Each spring I feel a tinge of grief when magnolia buds appear.
For I never see the glorious display I yearn for every year.
I might see a hint of pink withstanding every storm
But the elaborate blooms I see next door on my tree are still- born.

I know who is responsible, a possum small and shy,
I feed him in the vain hope that he will my tree pass by,
Although my ploy has never worked I keep it up from habit
And I never In my wildest dreams would take my knife and stab it!

I met him one night on the fence; he froze upon his feet
What right had I to stand right there when he was passing on his beat?
In all the years I've felt the need to leave him something yummy,
He never speaks and never looks, just puts it in his tummy.

From today at start of spring my blooms may have a chance,
I saw some fur upon the lawn and from my window looked askance,
Oh what awful savagery has happened in my tame garden?
I must go outside and know the truth, my feelings I must harden!

Yes, torn and ripped my possum lies all spread out on the grass
His stomach, full is tossed aside, no use to he who broke his fast
Looking up, a butcher bird with innocent expression
Too small is he to do this deed but will not say no to its digestion!

Minutes on I saw a large black crow alighting on the scene
Pulling apart from near the heart the meat that had once been
Little ring tail quiet and shy, no personality to speak of
But meant the world to his family who now can only think of.........

The Russian military says that the United States' missile strike on Idlib, August 31, has jeopardized further implementation of the ceasefire in the Idlib de-escalation zone, as well as disrupting it in a number of areas.

MOSCOW, September 1. A US airstrike on Syria’s Idlib province has left numerous casualties and a major destruction, the Russian Center for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syria (part of Russia’s Defense Ministry) said in a statement on Sunday.

The US carried out the airstrike at 3 p.m. on August 31 on an area between Ma’arrat Misrin and Kafr Haya, the center reported.

"There are numerous casualties and a major destruction in the settlements targeted by the US airstrike," the center said, stressing that this strike came in violation of the earlier reached agreements because Washington had not notified Russia and Turkey about its plans.

The Russian military notes that the US has jeopardized further implementation of the ceasefire in the Idlib de-escalation zone and also disrupted it in a number of areas. According to the center, such steps of Washington, which keeps accusing Russia of its alleged indiscriminate shelling in the Idlib de-escalation zone, raise eyebrows.

"Despite the shellings carried out by militants, provoked by the US strike, the Syrian forces are currently observing a moratorium on carrying out combat actions in the interests of achieving peaceful settlement in the Idlib de-escalation zone as soon as possible," the statement reads.

According to the Russian military, at 6 a.m. on August 31 at the initiative of Russia and Turkey the Syrian army unilaterally declared a ceasefire across the Idlib de-escalation zone, and notified all parties to the conflict. "Over the past day the government forces have strictly complied with their undertaken commitments. Flights of combat aviation of Russia’s Aerospace Defense Forces and the Syrian Air Force have been fully suspended," the centre said.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Regulations 2008 sunset on 15 December 2019. New regulations need to be made before this date.

Following a thorough review of existing regulations and extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders, the Victorian Government has developed the proposed POCTA Regulations 2019 and associated Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). These documents are now available for public comment.

The POCTA Regulations 2019 aim to protect the welfare of animals in Victoria by supporting requirements set under Victoria’s primary piece of animal welfare legislation – the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986.

This is achieved by preventing, or minimising, harm through regulation of specific activities.

The RIS examines the costs and benefits of the proposed POCTA Regulations 2019 and considers possible alternatives.

New or amended regulations include:

· Animal transportation and tethering requirements

· Use of pain relief for mulesing

· Sale and use of wildlife safe fruit netting

· Sale and use of electronic devices

· Approvals and other processes related to the use of traps

· Operational and administrative processes for Rod Scientific Procedure record-keeping, the sourcing of animals, and training of Animal Ethics Committee members

· Fees

You are encouraged to contribute your views, expertise or ideas on the draft proposed regulations and options presented in the Regulatory Impact Statement. Consultation is open until midnight on Thursday 26 September 2019.

Copies of the RIS and the proposed regulations may be obtained from the Engage Victoria website at https://engage.vic.gov.au/prevention-cruelty-animals-draft-regulations-2019

The Engage Victoria website is the preferred method for receiving submissions.

Please note that all comments and submissions received will be treated as public documents.

Thank you and regards

Animal Welfare Victoria

Lord Mayor Clover Moore has nothing to congratulate herself on with regard to homelessness in Sydney. The City of Sydney’s most recent street count has revealed that homelessness has risen and crisis shelters are at capacity. Although the City has been collecting levies from developers to create affordable housing since 2004, it has only created 835 new affordable housing dwellings in that time. Whilst the *official* number of homeless in Sydney reached 592 in August 2019 (with so many more couch-surfing and living on credit), Australia has continued to import approximately one million immigrants every two years, pushing up the price of housing and causing pressure on Sydney's very scarce land, to the extent that NSW State Premier, Gladys Berejiklian asked the Federal Government to halve the immigration numbers - to no avail. Lendlease private developments is forcing new suburbs into koala territory despite years of organised protests from nearby residents. It is clear that property development is disorganising human communities, extinguishing wildlife, and over-riding every democratic measure in our society. It is ironic that the City of Sydney, in a country run by property developers for their own enrichment through population growth, should give the biggest private landowner in Australia (the Catholic Church) $100,000 to pay various humble workers to telephone between services looking for empty beds each night for the homeless. The same Catholic Church is a notable property developer, owner of the oldest bank in the world, and a chronic promoter of mass immigration.

According to a press release from the City of Sydney, while the number of those sleeping rough fell by 24 people compared to the count in August last year, occupation of temporary or crisis accommodation rose by 16.8 per cent to 592 people – 94 per cent of available bed capacity.

August 2019
People Sleeping Rough: 254
Occupied Crisis and Temporary Accommodation Beds: 592

August 2018
People Sleeping Rough: 278
Occupied Crisis and Temporary Accommodation Beds: 495

Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore said that the high level of temporary bed occupancy showed outreach services run by the NSW Government, City of Sydney and non-government organisations were working, but that those numbers would remain high without the provision of more stable, long-term affordable and social housing. In 2017 she had blamed the State Government for not providing enough accommodation, and had refused to move people out of Sydney's "tent city".

In NSW State Premier, Gladys Berejiklian's defense, Ms Berejiklian had, in 2018, asked the Federal Goverment to reduce immigration to NSW by half, with no success.[1]

Sydney's Mayor has a complete disconnect about the problem of massive immigration numbers driving up demand for housing and personally welcomes 1000 international students each year, observing that there are now more than 35,000 studying in the City's local area. Whilst homelessness is increasing, she actually describes student immigration as 'increasing Sydney's livability'.

"International students enhance Sydney's vibrancy and liveability through contributing to our city's cultural diversity. The international student community also plays an important role to grow and strengthen Sydney's global connections – today and in the future." [2]

According to Australia's 2016 census, the number of homeless people in Australia jumped by more than 15,000 — or 14 per cent — in the five years to 2016. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) said 116,000 people were homeless on census night in 2016, representing 50 homeless people per 10,000.

Let them eat cake, eh, Clover?

“These figures tell us that people experiencing homelessness are seeking help, and know where to find the services that can offer them a bed or a free meal for the night, but these are temporary solutions to a systemic crisis,” the Lord Mayor said.

“254 people sleeping on our streets is 254 too many. In a prosperous city like Sydney, this is an unacceptable situation demanding decisive and compassionate action. To break the cycle of homelessness we need the NSW and Federal governments to fund provide more social and affordable housing in the inner city. We cannot allow Sydney to become an enclave for the rich. We need a diverse range of housing to accommodate our diverse community.”

Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services, Gareth Ward, participated in the count and said the figures showed the NSW Government’s assertive outreach programs are making a real impact.

“Since 2017, our assertive outreach teams have helped house more than 450 people previously sleeping rough on inner city streets,” Mr Ward said. “Our staff are compassionate, skilled professionals and to see a drop in the number of people sleeping rough compared to last year is encouraging, but of course there is still more work to be done. The reality is that across the state, homelessness is an issue. That’s why we recently announced the expansion of assertive outreach to Tweed Heads and Newcastle and the extension of the street count to regional areas. We’re delighted to partner with the City of Sydney in tackling this issue and we will continue to work with other local councils and non-government organisations to build on the strong foundations we have set.”

Member for Sydney Alex Greenwich welcomed the joint action between local and state government on homelessness.

“Sadly, it is no secret that homelessness has reached a crisis point in NSW,” the Member for Sydney said. “The latest street count results prove once again that people are seeking help, but that the system is at capacity – we need to provide safe and affordable homes in order to truly stop the cycle of homelessness in our state.”

The homeless in Sydney count was conducted in the early hours of Tuesday, 6 August. A total of 195 volunteers made up of residents, sector workers, students, local businesses 15 advisers who have lived experience of homelessness and 30 City staff members took part in the count from 1am to 3am.

