A disrespectful tune
As a musician, I know when something’s out of tune — and this proposed Arthurs Seat expansion hits all the wrong notes.
Turning a State Park into a playground of luge rides, a 28 metre high tower and other theme park stuff and isn’t harmony, it’s noise. Arthurs Seat has its own natural rhythm — the rustle of the trees, the calls of the birds, the quiet stillness that locals and visitors come to hear.
This development drowns out that song. It shows little respect for the land, the wildlife, or the community that treasures it.
We deserve a better composition for Arthurs Seat — one that protects its beauty, not profits from it. Let’s keep this place playing the tune nature intended.
Charlie Owen, Arthurs Seat
Transparency and balance
I was surprised to see that about half the Letters in last week’s edition were devoted to three near-identical letters supporting the Arthurs Seat Eagle upgrade (We support the Arthurs Seat Eagle upgrade, Letters 4/11/25).
Each letter expressed unqualified support for the 2026 Arthurs Seat Eagle (ASE) Upgrade Plan, describing it as “visionary” and “forward-thinking,” and each came from individuals connected to the same construction company, Long Contracting.
The letters used very similar phrasing and arguments, presenting the project as an environmentally responsible, job-creating initiative.
While readers expect a diversity of community perspectives, this presentation risked giving the impression of broad local endorsement when in fact the letters all came from individuals affiliated with the same construction firm. Some readers may not notice the shared connections and may take the messaging at face value.
There is another side to this issue. Many residents are concerned that the ASE proposal represents commercial overreach on Crown land, within a sensitive environment. They worry about habitat loss, impacts on wildlife and vegetation, increased traffic, and the erosion of the area’s natural character. What some call “responsible development,” others see as greenwashing — using the language of sustainability to promote a private venture on public land.
Anja Ottensmeyer, Mt Martha
Contracting criticism
I usually like the letter page in The News. It gives locals a chance to point out some issues they feel strongly about.
But last week made me wonder if the letters by Long Construction belonged on the letter page (We support the Arthurs Seat Eagle upgrade, Letters 4/11/25).
It felt much more like an advertisement for scooping a possible construction job with Arthurs Seat Eagle. I’m sure the news can do better.
Rupert Steiner, Balnarring
The Long game
It was interesting to see three letters last week from Long Contracting, supporting the proposed Arthurs Seat Eagle development (We support the Arthurs Seat Eagle upgrade, Letters 4/11/25).
The letters makes one wonder if this company has an interest in this project.
The Minister for Planning on 29 October 2025 announced that the Arthurs Seat Eagle expansion has now entered the public notice stage and have provided 14 days for the community to respond.
On cue, publicity from the Eagle management has been ramped up particularly associated with the lookout tower and so called Luge. I refer to the following commentary around the lookout tower – “The design reimagines the original lookout tower and rises just above the treetops, its elegant, twisted form echoes the shape of local gum trees”.
What is not mentioned is that the original historic lookout tower (at only 14 metres) was bulldozed to make way for the Eagle café, the new tower has now grown to be 34 metres high (over 10 storeys). It will tower above any surrounding Arthurs Seat messmates and quite simply looks like a coal fired power station smoke stack!
The “Luge” which is not a Luge by any definition is being sold as “low impact, sitting well within the landscape”. Does anyone really believe that steel roller coaster tracks totalling over 2,000 metres in length running up and down the northern escarpment of Arthurs Seat and held up with concrete blocks complete with acoustic and protective metal fencing will sit nicely within the pristine environment of our State Park.
This grotesque amusement park development should be rejected to preserve the natural beauty of the Arthurs Seat State Park, one of Port Phillip Bay’s most iconic landscape features.
Should this state government approve the project they will be prioritising profit over community and environmental protection.
Nigel Atkins, Arthurs Seat
We deserve better
It was hard to miss last week’s letters to the editor — three of them, all written by members of the same company, all praising the proposed Arthurs Seat Eagle development (We support the Arthurs Seat Eagle upgrade, Letters 4/11/25).
Each used almost identical language, as if reading from the same script. Coincidence? Or a coordinated PR effort to make this controversial project seem more popular than it is?
