Queensland Government

Economically moronic or grossly ideological? Which description best fits the Cando Newman government's excuse for massive and cruel job losses and public service cuts? Here is an expose of Queensland Treasury's base and baseless rationale for austerity.

Melodramatic economic rhetoric frankly misleading

The Queensland Treasurer, Mark McArdle, appeared on ABC local radio today. He used the opportunity to re-iterate the litany of abysmal financial debt left to ‘Queenslanders’ by the previous Labor (ALP) Govt. and the attendant need for austere severity by the new Government. In describing this dark legacy he included the debt held by Government Owned Corporations (GOC’s).

Shortly afterward a caller to the station correctly identified the Treasurer’s description as incorrect and misleading. GOC’s hold debt within their balance sheets as a normal part of their commercial operations, as do all private corporations. Such debt levels are kept transparently and within thresholds deemed to be commercially sound and viable.

Government corporation debts generate net income for Government

Importantly, the interest on this debt is fully serviced by the commercial operation of the GOC. It does not bear upon the public purse. Moreover, the financial operations of the GOC that pay the interest bill also, in most cases, generate dividends into Consolidated Revenue. So this sector of the supposed 'problem' is in fact a net income to the Govt, and not a liability.

What proportion does GOC debt comprise within the entire black mass of it that the Newman Government is ululating as the harbinger of impending State doom and a just cause for wholesale exorcism of public sector jobs and services?

If the GOC debt is a substantial proportion of the whole, then the Newman Govt is being either economically moronic or grotesquely and deceitfully ideological. However, is it any better for people to lose their jobs and essential services to gross stupidity rather than to socio-economic eugenics?

Can do what, exactly?

Either way the ‘Can-do’ myth would be resolved in the worst possible fashion. Can do massive fuck-ups - you betcha! And this is just the start of it.

Frodo still has pellets in the stomach. Condemnation from the Queensland government is rather shallow when biodiversity in southeast Queensland is under pressure from habitat loss primarily due to increased urbanisation, driven by population growth, a fact stated in the State Government’s State of the Region (SEQ) report.
State planning is currently based upon the fool’s dream of endless growth. Human population growth brings disfunction, social dis-ease, lack of connection to our land and indigenous species, and increased crime. Her veterinarian carers confirm they cannot remove all the pellets from her tiny body.

Shallow sympathy belies institutional callousness in Queensland

Frodo still has pellets in the stomach. Condemnation from the Queensland government is rather shallow when biodiversity in southeast Queensland is under pressure from habitat loss primarily due to increased urbanisation, driven by population growth, a fact stated in the State Government’s State of the Region (SEQ) report.

State planning is currently based upon the fool’s dream of endless growth. Human population growth brings disfunction, social dis-ease, lack of connection to our land and indigenous species, and increased crime. Her veterinarian carers confirm they cannot remove all the pellets from her tiny body.

Please attend public forums against population growth, featuring Kelvin Thomson, Mark O'Connor and others. Brisbane: 8:30AM - 12:30PM, Saturday 13 March, Sunshine Coast: 2:00PM-4:30PM, Sunday 14 March.(See article "Sunshine Coast environmentalists condemn sham population debate" for more details.)

In the debate over the The South East Queensland Regional Plan in 2009-2031 on 11 February 2010 Liberal National Party MLA Glen Elmes_#main-fn1">1 warned how the vast discretionary powers, given to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Stirling Hinchliffe, with his past history as a property development industry insider, would add to the consequences of SEQ's already shambolic urban planning and environmental management and runaway population growth.

The speech is effective. However, it has shortcomings. The speech appears to accept that continued population growth, even if at a lower rate, is actually necessary and desirable, just as long as it is properly planned and the necessary infrastructure provided beforehand. It also appears to avoid confronting those directly responsible for the current rate of population growth that it otherwise makes abundantly clear is excessive. Those directly responsible are, of course, the Rudd Government with its record high immigration program, that is given every encouragement by the Queensland Government. It is possible to draw the implication from the speech that the harm caused by rapid population growth could possibly be mitigated to an acceptable degree by the adoption of measures such as decentralisation._#main-fn2">2 and infilling._#main-fn3">3

I learned of this speech from the following comment (see also #appendix1">) made in response to the article, "It's time to fight Bligh's growth" by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily of 6 Mar 10:

Vanga and happychappy1 may care to go to Hansard Thursday 11 Feb and read Glen Elmes' stirring speech to parliament condemning the government's population strategy for the Coast. At least Elmesy is doing his bit.

The speech, below, is from the Queensland State Parliamentary Hansard of Hansard of 12Feb 10, linked to from Hansard page. I have added subheadings. - JS

See also: "SEQ Regional Plan a travesty against the people of South East Queensland" of 9 May 09 by Dr Jane O'Sullivan, "The downward spiral of hasty population growth" of 8 Mar 10 on Online Opinion by Dr Jane O'Sullivan.

Mr ELMES (Noosa--LNP) (9.45 pm): ...

Queensland Government's habitual disregard of resident's wishes

I am privileged to rise to speak again on behalf of my electorate of Noosa in this critical debate about our future. My community always worries when Labor starts to plan on our behalf. The forced council amalgamation process of 2006 and 2007 was hallmarked by stripping Noosa and the Queensland constituency of the right to a binding vote on council amalgamations as enshrined in state law. Do you know why, Mr Deputy Speaker? It was because the Labor government knew that a vote would be defeated not by a small margin but overwhelmingly.

We on this side of the House support the planning processes which would, in normal circumstances, lead to the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, but these are not normal circumstances. We know that all of the submissions in the world make no difference to this Labor government's approach to consultation. We know that all the wisdom subscribed by the Sunshine Coast Regional Council; the highly respected Sunshine Coast Environment Council; the influential OSCAR, which stands for Organisation Sunshine Coast Associations of Residents; the forensic Development Watch; the EDV Residents Group; as well as the wise council from the Noosa Parks Association, the Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association and of course the Friends of Noosa, to mention but a few, simply fail to be taken into account by this minister and this Labor government.

How could we expect anything to be different? With a Labor government now more dependent for its political survival on donations from the property development industry than from its traditional labour trade union base and with a minister captive to that same industry for whom he was a consultant and advocate before coming into this place, how could we expect other than what we have got? But the minister monsters any notion of impartiality through the concept of investigation areas and sleight of hand expansions of the urban footprint to appease his constituent urban development lobby.

Reckless disregard of established planning principles

The Sunshine Coast Regional Council opposed the 1,408-hectare Caloundra South extension investigation area on the basis of the loss of the interurban break and the nutrient and recreational use impacts on the Pumicestone Passage. Others opposed other inclusions into the urban footprint as well, but still on he ploughs. But everyone was unanimous in their chorus for the permanent protection of the interurban break between the Moreton Bay area and the Sunshine Coast, for it to be set in concrete, to become an article of faith. This interurban break is prone to flooding.

There simply must be a ban on the continued development of flood prone or flood plain land. The current practice of raising the level of flood plain land above the flood level for development purposes simply makes flooding elsewhere more likely and more severe. It is a 'beggar my neighbour' policy. On the Sunshine Coast we do not want to see the incremental stripping away of the interurban breaks, as has occurred between Brisbane and the Gold Coast which is an interurban break in name only. I strongly oppose this minister having the power to gazette new growth areas without public consultation and the process for declarations to occur.

These regulations will permit a wide range of urban style tourist, recreation, sporting, hospitality and commercial developments to occur outside the urban footprint with limited code and impact assessment requirements and little guidance for local government. Further, I am also totally opposed to the proposed discretion for the minister to declare urban and future growth areas as a master plan area. Given the current minister's strong links to the property development industry, I am greatly alarmed by this proposed power, unfettered by any guidelines or ability to be challenged. This has been fostered by changing the definitions in the dictionary. Long-held definitions have turned turtle. What was forbidden is now at the bidding of the minister. Everyone has to go back to school and learn a new language.

My constituency and their advocacy groups requested the state support regional and local planning based on sustainable carrying capacity which also considers and accepts character and amenity. The Sunshine Coast Regional Council has a powerful electoral mandate for such planning and should be permitted to fulfil that mandate.

Queensland Government accomodates, rather than plans population growth

The South East Queensland Regional Plan proposes 156,000 extra dwellings by 2031, a 39 per cent increase over the 397,000 of 2006. The plan envisages 497,000 people crammed into a sardine city by 2031, 68 per cent more than the 295,000 of 2006. The place we call home and love so much will be loved to death by such an onslaught. The Sunshine Coast Regional Council sought assurance that dwelling allocations be qualified by assessment of development planning constraints--constraints extended by the Sunshine Coast Environment Council and others, all to no avail.

The growth is uneven. Although the South-East Queensland population growth is 1.57 million, Brisbane will grow by some 39 per cent, the Gold Coast will grow by 68 per cent and the heaviest impact will be borne by the Sunshine Coast, with a 76 per cent growth in population. Analysis of state and regional population progressions to 2031 and 2050 clearly shows that these are not sustainable in ecological, economic, financial or social terms. With the population doubling every 25 years and with two-thirds of the population in South-East Queensland, one-third in regional coastal areas and only one per cent west of the ranges, South-East Queensland will have a population equal to the present total state population by 2031 and 20 per cent of that population will be over the age of 65. The state already spends twice as much per capita on infrastructure as the other states and is facing mounting budget deficits and a state debt with a lowered credit rating. It just does not add up.

Here is a case for a state and regional population and settlement policy and strategy._#main-fn4">4 Analysis of the drivers of population growth, which is natural increase, net interstate migration and net international migration, shows that the state has a number of policy instruments at its disposal to deliver a population and growth rate which is determined to be sustainable for the region and for the state overall. Managing international migration to Queensland is obvious, given this has been double the rate of interstate migration in the most recent decade.

The South East Queensland Regional Plan simply accepts population growth as a fact to be accommodated rather than managed. Strategies and then policies need to be developed and implemented by which growth is limited to no more than the sustainable carrying capacity of the Sunshine Coast. A key factor of sustainability in my view is provision of acceptable infrastructure proceeding or in conjunction with appropriate development. I believe that the current government policy encourages this excessive population growth, and therefore policy change can reduce it.

For example, concessional stamp duty for first home buyers in Queensland is a significant incentive for Victorian and New South Wales property owners to relocate to Queensland, particularly in retirement, rather than to relocate within their own state. Limiting the concession to first home buyers generally rather than first home buyers in Queensland, as now, would be a good first step in limiting growth and would send a clear message of intent that population growth for Queensland is not limitless. It should be noted here that the Sunshine Coast Regional Council was elected almost two years ago with an overwhelming mandate from electors to preserve their quality of life, to nurture the area's unique communities, to manage population growth and development and to make the region the most sustainable in Australia. The electors who live on the Sunshine Coast have sent this very clear message which should be informing planning and planning instruments such as the South East Queensland Regional Plan that replicating the Gold Coast on the Sunshine Coast is not acceptable to us.

There is here potential for a clear identification of community areas in which modelling of desirable future living could be trialled. I envisage the greater Noosa area as one which could be home to communities capable of ready adaption to important change. Booking the ClimateSmart Home Service--which is a state government initiative and which I wholly approve of--managing our carbon footprint, insulating our homes, installing hot-water systems and solar power generation, composting and recycling more of our waste, installing greywater systems and harvesting rainwater et cetera are a few examples of some of the myriad ways in which a small engaged community might model solutions to climate change and sustainability. These solutions might then be rolled out across the state when it is clear which approaches work best and how they might be implemented.

We residents of the Sunshine Coast advocate a much less intensive residential development for our area than the currently accepted urban norm of large estate development which requires water and energy to be captured or generated remotely and delivered to these developments and from which waste water and waste is transported to a remote site for treatment or disposal. The current urban model is ultimately unsustainable and undesirable. Greater Noosa, with recognition from UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program, is, I submit, ideally and best placed to model a sustainable future.

Queensland Government spends on infrastructure for population growth on maxed out bankcard

The truly monstrous failure of the Labor government has been in the provision of infrastructure. With our bankcard maxed out, the capacity for future generations to work through the economic catastrophe facing the state--home-grown by sheer economic incompetence--is hamstrung. Both the plan and the South-East Queensland infrastructure program fail to commit to the provision of the necessary infrastructure to support proposed increases in dwellings and sustainable development. The teaching hospital for the University of the Sunshine Coast--a truly fantastic win-win concept for health services in my region, for infrastructure provision and for education as a hub for economic development--has been put off and put back until it is almost out of sight and out of mind. Why? Because the Labor government has given up even the faintest hope of ever winning a seat on the Sunshine Coast so those electors do not matter anymore to Labor. The Queenslanders in this region of the south-east know who they cannot count on. Redress the wrong, address increases in public and active transport spending, and bring forward as a matter of urgency the coast section of CAMCOS and CoastConnect.

Effects of poor planning on Sunshine Coast

Many rural communities are home to those engaged in lower paid employment who are compelled to travel to work, often shiftwork, by private car. Alternative transport modes must be made available for these workers. It is not acceptable that bulk public transport solutions be provided only in the most heavily populated areas which are already advantaged by a wider range of services under competitive provision.