In February, the City signed an agreement with the NSW Government, the Institute of Global Homelessness, St Vincent de Paul, St Vincent’s Health, Mission Australia, Salvation Army, Wesley Mission, Neami National and Yfoundations to:

- reduce rough sleeping in the City of Sydney area by 25 per cent by 2020
- reduce rough sleeping in the City of Sydney area and NSW by 50 per cent by 2025
- work towards zero rough sleeping in the City of Sydney area and NSW

These goals are totally inadequate given the number of new migrants coming into Sydney every day plus all the overseas immigrants and the likely total by 2025.

The City has contributed $100,000 to the St Vincent de Paul Society[3] to establish a Sydney office to coordinate the project. It says that the local, *independent* organisation is bringing together organisations and services working to reduce homelessness. The city believes that this will allow for greater information sharing and enable a more coordinated response to reduce the number of people sleeping rough and to prevent people entering in to homelessness.

It is ironic that a City in a country run by property developers for their own enrichment through population growth should give an organisation affiliated with the biggest private landowner in Australia (the Catholic Church) $100,000 to pay various humble workers to telephone between services looking for empty beds each night for the homeless.

The City has also invested $6.6 million over three years to help reduce homelessness in the city. This includes a $3.5 million contribution to the NSW Government’s Department of Family and Community Services over three years to fund specialist homelessness services.

The City of Sydney says that it has helped build 835 new affordable housing dwellings since 2004, by collecting levies from developers and selling *our* land to affordable housing providers at discount rates.

Meanwhile, between 2014 and 2017 'Cloud Arch', a single ribbon of steel shaped sculpture intended to be installed over George Street in Sydney, had its budget rise from A$3.5 million to 11.3 million dollars. It has been criticised on cost and aesthetics, but the mayor has said that it will become a "drawcard for residents, workers, tourists and visitors." She obviously hasn't figured out that Sydney isn't coping with its current population, if she wants to attract even more people.

NOTES

[1] "On Wednesday the New South Wales premier, herself the daughter of Armenian immigrants, called for a halving of the state’s migrant intake, citing concerns about population growth in Sydney. But a Guardian analysis of immigration data shows any reduction in migration in Australia would involve hard and potentially costly choices for the state’s economy. While permanent arrivals in Australia are at the same level as they were under the Howard government, the increase in net overseas migrants has been driven by the lucrative international student market, tourists and skilled workers." source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/10/gladys-berejikilian-calls-for-immigration-cut-but-it-could-cost-nsw.

[2] Source: https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/community/community-support/international-students

[3] "The St Vincent de Paul Society is a lay Catholic organisation and does not receive any direct funding from the Catholic Church. The Society enjoys a close relationship with the Catholic Church and is assisted through parishes and schools." (Source: https://www.vinnies.org.au/page/About/FAQs/Is_the_St_Vincent_de_Paul_Society_a_part_of_the_Catholic_Church/)

The Vatican, on the other hand, manages $64 billion of assets on behalf of its 17,400 customers, according to a Dec. 5, 2014, article in International Business Times .
The Vatican bank owns $764 million in equity. The bank keeps gold reserves worth over $20 million with the U.S. Federal Reserve. (Source: https://www.nasdaq.com/article/how-much-money-does-the-vatican-have-cm500605.

VBAG is the only organization representing building consumers in Australia. VBAG estimates conservatively that for 2019 more than one million Australians will lose more than $400b on shonky building, as well as suffering decades long distress from disputes, leading to deaths, suicides, shattered families, and ruined lives. Come along and inform yourselves and participate.

VBAG AGM is on 26 August 2019 at 7pm at 1 Wendell Street, Brunswick. (Best to enter from Victoria Street.)
Topic: ‘Dream into Nightmare: In the SHOES of Building Consumers’

VBAG's conservative estimate for 2019: more than 1 million Australians will lose more than $400 Billion. This without considering the toll of the years or decades’ long distress from disputes, and without taking account of the deaths and suicides, shattered families, the lives forever ruined.

This is the reality of living in the lucky land of Oz! Here we have no - NO - consumer rights, no human rights, no freedom of speech and no 'fair go'!

Please make the effort to come, and bring your family and friends. This corrupted industry does not discriminate. Everyone is a building consumer and all are at high risk. People from all walks of life have and will continue to be ensnared into the wicked web of building fraud - because ‘shelter’ is a basic need delivered for three (3) decades by a lawless ‘industry’!

HELP US with strategies to reclaim our rights as the number ONE stakeholder, to speak as ONE united CONSUMER VOICE and to end this biggest ever man-made human disaster.

Enquiries: Telephone or text President Anne Paten on 0401 226 048

https://www.vbag.org.au

Building is more than risky business; it's a killer

As the only registered building consumer organization in the country, we have been working hard on behalf of owners for 13 years, but the powerful vested interests who
control the industry and our politicians have locked us out, rendered us utterly voiceless.

The destruction of the con-struction industry has delivered a massive man-made disaster, a horrific human tragedy. This was preventable, but profits count more than people!
- We supposedly live in a first world country, but our built environment is third world.
- Deregulated in 1993, the 'governance framework' underpinning the industry was con-structed to support a lawless industry and to crush consumer cash-cows.
- The biggest con: Big business directed our governments to steal our rights and to authorize legalized fraud.
- The cowboys have destroyed our families and shamelessly left millions of them broke and broken. This year more than one million owners will lose an estimated $400b. Yes, $400 BILLION!

Australia shows contempt for an international rules-based order, agreeing to join the US and UK with a naval, air and ADF personel presence in the Persian Gulf without any national debate or UN resolution.

PM Scott Morrison announced today that Australia would join an international mission to protect trade through the Strait of Horumz.
The international force consists of the UK, US, Australia and Bahrain.

Spokesperson for the Independent and Peaceful Australia network, Ms Brownlie said: “This is being presented as protection of the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and in Australia’s national interest, but it is clear the US is chafing at the bit for an opportunity to attack Iran having spent many years imposing harsh sanctions on the people and most recently pulling out of the JCPOA effectively destroying prospects for peace with Iran.”

“It is also worth noting the irresponsibility of our government in allowing our oil stocks to be so low making us more vulnerable to supply issues creating a dependence on the US to provide back-up reserves”

“The last illegal action taken by the US ,UK and Australia was to form the so-called coalition of the willing to mount an attack and invasion of Iraq opening a pandora’s box of instability in the whole region.”

“Australia has no interest in a conflict in the Persian Gulf, and no enmity towards Iran. Such a conflict without a UN Security Council resolution would be illegal, and would expose Australian leaders and the ADF to accusations of the war crime of aggression,” said Ms Brownlie.

Former secretary of the defence department, Paul Barratt, told The Guardian. Australian involvement in potential military action in the Gulf could be illegal, and argued it was “very foolish for us to get involved in this provocative behaviour”.

“This is an application of military force. There ought to be a debate in the parliament, and we ought not to engage in any activity that would foreseeably involve the use of military force without that debate,” he said.

“Australian leaders need to heed the lessons of the past. Its time we decoupled from US foreign policy and act independently in the interests of peace and stability,” said Ms Brownlie.

Independent and Peaceful Australia Network
https://ipan.org.au | fb. Facebook

It was 1959 and I was in grade 5. I can remember hearing this population statistic; Australia's population had reached 10 million. I was one of 10 million. It was the first time I had ever been aware of the population of Australia. When my mother was born in 1918 it was 5 million It took another 45 years for the population to double from 10 million to 20 million.

So what was Australia like when the population was 10 million?

Well, if you drove up the Hume highway to Albury, it was a 2 lane gum tree lined road, and you went through every town. So it wasn't such a big decision to stop along the way because you were not coming off a motorway and covering more miles. (Yes miles, we were still in imperial measurements.)

There was far less obvious infrastructure in the suburbs, less concrete involved in bus stops and tram stops, fewer roundabouts. The population was, however, growing and so you did see building works going on, but they were for free standing ordinary sized houses on what had been vacant blocks. You did not see the mass demolitions of today and replacements with much higher density construction. Roadworks were the exception, unlike today, where you run into detours and narrowing lanes all the time.

The population did not stay at 10 million; not for one day. It kept on growing. 1 million migrants arrived between 1945 to 1955 and of course were still coming in 1959. On top of that there was a baby boom (over 200,000 babies were born) and it seems to me now that every second woman was wheeling a pram. Our way of life was not static but, to me, being a child, it almost appeared that way because my perception of time was so stretched out compared with the concertina effect of time now in my senior years.

I do remember being a bit aware of migration to Australia, as the newspapers would, from time to time, make a news item out of a particularly photogenic family. One I can remember was a large blond northern European or Dutch family with 7 or 8 children all smiling as they descended the gangplank of their ship on arrival in Melbourne.

Many migrants spent time in Bonegilla migrant camp when they arrived in Australia. There was a housing shortage as there had been little construction during the war and so they made do with semi cylindrical corrugated iron huts. A relative of mine was the doctor at Bonegilla and because of this I visited the camp at least once. The day I can remember was sunny and warm and the place looked quite pleasant to me although I have read many complaining accounts of the basic nature of the place and the monotonous food from those who have passed through. I know this migrant influx put a huge strain on the education system in the surrounding area. I was told there were 50 pupils in my cousin's class at school in grade two compared with half that at my private school in Melbourne

We lived near a main road on which the traffic was quite fast and heavy during "peak hour". Peak hour was in fact only one hour each end of the day. Our dog still managed to get run over on this road resulting in a broken pelvis. Fortunately he recovered.In the street where we lived there was far less traffic and very little during the day so we could use the road for roller skating and billy carts.