Let’s be honest. This is not a “great thing” for our community or for the environment. At every turn, the developers behind the proposed $25m expansion have dodged the truth, dressing up this project as something wholesome and beneficial. But let’s call it what it is — overdevelopment in a State Park, pure and simple. They’re trying to sell us lamb when it’s really mutton chops.
Arthurs Seat is one of the Mornington Peninsula’s most cherished natural landmarks — loved for its peaceful bushland, wildlife, and sweeping views. It’s not the place for rollercoaster-style rides, eight-storey viewing platforms, new restaurants, or intrusive bridges cutting across its skyline.
We, the community, deserve honesty, transparency, and respect for our public land. This park belongs to all Victorians, not to private developers chasing profits.
We can and must do better for Arthurs Seat.
Kylie Greer, Arthurs Seat
It’s not an upgrade
I find myself bemused by the inclusion of three letter supporting the Arthurs Seat Eagle expansion published last week (We support the Arthurs Seat Eagle upgrade, Letters 4/11/25). It read more like a tender application.
I guess, in some ways, these letters embody the spirit of the expansion project. It is all about making more money. And it is all on public land!
Replacing the original chairlift so that people could enjoy the view and be transported to the summit to enjoy the walks and wildlife was perhaps justifiable, although the Eagle complex has always been too big for the summit. The massive expansion being proposed is a sort of Luna Park, totally out of keeping with the beauty of the hill. How on earth does this extravaganza enhance the experience of a State Park?
Contrast this with the Enchanted Maze Garden which was built on private land, set back from the road and thoughtfully landscaped to blend into the environment on Arthurs Seat. I find it very interesting that when the management of the Eagle try to justify the expansion by claiming that there is nothing to do at the summit, they never mention the maze. Then there’s Seawinds Gardens, bequeathed to the state of Victoria so that ordinary people could enjoy its views and beautiful walks. The developers view this as an overflow carpark. Arthurs Hotel is also currently being renovated.
This expansion is motivated purely by greed and should not go ahead.
Deb Fischer, Arthurs Seat
The mayoral shuffle
There’s a quiet jostling of positions taking place within council chambers as the time approaches to elect a new mayor, but the public doesn’t make this decision. The councillors themselves make it.
And that makes me wonder—why?
In several other states, the mayor is chosen directly by the people. Every voter receives two ballot papers: one to elect their councillors, and another to elect their mayor. It’s simple, open, and democratic.
When councillors alone decide, the result can feel more like a political chess match than a community decision. Alliances form, blocs shift, and suddenly the focus moves from serving the public to securing the mayoral seat.
A direct vote would put an end to that fragmentation. It would give residents a real say — and perhaps encourage new voices, fresh ideas, and genuine community representation.
Isn’t that what local government should be about?
Anne Kruger, Rye
Glass houses
The “honesty and integrity” comments by Zoe McKenzie MP reminds me of that old proverb “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
The lack of transparency around donations to political parties has been a serious issue for our democracy for decades.
The Labor, Liberal and National parties use “nominated entities” as investment vehicles to circumvent donation caps with funds collected over many years – who provides these funds which are then used for election campaigns?
The Parliament of Australia website states “… Money in politics has the potential to be a corrupting influence. Donors to political parties and candidates may expect favours in return for financial support or policy decisions that advance their interests. Big spending participants can also drown out smaller players and new entrants, potentially undermining democracy.”
On 1 July 2026, the new Electoral Reform Act will commence with significant reforms that will introduce donation and expenditure caps, reduce the disclosure threshold to $5,000 and update timeframes for disclosing donations and annual returns.
Politicians, like Zoe, who received $3.427 per eligible vote in 2025 will see an increase to $5.00 per vote from 2026. Unfortunately, the Albanese government decided not to refer the new Electoral Reform Act to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny and improved amendments.
If our current elected representatives (both federal and state) refuse to declare their donors, donations and finances then Australia needs new political leaders who will deliver honesty and integrity to their constituents.
Dale Stohr, Crib Point
Funding issues
One thing is clear from the letters page of November 5 is that Messrs Hudson, Riley and Martin are not supporters of Zoe McKenzie.
However in all three cases they diminish their case by indulging in slurs such as “lazy major parties, environmental vandals” or reducing the subject matter deserving only a cartoon response.