There are other infrastructure failures which I will only touch on. Education has failed. Schools are being built under a public-private partnership in my region. I am attending the opening of Peregian Springs tomorrow morning at 9.30, which in time will really max out the already maxed out bankcard. Health services fail every day. This is not the fault of the health professionals who struggle to meet the needs of those for whom they care; there are just too many of them to care for.

Then there is water. What do Sunshine Coast residents see? They see paddock after paddock of enormous black pipes just waiting to be laid to suck the lifeblood from the region. Water will leave from where it was harvested via one-way pumps through the infamous water grid, off to Brisbane never to be seen again and for which the reward of recompense has been harvested by this broke Labor government also.

To most constituents, 'infill development' are dirty words but not everyone agrees. Displaying great courage and foresight, the Sunshine Coast Environment Council, for example, has proposed to focus on infill development to take advantage of existing infrastructure and services and the achievement of a more compact urban form incorporating sustainability principles. But this demands that location, scale and design must be sympathetic to the surrounding area and to community aspirations. In short, the local community needs to be engaged in the local solution._#main-fn5">5

The Labor government's approach to planning did not even start from an informed position. There was no review of the performance of the previous plan despite the fact that the 2008 State of the region report showed declining trends in almost all sustainability indicators, most noticeably biodiversity and livability indicators, and many of the plans and strategies that the plan requires for implementation are still incomplete and not integrated. While growth, transport and climate change are acknowledged, no robust solutions are offered. It is almost as if they have conceded that they will not be around long enough to address these problems of their own making, but they do not effectively address or provide solutions to these issues. Finalisation of this plan should await a fundamental review of the carrying capacity of the region. The dreadful lag in infrastructure and services has caught up with even the existing population, and effective performance monitoring, review, resourcing and accountability structures are incorporated.

The South East Queensland Regional Plan will be informed by, and is subservient to, the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Accordingly, it is of particular concern that the act does not include a prohibition on development applications which conflict with local planning schemes. This deficiency requires any local council to assess an application despite the conflict. Consideration of such applications makes it very clear to the local community that their faith in the local planning scheme, developed following prolonged community consultation, is misplaced. It also highlights for them the significant waste of local rate revenues applied by council to the assessment process and the dilemma which councils face in defending their decision in the Planning and Environment Court should a developer appeal against a refusal. It is essential that this wasteful, resource intensive and unnecessary activity is made redundant by appropriate amendment to the act.

Failure to protect wildlife, agricultural land

While we humans can speak for ourselves, it is also incumbent to protect those who cannot defend themselves, and I speak particularly of the koala--our native icon--threatened with extinction by development, by this Labor government and by this plan in particular. The koala is a key indicator for biodiversity. They will be a lost indicator at the present rate as community groups struggle to offset the failures of this Labor government. The mapping program is inadequate, incomplete and slow, while another aspect of growth is seen with this minister--that is, the growth in loopholes to aid and abet the developer constituency to find legal ways to destroy koala habitat with impunity.

Another aspect that has been largely overlooked is the impact on food production from development. Productive land agricultural pursuits, particularly those close to major urban centres, need to be preserved. This is another failure of the Traveston Crossing Dam--that less than optimum water storage location which sought to flood farm land and deprive Brisbane of a source of food. Let us hope that the remedial work to repair the damage done to the Mary Valley, primarily by the Premier in this case, will focus on developing this food bowl and repairing the other major consequence, which is social dislocation.

There is strong objection to the amendment proposed to the regional landscape and rural production areas, which has the effect of expanding the urban footprint and redefining activities which were previously urban. These areas should be afforded the highest level of protection possible so that food production for South-East Queensland's increasing population can be secured and, simultaneously, natural conservation areas protected.

Reject Queensland Government's "Sardine City" vision for Sunshine Coast

For the Sunshine Coast, we all hope for the sustenance of it being a community of communities. We do not want a sardine city. We want the places in which we live, work, play and grow our families to retain their uniqueness and their individuality. We want them to be the places in communities which attracted us to them in the first place. We do not want to morph into obscurity. We do not want to be harmonised. We want progress without oblivion.

The vision for the future of South-East Queensland and the principles that underpin the plan are generally consistent with those supported and endorsed by Sunshine Coast constituents. However, one notes with concern that the plan and its regulated regulatory provisions have significant flaws which remain to be addressed. The major concerns remain the weak basis in the plan for determining how growth can be managed and the potential inconsistencies that arise between desired outcomes, the lack of infrastructure planning to underpin development and the powers to the minister, who always seems ready to do a stirling job on behalf of his developer mates. It does not bode well for a sustainable future for the Sunshine Coast or anywhere in South-East Queensland.

#appendix1" id="#appendix1">Appendix: Divided opinions about Sunshine Coast Members of State Parliament

The following are comments in response to the article "It's time to fight Bligh's growth" by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily of 6 Mar 10.

Posted by vanga from Caloundra, Queensland, 06 March 2010 7:17 a.m.

yet another story bemoaning the imposition of 100K more people on our life styles and still no word from the liberal nationals

Will the libnats ban any greenfield development in south Caloundra?

Will the libnats go with the council on the maximum number of people for sippy downs and maroochydore urban infil?

Hello? Is there anybody out there?

McCardle, Elmes, Wellington, Dickson, Simpson, Powell and the other one I couldnt find - whats your thoughts? A lot of coast residents want to know if you are going to dare to be different or are we stuck with what labour are pushing on us because you want the same or even worse - more people?

Some answers libants - you cant just sit back and whinge about everything the government does - let us know if you will be any different

Posted by happychappy1 from Maroochydore, Queensland, 06 March 2010 7:41 a.m.

No, no, no, no, no. This govt has to be kicked out before our lifestyles are totally ruined. Please LNP, give us your views?

Posted by vanga from Caloundra, Queensland, 06 March 2010 7:43 a.m.

the emails are flooding in

Glen Elmes- not his responsibility - sent my email to Dave Gibson of the Gympie

Powell - and Dickson not in their electorate so they arent interested - suggested I contact Marc McCardle

Peter Wellington - good onya - a politician with an opinoin - dead set against the proposals

Posted by vanga from Caloundra, Queensland 06 March 2010 9 a.m.

happychappy - lnp views as emailed to me

Elmes - not his responsibility - sent my query to the member for Gympie because that member is the shadow minister - so elmes has no opinon

Peter wellington - against the proposals - was on ABC talking about it

Power and Dickson - its not their electorate so of no interest, told me to talk to Marc McCardle
Mccardel and simpson - no response yet

can someone tell the 7 memebrs of the state parliament they are members for the Sunshine Coast as well as their own fiefdoms?

Maybe if they actually spoke with each other they could present a united from for the coast

Posted by carrot from Maroochydore, Queensland 06 March 2010 9:51 a.m.

Vanga and happychappy1 may care to go to Hansard Thursday 11 Feb and read Glen Elmes' stirring speech to parliament condemning the government's population strategy for the Coast. At least Elmesy is doing his bit.

The SCRC (Sunshine Coast Regional Council) has already shot themselves in the foot by caving in immediately to Caloundra South. That set a precedent that informs the state government exactly how spineless they are.

Posted by tonyryan from Maroochydore Bc, Queensland 06 March 2010 1:17 p.m.

This is still a discussion in a bubble.

The predetermining issues are: 'population' and 'rights of the people'.

First POPULATION. Increase is NOT inevitable.

In fact natural Australian population growth went into reverse two decades after we installed statutory livable age pensions in 1946.

The current increase is primarily caused by three million migrants and refugees. Do we have to take them in? No. Australia is a desert continent and we have already reached our optimum sustainable population.

No foreign power can tell us what to do.

The newcomers are straining our water catchments; our rural food-growing zones through enforced urban sprawl; our culture; our national sovereignty and our social integrity.

And to say we must give way to seachangers is nonsense. All human communities in history have reserved the right to repel invaders in order to protect their homes, their incomes and their way of life.

Ignoring official lies, unemployment on the Sunshine Coast is 23% and newcomers compete for the few jobs going. In a sense, they import poverty.

And RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?

During the past three decades there has been a media-driven viewpoint that we elect representatives to rule over us. This is dictatorial nonsense.

Democracy was clearly defined by the greatest minds in history... Thucydides of ancient Greece, the Irish Monks, Thomas Paine of 'The Rights of Man' fame, Lord Acton... but most lyrically by Abraham Lincoln: "Government of the people, by the people and for the people".

Abe overstated the definition because already, enemies of democracy were subverting the meaning.

In a democracy, councillors, MLAs and MHRs are our elected servants, there for one single purpose, to install the product of electoral consensus.... or in Constitutional terms... the will of the people.

Wellington and Blumell excepted, the rest of our grubby politicians are exchanging election campaign funding for development favours.

This is obviously true of tyrant Bligh and Andrews, but us equally true of the LNP. This is why they are silent.

If you want to save the Sunshine Coast, you will have to do what people have done since time immemorial; confront the politicians en masse.

They will back down, believe me.

Posted by shellsay from Maroochydore, Queensland 06 March 2010 1:46 p.m.

What is so arrogant about the Bligh/Hinchcliff army is that they have totally and utterly disregarded the S/C community and SCRC rights to have an opinion. The whole process of altering the maximum population number of nearly 16,000 set by council, to now become the minimum is outrageous, how can this just happen? Of course you can't stop population growth, but you should be able to stipulate a lot lower figure. And how can all this be approved by these loonies when no effort towards sustainable planning has been taken into consideration, we are talking flood plain land here, has anyone seen the amount of water that is lying on there at the moment. Why arent we utilising further regional areas for development, why does it have to be here, the infrastructure that is in place now can't cope. It is up to the S/C communities to stop this decision now, instead of just blogging about it let's all do something. Developers like Stocklands are way to powerful and have destroyed enough of the coast, they are not ratepayers and don't have a right to an opinion. Send a submission into council, to take a stand on this through the reinstatement of their structure plan, which can be viewed on their web: www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au. Sunshine Coast residents have a right to be heard, Bligh/Hinchcliff dont live here we do.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ In spite of having made this speech, opinion about LNP member Glen Elmes is not unanimously favourable amongst Sunshine Coast residents opposed to population growth as can be seen #appendix1">below from comments in response to the article "It's time to fight Bligh's growth" by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily of 6 Mar 10, where I learnt of this speech.

In the past the LNP has been correctly regarded as more the party of big business than the Labor Party. However, that reality appears to have been largely inverted in Queensland in recent years. An example which suggests this is the disturbing fact that on 2 June 2009, only two members of the Parliamentary Labor caucus were prepared to vote, even inside caucus, where they are all supposedly free to speak and vote as their consciences dicate, against privatisation. In contrast, the the LNP opposes privatisation and that opposition appears to be, in large part, genuine. They have repeatedly voted against privatisation and, on one occasion, LNP leader John-Paul Langbroek called on the State Governmet to put privatisation to the people in a referendum. Of course, the ultimate test for Parties such as the LNP is what they do upon winning government and not what some of their members are prepared to say whilst in opposition.

Glen Elmes' seat of Noosa was previously held by Cate Molloy, who was expelled from the Labor Party for her principled stand of opposition to the Bligh Government's environmentally and socially reckless plans to dam the Mary Valley at Traveston. Whilst we urged a vote for Cate Molloy in both the 2006 and 2009 state elections, this speech demonstrates that some considerable good has resulted from that loss.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑, #main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ This has raised decentralisation as a possible solution to overcrowding of the major urban areas. Noosa Shire Mayor Bob Abbot proposed decentralisation at the Debate at the Conservatorium of Music in Brisbane on Monday 22 February. His argument was that if our Governments had not allowed the infrastructure that serviced Inland Queensland in the firs half of the twentieth century to have been neglected in the second half of the 20th century then there would be plenty of desirable alternative locations for people to live outside the major urban regions. An argument put against this view is that, as a result of mechanisation, there was no longer as great a need for the larger rural workforces that existed back then. Also the lack of fertility and water have defeated past attempts to settle outback regions of the country, most famously the soldier settlers who were given plots of land in outback Victoria after the First World War.

Nevertheless, I believe that it is appropriate to carefully examine the capacity of some currently sparsely settled regions to support greater populations. Some factors which could bend the odds more in our favour are (1) The potential of Natural Sequence Farming as well as Permaculture techniques to restore fertility the land, (2) the capacity of the Internet to allow much intellectual work to be perfomed remotely, (3) Cheaper building techniques as described by US architect Michael Reynolds in his video Garbage Warrior.

If it were to be found that some of these regions may be able to sustainably support substantially larger human populations, then decentralisation should be adopted, but only as a solution to relieve the overcrowding of Australia's existing urban areas, rather than as an excuse to furhter increase Australia's population.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑, #main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ In fact, we would tend to agree that 'infill development' is dirty. In theory infill development could relieve some of the demand for land, but it is not environmentally cost-free. The financial and energy costs of building and operating multi0story dwellings and obtaining food, water and other necssities from elsewhere needs to be taken into account. In practice, it is also very difficult to infull without sacrificing ever more of the remnants of vegetation in city areas. In a context of population stability, some 'infill' development may prove to be a means to relieve the demand for bushland clearing, but, in the current environment of runaway population growth it has just become another means for developers to profit by degrading the quality of life of existing community.

Originally published on the Queensland Greens web site on 10 Feb 09.

10 February 2010 - The Queensland Greens have today called for federal intervention to address the climate change impacts of the coal epidemic in central Queensland.