With respect to dogs at that time it was quite normal to see dogs walking the street in the day time without their owners. To me they usually appeared purposeful as though they might have been visiting a friend down the street. Somehow they learned some road sense and could be trusted . The increasing traffic soon made this impossible necessitating leads and designated walks with owners in charge.

Writing about Australia with a population of 10 million, it is tempting to indulge in nostalgia about the way things were done which may or may not actually be related to the wonderfully small size of the population. For instance the fact that my mother hardly had to go out to shop for food at all seems very attractive compared with my supermarket excursions and the battle for the carpark. In 1959 our meat, milk, bread, groceries, green groceries all had separate deliveries. The grocer, green grocer and butcher all came to the back door and took my mother's order. They would then bring it back to her from the van parked outside the house. Bread and milk were a standing order and delivered delivered early each morning to the front door. Shopping could not be any easier than that!

Our favourite places to spend leisure time were the beach in summer and maybe play in the back yard or riding bicycles in the cooler months. We could park the car at the beach for as long as we wanted, free. Now our time at the beach is metred and measured and therefore far less relaxing. Now it is an advantage to have a friend with a disabled parking permit just to ease the stress of parking the car.

When Australia's population was only 10 million it was easy to get out into the countryside around Melbourne as it was so close by. Cows grazed in green fields in what is now the suburb of Dingley. My father used to complain about other drivers just as we do now but there weren't as many of them.

One stark difference between Australia with 10 million, and now with 25 million, is that land was less defined and deliberately purposed. It was not as fiercely contested, not as "valuable" as it is now. At my school with 250 pupils we had about an acre of what I remember as almost virgin bush. We had wildlife emerging from it occasionally; a possum and a lizard at least! We didn't venture into it at play time as I think it was too thickly vegetated but we played on its perimeter and sat together on old gnarled, horizontally growing ti-tree branches polished over many years from this repeated use. That bushland has gone now. Some of it disappeared to make an oval for sports whilst I was still at the school.

There was a nature sanctuary quite near where we lived and a swamp across the busy road from where children collected tadpoles. This swamp had been drained before I reached secondary school level and a new school built to accommodate the children of the area as they exited their various primary schools. In the same period the vacant blocks of land nearby to where we lived, with their resident horses with names who we would visit, also were built on and the horses disappeared.

Things were changing quite quickly although I was too young to notice. I was changing and my life was changing so I did not grieve with each lost pleasure as I do now when population growth and development claim the little pockets of my area that everyone could once enjoy. I did not back then stop to ponder that what I was losing was being lost to everyone forever. How could I have known? I did not understand the implications any more than young people do today, although changes are now happening so much faster.

The high cost of accommodating population growth: "It is really undesirable that turning Seaford and Frankston into 'Transport hubs' is denying residents, and especially children, proper use of the amenities they have previously enjoyed."

18 August 2019
Letter to Frankston Council

Dear Councillors,

Despite much of the land around Seaford station being increasing converted to car parking for train commuters, also the parking at Seaford North reserve is now entirely filled with commuting traffic.

I wish you to record my objection to this use of the Reserve parking, of which at least half should be timed so as to allow reserve users to use the car-park - which is the real purpose of that car park.

Children and their parents who use the reserve during the day and at the end of the day need to park in surrounding streets - creating problems there, and requiring parents with young kids, and often babies, to have walk considerable distances because of the commuters taking up all the car parks.

I know - as a former teacher - that schools used to use the reserve during the day - with many buses of kids using the car-park for sports days and parents also coming to park and watch for some or all of the day. That would not be possible now, and presumably the park is not used in this way anymore.

It is really undesirable that turning Seaford and Frankston into 'Transport hubs' is denying residents, and especially children, proper use of the amenities they have previously enjoyed.

I therefore ask if you could please consider making at least half of the car-parking at Seaford North Reserve available for park users only - a 6 hour limit on parking there would be sufficient for this.

I look forward to reading your response.

Regards,

Mathew Mitchell
Seaford, Victoria
Australia

It amazes me that people will give their pets dry kibble or absurdly perfumed wet tinned food day after day, years after year, and it is even more amazing and shocking that vets sell this crap. And that a lot of people buy and eat similar food for themselves and their children. How did we get so stupid? We republish Australian veterinarian Tom Lonsdale's submission to the Australian Senate Pet Food Inquiry 2018, plus links to films he has made about the shocking effects of commercial pet food on dogs' and cats' health. We have embedded a film from the United States, Pet-fooled because it is comprehensive, as well as one from Tom Lonsdale, Stop the mass poisoning of pets, which focuses on dogs' teeth and gums rotting from bad food. Dr Lonsdale promotes 'free meaty bones' - not a brand, but a food-source. He specialises in what happens to pets' mouths when they eat processed food. The same things happen to dogs and cats when they eat processed food as happen to humans, but because dogs and cats do not need carbohydrates, let alone starches, at all and tolerate them poorly, they get sick even faster than we do on junk food. If you haven't thought about this before, you will be shocked and it might inspire you to change your diet as well. The Pet-fooled film suffers from its belief in the human food pyramid that privileges cereals, but it's worth watching nonetheless.

(The submission below is downloadable with links from Regulatory approaches to ensure the safety of pet food

Links to the Senate Inquiry.

See also Dr Lonsdale's videos at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzZmYoLjxA8bFUepVvHmv_A

Regulatory approaches to ensure the safety of pet food: Submission to Petfood inquiry by Veterinary Surgeon Tom Lonsdale.

Introduction

As a student at the Royal Veterinary College, University of London from 1967 to 1972 I began to feel uneasy about the arbitrariness of the veterinary endeavour. However, almost 20 years elapsed before I gained a solid understanding of the inconsistencies and irregularities of the veterinary culture that on the one hand is dedicated to the preservation of life and the prevention of suffering and on the other hand turning a blind eye to mass cruelty and suffering arising from the junk pet-food scourge.

When preparing my contribution to the 1991 Veterinarians and the Environment Conference, I researched and drew together the various strands of information. It became clear that the veterinary environmental footprint exists primarily as a result of global veterinary involvement with the artificial pet-food industry. Since 1991 I have continued researching the factors — scientific, clinical, regulatory, economic and political
— as they affect the safety of pet food.

Reduced to its elements, the pet-food industry relentlessly promotes carnivore pet ownership not as modified wolves (dogs), modified desert predators (cats) and modified polecats (ferrets) with biologically defined nutritional imperatives, but as animated furry toys. The furry toys are to be fed furry toy formula — bearing no resemblance to the natural carnivore food/medicine. In the event that the ‘toys’ become sick, as they must surely do, then there’s a repair man/woman (vet) only too keen to provide treatment, but never prevention, for the litany of ailments directly or indirectly attributable to the junk food diet.

The veterinary profession, by various subtle and not so subtle means, has been co-opted to the junk pet-food companies’ cause. Vets are the primary beneficiaries of the pandemics of pet ill health. Vets are, for the most part, staunch promoters and defenders of the junk pet-food products and the companies that make them. Alongside the vets, the animal welfare groups manage the oversupply of pets and discarded pets.

Since every additional pet mouth is worth around $15,000 to the processed pet-food industry, it’s small wonder that the companies pay hush money to the charities and the charities spout industry propaganda — whether in their vet clinics, gala events and submissions.

Insofar as new regulatory proposals are mooted I can comment, from bitter experience, about systematic regulatory failures as a result of junk pet-food company influence and control of the regulatory mechanisms. In 1994 Dr Barbara Fougere, Mars Corporation employee, brought a complaint against me in her private capacity that the NSW Board of Veterinary Surgeons attempted to keep confidential. So began serial harassment and the prosecution of pet-food company inspired complaints by the NSW Board of Veterinary Surgeons through its Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (VSIC). Complaints to the VSIC cannot be publicly discussed under penalty of a $2,000 fine and/or a year in jail. Consequently, for the companies, using the government regulatory apparatus of the VSIC was an effective strategy for silencing dissent away from public gaze. Whilst the NSW Board was harassing me they were not, in keeping with all other Australian veterinary boards, investigating and dealing with allegations of widespread animal cruelty, over- servicing by vets, public safety and consumer fraud.

Since 1992 I have endeavoured, through correspondence and by standing in annual elections, to persuade the UK veterinary regulator, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, to investigate and resolve the junk pet- food issue — entirely without success. Similarly in Australia, together with Dr Breck Muir, I attempted to influence the Australian Veterinary Association. The Association, closely allied with the pet-food industry, refused to listen and in 2004 convened a kangaroo court and terminated my membership.

Effectively, I suggest that the junk pet-food/vet/fake animal welfare alliance hides in plain sight whilst engaged in $multi-billion white collar criminal activity that inflicts immense harm on pets, pet owners and the wider community.

Matters of such magnitude are difficult to encapsulate in a submission. However, I believe that the 2001 book Raw Meaty Bones: Promotes Health provides a treatise on the interrelated aspects. The easy reader, Work Wonders: Feed your dog raw meaty bones provides simple solutions for pet owners attempting to free themselves from the oppression of pet-food company propaganda and a compromised veterinary profession.

