Election promises are easy to announce. Working out who will pay for them, who will deliver them and whether they make a lasting difference is harder.
That gap was the thread running through my conversation with Dave Vanderwolf, the independent candidate for Croydon. Across housing, education, roads and health care, he kept returning to the same concern: governments need to improve the systems behind their decisions.
“There’s a lot of promises, but there’s not much narrative around how government actually functions better,” he said.
Speaking with The Maroondah Exchange, Vanderwolf outlined an approach centred on evidence, clearer responsibilities between governments and greater scrutiny of major announcements. He did not announce a funded local project or delivery timetable during the interview.
Vanderwolf’s three main campaign priorities are cost of living, housing and integrity. In a follow-up to this interview, his campaign said those priorities were shaped by a community survey he ran and by conversations with residents across the community.
Dave Vanderwolf. Photo supplied by his campaign.
It is his first campaign as a candidate. With a small community-based team behind him, he said the immediate challenge was reaching enough voters without the resources of a major party.
But he believes there is an audience for a different conversation about government.
“We can’t just continue being frustrated by the poor decisions being made,” he said. “We’ve got to consider the system from which they arise and demand better from that.”
When a government decision becomes a local bill
Vanderwolf described his professional background as an economist working at Victorian Treasury, focusing on the relationship between federal and state governments. He spoke as a candidate, rather than on behalf of his employer.
That background shapes his concern about how money and responsibility move between governments.
For residents, those arrangements can be difficult to untangle. A service is delivered locally, a decision is made at state level and some of the funding may come from Canberra. When something falls short, knowing who should fix it is not always straightforward.
Vanderwolf argues that the consequences become particularly visible when one government funds new infrastructure but leaves another responsible for its ongoing costs.
A community facility might receive money to be built, for example, without adequate support for its operation and maintenance. His concern is that councils can then be left choosing between higher rates and reductions elsewhere.
He wants responsibilities handed to councils to come with continuing support, rather than funding that ends when construction is finished.
Housing: what gets built matters
Housing brought that broader argument back to Croydon’s streets.
We discussed the need for more homes alongside concerns about how development could affect local traffic, neighbourhood character and the smaller businesses that help give Croydon Main Street its identity.
Vanderwolf wants the debate to go beyond construction targets.
“How does new housing supply address the gaps in the housing market?” he asked.
He pointed to conversations with people who want to downsize but cannot find a suitable alternative. In his view, housing reform needs to consider both the homes being built and the barriers preventing residents from moving into properties that better suit their lives.
He also wants residents to have a meaningful role in planning decisions.
During the interview, he raised concerns about potential traffic effects associated with development at the former Croydon South Primary School site. Those were concerns expressed by the candidate; the interview did not independently establish the development’s likely traffic impact.
His broader position is that decisions about additional housing should consider local access, infrastructure and the type of homes the community needs.
Asked what influence he could have as an independent, Vanderwolf said he would seek amendments to legislation and consider the conditions under which he would support a bill.
The extent of that influence would depend on the Parliament elected and the support available for individual proposals. His stated approach is to use negotiations over legislation to seek better outcomes for the community.
Free TAFE and the question of completion
Our discussion of TAFE turned to what happens after a student enrols.
As a teacher, I shared my experience of students leaving a course before completion and the importance of understanding the commitment involved before signing up. That was an account of my own classes, rather than evidence of a statewide trend.
Vanderwolf said those experiences raised questions he would want examined through the program’s data.
Are students enrolling? Are they completing? If they leave, what expectations, barriers or incentives need attention?
“I think it’s got to be evidence based,” he said.
He supports investment in skills and the domestic workforce, but wants programs assessed on whether they achieve their intended results.
He also acknowledged that he needed to learn more about the particular challenges facing Swinburne’s Croydon campus. He did not offer a specific funding commitment for the campus during the interview.
Roads and health care need an ongoing plan
On roads, Vanderwolf questioned whether major maintenance announcements would be supported by arrangements that keep roads in good condition over time.
His concern is that an initial investment can improve conditions, only for the same problems to return when that funding ends.
He would advocate for federal, state and local governments to work together on a sustainable maintenance strategy. He did not nominate a funded local road project.
Health care raised a similar question about the relationship between services.
Vanderwolf said he would advocate for Maroondah Hospital and wanted to meet with Eastern Health to understand its requirements.
He also expressed concern about people struggling to access GPs and the pressure that can place on hospital emergency departments. He wants to explore services that could help address that gap.
These were advocacy priorities and areas for further investigation. He did not announce a funded hospital upgrade or a new local health service.
When asked about CFA resourcing, Vanderwolf acknowledged that he was not fully across the detail of the dispute raised in the conversation. He expressed concern and said it was an issue he would draw attention to, without putting forward a detailed equipment or funding proposal.
Making promises easier to examine
Behind much of the conversation was a question about trust: how can residents assess what politicians promise before an election and hold them accountable afterwards?
Vanderwolf outlined two reforms he wants to pursue.
One is truth in political advertising laws. The other is a requirement for supporting briefing material to be tabled in Parliament before certain major decisions are announced, with thresholds based on factors such as cost or risk.
His aim is to make the justification for those decisions available earlier.
“Before it can even be announced, there would have to be briefing material tabled in Parliament that justifies that decision,” he said.
Both are proposals. Their design, scope and passage would need to be worked through in Parliament.
What he is asking voters to consider
Voters can read his published proposals on cost of living, housing and political integrity on his campaign website. His campaign says these priorities were shaped by a community survey he ran and conversations with residents. That consultation helped inform what he is asking voters to support.
If elected, Vanderwolf says he wants to engage openly with residents, understand the community’s views and use his vote to represent its interests.
If unsuccessful, he expects to return to his professional work and remain involved through Voices of Deakin, a community group in which he participates.
The offer he outlined in this interview was primarily a way of approaching the job: investigate whether programs work, scrutinise the evidence behind announcements and question whether funding follows responsibility.
For Croydon voters, the distinction is useful. These are proposed reforms and advocacy priorities, rather than funded local projects. The test would be whether that approach could produce practical improvements in the services and decisions residents encounter every day.