"The Greens want a climate trigger to be added to Australia's national environment laws so the federal government can step in to assess the full climate impacts of coal proposals, including Clive Palmer's China First and Gina Hancock's Alpha and Kevin's Corner coal mines in the Galilee Basin," said environmental lawyer and Greens lead Senate candidate for Queensland, Larissa Waters.
Greens candidates Larissa Waters, Jenny Stirling and Jonathon Dykyj are visiting Bowen to hear community opposition to the coal mines, coal rail corridors, coal port expansions and local heavy industry area, and will attend a briefing on Galilee Basin coal projects where mining magnate Clive Palmer is also expected.

"The region's communities, the Reef, tourism, agriculture, grazing industries and development of alternative industries are being sacrificed for coal royalties, corporate profits and exports of more carbon pollution to China and Japan," said Ms Waters.

"The proposed coal mines in the Galilee Basin are massive and will turn Queensland into the world's biggest coal exporter right when the latest science is calling for urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions," said Ms Waters.

"Premier Bligh is ignoring the revenue and thousands of jobs dependent on a healthy Great Barrier Reef and is failing to drive the creation of thousands of clean energy jobs which could be powering Queensland and protecting the climate," said Ms Waters.

"Hancock's Kevin's Corner and Alpha Coal Mine will forever mark the exact point at which Rudd capitulated to the coal lobby, squandering the mandate he was given to deal with climate change and betraying future generations of Australians" said Jenny Stirling, Greens third Senate candidate.

In addition to coal projects, the state government is dumping the worst polluting industries such as aluminium and nickel refineries with smelters, chlor-alkali plant, ammonium nitrate plant, coke and gas fired power plants right on to Bowen residents in a ‘state development area' which demotes the community's legal rights to oppose the development.

"The federal government needs to step in and conduct an assessment of the cumulative impact of heavy industry and resource extraction on the community and the environment in the region," said Ms Waters.

Candidate for Dawson Jonathon Dykyj said: "We are here to challenge the short-sighted and inappropriate development of this region and to put forward sustainable alternatives which are economically and environmentally sound for this wonderful part of Queensland."

The Greens want to see the region's economy based on clean energy industries and associated manufacturing, sustainable agriculture, tourism, and improved public health, education and services for the aging population and young families.

For comment:
Larissa Waters - Greens lead Senate candidate for Queensland - larissa.waters [ AT ] qld.greens.org.au

Background on planned Bowen development blitz

• Massive 16,500 ha Bowen State Development Area to house some of the world's worst polluting industries such as aluminium and nickel refineries with smelters, chlor-alkali plant, ammonium nitrate plant, coke and gas fired power plants.
• Abbott Point Port expansion to export 110 Mtpa of coal together with a Multi Cargo Facility will require 580 ha dredging and reclamation in World Heritage Great Barrier Reef waters. Coal exports are projected to increase from the present 25Mtpa export upwards to 230 Mtpa with the Palmer/Hancock coal mines.
• Both of the above sited next to the nationally significant Caley (Keela) Valley Wetlands which meet RAMSAR status and are home to over 20,000 wetland and migratory birds and 200 species.
  490km rail corridors will be 100m wide from Galilee Basin (Palmer's China First) to Abbott Point, cutting through the township of Collinsville, stock routes, prime agricultural and grazing lands and ecosystems.
• Land clearing for the mines, railways, pipelines and coal stockpiles will affect thousands of hectares of vegetation and biodiversity habitat.

See also: "Clive Palmer, Queensland Government announce $69 Billion Coal project" in the Sunday Mail of 7 Feb 10.

Friends of Felton Media release

11th January 2010

Queensland Government cannot allow Felton to be held hostage by mining company

Ambre Energy executives visited Felton just before Christmas and revealed the following information about their proposed so-called Felton Clean Coal Project:

• They have not yet secured a supply of water for the project (16,000 megalitres per year at full scale).

• They have no plans for Carbon Capture and Storage, even though their own figures show the project would produce 3 tonnes of CO2 per 1 tonne of fuel.

• They may not proceed with plans to produce di-methyl ether (DME)_#main-fn1">1, as there is little demand for it in Australia.

• The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project may not be released this year.

Friends of Felton spokesman Rob McCreath said, "This is a clearly an unviable project, which would have disastrous consequences for agriculture, the environment, and the community at large."

"Two years have passed since Ambre Energy first announced their plans for the Felton Valley. Local residents are virtual hostages, their lives and plans are in limbo." Mr McCreath said. "The efficiency of the district's cropping and horticultural industries is being reduced by the threat of the mine" he added.

Friends of Felton calls on the Queensland Government to intervene immediately to reject the Ambre Energy proposal, which is clearly not in the public interest.

Media contact: Rob McCreath 0409014219

Friends of Felton Inc.
c/o The Secretary, 2110 Karara Rd, Felton 4358
www.fof.org.au

See also: "Felton farmers left in the dark" in the Toowoomba Chronicle of 12 Jan 10, "Farmers 'held hostage by mining plans'" in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 Jan 10, "Agriculture v Mining - Friends of the Felton Valley and the Haystack Plain" on Brisbane ABC radio's Evenings with Steve Austin of 4 Jun 09, including audio files of debate (10 Mb) between John Cotter, the President of Agforce and the Chief Executive of Queensland Resources, Michael Roche and interview (10Mb) with Rob McCreath of Friends of Felton, "Farmers occupy Qld Premier's office to save Darling Downs from coal mining" of 2 Nov 08, "Rural town threatened by open cut coal-mine: Acland, Queensland" of 10 Jan 10, Friends of Felton web site at www.fof.org.au and blog site at www.friendsoffelton.blogspot.com.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ Di-methyl Ether (DME) can be used a substitute for diesel as a fuel for motor vehicles. After world oil production inevitably peaks and begins its inexorable decline, it seems likely that we will look to the large scale production of DME as one alternative to petroleum. How we balance the needs of our industrial society with the needs of the natural environment and our need to produce food in areas such as the Felton Valley will be a difficult, if not altogether impossible problem to solve. It is urgent that we pre-empt this by planning to end Australia's unending economic growth and, instead, achieve a steady state economy within the limits of our natural environment as soon as possible.

The Queensland Government and the Brisbane City Council plan to allow developers to turn Queensland's historic Yungaba immigration hostel into yet another luxury gated residential housing development against the overwhelming objections of local residents.

Included below is a letter from Delend Cuddihy of the Yungaba Action Group.

---

Dear Yungaba supporters and friends,

In these days leading up to December 15, the date set down for the hand-over of Yungaba to the developer, it seems appropriate that this act of despoliation will happen in the season of Scythrops novaehollandiae.

The largest parasitic Cuckoo in the world, Scythrops novaehollandiae, migrates to Queensland from overseas between August and October each year. This fearsome bird, with its raucus cry -- listen to the audio file (191K) here. -- strikes fear into the hearts of local birds as it seeks out nests, destroys eggs or eats the young, and then lays its own eggs in the nest. The youngScythrops chicks don't evict the host's young or eggs from the nest, but they simply grow faster and demand all the food, thus starving the others. Then, through deception and gluttony, they grow to full, awesome size and depart Australia.

Just so, the reign of the Scythrops novaehollandiaedevelopers and profiteers has descended on Queensland - with the sale and redevelopment of Yungaba, the 30 story highrise developments in West End, the sale of public forests, ports, motorways and parts of the rail network and, now the announcement late last week that the State's National Parks are to be opened for eco-tourism development. See the Courier Mail story "Parks Tourist Storm Looms" of 25 Nov 09.

To paraphrase Tony Fitzgerald's recent warning, Scythrops novaehollandiaeare already in the nest of Queensland!

Queenslanders have but a short time for our voice to be heard, to raise our own storm in protest at this despoliation.

Yungaba Action Group invites you to join us in
Demonstration on the grass on the river side of Yungaba at 10am -- 12.30pm Sunday, 13 December 13.

Can you help us spread the word of this demonstration? -- see poster attached (pdf 168KB).

Perhaps you could spread the poster to your friends, family, through your networks, facebook etc? or print copies of it and paste them around your neighbourhood?

Or perhaps you could ring the Government Call Centre on 131304 to have your comment recorded and reported.

Whatever we can, wherever we are, with whatever we have, we must act now to protect our heritage and culture.

Delene Cuddihy 0402 597259

See also: www.yungaba.org.au, "Yungaba's is a history that should not be lost" by Australian author David Malouf in the Australian of 5 Dec 09, "Ghost of Cloudland back with a vengeance" by Rosemary Sorensen in the Australian of 5 Dec 09, "Govt rejects tag of 'red-neck developer'" by Tony Moore in the Brisbane Times of 5 Dec 09,

#update" id="update">Update, 11 Dec 09: Bulldozers already on site,

Delene Cuddihy writes:

Dear Yungaba Supporters & Friends - Remember the Belle Vue & Cloudland?
The bulldozers are already on the Yungaba site.

Come to Yungaba on Sunday December 13th at 10am to protest this blow to
Queensland History.

Let them not say that we didn't stand up for our History and our
Culture. Long Live Yungaba!

What else you can do: Sign the e-petition which calls for the immediate resignation of the Queensland Govenment and new elections on the grounds of not consulting public on privatisation.

#update2" id="update2">Update, 30 Jan 10: Yungaba sold, but fight not over

Delene Cuddihy writes:

Dear Yungaba Supporters and Friends,

As 2010 begins, I would like to wish you all the best for the coming year. And let us hope that reason and love of heritage prevail this year and Yungaba will be saved for the Queensland public. This dishonourable act against our culture and history by our own representatives will continue to be told in the annals of Queensland history for generations to come: see today's Q Section in The Courier Mail:

On December 15, the State Government finalized the sale - Yungaba now belongs to Australand. When I attended Yungaba for a television interview on December 15th, the television crew was not allowed to film the interview in front of the building. So much for the much vaunted claim that this development will retain the heritage of Yungaba and benefit the community! The alienation has started already!

Thanks to all those who attended the Rally on December 13th - it was a
big ask of our supporters at this time of year and in the heat of summer
- see Courier Mail article "Yungaba sale settles but action group fights on" of 15 Dec 09 by Margaret Wenham.

Approximately 70 people attended over the two hours of the Rally and after much discussion, decisions were made on two courses of action to continue to fight for Yungaba in spite of the impending sale:

1. to seek an urgent deputation to the Premier to ask for a stay of action on the gutting of Yungaba and to present alternative proposals for public usage;
2. to seek to explore the establishment of a community fund which would work to obtain financial pledges from the public in order to "buy-back" the main Yungaba building so that the unique 1800s immigration depot interior is not gutted but rather retained and developed as an immigration museum;

As regards 1. - unsurprisingly, the silence to our request is deafening.

In the meantime, Yungaba's cause has gained the support of many prominent Queenslanders and Australians. With the aid of these people, we are appealing directly to Australand to save Yungaba for the people. Australand have advised us that it will cost them $13 million to refurbish Yungaba, plus $5.3m to build an Auditorium in the Yungaba Carpark. Surely they will be interested in saving $19m for their shareholders, as well as saving Yungaba for the people of Queensland? Therefore, as regards 2. - if you are interested in the formation of a community fund - please contact me.

We have written again to the Lord Mayor suggesting that he can now deal directly with Australand to secure Yungaba for his Multicultural and Indigenous Museum. So could you contact him again on lordmayor [ AT ] brisbane.qld.gov.au to let him know that there is widespread community support for this? Many people continue to sign the petition on our website and to tell their Yungaba story.

Please encourage your family and friends to sign the petition and to tell their Yungaba story - http://www.yungaba.org.au/stories.html

These stories and petitions are invaluable - as they are the bedrock that reassure us that Yungaba is a just cause and worth fighting for - and add strength and momentum to our cause.

It's not over yet!

Delene Cuddihy
dc [ AT ] yungaba.org.au
Ph: 040 2597259

The Queensland Government's Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan, far from achieving its lofty claimed goals of "protect(ing) and enhanc(ing) the quality of life", landscape values, biodiversity and natural assets of the region, will, instead, turn even much of that region into an economically depressed, crowded and ecologically unsustainable slum for no better purpose than to keep profits flowing into the pockets of developers who largely bankroll the ruling Queensland Labor Party.

An earlier unfinished draft of submission was mistakenly published on 17 Mar 09.

Dr. Jane N. O'Sullivan
Chelmer Qld

Draft SEQ Regional Plan Submission
Department of Infrastructure and Planning
Reply Paid 15009
City East Qld 4002

General comments

The current draft SEQ Regional Plan 2009-2031 (the Plan) is a travesty against the people of South East Queensland. It should be withdrawn, and a new process undertaken which addresses its shortcomings.