Brief history

From the outset processed pet food was a giant confidence trick perpetrated upon an unsuspecting populace. At the time of the American Civil War when quack medicine men refined the art of creative hyperbole, American entrepreneur Jack Spratt is credited with establishing the first industrial scale production of processed pet food. Spratt’s concoction of wheat, vegetables, beetroot and beef blood sold under the label ‘Patent Meat Fibrine Dog Cake’. The young Charles Cruft, showman and marketeer, aided in the enterprise. Cruft hit on the idea of promoting pedigree dog shows as a means to promoting dog ownership and thus selling Dog Cake.

Spratt and Cruft became rich and influential. Crufts Dog Show and the pet keeping, pet feeding fantasy they created lives on ever stronger promoted by vast multinational corporations and their vet collaborators.

Australian uptake of the canned and packaged offerings lagged behind the USA and UK until 1966. That was the year young John Mars set up his factory in Albury Wodonga and his Petcare Information and Advisory Service (PIAS), the public relations and marketing front established to convert the Australian public to Mars’s way of thinking. Targeting radio, TV, magazines, newspapers, vets and vet associations PIAS was hugely successful. (See PIAS and Dr Jonica Newby in Raw Meaty Bones.)

Nowadays paid pet-food ads flood the airwaves. Newspapers and magazines provide free advertorials and promotions for pet keeping and vet services. Dogs and cats are shown swallowing the 2018 version of Dog Cake. It’s all positive feedback, a reflective mirror, to those who have succumbed to the 150 years of cultural conditioning. For those who do not yet have a pet and do not yet visit the supermarket pet-food aisle, there’s the constant reminder that they too can have the canine, feline status symbols when the opportunity presents.

The fantasy that modified wolves and desert cats, unlike their wild and feral counterparts, are somehow better suited to feeding out of the can or packet has spawned an enormous research and marketing drive.

Inevitably, with an industry founded on fallacy, things must go wrong.

In 2007, following the contamination of junk pet food with the chemical melamine, thousands of dogs died. This was a case of confidence trickery piled on confidence trickery. Dogs and cats are carnivores evolved to consume a high protein diet. Pet-food manufacturers augment their products with wheat gluten. Gluten, rich in plant protein, allows the manufacturers to claim a higher protein content for their products. Unfortunately the cheaper inferior plant protein, as opposed to meat protein, is not as biologically available to the unfortunate dogs and cats forced to consume the product.

Since testing for protein is not so straightforward, testing for nitrogen content is more commonly employed. Chinese suppliers of wheat gluten reinforced their shipments with melamine and thereby increased the nitrogen, and thus the presumed protein, test score. Unfortunately melamine adulterated ‘food’ also increased the toxicity of the junk food.

2007 was the year the media took a closer look at the artificial pet-food industry. The September 2007 New York Times exposé provides essential insights into the attitudes and values of the junk pet-food industry and the vet collaborators:

Dogs can get along just fine on a daily ration of corn and soybeans. “That’s about the cheapest diet you could put together,” Fahey said, and it provides all the vitamins, minerals, protein, fat and carbohydrates a dog needs. But it wouldn’t sell to broad segments of the modern market.

So much for the industry claims of ‘complete and balanced’ nutrition touted by the manufacturers, vets and fake welfare groups as superior fare. The grim reality is least-cost formulations designed to trick pets’ digestive systems and least-cost formulations acceptable in the family home.

Now, in 2018, millions of Australians have bought the fantasy that dogs — even those that look like wolves, for instance police dogs — should be fed from the junk food sack. When nine Victorian police dogs succumbed to a rare disease, megaesophagus, believed to be attributable to the Mars Corporation, Advance Dermocare dry kibble there was an outpouring of indignation followed by calls for more and better regulation. There was and is no outcry about the vets prescribing the unsuitable, unsafe products in the first place. There was and is no outcry against the endless list of junk food induced diseases that claim the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pets every day.

Calculating niche marketers have noticed. They have discovered the simple truth that by stopping the feeding of industrial pet food, animals show a remarkable turnaround in health and vitality. Attributing the observed improvements to their minced meat, fruit and supplement concoctions a slew of ‘nutritionist’, ‘BARF’ and ‘prey-model’ proponents ramp up their marketing efforts. They boast that their wares contain ground bone and thus shield the sensibilities of their customers from the imagined horrors of raw meaty bones consumption. The pets, however, are thus denied the strongest, safest, most gentle, most effective medicine for all domestic carnivores.

In the UK the Raw Feeding Veterinary Society provides cover. The Society President declares that ‘dogs are omnivores’ and that:

If you find preparing fruit and veg a bit of a pain, then please note that those nice people at AMP have thought of this and done all the dirty work for you. Nature's Menu Frozen Range offers a choice of diets where raw meat and veg have been mixed and frozen for you. They are ideal for those too busy to do the whole BARF diet or for those who can, but find holidays and trips difficult.

Closer to home, the Australian veterinary schools are enthusiastic proponents of the large-scale industrial offerings. They collaborate with the multi-national junk pet-food makers, brainwash vet students with junk food propaganda, but fiercely resist examination of their secret deals. Although, by administrative mistake, one such deal was leaked. In Sydney, my attempts at alerting Dame Marie Bashir, Chancellor of the University and the other 22 members of the University of Sydney Senate regarding the junk food scandal affecting their university foundered in the Vice Chancellor’s office. On 21 July 2010 I delivered a box of individually addressed packages to the Vice Chancellor’s office. Rather than provide the packages to the Senate Members as addressed, the Vice Chancellor’s office intercepted and disposed of the books and documents.

In the 150 years since Jack Spratt and Charles Cruft’s early imaginings, Dog Cake and the investments in pets have come a long way. As recently as 19 July 2018, Sydney’s Small Animal Specialist Hospital (SASH) recommended that the owners of Dozer a 4 month old terrier spend $6,455 for a battery of further tests. Meanwhile, wrote the specialist vet, ‘I recommend a high quality commercial diet such as Hills or Royal Canin. Dozer should not be fed raw food for the rest of his life.’

Selected documents and videos

For people wishing for a quick overview, I suggest the following articles and videos. The 2007 unabridged Nexus article provides a convenient overview of the subject.
Elizabeth Farrelly writing in the Sydney Morning Herald told about feeding her cats ‘exorbitant science- nosh’ and the resultant ill-health and exorbitant vet bills:

Before remortgaging the house, I did what you do. Googled, found a website called Raw Meaty Bones. The message was obvious and compelling. I decided to try it. For a month, I gave them each a daily, raw chicken wing. Period. Pretty soon both cats were bouncing. No trouble peeing. No bad- breath or sore inflamed gums. Their coats became thicker and glossier. Two happy cats.

Than and Nicola Wright writing in the University of Sydney Centre for Veterinary Education (CVE) Control & Therapy told of their difficulties finding a vet who understood the linkage between a chronic ear condition and commercial food diet.

In light of the implications of the Wright’s article I attempted to submit a letter to the Control & Therapy. Alas the attempt at achieving some exposure and some debate was stymied by the CVE.

Despite the CVE and Sydney University being in thrall with the junk pet-food makers, Dr Richard Malik retains his job at the CVE.

Dr Malik provides an insider’s view in the 11 September 2015 edition of The Conversation with his article: The convenience food industry making our pets fat.

So much of the noxious pet-food industry has been normalised. Three huge multi-national companies privatise the profits and the costs are socialised — purchase of the product, cost of vet services and cost of ‘welfare groups’ and municipal pounds for the unruly and untrainable dogs. In 2003 I attempted to alert the Australian Veterinary Association and State Veterinary Boards to the very real connection between unpredictable, dangerous dogs and diet. Despite the human health and potential legal liability issues, no one was interested.

Several legal liability issues get an airing in my 15 June 2018 Open Letter to the NSW Attorney General.

Mention of the pet-food debacle first appeared on Australian TV screens in 1993 when the ABC Investigators aired a story. In that segment Tess Abson, a Maltese terrier, can be seen undergoing radical dental surgery. Tess, apart from suffering from a foul mouth, was also suffering from anaemia, heart, liver, kidney and immune system problems. Nevertheless, with the benefit of dental surgery and a change of diet you can see her transformation four months later on Ray Martin at Midday.

Maltese terrier Wally Muir represents another junk pet-food victim, resurrected by dental surgery and diet change. And our Science Death experiment reveals how quickly dogs succumb to the ravages of a kibble diet.

Possible regulatory approaches to ensure the safety of pet food, including both the domestic manufacture and importation of pet food

I believe that the current concerns arise out of the megaesophagus outbreak in police dogs and the presence of plastic particles found in dry dog ‘food’. Experience tells me that these matters are but a tiny tip of an enormous iceberg. Problems have gone undetected and unresolved due to failure of regulators to enforce current regulations.

