life, and sense of safety.

Demographics of Participants

The 107 participants in the engagement process primarily consisted of St Kilda residents (91.4% of those who specified their living location). The gender distribution was fairly even, with 47.7% identifying as female and 44.9% as male. The largest age group represented was 35-49 (30.8%), followed by 50-59 and 60-69. A significant portion of respondents (34.6%) had attended the festival eight or more times, indicating a strong base of experienced attendees.

The findings from this report, along with other ongoing engagement activities, will be presented to the Council on 3June 2026, to guide changes for the 2027 St Kilda Festival.

Read the report in full

What does the photo say about the attendance figures

We used AI to generate a crowd estimate from the arial photograph of the main stage at the festival on Sunday afternoon.

Using a density method, including main area, fringe areas and beach it estimated a crowd up to 20,000 in this image. Given the festival has many stages and a coming-and-going crowd, lets generously say this is one tenth of the attendance – giving the overall numbers at about 200,000.

The official attendance is estimated at 330,000.

TWiSK would be happy to publish the data behind the official figures.

Over nine decades, the Astor has survived wartime restrictions, the rise of television, multiplex competition and repeated development threats, securing its place as a treasured local landmark.

The anniversary follows international recognition in March 2025, when the Astor was named seventh in the world in Time Out’s list of the 50 most beautiful cinemas globally.

The ranking placed the St Kilda favourite alongside some of cinema’s most celebrated venues, including Le Grand Rex in Paris, which was ranked number one, and Pathé Tuschinski in Amsterdam, which took second place.

Time Out praised the Astor for its preserved Art Deco interiors, vast auditorium, sweeping curtains and old‑Hollywood atmosphere, noting its rare ability to balance architectural heritage with an active and diverse screening program. The venue is also renowned for its double features, repertory programming and commitment to screening film in formats such as 35mm and 70mm.

The Astor’s survival was cemented in 1998 with heritage protection, and its future secured again in 2015 when Palace Cinemas took over stewardship of the building, committing to retain it as a single‑screen cinema.

As it enters its tenth decade, the Astor Theatre stands as both a St Kilda institution and a cinema of global significance, proving that neighbourhood icons can still command international admiration.

Time Out’s full rankings on the most beautiful movie theaters in the world were:

1. Le Grand Rex, Paris
2. Pathé Tuschinski, Amsterdam
3. Village East Cinema, New York
4. Cineteca Madrid, Madrid
5. The Electric, London
6. Cinema Dei Piccoli, Rome
7. The Astor, Melbourne
8. Puskin Art Cinema, Budapest
9. Cine Doré Filmoteca Española, Madrid
10. Le Champo, Paris
11. The Raj Mandir, Jaipur
12. The Labia Theatre, Cape Town
13. Rio Cinema, London
14. Stella Cinema, Dublin
15. TCL Chinese Theatre, Los Angeles
16. The Little Prince Micro-Cinema, Ontario
17. Cineteca Nacional de Mexico, Mexico City
18. New Beverly Cinema, Los Angeles
19. The Park Theatre, Manitoba
20. Stadtkino, Vienna
21. Sala Equis, Madrid
22. Hayden Orpheum Picture Palace, Sydney
23. Orinda Theatre, California
24. Mareel, Shetland Islands
25. Studio 28, Paris
26. Music Box Theatre, Chicago
27. Cinema Le Cosmos, Strasbourg
28. Coolidge Corner Theatre, Massachusetts
29. Metrograph, New York City
30. Le Colisée, Carcassonne
31. Phenomena Experience, Barcelona
32. BFI Southbank, London
33. Plaza Theatre, Atlanta
34. Avalon Theater, California
35. Egyptian Theatre, Los Angeles
36. Golden Age Cinema and Bar, Sydney
37. Le Cinéma du Panthéon, Paris
38. Museum Lichtspiele, Munich
39. Genesis Cinema, London
40. Grand Teatret, Copenhagen
41. The Sun Theatre, Melbourne
42. Paris Theater, New York
43. Everyman, Bath
44. Curzon Bloomsbury, London
45. The Projector, Singapore
46. Cinémathèque de Tanger, Tangier
47. Busan Cinema Center, Busan
48. Cinema São Jorge, Lisbon
49. Broadway Cinematheque, Hong Kong
50. Grand Lake Theatre, Oakland

TWiSK family anecdote

Greg Day’s late mother always associated The Astor with this pre-war ditty spiced up with risky double entendres.