• It does not achieve its own stated goals. It does not "protect and enhance the quality of life", landscape values, biodiversity and natural assets of the region, but accelerates the development processes which have demonstrably undermined them to date. It fails to acknowledge fundamental conflicts between stated goals (such as biodiversity preservation and population growth) nor does it provide any process or guidelines for resolving such conflicts.
• It fails to achieve key elements of a regional plan, required under the Integrated Planning Act S.2.5A.11, to identify key regional environmental, economic and cultural resources to be preserved, maintained or developed, and define how that is to be achieved.
• It conflicts with the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. The goal, core objectives and guiding principles of this strategy should be integral to the Plan. Instead, its regulatory provisions directly undermine existing controls that defend these principles.
• It ignores the findings of the State of the Region Report for SEQ (2008), which showed biodiversity loss and climate change impacts as grave problems in the region. It makes only token attempts to reduce the intensity of pressures known to be exacerbating these vulnerabilities, while significantly increasing their scale. The outcome will certainly be increased biodiversity loss, greater greenhouse gas emissions and greater vulnerability to climate change impacts.
• It pre-empts the findings of a number of studies and policies currently underway, thus failing to integrate their conclusions, and limiting capacity to incorporate changes that may be recommended by these processes. These include SEQ Natural Resource Management, Water Strategy, Rural Futures Strategy, Biodiversity Value Assessments, Climate Change Response, Peak Oil Response, and the SEQ Infrastructure Plan and Programs.
• It undermines a core component of quality of life, namely the self-determination of communities through open and equitable democratic processes.
  • The Plan limits and overrides capacity of local councils to control development.
  • It compromises the Desired Environmental Outcomes of local government planning schemes.
  • It increases discretionary power of the Minister for Planning to gazette areas for any level of development without opportunity for community consultation or appeal.
  • It increases the scope of landholder rights of use without referral or environmental impact assessment, on land outside the urban footprint.
  • Importantly, it fails to provide complete and balanced data on both the resource base and the impacts of the proposed development, to enable informed public response.

All these travesties are done in the name of one single goal, that of incorporating an additional 1.6 Million people into SE Queensland.

If that growth were inevitable, the best that could be said of the Plan is that it is an attempt at damage mitigation, dressed up (deceitfully) as progress.

However, neither the inevitability nor the costs and benefits of this population growth have been explored.

In the first instance, it is important to acknowledge the extent to which the Plan itself acts to attract more population. Land releases, removal of regulatory barriers, and the commitment of State Government to fund the infrastructure requirements of new residents (through the Metropolitan Development Program), all fuel the rate of growth. It is argued that these things are needed to improve housing affordability, but in fact they do the opposite by fueling property speculation. [DRO 8, Policy 8.4.1: the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy is misguided and entrenches outdated patterns of urban sprawl and socioeconomic stratification.]

Secondly, it must be noted that there are no new sources of funding identified in the Plan. The ideals of good urban planning and infrastructure espoused in the Plan are not new, but to date funding has not been adequate to achieve these goals. There is no basis to expect that an increased rate of demand growth will make the provision of good services any easier than it has been in the past.

Part B: regional vision and strategic directions

"The regional vision for SEQ is a future that is sustainable, affordable, prosperous, liveable and resilient to climate change."

If the Plan, as currently drafted, were to take effect, NOT ONE of those criteria would be greater in 2031 than today.

It is noted that no comparative adjectives are used in the vision statement. Communities may indeed be described as safe, healthy, accessible and inclusive, depending on what you are comparing them with. The document avoids saying SEQ will be safer, healthier, more accessible, more inclusive, more affordable, more livable or more resilient to climate change. The authors know that these objectives cannot be delivered. This entire section is an exercise in weasel words.

The strategic directions do claim that the plan intends to create a more sustainable future. However, there is no doubt that the 2031 SEQ envisaged will consume more energy and water than the current SEQ. Only aspirational reference is made of improved building standards to reduce energy requirements and withstand extreme weather events [DRO 1: Policy 1.3.5 and Program 1.4.5], but no evidence is given that these gains will off-set the increase in dwelling number. Little attempt is made to restrict development on low-lying coastal plains or forest fringe areas at increasing risk of bushfire, indeed several such areas are inappropriately included in the urban footprint.

Perverted Economic Priorities

Anna Bligh has said that population growth is needed to maintain jobs in the building sector_#main-fn1">1. This irrational statement is on a par with Maurice Iemma's claim (in relation to climate change response) that there is no point saving the environment if doing it harms the economy. Both show an alarming lack of understanding of the extent to which our quality of life depends on our natural resource base.

If the Premier wants to preserve these jobs, we could employ people to dig holes and fill them in again. This would have equal benefit to existing Queenslanders (none but the salaries involved), and far less adverse impact. It would be cheaper than the publicly funded infrastructure needed to service the extra dwellings. But if completely futile activity is an improvement on current proposals, it's easy to see that we could achieve a far better outcome employing the same people to implement the changes we need to transform into a low-carbon economy. We need green jobs, replacing unsustainable activities, not brown jobs adding to them.

In other words, the proposed population trajectory is part of a model of economic development for the region, which is inherently unsustainable. It places construction as a priority focus, to the detriment of tourism (through crowding and degradation of our natural attractions), manufacturing (through uneconomic land values and increased costs of services), and the cost of living and quality of life (reversing the stated intention of economic growth). I do not need to justify the statement that population growth is unsustainable. All sensible people agree that there must be a limit to the number of people we can accommodate in the region, and that quality of life will erode as we approach that limit. That the limit is near if not surpassed, and that quality of life is already eroding through overdevelopment, is apparent to all. There can be no doubt that climate change will further reduce the region's carrying capacity. Therefore, to increase our economic dependence on the growth process, knowing that it must soon end, is foolhardy. It is the antithesis of "sustainable economic development".

What is it that the planners are aiming to create? What is the vision for SEQ's future? The only constant offered seems to be the rate of change. The Plan gives an idea of what the region might look like with 4 million people, but what about 6 million? Or 10 million? Such numbers are only a few decades away at current growth rates. What will be our legacy in 200 years? [DRO 1 and DRO 2 are oxymoronic and incompatible with the scale and style of growth proposed. These objectives can only be conceived with a steady-state future in mind, but the Plan offers no route towards population stability.]

However, limits to growth seem to be far from the minds of both politicians and media. We are frequently invited to celebrate that Queensland's growth has surpassed Victoria's, or that we will soon be Australia's second biggest State. I cannot help being reminded of Yertle the Turtle.

It is not difficult to see how the Premier has come to this perspective. The property industry has the ear of government, because they fund both main political parties. It is up to informed citizens to protest at this corruption of public interest in the name of short-sighted private interests. I make this submission in the spirit of such protest, but also to propose that there are achievable alternatives, both in process and outcome.

The Costs of Growth

Both State and Federal Governments champion the importance of population growth for our economic progress. However, they fail to relate the resulting growth in GDP to per capita wealth.

The Productivity Commission's 2006 research report, Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth_#main-fn2">2 modeled a 50% increase in skilled immigration, and found that, while GDP increased 4.6% over 21 years (a small proportion of the expected GDP growth), per capita income increased only 0.71% (about 0.03% per annum). Most of the gain accrued to the skilled migrants themselves and to capital owners, and the effect on incomes of existing residents was negative. The report further commented that a range of impacts on living standards and environment are also likely, but these were not economically quantifiable. It left open to the reader to interpret whether the net effect on wealth and wellbeing was positive or negative.

A further omission from this GDP-based analysis is the fact that a considerable proportion of the economic activity in a growing population does not enrich the current population, but is undertaken on behalf of future population at a cost to the current population. For a stable population, the same quality of life could be delivered for a lower per capita GDP.

Increased costs are most easily quantified in the areas of skills and infrastructure.

Skills shortages have been used as a primary argument for the need for high immigration levels. However, immigration is more likely to have exacerbated than relieved skills shortages. Consider that in a stable population, post-secondary training in trades and professions is needed to replace retiring skilled workers. Assuming an average working life in the order of 33 years for each skilled worker, the annual graduation needs to be around 3% of the total workforce in each skill area. In a growing population, graduations also have to grow the total workforce (not the population of graduates) proportionally. For Australia's current growth rate of 1.8% per annum, graduate requirements increase from 3% to 4.8% of the workforce: a 60% higher training burden than in a stable population. Over the past decade, as Australian population growth has increased, spending on higher education has not increased to accommodate this extra burden. It is little wonder that skills shortages have intensified. Immigration may have alleviated shortages in selected areas, but has increased them across the board. Stabilizing population would make a far more cost-effective contribution to aligning training capacity with training needs.

The working life of individual items of infrastructure may vary over a wider range than that of people, but a similar average of about 33 years is plausible, if conservative. The longer the actual lifespan, the greater the extra burden from growth. Therefore, a similar or greater increase in the total infrastructure burden exists, as a result of our rate of population growth. Given that growth requires us to replace still-functional infrastructure with higher capacity versions, the cost may be even higher.

In Queensland, the growth rate is much higher than the national average. At 2.5% annual growth, the increase in infrastructure and training burden is likely to be in the order of 85% higher than a stable population.

If public expenditure does not increase to cover the burden of our increased growth rate, then the capacity of public facilities and services cannot keep pace with the increased demands on them. We do not stand still -- we rapidly go backwards, eroding quality of life particularly for the most vulnerable, who rely most on public services. This is exactly what we have witnessed in Queensland, in health, education, transport, water, and other services. It is a direct consequence of our growth. Yet growth is pursued as the solution.

It is very difficult to estimate the exact cost of infrastructure for each additional person. Government does not collate and publish appropriate data. A colleague of mine attempted to make such an estimate, and arrived at a figure in the order of $200,000. This is not implausible: a cost of $2 Billion to provide all the facilities for 10,000 people, including schools and universities, hospitals and health clinics, roads, sewage, water supply, electricity generation, storm water management, recreational facilities, offices and equipment for public servants and publicly funded NGOs, port and rail infrastructure, waste transfer stations, public transport rolling stock etc. If the Government wants to dispute this figure, I welcome it to do the accounting and publish the actual cost.

Imagine if the State were to levy each additional dwelling with a fee of $427,000, to cover the increased infrastructure for 2.14 people (the average household size anticipated in the Plan). Would people still be flocking to our region?

However, by not doing this, the Government is levying each of its existing tax payers to subsidize the newcomers. That this levy is unaffordable is demonstrated by the crises in our hospitals, schools, water and transport systems. Our tax base is overstretched. But the Government contrives to hide this cost from us all.

The Plan has acknowledged the particular challenge of broadhectare infrastructure provision [DRO 10], and states that "contributions may be achieved through other mechanisms such as third party financing". This is extremely worrying. Privatization of public infrastructure, especially when this provides a monopoly, has failed to deliver public benefit wherever it has been used. It should be explicitly ruled out as part of the Plan. Instead, the affordability of infrastructure should feed back to regulate the rate of growth we can afford.

It may be argued that the State Government does not control our national immigration policy, and the consequent inflow of people to SEQ. Yet no attempt has been made by the State to challenge it. Instead, the Queensland Government has acted to suppress the choice of local councils to cap their populations. If the State Government were to point out to the Federal Government that each additional Queenslander costs it $200,000, and suggest that extra tax revenue is essential to cover this, it is unlikely that the current immigration policy would be sustained.

Part D8: smart growth

Urban Footprint and Urban Infill

The Plan purports to "manage" growth, through defined additions to the urban footprint, and a focus on "smart" infill development to achieve compact urban development, in theory reducing car dependence by concentrating growth close to public transport nodes and employment opportunities.

In practice, these claims fall short of the spin.

The attraction of broadhectare development over infill is that it is cheaper for developers. However, this is because the State (i.e. the existing tax payers) subsidizes the development with the provision of public infrastructure and services. For the State, infill development is cheaper up to a point, as it is cheaper to increase the capacity of existing services than to duplicate them in new locations. This cost of broadhectare development is acknowledged in the Plan, and mechanisms for planning the infrastructure are discussed. However, it is not apparent how better planning will actually deliver better infrastructure, when we are unable to fund our current infrastructure needs.

The main area for broadhectare development, the western corridor, has little to recommend it for either residence or business. If it was a desirable location, it would have developed already. It is chosen only as the area least likely to arouse significant protest. Its existing residents enjoy spacious semirural settings, to off-set their not-yet-too-onerous commuting costs. These values will be lost by the proposed density of development. Forcing new growth into this area will create a new slum. Mostly, those with the least options will choose to live there. Goodness knows what level of public funding will be needed to build desirable public facilities and subsidize the establishment of local businesses, in a probably futile attempt to prevent the area turning into a low-socioeconomic enclave. This has not been costed as part of the Plan. [DRO 8: Policy 8.4.1: note that the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy specifically directs low-cost housing to new broadhectare developments where they have least access to services.]

Would Sydney, with the benefit of hindsight, choose to add a Western Sydney, with all its socioeconomic problems, if it could possibly be avoided? Brisbane is now at that point in history, about to launch into a massive project to create our own Western socioeconomic millstone.

The claim that the new areas will "accommodate appropriate employment capacities" ignores the drivers of population growth into the region [Policy 8.2.4]. People come for employment opportunities in existing areas. They look for housing in outer suburbs because of its affordability, availability or utility compared with housing closer to their employment. The jobs that are likely to be created in the neighbourhood are only a fraction of the suburb's economy: the people needed to service the new population. They illustrate the multiplier effect of population growth, and this effect is greater in more disbursed outer suburbs than in higher density areas, as the latter have greater economies of scale for service provision.

It is unclear how the Plan proposes to influence the proportion of infill to broadhectare. One must assume that the projection of 44% infill is only an extrapolation of current rates of subdivision. It is implied that this is an optimal rate, to achieve "smart development". However, if infill is acknowledged to provide lower environmental impacts, the best way to encourage it is to limit the release of broadhectare land. This is not proposed. On the contrary, the rate of land release is to be accelerated.