Conceptually it’s impossible to manufacture food that is safe for pets. There have never, to my knowledge, been published controlled studies demonstrating that artificial, manufactured products are either suitable or safe for the feeding of domestic carnivores. Insofar as the veterinary profession is the highest authority on the suitability and safety of pet foods, please see how systematic failures affect the veterinary educational and regulatory mechanisms as per the Freedom of Information pages: https://www.rawmeatybones.com/foi.php

Introducing more regulators and more regulations at this early stage, in my view, cannot and will not achieve acceptable outcomes — in the face of industry opposition and manipulation.

I believe that first there needs to be a full Commission of Inquiry with full judicial powers designed to gain a full understanding of the scientific, regulatory, social, economic and political issues. Based on firm foundations, subsequent regulations can then be enacted.

a.) The uptake, compliance and efficacy of the Australian Standard for the Manufacturing & Marketing of Pet Food (AS5812:2017)

AS5812:2017 is available for $121.52. It’s a creation of the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia Inc (PFIAA). The mostly huge commercial enterprises, but with some smaller ‘BARF’ raw meat producers are responsible for the widespread cruelty and suffering affecting pets, pet owners and the wider community. Besides the PFIAA the following were involved in the development of the document:

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (Commonwealth) Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Commonwealth) Department of Primary Industries, Victoria
Pet Food Industry Association of Australia RSPCA Australia.
Australian Veterinary Association

Zero credibility can be accorded AS5812:2017, its uptake, compliance or efficacy. There’s a well-worn saying: ‘Foxes in the hen house’. And it’s of especial concern that Commonwealth and State Governments were involved in the drafting of the document.

b.) The labelling and nutritional requirements for domestically manufactured pet food

As per my comments above, the labelling and nutritional requirements of manufactured pet ‘food’ cannot meet biological imperatives.

The Australian Government should not be party to intellectually bogus concepts that lure unsuspecting consumers into the belief that harmful products are either suitable or safe for intended purpose.

I believe that existing labelling and advertising laws should be enforced to the full. If the commercial products are to remain on supermarket shelves, then warning labels must be attached.

Pet owners need to know that the commercial products slowly and sometimes rapidly harm pets forced to consume those products.

If anyone wishes to promote the opposite view, then I ask: Why is it that zoos do not feed the canned and packaged products? Why do zoos feed whole carcasses or raw meaty bones?

It should also be noted that in the current un-regulated environment there’s a rash of minced meat and vegetable products that carry false and misleading label claims.

c.) The management, efficacy and promotion of the AVA-PFIAA administered PetFAST tracking system

Besides foxes we can talk about Dracula in charge of the blood bank as per Senator Stirling Griff’s media release. The AVA-PFIAA system provides the vet/pet-food alliance with early warning of acute toxicity and bacterial contamination issues that may adversely affect their businesses.

PetFAST is the Clayton’s option. It does nothing to warn of the chronic debilitating ill-health affecting all animals fed junk food. Nor does it warn of the acute end-stage diseases following on from a lifetime of junk food induced suffering — for instance the heart, liver, kidney, immune system failures, diabetes and cancer.

d) The feasibility of an independent body to regulate pet food standards, or an extension of Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s remit

I believe that premature uptake of new or extension of existing standards should be avoided. I believe that new regulations and likely new regulatory bodies are both feasible and necessary, but only after rigorous investigation of all the scientific, economic, legal, educational, social and political issues.

e.) The voluntary and/or mandatory recall framework of pet food products

All processed pet foods, whether directly or indirectly, injure the health of animals. From time to time identifiable additional hazards arise — for instance chemical or bacterial contamination and formulation deficiencies and excesses — that give rise to outbreaks of acute disease and death.

The manufacturers need to be held accountable for both the long term chronic diseases arising from their products and the sporadic outbreaks of acute disease.

I believe that Australian Governments, both federal and state, should be and probably are legally liable for the sale and promotion of known harmful products under the guise that those products are suitable, safe and enjoy official/Government endorsement.

f.) The interaction of state, territory and federal legislation

Only by establishing a major Commission of Inquiry, will it be possible to draw together all the disparate pieces of legislation affecting consumer safety, animal cruelty, vet education, dangerous dog legislation, labelling, advertising and etc. This summary only partly deals with the various acts and regulations.

g.) Comparisons with international approaches to the regulation of pet food

Comparisons are of little or no value since no other country has properly dealt with the abomination of the pet-food scourge. Effectively, in all other countries the ‘Dracula in the blood bank’, ‘foxes in the hen house’ syndrome prevails. The global veterinary profession, ultimate authority and therefore regulator of pet food, is in lockstep with the processed pet-food makers. Australia must, as a matter of vital national interest, act to curb the activities of the multi-national pet-food makers and their vet and animal welfare collaborators.

h.) Any other related matters

At the very core of the issues under review, the dead hand of the processed pet-food industry has suppressed and subverted the science we, as a society, depend upon.

Since first blowing the whistle in 1991, I say that there’s an effective veterinary profession ban on researching and publishing of information adverse to the pet-food makers. When, in 1993, Professor Colin Harvey proposed a study to make the simple comparison between the oral hygiene of research colony dogs fed either dry kibble or raw meaty bones, he was blocked. Simultaneously, of course, there are immense company and vet research efforts devoted to junk pet-food product improvement and marketing.

Since pet carnivores, at the extreme end of the nutritional spectrum, suffer serious health issues as a result of a junk food diet, this very fact can inform vast new research fields of benefit to veterinary and human medical and nutritional research.

In the lay media self-censorship is the general rule. In August 2001 The Australian and Sun Herald newspapers prepared articles to coincide with the launch of Raw Meaty Bones. On the eve of publication both pulled the articles. In the UK, Reader’s Digest and the Weekend Independent spent months researching the junk pet-food story. Both publications pulled their stories on the eve of publication.

Conclusion

The 150 years junk pet-food experiment has imposed relentless cruelty on pet carnivores, defrauded consumers and placed undue burdens on the wider society and natural environment. I believe that the experiment constitutes white collar crime on a global scale.

The main perpetrators, the multi-national corporations and their veterinary and animal charity collaborators, should be subjected to searching investigation by a full scale commission of inquiry with full judicial powers.

On the evidence, I believe it would be inappropriate for wrongdoers to be accorded ‘stakeholder’ status and thus insider opportunity to either influence or, as is currently the case, control policy. Independent scientists and administrators will be needed to resolve the endemic, culturally conditioned malfeasance. Long term planning for wise management over many years will be essential. South Africa emerged from apartheid aided by its Truth and Reconciliation Commission. A similar concept may be of value in rehabilitating those involved in the $multi-billion pet-food scandal.

Despite the flood of disinformation, obfuscation and double-speak, I believe that the Senate Committee can identify key issues and initiate measures leading to a renaissance for pets, pet owners and the wider Australian and global communities.

Tom Lonsdale
25 July 2018

"Your program and so many on the ABC ignore the real prospect of widespread social, economic and environmental breakdown consequent on a human population having exceeded the long term carrying capacity of Nature. The ABC in its general coverage assumes a continuation of Business as Usual. Climate change, if present trends continue leads to a world 3 – 4 degrees warmer at century’s end. (David Attenborough in his recent TV program on climate change used the figures 3 - 6 degrees.) Together with declines in soil quality, water availability, food shortages and massive biodiversity loss these things have many scientists foreshadowing an imminent reduction in the global human population and a world in chaos."

Dear Geraldine,

Your program re infrastructure on [16 August 2019] yesterday's 'Breakfast' program did a great disservice to your audience. It perpetuated myths not supported by facts and failed to mention the real alternative context in which matters like this must be considered.

As a former medical epidemiologist I am very familiar with statistical analysis. Among OECD industrialised countries there is no statistically significant correlation between rates of population growth and per capita growth of GDP. Among poor countries there is a significant and strong negative correlation between population growth and growth of per capita GDP. It is therefore misleading to claim that population growth is causing increases in per capita GDP, i.e. making the average Australian materially better off. This myth serves the interests of those who do benefit from population growth.

GDP and per capita GDP are themselves misleading indicators of real benefit. The costs, yes costs, borne by people as a consequence of growth of population and expenditure on infrastructure are added to GDP. Travel times are reported to have increased by 23% with increases in fuel costs, car maintenance, insurance etc. These are real costs but are added to GDP. The costs of a growing economy have exceeded the benefits for many years for ordinary people explaining why it is that so many feel worse off even while governments and programs like yours keep telling people they have never had it so good.

Your program and so many on the ABC ignore the real prospect of widespread social, economic and environmental breakdown consequent on a human population having exceeded the long term carrying capacity of Nature. The ABC in its general coverage assumes a continuation of Business as Usual. Climate change, if present trends continue leads to a world 3 – 4 degrees warmer at century’s end. (David Attenborough in his recent TV program on climate change used the figures 3 - 6 degrees.) Together with declines in soil quality, water availability, food shortages and massive biodiversity loss these things have many scientists foreshadowing an imminent reduction in the global human population and a world in chaos. Despite this evident danger every government in Australia and most around the world continue to make decisions based on an assumption of business as usual, that they can go on driving both population and economic growth, the two primary causes of our worsening situation. How do you reconcile that prospect with a continuation of unquestioned population growth in Australia. Climate change is likely to impact Australia's ability to grow food quite severely. We may have difficulty even feeding the present population let alone a much larger one before century's end.