Not one of the correspondents seem to understand that all registered parties (Greens etc) are subject to the same federal reporting rules.
If the Teals become a registered party, they will have to comply with the same rules.
Perhaps the strategists see some benefit in not adopting a party structure.
Whatever the name is it is perfectly legitimate to question the source of any funding any candidate receives.
It is a pity these correspondents choose to play the person not the facts.
Robb Hampson, Sorrento
Treaty
As a resident who has always found it hard to reconcile this contemporary peninsula with the same place where the first inhabitants were deprived of land and sustenance, brutalised, enslaved and robbed of language and culture, I welcome last week’s introduction of our country’s first statewide Treaty.
This historic milestone moves me nearer to resolving how the Mornington Peninsula can be both its present and its past.
And the inclusion in the Treaty of a function to guide the government on closing the gap in living standards between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people is both practical and necessary.
Congratulations to all Victorians who have worked long and hard for self-determination through a Treaty. You’ve done it!
Maureen Donelly, Mornington
Climate inquiry
Recently browsing the internet for any genuinely informed and relevant experts in the extremely narrow field of climate science, I ended up again clicking on Dr Vincent Gray (Chemistry), NZ. To my great dismay he had passed away.
Dr Gray was a true scientist, engaged in scientific research for a long time, and since its inception was a member of the UN IPCC expert reviewers panel (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change).
His research background caused him to critically examine the methods, mathematics, evidence, used. Eventually he concluded that, for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed were unsound.
He applied his intellect to the research gathered on global warming and the causative effects of CO2 gas and found that the evidence for both claims is fatally flawed.
Our planetary temperature measurements have risen by 1.5 degrees since measurements in 1850. The limited locations, crude measurements and methodology of those days would carry an overall margin of error of 1.5 degrees anyway, hence that data is irrelevant.
“Reducing CO2 emissions” has already cost this country billions, with lots more to come. Losses of billions or trillions, and industrial might, surely warrants a very serious government inquiry as to why we are doing this.
The entire carbon emissions causing global warming theory needs to be revisited since it is all theory, none proven. A correlation is not proof of causation.
The trouble with government inquiries is that the government owned inquiring entity will be told in advance what the result of the inquiry will be.
Exactly like a recent Australian inquiry which determined that nuclear is the most expensive source of grid electricity.
Brian A Mitchelson, Mornington
Dinner dance?
I wonder how many people on the peninsula would love to go to a dinner dance?
Is there some RSL or golf club committee willing to consider the pros and cons of this suggestion?
It may be a monthly event or every other month and with a DJ – cheaper and easier than a band. I envisage a mix of disco, rock & roll, and 1960’s – 70’s – 80’s music.
The club would profit from selling meals and drinks. Dancers would need to book ahead – say by tables of say 8-10.
There may need to be a cover charge.
Why not give this idea a spin? If anybody is interested I can be contacted at:
petandwozspin@bigpond.com
Warwick Spinaze, Rosebud
Biased, anti-Israel
I am writing in reference to Joe Lenzo’s letter last week (Truce? What truce?, Letters 4/11/25).
His weekly, biased comments appear very one sided – as always, directed against Israel.
He conveniently forgot to mention that Hamas terrorists are still murdering any Palestinians who collaborate(d) with Israel. It was also Hamas terrorists who violated the yellow line between Israel and Hamas’ controlled Gaza area triggering Israel’s attack.
Hamas is also unwilling to surrender their arms so it can continue their “struggle” for Gaza’s control.
This is quite obvious for everyone to see, except left media. Hamas isn’t interested in real peace or a two state solution:
Firstly, a two state solution has been tried – unsuccessfully – five times in the past.
Secondly, Hamas’, many Palestinians’ and Iran’s solution is quite simple: wipe Israel off the map and deny Israel the right to exist.
We don’t need Nostradamus to know that.
Michael Capek, Mornington
Self-defence
Let me see if I got this right? If you murder a member of my family, it is justice and the right of self-defence to murder the entirety of your nuclear and extended family, everyone within Mornington Peninsula Shire council boundaries, blow up your churches and hospitals, level the shire area under 250 tons of rubble, prevent food and medical supplies into the shire area?
Where do you draw the line between defence and atrocities?
Joe Lenzo, Safety Beach