As for urban infill, the impression is given that most development will be high-density housing around transport and employment nodes [Policy 8.1.1]. But the Plan contains no effective measures to ensure this happens. It may only serve to encourage local councils to lift density limits around those nodes. A recently published study from Monash University_#main-fn3">3 demonstrated that similar intentions in the Melbourne 2030 plan have not been realized in the City of Monash. Instead they observed that "redevelopment proposals are more opportunistic than systemic" and "activity centres are not the magnet for high density development as originally envisaged by the Melbourne 2030 policy". They conclude:

"The City of Monash infill pattern resulting is one mapped as a dispersed pattern of dual occupancy and unit development. The resulting redevelopment is thus unlikely to deliver many benefits of the type most sought under the Melbourne 2030 planning scheme. Rather, the existing pattern of transport within established suburbia, which involves a heavy reliance on the private car, will be adopted by those living in the new infill developments."

The only way the Government could implement the sort of "smart development" outlined in the Plan, would be by compulsorily acquiring extensive areas of land at the transport nodes, and commissioning their redevelopment. Not such an unattractive proposition, when compared with the cost of servicing new broadhectare developments. Perhaps politicians fear local protest -- from voters less expendable than those in the Mary Valley. Yet, if done well, the outcome is likely to be far better than the continuation of pragmatic infill, with its accompanying loss of green space, increased local traffic and heat island effect. It may be an effective way to achieve affordable housing with adequate mobility for the elderly to sustain independent living. Public transport proximity commands a premium in the real estate market, so if development at the nodes is left to developers, it will target the high end of the market, in direct competition with detached housing, rather than providing small units at affordable prices.

Of course, it would be immensely unpopular with developers and land speculators, who receive an enormous windfall benefit when height or density restrictions are lifted. If high density development could only be built on State-acquired land, it would take a lot of heat out of the property market, and improve housing affordability far more than the release of broadhectare land.

There has been some recent media debate, particularly in Melbourne, about proposals to build "up instead of out"._#main-fn4">4 Note that this is not what I am suggesting, although there are elements in common. The aim of redeveloped precincts would be to limit the impact of urban infill on the surrounding leafy suburban streets by providing for unavoidable growth in an orderly way, as well as providing less car-dependent housing options and ensuring affordable housing is near transport and services. This strategy will only provide a sustainable solution in the context of transitioning to a stable population. It is not intended as the first stage of a cancerous growth that would spread across the urban landscape, but a way of giving a viable focal point to neighbourhoods and achieving a housing mix better suited to our future demographic profile. Building height should be limited to a walkable 5 levels, and open spaces should be traffic free. The style would be more like old European town centres, rather than the towering and alienating unit developments hemmed in by busy roads, that are beginning to surround Brisbane city [see photographs on p 5 and 13 of Part E].

Policies 8.7.1 and 8.7.3 favour street-frontage retail development rather than enclosed malls. This is regressive and results in traffic-dominated public spaces. Internationally, the most successful centres combine open malls (traffic-free streets) with enclosed malls containing or adjoining rail stations.

[DRO 12] There also needs to be a far greater integration of programs. If car dependence is to be reduced, new high density housing units should be encouraged not to accommodate cars. A limited number of car park spaces might be available for hire . However, for people to choose not only to commute without a car, but to not own a car, is a difficult choice in our current system. Numerous international examples offer alternatives to remedy this difficulty. In Switzerland, the railways run a car pool system, where subscribers can pick up a car at most railway stations, and use it for a nominated time. The fee is modest, and compares favorably with owning a car for infrequent use. Clients can secure their booking by mobile phone, and this locks the car to any but their personal access card. I have recently learned that such car pool systems have been established in Sydney and Melbourne, but have been impeded in Brisbane due to refusal of the Council to provide dedicated parking space for the pool cars. Bus routes need to offer far more local neighbourhood access, and routes between the main radial corridors rather than forcing clients to go via the city. Also in Switzerland, in neighbourhoods where it is not economic to run frequent regular bus routes, buses can be booked with 20 minutes notice, to take clients door-to-door, via other pick-ups as needed. The fee is a standard bus fee, much more attractive than a taxi but still cheaper for the municipality than running low-occupancy routes. Thus bus drivers and their clients are free to negotiate their own schedule and routes.

The Queensland petrol rebate constitutes a perverse incentive, acting against emissions reductions. In place of the rebate, the State should provide a no-fault road trauma compensation scheme and end compulsory third-party insurance by indemnifying licensed drivers from third-party claims. The current scheme, in which every vehicle owner is required to have a separate insurance policy individually negotiated with an insurer but providing identical cover, is entirely unnecessary, a honey-pot for insurance providers, and a significant further stress for road trauma victims facing the complications and expense of making claims. Insurance is a means of risk-spreading, but the aggregate risk to the State is relatively predictable and does not need spreading. Importantly, the State would receive the benefit of increasing road safety and reducing road use. The value to the average driver, and the cost to the State, would be similar to the petrol rebate, but those who drive less would be rewarded. [This would be a State-wide initiative, but is relevant to the demand-management goals of the Regional Plan -- D10.3]

Bicycles have even lower environmental impact than public transport, and have added advantages of freedom from routes and schedules, and promoting healthy exercise. However, personal safety of cyclists on our congested roads forms a major deterrent for many people from taking up cycling. If this is to be remedied, much more serious efforts need to be made to balance cycle and car priorities on our roads. The on-road cycle lanes currently used do not provide sufficient connectivity for commuter routes, and do not significantly improve safety for cyclists. They tend to encourage cyclists to ride too close to parked cars, putting them at greater risk of car door incidents. All parking should be removed from on-road cycle lanes. Off-road bikeways need to be designed for commuters, who wish to travel at efficient speeds, rather than the winding and out-of-the-way recreational routes that currently dominate Brisbane's off-road cycle paths. Queensland driving licence tests should incorporate questions relating to cyclists' rights to share roads, and expected etiquette and safety measures for cars to respond to cyclists. [Currently the Plan has no substantive policies to support bicycle use. Policy 12.2.2 does not address the existing barriers to cycling as a means of transport.]

Despite the Plan's intention to promote sustainable travel options [Policy 12.2.2 and 12.2.3], it is difficult to see how these options can flourish in a landscape increasingly congested with cars. Increasing population density through either pragmatic infill or broadhectare sprawl will increase traffic volumes, with a positive feedback effect that roads become less friendly to active transport, and people choose cars instead. A partial solution is to restrict car access to activity centres, offering park-and-ride options instead. But without limiting population growth, reclaiming the streets from the car will be an uphill battle.

There are many fine sentiments expressed in the Plan, but they lack a realistic means of achievement, and avoid quantitative goals or benchmarks. Clearly the Plan is not written with the intention of achieving best outcomes for SE Queensland's people. It is a plan written to deliver maximum benefit to developers.

Recommendations

I have no illusions that the following suggestions will be embraced by State Government. However, I wish to make the point that there are realistic, affordable alternatives to the pragmatic, developer-driven growth rush that we currently endure.

1. [Part B] Acknowledge openly that additional population threatens the biodiversity and quality of life in South East Queensland. Emphasize that the plan's aim is to minimize the negative impacts of growth, and to ensure that the process of accommodating growth does not attract growth. Outline the steps the State Government intends to take to reduce immigration to the region, and explain the benefit that such reduction will yield by freeing up revenue to enhance quality of existing services and facilities.
2. [Part C] Provide an accurate inventory of natural resources, including natural vegetation on both public and private land, and truthful incidence mapping of endangered species (unlike the convenient omissions of known koala habitat from the koala distribution in the current Plan). Map areas of impact from various possible (explicitly and quantitatively defined) scenarios of sea level rise, increased coastal storm intensity and increased bushfire risk, and define and justify the boundary of acceptable development to limit future climate change vulnerability. Remove areas of climate change vulnerability and remaining natural vegetation from the urban footprint, removing any current development entitlement on them. Recognize the exceptional ecological and productive value of the red soils of Redlands and the Sunshine Coast Hinterland, and prevent further urban development on them.
3. [Part D8] Prohibit further subdivision of private land. Redevelopment of double-title blocks, and intensification on blocks within designated zones, would continue.
4. [Part D8] Increase the mandatory environmental standards for new buildings to at least a 5 star rating, mandate minimum proportions of roof to be oriented for solar and water collection (I suggest at least 50% of roof area for solar, more for water), and limit new high-density development to a walkable 5 levels to remove residential dependence on lifts and to ensure open spaces between buildings enjoy sunshine and vegetation.
5. [Part F] Reinforce local council powers to prohibit development on land of environmental significance, and to dictate the standard of impact assessment required on development applications. Do not allow developers to bypass council requirements by claiming they are stalling tactics.
6. [Part D12] Do not support further road capacity expansion projects. Road development should focus on improving safety and efficiency, and better accommodating buses and small, low speed vehicles (including bicycles, but possibly accommodating next-generation light electric vehicles). Congestion should be allowed to motivate people to opt out of private car use. Rather than increasing capacity, it could be controlled via a congestion tax which increases this motivation (if carefully designed to avoid inequitable impacts, and only after provision of realistic public transport alternatives).
7. [Part D12] Extend the metropolitan rail network to Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast activity centres. Extend the Ferny Grove_#main-fn5">5 and Cleveland lines to Samford and Redlands respectively, and create a spur from Oxley to the south-west suburbs. Provide regular passenger services Open the Exhibition line for regular use, with a station providing access to the Royal Brisbane Hospital precinct (in terms of car-kilometers saved per dollar spent, this would rate very highly).
8. [Part D12] Provide for innovative transport options such as car pooling, on-call buses, and school buses that provide a realistic option for parents by accepting responsible custody of children and designing routes annually based on addresses of enrolled children, to pick up children within a block from their home.
9. [Part D8] Acquire substantial areas of land precincts around selected suburban public transport nodes, for the purpose of redeveloping activity centres and meeting housing demand in an orderly way that avoids property speculation and population pull-factors. Apart from limited intensification on existing titles, aim for all new housing to be in walking distance of an activity centre and transport node. Precincts could be up to 400m radius, but could be staged to transition existing services and businesses to new accommodation, and may incorporate heritage features to be preserved. Tender for precinct redevelopment under best-practice standards of environmental impact, energy efficiency and social equity. Developments should combine residential, commercial and recreational functions, with traffic-free open spaces. They should not aim to provide expansive prestige accommodation, in competition with detached housing, but cater specifically for singles and couples, leaving surrounding detached housing for the larger households it serves best. Housing for people with restricted mobility should be prioritized. The sale price of units need not pay for the entire development, as it would include components that would have otherwise been publicly funded in the form of infrastructure to broadhectare subdivisions and suburban centre renewal projects. So it should be possible to provide relatively affordable housing and viable commercial rents. Such projects would attract prestigious international design bids, and would put Brisbane on the map in terms of sustainable urban design.

My proposal may be seen as authoritarian, even socialist, among free-market thinkers. I do not mean to argue against the role of private capital in a stable, well-balanced society, in which the sum of private interests approximates to public interest. However, when faced with the need for a substantial transition, requiring remodeling of many of our societal systems to accommodate peak oil and climate change, severe conflicts arise between vested private interests and long-term public interest. In such a situation, government needs to take a greater role, in controlling resources and shaping development in the public interest. This is a strategy for transition, not a socialist manifesto.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan. I sincerely hope that its next iteration is substantially improved, as a result of this consultation process.

Jane O'Sullivan

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Qld-govt-rejects-population-cap/2007/04/22/1177180460654.html.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ Productivity Commission 2006. Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ Phan T, Peterson J and Chandra S, 2008. Urban Infill: extent and implications in the City of Monash. People and Place 16(4), 23-31.

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ The proposal from Jason Black, president of the Planning Institute of Australia's Victorian division, has probably been sensationalized in its media coverage, such as Peter Familari's article "Planning expert says Melbourne must destroy leafy eastern suburbs" in the Herald Sun, 29 April 2009.

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ This is a good suggestion, but for this to happen, built-up residential blocks that occupy land immediately adjacent to Ferney Grove Station over which the extension railway line would have to be built would have to be bought and the houses demolished. How such an astonishingly irresponsible decision as to allow such land to be built upon was arrived at would be very interesting to learn.