Australia's ecological footprint has varied between 4 and 5.6 Earths over the last decade. Do you really think it morally right for us to go on increasing the total size of our demand on Nature by seeking both to increase our population and our per capita demand (growing GDP as our main goal)? I invite you to do the sums which show that we could achieve more human welfare by massively increasing our foreign aid and addressing that aid primarily toward education for girls, family planning and contraception than spend that some money on more infrastructure in Australia for the purpose of accommodating a much larger population.

Here is a much saner voice on the issue of infrastructure from a fellow journalist, Crispin Hull.

http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2019/08/16/treating-symptoms-no-help-to-australia/

John

Tomorrow it will be exactly 10 years since Kelvin Thomson spoke to the Parliament describing increasing population as the underlying cause of the world’s problems. He listed each of them - global warming, food crisis, water shortages, housing affordability, overcrowded cities, traffic congestion, species extinctions, fisheries collapse, increasing prices, waste, terrorism and war - and described the role that population growth was playing in fuelling them.

Sadly in the ten years since he gave that speech population growth has continued unabated, and Kelvin says he can’t claim that the speech has had any effect on it.

But the speech has certainly stood the test of time. Every thing he pointed out ten years ago remains valid and has been vindicated by the growing problems and turmoil that we see around us.

Kelvin Thomson gives the example of water shortages, which are now even more acute than they were in 2009. He cites a New York Times report which appeared 10 days ago (“A Quarter of Humanity Faces Looming Water Crises”) which said that World Resources Institute researchers had found that among cities with more than 3 million people, 33 of them, with a combined population of over 255 million, face extremely high water stress, with repercussions for both public health and social unrest.

Even worse, by 2030 the number of those cities in the extremely high stress category is expected to rise to 45 and include nearly 470 million people. Clearly the World Resources Institute doesn’t believe either the engineering solutions of the technological optimists, or the consume less/waste less exhortations of the social justice warriors, are going to actually prevent this debacle.

He was only wrong about one thing, he says:

"The one area where Australia has taken a different path from the one I predicted has been the question of price rises. Prices have risen less than I expected, largely because our mass migration program has put downward pressure on wages and caused them to be stagnant. Of course the effect on living standards, which was my concern, has been the same. As the ABC economics writer Carrington Clarke observed in 2017, the reason Australians have been concerned that their living standards haven’t been rising is because they haven’t, while migration has enabled Governments to pretend we have been recession free and that the economy is improving."

"We continue to go down a totally unsustainable path and ordinary people have less control over their lives than ever before. It’s time we started to take it back," he concludes.

Kelvin Thomson's Population Speech to the Australian Parliament Monday, 17 August 2009

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2009-08-17%2F0178;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2009-08-17%2F0000%22
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (8:40 PM) —We all know that the world has plenty of problems. Let me run out some that come to mind without much effort: global warming, the food crisis, water shortages, housing affordability, overcrowded cities, transport congestion, the fisheries collapse, species extinctions, increasing prices, waste and terrorism. We scratch our heads and try to come up with solutions. It staggers me that so often we ignore the elephant in the room: increasing population. Each of these problems is either caused by or exacerbated by the global population explosion. In the first two million years of human existence, the global human population was only a few million. Up to 1950, it had managed to climb to two billion. In the 50-odd years since, it has trebled to six billion people. And the population is projected to double again.

The consequences of the present population pressure are dramatic. In my belief, it is not plausible that the world’s population could double without the consequences becoming catastrophic. Yet, when it is suggested that the world’s population is a problem, there is zero interest from policy makers. In my view, it is not so much a problem as the problem. Let me return to that list of problems and describe the impact of population on them.

One: global warming. Population plays a critical role in global warming. We have one earth and one atmosphere, and every carbon dioxide molecule we release into it contributes to global warming. The more of us there are, the more carbon dioxide is released—simple and undeniable. Al Gore identifies population growth as one of the big three drivers of the rapid spurt of greenhouse gasses during the past 50 years. People who believe that we can meet serious carbon targets without curbing population growth are kidding themselves; they are delusional. There is no reasonable prospect that Australia will reduce its total level of greenhouse emissions while our population grows by one million every four years as is presently the case. Population stabilisation must be part of the plan to contain greenhouse emissions not merely for Australia but for the rest of the world as well.

Two: the food crisis. The combination of declining arable land and continued population growth has caused the world’s per capita food production to go into decline. We are now in a situation where there is a global shortage of food which is set to get worse. In future, more people will starve—not fewer. Figures released by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation show that the number of people suffering from chronic hunger is rising, not falling. In June last year, the Australian government’s Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation said that world agriculture is experiencing a growing crisis, and its first named demand-side factor was increasing global population.

Three: water shortages. As with agricultural decline, population growth is fuelling water shortages both indirectly through climate change and directly through extraction and pollution. Around the world, one in three people is suffering from water shortage. Assuming modest rates of population growth, we will use 70 per cent of the world’s accessible fresh water by 2025. Already, 400 million children worldwide are drinking dangerously unclean water, and one child dies from a waterborne disease every 15 seconds. According to Melbourne Water, water scarcity in and around Melbourne is being driven by both climate change and population growth.

Four: housing affordability. Housing affordability in Australia has undergone a period of dramatic decline. John Edwards, an economist with HSBC, has noted that Australia’s high level of migration, the highest level in our history, is going to keep upward pressure on house prices. The same goes for rent. The General Manager of Australian Property Monitors, Michael McNamara, has said the shortage of rental properties will continue to worsen because of rising migration.

Five: overcrowded cities. Our cities are too large. They dwarf people. The sheer scale of them is overwhelming for some, who lose the plot and fall victim to mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse. For the rest of us, the madding crowd swells every year, giving us that little bit less room. Every square metre of space is fought over. In Africa and Asia the accumulated urban growth during the whole span of history is in the process of being doubled between the years 2000 and 2030. A United Nations Population Fund report released in June 2007 says that, as a result, a billion people—one-sixth of the world’s population—live in slums. The overcrowding of cities is not merely a Third World phenomenon either. In my home city of Melbourne, a lot of people of goodwill have supported high rise as preferable to urban sprawl. What they do not realise is that it is not halting any urban sprawl at all. Suburbs continue to continue to march out onto the horizon. Property developers are having their cake and eating it too. We are growing upwards and outwards. Melbourne is becoming an obese hardened-artery parody of its former self. There is something intangible but important about the personal space of a backyard. I believe the children who grow up in concrete jungle suburbs are subject to more bullying and harassment and are more vulnerable to traps such as crime and drugs.

Six: traffic congestion. More people equals more cars, and the more cars there are out on the roads the longer it takes us to get anywhere. The time that motorists spend on the roads in and out of Brisbane, for example—to the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast or Ipswich—is truly appalling. Each suburb we build out of the city fringes means more traffic coming through the inner suburbs, more congestion, more pollution and more noise. It does nothing for our calm, our quality of life or our sanity. We think we have no choice but to grin and bear it. It is not true.

Seven: species extinctions. The USA based National Academy of Sciences has reported that human activities are leading to a wave of extinctions over 100 times greater than natural rates. Over 12,000 varieties of animal, plant and water life are critically endangered. Thirty per cent of Australia’s 760 bird species are under threat. The world has entered the 21st century with little more than 10 per cent of its original forest cover intact. According to anthropologists Richard Leakey and Roger Lewis, all the forest cover will be largely gone by 2050. Sometimes I think we have declared war on everything else. The more there are of us the less there is of everything else. I consider it a grotesque piece of arrogance on our part as a species that we think that we have a right to destroy everything else on our way to affluence.

Eight: fisheries collapse. One of our favourite old sayings was, ‘There are plenty more fish in the sea.’ Not anymore: 90 per cent of the large fish in the ocean are gone. Australia is in the same boat as everyone else. Our annual catch has steadily gone down, and a Bureau of Rural Sciences fisheries status report says that two-thirds of Australia’s fisheries are either overfished or uncertain.

Nine: increasing prices. Increasing population consumes resources and makes them scarcer, leading to price rises. The rising price of petrol is a clear function of scarcity fuelled by population growth, and the increased cost of basic resources such as water and petrol feeds into everything they contribute to—food costs, transport costs, insurance, housing et cetera. Some economists argue that increasing population will create economies of scale and put downward pressure on prices. In reality, this downward pressure on prices is sighted less frequently than Elvis Presley.

Ten: waste. A vast area of the central Pacific Ocean has become smothered in plastic. It is referred to as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The area affected is estimated to be twice the size of Texas and to a depth of at least 30 metres. What a disgrace!

Eleven: terrorism and war. Analysts spend a great deal of time assessing the political and religious factors leading to the scourge of terrorism and war in the modern world. They spend less time noting the underlying cause: conflict over scarce resources—scarce land, scarce water and scarce oil—brought about by increasing population. A Pentagon report in 2007 detailed a range of scenarios in which population displacement caused by global warming and triggered by extreme weather events would lead to border tensions and armed conflict. An Oxford University study has estimated that 26 million Bangladeshis, 73 million Chinese and 20 million Indians are at risk of displacement from rising sea levels.