Trevor Rowe is chairperson of the Queensland Investment Corporation, a state-owned corporation that invests the super of Queensland public servants. He is now also the chair of BrisConnections, a private consortium that has been given the contract to build the Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council's Airport Link car tunnel. So where is the superannuation of State government employees going, and what will be the most important urban transport investments in a future market that will be forced to acknowledge resource scarcity and the need for energy efficient transport? Some of it is going into BrisConnections. The Queensland Investment Corporation has invested $25 million intro BrisConnections and this investment lost $15 million, days after BrisConnections opened on the Australian Securities Exchange in late July 2008 with shares dropping in value by more than 60%. Trevor Rowe is expecting things to improve in the future as the market "...differentiates the quality of these assets". Or is he just using a government-owned corporation to prop up an investment that may never produce any valuable assets? (Refer links to Courier Mail articles at the bottom of this blog). It should also be noted that Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, is good friends with a board member of the construction company involved in the BrisCoonnections consortium. I think it's logical that for a free-market to function effectively its participants would need to avoid these kind of investments. Current investors who are really interested in their sound long-term investment, rather than a blind faith in market growth, would be likely to avoid investments such as these. Surely they must be considering the escalation of the global fuel crisis, the poor performance of Brisbane's other tunnel building consortium, RiverCity Motorways, the financial failure of Sydney's cross-city tunnel and the strong possibility that Brisbane will have excess road space in the future as less people are able to afford to travel by car. For investors this means reduced demand for user pays road-space, tunnels in particular, which depend upon maximum traffic congestion on other roads. The most effective infrastructure investments for business are likely to be freight and commuter rail infrastructure such as high-speed rail connectors between cities, track duplications and extensions in city rail networks But overall, the investment in infrastructure will become less important, as our city's populations will be unable to expand so rapidly due to resource constraints. This will mean increased focus on providing additional services using existing infrastructure. This will require production of public transport vehicles and employment expansion in this sector due to increased need for good drivers, vehicle manufacturers and maintenance and logistics workers. The transport industry will have to be far more efficient in the future and this will result in a move away from wasteful and expensive means of transport. On the whole transport will and should become less of an industry and more of a public service, controlled by people and geared towards meeting community needs. The outward growth of our cities must be stopped immediately and any short-term population growth should be directed into existing urban areas. All existing urban areas within the growth boundary should be serviced with quality public transport - a 15 minute frequency service within 400-800m of all residences that links into a grid network which services all arterial, sub-arterial and district roads as well as providing feeder services to railway and busway stations. Effectively providing people with a way to conveniently connect with the whole city via public transport. References: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,24148775-3122,00.html?f... The Australian Financial Review has reported ('Toll-road punters go into reverse' 1.8.08 p.76 by Alan Jury) that 11% of units were dumped at 41 cents (from initial unit cost of $1) when Brisconnections made its debut on the Australian Stock Exchange. Given the inflated traffic projections and under estimates of construction costs associated with these projects it would not be suprising if Brisconnections performs as poorly as RiverCity Motorway Consortium (building the North South Bypass Tunnel). In 2012 when the Airport Link is meant to be complete it is unlikely that Brisbane people will be driving as much as we are now regardless of how much road infrastructure is built. Where are your super funds being invested? Two articles from the Courier Mail regarding this topic are included below: Tony Grant-Taylor July 31, 2008 03:01pm INVESTORS who backed Brisbane's Airport Link tunnel and toll road saw 60 per cent of their investment wiped out as it listed on the stock exchange. The units in Brisconnections, the group funding the tunnel and toll road, opened at 65c. Units were sold at $1, but with two further $1 instalments due as the $4.8 billion project progresses. There were sales a little higher at 79c, but the units had slipped lower to be 40c. The major investors in Brisconnections' $1.2 billion float are institutions, including the giant Queensland Investment Corp. But between 10 and 15 per cent of the issue went to retail investors. BrisConnections will pay a 14 per cent dividend in its first year and then 8 per cent until it is completed. ____________________________________________________________ James McCullough August 02, 2008 12:00am INVESTORS have fled the year's largest sharemarket float, with $240 million wiped off BrisConnections market capitalisation in barely 48 hours. The price of BrisConnections stapled securities yesterday slumped to a low of 36.5c, well down on their $1 issue price ahead of its float on Thursday. The stock ended down 2.5c or 6 per cent at 38.5c on volume of 35.5 million securities. The fall translates to 20 per cent of the issued stock changing hands in two days. Queensland Investment Corp, which holds 6.4 per cent, was particularly hard hit, watching $15 million wiped off the value of its investment since the market debut. However, the $1.23 billion float of the 6.7km toll road linking Brisbane with the airport and northern suburbs is shaping up as a bonanza for investment banks, particularly Macquarie, which stands to reap $110 million in transaction fees. The bulk of yesterday's selling was thought to have come from institutions cutting their losses, particularly given two more instalment payments on the securities are required for BrisConnections of $1 each. The largest parcel traded was for more than 10 million BrisConnection securities. Chairman Trevor Rowe said it was hard to tell who was selling as it involved a lot of nominee companies. "Clearly, this is a very volatile market with strong negative sentiment but notwithstanding that this is a company with quality assets," he said. "It is basically three toll roads built into one across Brisbane's CBD and port to the airport and what the market is not doing is differentiating the quality of these projects." Mr Rowe expected that once sentiment settled, buying would come back into the market because the stock represented a 28 per cent yield on current prices. He pointed out the contract was guaranteed by Leighton Holdings and "they have not failed to complete a project in their history". Analysts said those who subscribed to the issue in May were facing a very different market today.

Queensland Labor Premier Anna Bligh, in a #CourierMailLetter">letter published in the Courier Mail on 8 August, claimed concern at the decline in South East Queensland's koala population. However, it was her Government which only recently legislated, against community and local council objections, to fast-track the destruction of much of the remaining koala habitats in South East Queensland to make way for residential development.

Queensland Government to blame for the koala's demise

Wildlife Preservation Society Queensland, Bayside Branch media release

The Queensland Government's growth strategy and past poor planning are the causes of the demise of the state's wildlife emblem, the koala, in South East Queensland, say conservationists.

"One of the biggest reasons why the SEQ koala is heading towards extinction is because of the State Government's pursuit of growth at any cost," said Simon Baltais, spokesperson for Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Bayside Branch. "As Deputy Premier and Minister for the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Paul Lucas should be held responsible for this deplorable situation."

"Hundreds of hectares of koala habitat will be destroyed and hundreds of koalas will be killed because of the Minister's push to open more land for residential development," said Mr Baltais.

In a recent joint statement from the Premier and Deputy Premier Lucas on the issue of providing more land for urban development it was stated, "The development industry has been calling on us to make more land in the Urban Footprint available sooner - here it is." (see attached #QldGovtMediaRelease">media statement at end)

Yet the Government's own research has shown urbanisation is driving the koala to extinction (see attached background paper). The SEQ koala had gone from Common to Vulnerable in 2004 and now the Koala Coast koala population is considered Endangered. Just recently the Environmental Protection Agency and Moreton Bay Regional Council showed the urban koala population in that area had declined 46 per cent over the past six years. The situation is similar on the Gold Coast, where the State Government has condemned hundreds of koalas to death because they have allowed massive development in Coomera koala habitat.

"The loss of koala habitat was recognized as the biggest killer of koalas." said Mr. Baltais. "As a member of the Koala Taskforce recently setup to advise the State Government on the matter of how to save the koala I will state what scientists have been saying since 1995, protect koala habitat in both the rural and urban environment."

"The key reason why the koala is heading towards extinction is because the State Government is ignoring the scientists and because ministers like Mr Lucas have encouraged an unsustainable pattern of development in SEQ."

Simon Baltais
WPSQ - Bayside Branch
Mb: 0447 539 968

#Background" id="Background">Background for Media Release

Sunday, August 10, 2008

The 1995 Planning Guidelines for the Conservation of Koalas in the Koala Coast (SPP 1/95) stated, urban residential, industrial and commercial estates and major Community developments were considered to be generally incompatible with the maintenance of koala habitat values.

However, the State Government allowed urban development to occur in koala habitat.

The 1997 Planning Guidelines for the Conservation of Koalas in the Koala Coast (SPP 1/97) stated that urban residential, industrial and commercial estates and major community developments were considered to be generally incompatible with the maintenance of koala habitat values.

However, the State Government allowed urban development to occur in koala habitat.

In March 2004 the koala was re-listed from a common species to 'vulnerable to extinction' in the South East Queensland Bioregion, under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA).

However, the State Government allowed urban development to occur in koala habitat.

In 2005 the SEQ Regional Plan stated that koala populations are declining or becoming locally extinct in many areas, primarily due to habitat loss. The SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory provisions stated that subdivision of land in the Regional Landscape Area could not be subdivided below 100 ha.

However, the State Government allowed urban, commercial development, rural industries and quarries to occur in koala habitat and allowed subdivision of koala habitat in the Regional Landscape Area. The lots were smaller than 100ha.

In 2006 the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016 stated that koalas are suffering from the impacts of urban development and habitat clearing. The greatest threats to their survival are the destruction and fragmentation of their habitat, car strikes, dog attacks and disease.

However, the State Government allowed urban expansion and development to occur in koala habitat.

In 2006 Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 stated:

However, the State Government allowed urban expansion and development to occur in koala habitat.

In 2007 the Report on Koala Coast Koala Surveys 2005-2006 (EPA) stated,

However, the State Government allowed urban expansion and development to occur in koala habitat.

In 2008 the survey by consultants GHD for the Environmental Protection Agency and Moreton Bay Regional Council showed the urban koala population in that area had declined 46 per cent over the past six years. The loss of koala habitat was recognized as the biggest killer of koalas.

Perhaps repetition repetition repetition will finally see the State Government take strong positive action and stop the loss of koala habitat?

Unfortunately, the State Government has already suggested major koala habitat south of Boundary Road, Thornlands (Woodlands Drive) be opened to greenfield development and has forced the community to go to court to stop quarries destroying koala habitat in Mt Cotton. The State Government appears to have written off hundreds of hectares of koala habitat and koalas in the Coomera area.

Is the State Government perhaps just a bunch of slow learners? Do they listen too much to developers and not the scientists and community?

Help the State Government understand the need to protect koala habitat, if
they are genuine about saving the koala, by sending them an email and
reminding them. Email:premier[AT]ministerial qld gov au and
deputypremier [AT] ministerial. qld. gov. au

#QldGovtMediaRelease" id="QldGovtMediaRelease">Bligh greenfield study reveals land, lots of land

Joint Statement:
Premier The Honourable Anna Bligh
Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning The Honourable Paul Lucas

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Premier Anna Bligh today announced the State Government would fast-track planning for development of 17 greenfield sites in South-East Queensland, as part of its plan to tackle housing affordability.

Ms Bligh said while the Government was limited in its ability to influence
housing prices, she was determined to do everything possible to tackle the
issue of affordability.

"I want the Australian dream to be alive and well here in Queensland, particularly for young people wanting to own their first home.

"Yesterday we announced significant changes to stamp duty to make buying a home in Queensland cheaper and today, we are tackling the issue of land supply.

"Last year as Treasurer and Infrastructure Minister I commissioned a review of the Greenfield areas within the Urban Footprint that could be market-ready sooner.

"I want to see land being turned into new homes for Queenslanders as quickly
as humanly possible and this investigation looked at 42 greenfield areas -
containing more than 40,000ha of undeveloped land.

As a result - the Government will remove any regulatory hurdles slowing the development process on 12 sites:

1. Maroochydore, Meridian Plains, on the Sunshine Coast;
2. Market Drive and North Lakes in Moreton Bay;
3. Upper Kedron and Rochedale in Brisbane;
4. Coomera and Helensvale on the Gold Coast;
5. Springfield and Redbank Plains in Ipswich; and
6. Kinross Road and South-East Thornlands in Redlands

"This will make it possible for the industry to begin the development process of these sites by Christmas.

"In addition, there are five sites where we believe integrated communities of 15,000 people or more can be delivered and we will work with councils to prepare land developer-ready within 12 months:

1. Palm View and Caloundra South on the Sunshine Coast;
2. Flagstone in Logan;
3. Oxley Wedge in Brisbane;
4. Ripley Valley in Ipswich

"That's a total of 17 new Greenfield sites that will be developer-ready by this time next year.

"This is about cutting red tape and bottlenecks that are delaying the development process.

"These bottlenecks are occurring at all levels of government - including within State Government agencies - and its not good enough.

"An implementation team will be established with the Department of Infrastructure and Planning charged with the task of cutting through and removing these hurdles.

"The development industry has been calling on us to make more land in the Urban Footprint available sooner - here it is," she said.

Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning Paul Lucas said
the fast tracking of Greenfield sites will be guided by an Action Plan
released today.

"Housing affordability is a challenge that demands action not just at all levels of Government but also from the development industry," said Mr Lucas.

"The industry wants more land released and the Bligh Government has responded with a plan that will provide additional housing choice for the public and contain costs by increasing competition between developers.

"But governments can't do it all alone and we can only bring these sites forward if the necessary infrastructure is in place.

"Yesterday we announced the $107 billion South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program, which demonstrates our commitment to building for Queensland's future.

"Now we need to work with the industry to deliver these sites ahead of time.

"They will also need to demonstrate how they plan to deliver the transport options, road upgrades, water and energy needs for these areas.

"These sites must all be developed as well-planned and integrated communities and the State Government will need to ensure growth is spread across the regions.

"Although the review shows plenty of greenfield land available for housing it must be emphasised the South East Queensland Regional Plan aims to cater for 45 percent of the expected population growth through infill and redevelopment."

"This review is another one of the State Government's strategies to address
housing affordability in addition to setting up the Urban Land Development
Authority and implementing reforms to the state's planning and development
systems."

Visit www.dip.qld.gov.au for more information.

Media: 3224 4500 (Premier's office) or 3227 8425 (Deputy Premier's office)

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

#CourierMailLetter" id="CourierMailLetter">Queensland Premier Anna Bligh's letter published in the Courier Mail of 8 August

I assure readers who share my concern about the continued decline in southeast Queensland's koala population that I appreciate the need for a multi-pronged strategy.

The specific areas I have requested the taskforce to consider are further protection of koala habitat, changes to road speeds, signage and koala crossings, koala-friendly fencing in habitat areas, restricting or controlling dogs and banning clearing of habitat trees.

Pets are an important part of our lives, so proposals for controls or restrictions will arouse the most discussion.

However, this is a discsussion we need to have as part of a total response.

Anna Bligh
Premier of Queensland

What you can do: Email Premier Anna Bligh (premier [AT] ministerial qld gov au) and Deputy Premier Paul Lucas (deputypremier [AT] ministerial. qld. gov. au) to demand that they act now to end Queensland's economic dependency upon population growth. This dependency, if not broken, will make the extinction of the koala and other native species, such as the lungfish, inevitable.

See also: Locals join koala 'crisis' taskforce in the Bayside Bulletin of 7 Aug 08 including readers' comments.

In recent months the Queensland branch of Electrical Trades Union (ETU) has rightly conducted publicity campaigns against policies of the Queensland Labor Government's which have been harmful to its members' interests. These include the corporatisation and privatisation of its power generation assets and the consequent neglect of vital infrastructure. The ETU has also conducted an industrial campaign for wage justice for its members and has been critical of the Federal Rudd Labor Government's delays in the repeal of the Howard Government's anti-worker “Work Choices” legislation.

In the Brisbane Times article Electricity, rail workers to picket Labor conference, ETU spokesman Peter Simpson complained of “over 12 months of frustrated negotiations” in which “the excesses of Work Choices" were used against state government employees.”

At a protest outside the Queensland Labor Party's conference on the Gold Coast on Saturday 21 June  the Brisbane Times, in its story QLD Labor stung by protests, poll, reported:

(ETU assistant secretary Peter Simpson) said the unions had received a slap in the face after supporting Labor through the November federal election.

“How have we been repaid? We have been screwed over and it is a dead-set disgrace,” Mr Simpson said.

However, whilst Simpson is correct to point this out, it would have been clearly suicidal for the Union movement not to have backed Rudd against the viciously anti-democratic, anti-trade-union John Howard government. Whatever can be critically said of the record of the Rudd Labor Government, it was absolutely necessary for the ETU to have campaigned with the rest of the trade union movement to remove the Liberal Party from office.

Peter Simpson continued:

“This may be the last ALP conference that we attend, because I don't think we'll be affiliated with them for much longer.”

Whilst their treatment at he hands of Labor governments is indefensible and the ETU's outrage is entirely justified, their threat to disaffiliate from the Labor Party begs the question of exactly how the ETU can expect better treatment at the hands of any alternative government. Clearly, it would be ludicrous for ETU to hold out hope for better treatment at the hands of a Coalition government whether at the Queensland state or Federal level.

This conflict calls into question the whole purpose of the Labor Party.

The Labor Party was originally formed in the 1890's to be the political representative of the trade union movement. Its purpose was to form Government in order to enact legislation in favour of workers upon whose vote it would have depended upon to obtain a majority in Parliament.

The conduct of the Bligh Government, including in its dispute with the ETU, is only the latest of almost countless illustrations of how far the Labor Party has drifted from this original propose. Far from representing workers or, indeed, any other ordinary members of the community, the Bligh Government, instead, serves a small minority of corporations, land speculators and developers and acts, above all else, to transfer the wealth of the rest of the community, including electrical workers, into their pockets.

What unions such as the ETU need to consider is how to attempt to rectify this unsatisfactory situation.

One way or another, unions such as the ETU should assert their right to have representatives, who are prepared to act in the interests of its members, elected to Parliament. If the ETU sees no prospect of this being achieved by using its voice within the Labor Party, then it should seek to initiate the formation of such a party outside the Labor.

However to simply disaffiliate, but do nothing else, is likely to do little to dissuade the Bligh Government from pursuing its current course.

As much as Labor politicians enjoy the fruits of office, many act as if they consider losing office a lesser evil to actually representing the Labor Party's constituency and standing up to corporate interests. They seem to act as if confident that other at least equally lucrative careers will be offered to them by a grateful corporate sector should they lose government. So even the threat of damaging Labor's electoral prospects may do little to change the mind of Rudd and Bligh and, in fact, could backfire on the ETU if it were to result in the election of Coalition governments in the mould of the former Howard Government.

The ETU and other unions, such as the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU), who are disaffected by the Bligh Government's policies should use what voices they have at the Labor Conference to loudly demand that the Bligh begin to act to serve its electoral constituency. If they did, it is hard to conceive how their voices would not resonate with the rank and file of the Labor Party and other trade unions, if not with other conference delegates. Whether or not they are able to persuade a majority of the conference, it could only help make more likely the re-establishment of an effective political voice for the trade union movement, whether it is to come from within or without the current Labor Party.

At the elections of 15 March pro-developer councils were trounced in Redland City and on the Sunshine Coast, but this popular rejection of over-development means little to the State Labor Government of Anna Bligh and the property developers she serves.

On Thursday 5 June the Bligh Government announced its intention to push aside objections from the Redland and Sunshine Coast Councils in order to fast track developments in 17 South East Queensland sites purportedly to “improve housing affordability”. Of course, the obvious measure of selling land directly to the public in order to spare them the cost of extravagant developers' margins, as suggested by at least one correspondent to the Courier Mail recently, has not been taken up.

On 9 June Anna Bligh announced further measures to clear impediments to housing development in South East Queensland. The Courier Mail article Green Space Land Grab reported:

The Bligh Government is set to take the brakes off urban sprawl by making it easier for developers to build on South East Queensland's precious open green space.

Just three years after the Beattie government put protections in place to control rampant development in the region, a review of those controls is now flagging big changes.

Among them is a proposed expansion of the so-called “urban footprint” in a move that would allow new housing and commercial developments to sprawl beyond the existing boundaries.

Against previous undertakings to allow local communities plenty of chances to have their say on future planning, it was announced that discussion of the expansion of SEQ's urban footprint into surrounding green spaces would be kept secret until the release of a draft plan in December, supposedly because this knowledge is “commercially sensitive”.

The office of Urban Management, which was set up with the stated goal of keeping rampant development in check, has been abolished. (The link to www.oum.qld.gov.au returned with the Google search term "Office of Urban Management" is now redirected to www.dip.qld.gov.au/seq.)

This accelerated development is proceeding well ahead of infrastructure upgrades necessary to accommodate the extra population. Earlier on 5 June it was reported in the Bayside Bulletin story Transport projects “too far away” that Redland City Council had raised concerns over the long wait for public transport and road upgrades which could be 10 to 20 years away. On 2 June the Bayside Bulletin story Call to upgrade roads reported growing traffic congestion in the Redlands area and increasingly long travel times along the major routes to Brisbane.

On 5 June, on hearing of the new state Government mandated developments in the Redlands area, a local taxi driver in a post to the Bayside Bulletin wrote:

Our state government has learnt absolutely nothing about infrastructure being in place before known growth - pushing for SE Thornlands development 11 years before an upgrade of the Cleveland-Redland Bay Road in 2019 is absolute stupidity. Redlands voters will have much to remember, none of it good, at the next state election.

Sunshine Coast Mayor Bob Abbot said it was “madness” to turn big areas of land into housing estates when proper transport links had not been established.

The expansion of the urban footprint was made in spite of assurances only two years ago that there was already enough land within the existing urban footprint to acommodate growth.

Bligh claimed that the fast tracking of the review was prompted by the new population forecasts showing that the region was likely to be home to an extra 1.5 million people within 18 years.

The ‘new population forecasts’ undoubtedly were the direct result of Federal Immigration Minister Chris Evans' announcement on 14 May of a massive increase of the annual immigration to 300,000. Both the Queensland Government and the pro-population-growth Courier Mail have been curiously silent on the increased immigration rates. As one example, for a whole week following from Friday 16 May, when a single opinion piece in favour of Pacific Island guest workers was published, there was a news blackout in the Courier Mail as its pages were full of stories about the chaos caused by existing population growth. This was in marked contrast to the reporting in The Australian (the national newspaper) which, like the Courier Mail, is owned by US citizen Rupert Murdoch. All along The Australian has stridently pushed the pro-immigration barrow.

It's as if both the Queensland Government and the Courier Mail don't want the Queensland public to draw the link between high international immigration into Australia and the resultant inter-state immigration which Bligh insists makes her trampling over the rights of Queensland communities necessary.

See also: More chickens of population growth come home to roost in Queensland of 14 May 08, How to end the Queensland economy's addiction to population growth? of 26 Apr 08, Courier-Mail beats up on public for complaining about cost of 'progress' of 14 Apr 08, The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections of 30 Mar 08.

On 22 April 2007 Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, then Deputy Premier, rejected calls for ending Queensland's population growth, claiming that it "would have a very serious impact on the construction industry that a lot people rely on for jobs."_#main-fn1">1.

A year later, on 25 April 2008 as reported_#main-fn2">2 in the Sunshine coast daily, town planning lawyer, Andrew Davis, similarly objected to the plans of newly elected Sunshine Coast Mayor, Bob Abbot, to cap the coast's population growth at 400,000 from the current population of 300,000_#main-fn3">3. Davis claimed that Abbot's initial plan to reduce annual population growth from 3.5% to 2% would result in the loss of 8,500 of the region's 20,000 construction jobs. He also claimed that there would be further job losses in the transport, property and business service sector, with flow-ons to other sectors of the economy like retail, tourism, manufacturing.

Indeed, in a manner uncharacteristic for property developers' advocates, even Andrew Davis implicitly acknowledged that such a transition would be necessary when he said, “Turning off the tap of growth, without first achieving success in creating sustainable business, will cause enormous pain for everyone, whether you work in growth industries or not.”

Given that the region does not have adequate water resources, transport infrastructure, electricity generation, or health and education services to meet the needs of the existing population, many argue that it is urgently necessary to end growth now rather than to increase the number of people who will become dependent, for their employment, upon further growth. At the very least, a plan to end the region's dependence upon growth must be adopted without further delay. Sunshine Coast residents should not hold their breath waiting for Davis and the Sunshine Coast developers to devise a plan for a sustainable economy for the region.

Putting back the date for the necessary transition from a growth-addicted economy to a stable steady state economy will only make the eventual adjustment more traumatic.

At least Bob Abbot's plans for a cap are a step in the right direction. As far as it goes, he can rightly claim a popular mandate for his stance, having won the election for Mayor against pro-developer candidate Joe Natoli, with over 70% of the vote_#main-fn4">4.

Comments posted to the web-site of the Sunshine coast Daily News, in response to the story, also confirm the overwhelming popular support enjoyed by Abbot. (See #CommentsSupportingBobAbbott">Appendix 1 below).

Saturday's Sunshine Coast Daily in the story Coast told to grow up and diversify_#main-fn5">5 of 26 April reported that Sunshine Coast business leaders supported Abbot and called for the diversification of the economy away from dependence upon tourism, retail and the property industry.

Sunshine Coast Business Council chair Paul Pettigrew said, "Reliance on the mainstays of tourism, retail and property development industries must be reduced. The growth of the knowledge, creative, research and innovation, manufacturing and other such skills-based industries will create a larger total economic base that is better positioned for the region’s social and economic future."

Sunshine Coast Environment Council manager Ian Christesen said the time was right to have a debate about growth_{#main-fn5b">5}.

“The time is right, the people have spoken at the elections, so let’s get on with rational discussion,” he said.

“The rhetoric the state government has been going on about for some time is ‘we’re managing growth’. Everyone realises that’s not the case, growth is managing us.

“We have to diversify our economy. We can’t rely on the vagaries of construction and development to underpin our economy.

“We need to move on and develop something a bit smarter.”

However, as former State Labor MP, Cate Molloy, warned (see #DictatorialStateGovernmentPowers">Appendix 2) Sunshine Coast residents may see their expressed wishes to curb the demands of the developers frustrated. State Labor Government's supposedly independent assessment panel, has powers to over-rule planning decisions of the Sunshine Coast Council and other local governments.

Already in 2007, at the behest of the Property Council of Australia (PCA), the State Government forcibly amalgamated a number of local governments, against the wishes of the residents served by these councils_#main-fn6">6. The Property Council viewed the abolished Noosa and Douglas Shire Councils and many other councils, as impediments to its agenda for unrestrained development.

However, the Property Council and the State Government's plans suffered a setback when anti-development candidates in a number of key local government areas including the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Cairns, and Redland City overcame the additional difficulties caused by the amalgamations and defeated candidates heavily financed by developers_#main-fn7">7.

In response to this democratic resistance, the Queensland State Government, encouraged by pro-developer Murdoch Newsmedia, set up the independent assessment panel, of which Molloy warned.

Clearly, if Queensland is to be saved from overdevelopment and overpopulation, then anti-development councils, together with their grass roots supporters, will have to show at least as much determination as the developers and their government stooges.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. Qld govt rejects population cap in the Age of 22 April 2007.#main-txt1">[back]

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. Curbing growth 'would cost jobs' by Jane Gardner in the Sunshine Coast Daily News of 25 April 2008 #main-txt2">[back]

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. Sunshine Coast plan to cap population on Radio National's PM of 24 April 2008 #main-txt3">[back]

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. See Electoral Commission of Queensland's results for the Sunshine Coast Mayoral elections. #main-txt4">[back]

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. Coast told to grow up and diversify by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily News of 26 April 2008 #main-txt5">[back] #main-txt5b">[back]

#main-fn6" id="main-fn6">6. Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia of 7 Sep 2007 #main-txt6">[back]

#main-fn7" id="main-fn7">7. The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections of 29 March 2008 #main-txt7">[back]

#CommentsSupportingBobAbbott" id="CommentsSupportingBobAbbott">Appendix 1: Some comments in support of Mayor Abbot's population cap

Comments were posted in response to Sunshine Coast Daily article Curbing growth 'would cost jobs' of 25 April 2008.