In short, it is time for governments and policy makers around the world to come to their senses and take steps to stabilise the world’s population. It needs to happen in every country, including here in Australia—especially here in dry, arid Australia. And it is time people and communities stood up and demanded better of their policy makers than the ‘she’ll be right’ growth fetish which is making an utter mockery of our obligation to give to our children a world in as good a condition as the one our parents gave to us.

"Not only is Geelong now effectively subsumed into the greater growth orbit of the Melbourne conurbation, but there are surprise population surges in some of the state’s remoter provincial cities and communities. I am so excited about this.” (Bernard Salt, "Victoria reimagined from basket case beginnings," The Australian 8 August 2019.)

In a News Limited piece whose title fails to take into account the original careful planning by Robert Hoddle for natural open space and avenues rather than choked alleys for Melbourne, Bernard Salt somewhat maniacally promotes the Federal and Victorian State Government's planned immigration innundation on disenfranchised Victorians.

“The previous set of state projections released in 2016 had Victoria rising to 7.7 million by 2031 whereas the latest iteration has upped this outlook to 8.1 million. That’s another 400,000 Victorians and another 200,000 houses or apartments that must be delivered during the 2020s. That’s important if you’re in the property game.”

Salt lists 15 local government areas with the biggest absolute increase in their 2021 populations according to the 2016 to 2019 projections, and says,

“This is important for big property players. It shows a significant shift in the demand for housing.”

Here’s the line I’d run: “Minister, we need to rezone more land to accommodate the population projections released by your own department.”

“The 2031 outlook for ¬Monash has been upped by 19,000 while for Whitehorse the upward revision is 14,000. More units, I would imagine. And maybe even a touch of high rise or perhaps a more vigorous application of the principles of suburban densification.”

The article also dooms Melton, Whittlesea and Hume to severe growth and Salt predicts that the ‘urban growth boundary’ will need to be pushed out: .

“I can only imagine that all this net additional growth is taking Melbourne’s footprint closer to the edge of the urban growth boundary.

He asks himself:

“I wonder if the really big property players are thinking about where this boundary might next be “adjusted” to accommodate a city not of the five million we have today, but of the eight million projected by mid-century?”

Of course Bernard Salt with KPMG has been a major driver and promoter of such population growth, frequently seen at the various confabs of the ‘big property players’, so this wondering seems very rhetorical.
He discloses the nature of population growth as a ‘burden’. Indeed, it is costing all of us more than money, although the “big property players” probably consider themselves adequately compensated and possibly above suffering from the destruction of community networks, natural spaces and freedom.

“I do think it’s important that the population burden being added to Victoria needs to be fairly distributed, with the inner city taking a higher proportion. It’s a bit like the progressive tax system where the rich pay a higher tax rate. In demographic planning, greater growth should be attached to localities culturally aligned to higher density, and that offer access to jobs and public transport.”

He describes the metastasies of the ghastly tumour that Melbourne is becoming with a pathogist’s delight:

“It’s in rural Victoria where the demographers have done their most riveting work. Yes, riveting. Not only is Geelong now effectively subsumed into the greater growth orbit of the Melbourne conurbation, but there are surprise population surges in some of the state’s remoter provincial cities and communities. I am so excited about this.”

Excited at the loss of control by residents of their city and citizens of their democracy? Excited at the rising costs of living, at water shortages, at pollution, at wildlife extinction?

Excited?

I think that growthism is an addiction with consequences that cause enormous harm. Like war, which some also consider exciting, it needs to be recognized for the all consuming ill that it is, for the vast majority, with only a tiny few reaping the questionable benefits of cash and power over their increasingly beggared fellows.

Article by Sheila Newman, Demographer and Evolutionary Sociologist.

United States immigration officials raided numerous Mississippi food processing plants Wednesday, arresting 680 workers in what marked the largest workplace sting in at least a decade. As reported by USA Today, the raids were planned months ago, and the largest took place at a Koch Foods Inc. plant in Morton, 40 miles east of Jackson. Workers who were confirmed to have legal status were allowed to leave the plant. Other linked operations were executed in Bay Springs, Carthage, Canton, Pelahatchie, and Sebastapol Mississippi.

Article first published at Numbers USA on Thu, Aug 8th 2019 @ 9:20 am EDT.

Matthew Albence, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Acting Director, told The Associated Press that the raids could be the largest such operation thus far in any single state. When Acting Director Albence was asked to comment on the fact that the raid was happening on the same day as Trump’s El Paso visit, Albence responded,

This is a long-term operation that’s been going on. Our enforcement operations are being done on a racially neutral basis. Investigations are based on evidence.

The sting was one of the most blatant demonstrations of Trump’s signature domestic priority to crack down on illegal immigration, and one of his first notable actions to crack-down on illegal hiring, one of the most prominent incentives to illegally enter the United States. “HSI’s [Homeland Security Investigations] worksite enforcement efforts are equally focused on aliens who unlawfully seek work in the U.S. as well as the employers who knowingly hire them,” HSI New Orleans Special Agent in Charge, Jere Miles said in a statement. Many are speculating that these ICE operations are part of the promised operations that were hinted at last month but suspended after President Trump gave House Democrats two weeks to produce legislative action to stem the crisis at the southern border as well as the loopholes of the current U.S. asylum policy.

According to federal officials, some of the hundreds of illegal aliens arrested on Wednesday have already been given orders of removal by an immigration judge and have refused to self-deport. Those illegal aliens will be quickly removed. Other illegal aliens have yet to go through the immigration courts and will be afforded a review process where they will make a case to remain in the U.S.

Such large shows of immigration enforcement were common under President George W. Bush, most notably at a kosher meatpacking plant in tiny Postville, Iowa, in 2008, the largest immigration operation before President Trump's most recent operation in Mississippi, netting 595 arrests. President Barack Obama avoided them, limiting his workplace immigration efforts to low-profile audits that were done outside of public view. President Trump resumed workplace raids, but the months of preparation and hefty resources they require make them rare. Last year, the administration hit a landscaping company near Toledo, Ohio, and a meatpacking plant in eastern Tennessee. The former owner of the Tennessee plant was sentenced to 18 months in prison last month.

In preparation for the arrests, a hangar at the Mississippi National Guard in Flowood, near Jackson, was set up with 2,000 meals to process employees for immigration violations on Wednesday. There were seven lines, one for each location that was hit. Buses had been lined up since early in the day to be dispatched to the plants. “I’ve never done anything like this,” Chris Heck, resident agent in charge of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit in Jackson, told The Associated Press inside the hangar. “This is a very large worksite operation.”

Koch Foods, based in Park Ridge, Illinois, is one of the largest poultry producers in the U.S. and employs about 13,000 people, with operations in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio and Tennessee. Forbes ranks it as the 135th largest privately held company in the U.S., with an estimated $3.2 billion in annual revenue. The company has no relation to prominent conservative political donors and activists Charles and David Koch.

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi Mike Hurst, who was present at the facilities, told the media at a press conference:

We are first and foremost a nation of laws and the Rule of Law is the bedrock, the very foundation, of our great country. I heard someone say that a country without borders is not a country at all and while I agree with that, I would also add that without law there is no order. Without the enforcement of law, there is no justice.

Here is further explantion of the huge significance of the judgement handed down against the US Democrats' attempt to charge Julian Assange with espionage and somehow prosecute a non-US citizen as if they were a US citizen. That successive Australian governments have allowed the US and the UK to go after Assange in absolute refusal of Assange's human rights is damning of our political class.

Victoria’s Planning Minister, Richard Wynne recently dropped a bombshell on thousands of apartment owners whose buildings are covered in flammable cladding.New loan laws likely to be passed by Parliament have been billed as a kindly gesture to help owners of apartments covered in the flammable cladding to ffund the rectification costs. This news might seem a worthy initiative, except that the most iniquitous elements in this scandalous swindle are unspecified. Principally, Wynne’s decree provides that owners who bear no blame for this combustible catastrophe are to be burdened with a debt that could run into billions of dollars. [Article first published at https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/innovation/materials/apartment-owners-dodgy-cladding/ on 13 September 2018.]

Why are building owners forced to foot the bill?

The answer to this question is very simple. In line with past policy, the government has decided to protect rogue builders and transfer responsibility to blameless owners.

As always, there has been superlative spin, secrecy and incredible storytelling. Unearthing the truth required a long, complicated and tortuous path to find what has been hidden – that consumers remain wholly unprotected.

• Read: NSW imposes retrospective flammable cladding ban

The Burning Question

After years of dodging the question of who would be forced to pay to rectify the potentially lethal cladding bill, Wynne has waved through an answer of sorts, in the form of his new building amendment. But it is double-speak.

Wynne’s resolution does not include the full facts, nor the horrendous implications. In addition, this new legislation has been made more difficult to comprehend because of the missing link between this reform and his earlier consumer protection laws passed in 2016.

You need to look at what underpins it, and that can take many laborious hours. Only once you decode the cryptic core of the amalgam do you discover the deceitful laws that have been secretively enacted.

Fundamentally, the Andrews’ government has shifted legal liability from delinquent builders to owners. For Wynne’s winners an unsurprising get-out-of-gaol windfall. For owners, another titanic bombshell.