"The coast cannot cope with the current growth. ..."

"Growth on the coast needs stemming. At present there are subdivisions without supporting services. The building quality is less than desired, but maximum price is called for by the developers. All in the name of greed."

"It is ignorant for anybody to suggest that we need "Growth" to sustain a economy, most problems in the world are caused by growth, sure there may be "some" job loss for a while, but this will naturally adjust after a while.

"Nothing is gained without pain.

"It's good to see somebody like Mr Abbot standing up to the development industry."

"There are so many examples across the coast of where we are playing 'catch-up' because growth has not been carefully monitored. I invite any Coast residents to try getting around the Sippy Downs / education precinct between 8am - 9am and again from 3pm - 5pm. I sat in traffic there yesterday for 35 minutes - to move only a couple of hundred metres. We're all waiting for the new Dixon Interchange to open and look forward to a reduction in congestion. I'm sure the residents of Maroochy North Shore are also looking forward to the Maroochy River Bridge project completion.

"What Mayor Abbot is suggesting is reasonable, and shows an interest in the long-term livability of the Coast region. I think his vision proves that we have elected the right man for the job - someone who looks at the big picture and doesn't play into the hands of developers and their dollars."

"We don't have a infrastructure now to cope with the people we have here, Look at the most important stuff like the poor state of hospitals,the lack of public transport, the traffic nightmare."

"I don't see why we have to concentrate so many people into one place changing the entire coast into a rat race, ..."

"Enough is enough.Overdevelopment only puts money into the pockets of large developers who are not domiciled on the coast. They are only here to make fast easy money at the ultimate expense of residents. ...

"We can't afford any further development on the Sunshine Coast that only puts money into the developers pockets and leaves the rest of us to pick up the bill. More strength to Bob Abbot and his plans. And an end to the Natoli 'sleep with the enemy' policy.

"From the story and the comments all I can say is, Good for you BOB!"

"The increase is being driven by the federal government via immigration, due to the failure of various other ridiculous schemes to maintain the human plague i.e 'baby bonus'.

"Since 2003, our immigration rate has doubled. This is short term economics; selling state forest, water supply, and sacrificing entire species for a quick-buck. This is a threat to our future far worse than terrorism."

"Perhaps Mayor Abbott's proposed growth rate will help alleviate the difficulties house buyers are having getting their homes completed due to a shortage of tradespeople. (see Saturday's Daily)."

#DictatorialStateGovernmentPowers" id="DictatorialStateGovernmentPowers">Appendix 2: Cate Molloy warns of threat of dictatorial use of State Government's planning powers.

This comment by Cate Molloy, former Labor state member of Parliament who was expelled from the Labor Party for opposing the Traveston Dam was also posted in response to the abovementioned Sunshine Coast Daily article Curbing growth 'would cost jobs' of 25 April 2008.

The current Minister for Infrastructure and Planning Paul Lucas has stated a five member independent assessment panel would be given the first right of refusal on all Noosa development applications so that means they also have first right of approval, of those applications not just the ones in conflict with the planning scheme.

We now have this Famous Five who are about to duplicate the work not only done in council but also that which is referred to the State government for review- a call in- how can any council operate effectively if the responsibility to plan and approve is removed from their hands.

OK so Noosa is only one part of the cake but this kind of eroding of democracy smacks of arrogance.

Noosa got much of its planning done well with a great deal of community input, that is now being removed not only from the mayor but also all the councillors.

We can address this by pressuring the mayor and those councillors who enjoy close relationships with both federal and state government ministers to reinstate our democratic rights.

There is a specific tactic of turning the heat up on our elected representatives to stand up for us on this important issue and not simply roll over, making a few noises about how they hope the process is thorough enough and the state government doesn't select poorly.

I would like to see those councillors who have used state and federal politicians to advance their campaigns to now actually do something with that endorsement.

Vivien Griffin and Glen Elmes have openly declared they want to work together that's great so now Viv and Glen you have to take these issues to state parliament and report back to us the people what you have both achieved.

Debbie Blumel has represented as a labor candidate at least 4 times with endorsements from Wayne Swan and a tinny full of state pollies so now come on Debbie, you can get down to Brisbane get Wayne Swan to go with you, to see Minister Lucas.

You then can report back to us on what you have achieved to get Minister Lucas to rescind this ridiculous Famous Five duplication and removal of our democracy.

Russell Green has mates in State Government and has even turned up at a State Labor retreat. This level of friendship surely must allow you Russell to put forward our case.

Of course we have other councillors who also have close ties in government but lets start with this small but highly and well connected group to really start using their connections as they have so implied they would do.

On 31 March Brisbane's Courier Mail Newspaper reported that the proponents of the proposal to build a high residential development on a concrete slab above the Northern half of the Brisbane River adjoining the Central Business District had declined to put their case at a public debate to be organised by the Brisbane Institute.

Peter Skinner a lecture in Architecture at the University of Queensland and an an outspoken critic of the proposal had issued the invitation to Queensland Premier Anna Bligh ,a principle backer of the proposal. When she refused claiming that it clashed with another commitment, an invitation was made to Deputy Premier Paul Lucas who also declined. Multiplex, the developer who is hoping to build the residential complex also declined an invitation.

As I wrote in a letter published in the Courier Mail of 1 April 2008:

... Given that at least the Premier and Deputy Premier must surely have satisfied themselves beyond any reasonable doubt that their plans to entomb much of the Brisbane River adjoining the CBD beneath a giant slab of concrete is in the best interests of the public they serve, what could they possibly have to fear from an open public debate?

This article was also published on qlddecides.com as Saving the Regent - The Sinnamon plan. My response to the choice of that title was posted to that site and is included below.

In little more than a generation, Brisbane's skyline has been transformed into a ghastly inhuman wall of office blocks and high rise residential apartments. Today, much of Brisbane resembles a war zone as established business districts and neighourhoods are further trashed as this process is continued, along with a spate of more recent white elephant infrastructure projects, all at a horrific cost to our local and global environment.

A small, but welcome, pause from this breakneck pace of over-development occurred when Labor Premier Anna Bligh on 23 February, as reported in Brisbane's Courier Mail Newspaper, responded to a public outcry against the threatened destruction of Brisbane's Regent Theatre. The 80 year old Regent Theatre was to be effectively destroyed in order to make way for an AU$800 million 38-storey commercial high-rise at the back of the Regent Theatre. However, Premier Bligh used rarely enacted legislation to stop this. The legislation allows the Queensland Government to force the private developers, Multiplex and ISPT, to keep the Regent cinema operating regardless of whether or not they wanted to.

As welcome as Premier Bligh's stance is, it is sadly out of character with her overall record. Anna Bligh and her predecessor Beattie who have embraced a 'growth at all costs' mind-set which has no regard for the preservation of Brisbane's quality of life or the well-being of future generations. Both the Queensland Labor Government and Campbell Newman's Liberal Brisbane City Council administration have ridden rough-shod over community objections to many other inappropriate infrastructure and housing developments. These include the Suncorp Stadium, the Hale Street Bridge, the North South Bypass Tunnel, the Airport Link tunnel, Brisbane Airport's second runway, the conversion of the publicly-owned Yungaba migrant hostel into a private gated community, Minnippi Parklands, the Traveston Dam, the Wyaralong Dam, etc. In 2005 the residents of Maleny endured an invasion of 150 Queensland Police so that the Woolworths supermarket, opposed overwhelmingly by local residents could be built.

However, on this occasion, instead of ignoring the wishes of the Brisbane community, the Queensland Government has supported them and even the equally pro-development opposition leader Laurence Springborg has endorsed Anna Bligh's stance.

However, another force for relentless over-development, namely Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper, owned by US citizen Rupert Murdoch, has chosen not to relax its stance and has harshly criticised the Premier in an editorial "Protection in name of popularity" of 26 February.

The Courier Mail editorialists believe that the right of the developers to profit from the further disfigurement of Brisbane's skyline is more important than the wishes of of Brisbane residents to retain what little is left of their heritage. It stated:

... but does that then give the State Government the right to dictate to a profit-driven private sector developer what sort of business it can or cannot operate on the site? Presumably, one reason for the proposed redevelopment is that a 30-year-old four-cinema complex is a less profitable use of the land than a 38-storey office tower.

From the point of view of society at large, few profits are to be had from these projects. Instead, they merely facilitate the transfer of wealth out of its pockets into the pockets of the likes of Multiplex and ISPT, whilst massive quantities of greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere, particularly during their construction phases, and the earth's scarce and diminishing stocks of fossil fuel and metals are exhausted. In no more than a generation, these high rise structures will be inoperable as the necessary fossil fuels become ever more scarce and will stand just as much as monuments to to the folly of today's political and business leaders as do the pyramids built on Central America's Yucutan peninsula stand as monuments to the folly of the leaders of the failed Mayan civilisation.

The Courier Mail editorialist then argues that the taxpayers of Queensland to make up for the shortfall in profits:

Now it is quite possible that the developers might be able to rethink their proposal and decide they can make it work, with the Regent intact. However, if Ms Bligh feels so strongly about preserving the whole of the theatre complex, then perhaps she should be arguing the case for some sort of government underwriting – not something we would support – rather than simply sticking it to the private sector, as it were.

In reality, the evidence shows that it is today's taxpayers and ratepayers, as well as future generations, who subsidise the profits of developers, because they are forced to foot the bill for the infrastructure made necerssary to service such developments.

The editorialist also effectively accused Premier Anna Bligh of pandering to populism, when it asked:

But is it possible that this whole exercise is less about protecting fond memories and more about good old-fashioned, politically motivated playing to the crowd?

The Courier Mail editorialists no doubt prefer leaders who know better than 'the crowd' itself what is good for them, hence their past support for the North South Bypass Tunnel, the Hale Street Bridge, "Work Choices", the privatisation of Telstra and Queensland's Energex electricity company, high immigration, the Iraq war, the Traveston Dam, forced local government amalgamations, etc.

James Sinnamon
Independent candidate for Lord Mayor of Brisbane

Comment posted to qlddecides.com:

Thanks Jason for posting this. The original article is entitled "Saving the Regent Theatre earns Queensland Premier the wrath of the Courier Mail" and can be found at http://candobetter.org/node/342

However, the article is not actually a plan to save the Regent. That appears, thankfully, to have been done by Premier Anna Bligh. I meant to use the occasion to give due credit to a politician in whom I otherwise see very little of merit, also to comment on the anti-democratic pro-developer stance of Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper.

Whilst normally supportive of Bligh, when she does the bidding of powerful vested interests, the Courier Mail was hostile to the Premier's out-of-character decision on this occasion.

Those who have read "The Latham Diaries" will have found startling confirmation of the fact the State Labor Premiers are cynical enough to deliberately damage the electoral prospects of their Federal counterparts in order to better ensure their own survival at the state level.Adapted from an article cross-posted to Online Opinion. Also, see article on webdiary "Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances" by Margo Kingston.

Those who have read "The Latham Diaries" will have found startling confirmation of the fact the State Labor Premiers are cynical enough to deliberately damage the electoral prospects of their Federal counterparts in order to better ensure their own survival at the state level. Former NSW Premier Bob Carr expressed it thus in his own diaries on 6 November 2001, quoted on pages 305-306 of "The Latham Diaries"(2005):

Published polls and the Party's polling starting to show Federal Labor edging up. Can't believe it. ... (Michael Egan, NSW State Treasurer said,) 'We'll be the ones weeping if Labor wins.' Yes - the secret agenda: State Labor wants to run against a rotting hated Coalition Government in Canberra. A Labor Government there only makes a third (State) term harder.

Mark Latham commented: "People used to get expelled from the Labor Party for this sort of treachery. Yet when it appeared in Marilyn Dodkin's book on Carr last year, no-one batted an eye-lid. Has it become part of the system? Everyone now expects Carr Labor to selfishly look after itself, cheering for a Howard victory, ..."

And certainly Bob Carr, together with his Victorian and Tasmanian counterparts did just that, as Latham abundantly illustrated, and we have them largely to thank for Howard's victory in 2004, together with "Work Choices" and all of his other policy abominations.

Which brings us to the forced council amalgamations in Queensland. There are no sound reasons derived from Labor principles to justify Beattie's current plans to abolish so many local governments which are in tune with the needs of their constituents. Indeed, it was a former Queensland Hanlon Labor Government which gave local government the powers they have enjoyed up until now (see "When amalgamations failed" by Dr Mark McGovern of the QUT).

The only possible motives that I see are:

1. To take away the powers that local communities now have to prevent the further ravaging of their regions by property developers, and
2. A cynical political stunt, in emulation of Bob Carr, to use the perpetuation of John Howard's rule to ensure the survival of his Government at the next State election.