Part 1 2015: First building bite

Here’s what you need to know.

While the public might have thought that the government was taking its time to deliberate the enormity of the question about who pays for the replacement of dangerous flammable cladding, its plan was discreetly put into action in early 2015. Nonsensically, it was peddled as a consumer protection strategy.

Minister Wynne, and all his helpful advisors, needed time. The scope of works for this serpentine strategy had to be schematised.

Paradoxically, this decision to sentence consumers was selected as the strategic keystone four years ago. The spin doctors suppressed the news.

This was mixed in with Wynne’s inaccurate statements. For example, after the tragic Grenfell towering inferno in June 2017 where he told The Age a fire of the magnitude of the Grenfell Tower blaze would “not happen here in Victoria… or Australia, in fact. Because we have the strongest building codes of any first world country.”

Now to the first step in the narrative: Wynne’s Building Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill tabled in 2015. Just like the current bill, the draft of this legislation was denied to the public until it slipped into parliament to be passed effortlessly in early 2016.

Consumers and activists made repeated unsuccessful attempts to access and read the draft bill. By the time the news became public, it was too late.

Naturally this triggered suspicion. Why all the secrecy and what was to hide?

Well, Wynne had agreed to insert an explosive Clause 37B into the Building Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2015. It was designed to deprive the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) of its powers to order rectification works once owners had taken possession of a building. Additionally, Wynne removed other clauses to diminish the VBA’s broad powers to virtually nil.

Then, in October 2017, LU Simon Builders, who constructed the Lacrosse Tower (Australia’s only reported cladding fire in Melbourne in 2014) set out to test the VBAs powers. The builders mounted a legal challenge in the Supreme Court to stop the VBA ordering it to fix another six multi-storey towers which it had also constructed with the non-compliant cladding.

The Supreme Court’s judgment came on 22 December 2017. LU Simons lawyers found the helpful Clause 37B. It delivered a whopping win!

Part 2 2018: Second building amendment bite

Let’s examine Wynne’s current Building Amendment (Registration of Building Trades and Other Matters Bill 2018 which he slipped into the Legislative Assembly on 26 July 2018. Classified top secret, it was withheld from the public until 7 August 2018. This Bill amends the Building Act 1993 and the Local Government Act 1989. In the Assembly, Wynne summed up the biting intention of his Loans Scheme “to provide for agreements to rectify defective cladding on buildings and charges to fund the rectification”(Hansard).

Referring to Cladding Rectification Agreements (CRAs), Wynne omitted to mention loans, or to cite owners as the target group.

This shadowy oration ended on an optimistic note claiming the Scheme would, “create a pathway for people to follow if they have been asked to rectify non-compliant cladding.” (Hansard p2435)

This was sinful scheming. The people vaguely referred to in these laws are owners, unfairly designated as blameworthy by the government and bonded to the pay pathway. How could owners be the punished when it was builders and developers who ignored building regulations and installed highly dangerous cladding? For those conversant with the bizarre building rule book, this lunacy lies at its bedrock.

The minister postulated misinformation about people being asked to rectify when he, of all people, knows that he agreed to owners being ordered to rectify.

Wynne’s speechifying to the house on the entire bill was settled in a scanty 244 words, the charade over quicker than you could boil a kettle! Unquestioningly, the hot potato issue with its CRAs was the most momentous. Hence, Wynne shunned attention, depressed difficult questions and sidestepped ever so swiftly. Instantly the Loans Laws all wrapped up!

In relation to announcing this news, there was little fanfare and negligible media coverage. The minuscule media release Helping Remove Dangerous Cladding, purported, “This scheme is the first of its kind anywhere in the world and offers owners the cheapest and most efficient way of removing dangerous cladding from their buildings.”

There’s nothing praiseworthy about this “world first”. Fancy wishing to lead the pack in the race to the bottom in third world building and safety standards. Hardly heroic!

Wynne further enlightened that his Bill was about “making properties safe and compliant with building laws, these financing agreements allow cladding to be removed quickly, without affecting property prices.”

Here Wynne failed to state that “safe and compliant” buildings are now mandated as the owners’ obligation. As for his preposterous claim that property prices will not be affected, many industry experts have confirmed this is clearly in the realm of the ridiculous.

Blueprint for Blame

In 2015 the Consumer Protection Act was created. Significantly, in 2017 its Clause 37B secured the Supreme Court ruling to shore up the present bill, contiguous with the loans laws. The crucial link from 2015, fastening it to the loathsome loans in 2018, was wisely stowed away, restricted to seemingly minor other matters– presumably to discourage and deter public interest.

Thus, the delay was never about time to weigh up the consequences for consumers or the community. It was not about “safety”, or builders being “compliant with building laws”, or “helping” owners.

It was solely about buying time to delimit the legislation to achieve the planned objectives. From 2015 to 2018, under the façade of protecting consumers, officialdom’s strategy was pushed in progressive stages, each sliding seamlessly and silently to stitch up the swindle.

Wynne had to hold off on any announcements until the time was right. This required Wynne’s poker face, the block-out and the lockout of the real stakeholders, and dogged determination to hold steadfast under pressure to pull it off.

With the full deck of cards, all our money – and under the direction of the beneficiaries – once the hand was laid down and the trump played, it was an “open misere’, an unbeatable winning hand. In reality, the blueprint for blame was drawn long ago, constructed to guarantee that the intended victims were clueless, utterly defenceless and unable to prevent impending disaster.

Loans Laws: Cladding Rectification Agreements (CRAs)

In a nutshell, the Act and attending Explanatory Memorandum specify the purpose of Cladding Rectification Agreements (CRAs) as expediting a tripartite agreement between owners (or owners’ corporations with 75 per cent of owners to consent), a lending body and the council to “provide a mechanism to rectify non-compliant cladding” by “facilitating the provision of funds”.

These funds are demonstrably loans, but in this legislative arrangement the English language definition is adjusted. No longer a mortgage, although referred to as money loaned in Clause 79 of the Explanatory Memorandum, this debt has been ingeniously dubbed a service charge. It seems there are no limits to innovative reform genius.

To consider the most significant corrupted characteristics.

First, councils are the pivotal players. They may, or may not, decide to sign up for this Scheme. There is a carrot for councils however – the charge of an administration fee.

Second, because they have no alternatives, this deal will propel financially able owners to secure a loan “with prohibitive costs”. Selling is not an option.

“Losing up to 90 per cent of the value of a property would spell financial doom for home owners and investors alike”.

Third, and self-evidently, it depends on whether owners can afford a loan. Notably, in recent weeks, some owners who have received orders to rectify (without knowing of the loans scheme) have declared on radio that their circumstances would not allow them to take on any more financial debt. So what happens to them?

Ultimately, as controlled consumers, their choices are limited. Take a loan or liquidate and lose everything. Not a choice. So distraught owners, up against the wall, will try to ward off the wolf and opt to repay the loan with interest “in equal instalments” to councils over 10 years.

There are a number of specific conditions pertaining to CRAs. For example, before signing up, owners must declare any debts and existing mortgages to the council, and also notify their mortgagee and obtain agreement.

Other unmistakably troublesome issues are hidden in the fine detail of the explanatory memorandum. For example, the Council must declare the charge, and of course it “may be varied”.

In addition this charge on the land attracts penalties, “subject to recovery, along with any penalty interest”

This Loan and penalties apply to owners. Therefore, should desperate and financially impoverished owners be driven to sell, or be sold up because they cannot make the repayments, they will lose their life’s savings.

Finally, if an apartment owner tried to sell, the loan is on-sold with the property. This invites the question of, who would purchase such an apartment?

To conclude, from a reading of the 7 September 2018 transcript of the Legislative Council speeches (Hansard), it seems that much of importance in this bill remains concealed. As usual, not in the public interest.

The damage bill

Let us analyse the likely damage bill. Although precise statistics are unknown (official estimates are incomplete and unreliable) we can formulate an educated guesstimate.

In Victoria, industry experts estimate that between 5,000 and 20,000 buildings are contenders in the potentially lethal cladding stakes.

If we take the lower end of the estimated number of buildings, 5,000, and then count 50 lots (apartment owners) in an average strata block (some 80, some 400), that would total 250,000 owners. Even more are impacted if we include all family members. With each owner taking an average loan of $70,000, including interest over 10 years of $45,000 (based on a Macquarie bank loan calculator) this would total $115,000 per owner.

Then if we multiply that debt by 250,000 owners, the aggregate bill is $28.75 Billion. Stop. Take a breath. Yes, you did read $28.75 billion!

If we take the upper end of the estimated number of buildings with cladding as 20,000 and multiply as above, the aggregate bill is $115 billion.

Compute the upshot of the cumulative loss to owners and the ballooning booty bequeathed to the builders/developers. Be mindful this is a very conservative, measured evaluation to quantify the devastating damage bill, and only for Victoria.

Compare and contrast consumer safety in the auto industry: targeting Takata airbags

By way of illustration, the mandatory recall of dangerous Takata airbags exemplifies the conduct of the auto industry. Currently it is sending a powerful alarm to car owners:

“Are you travelling with a killer in your car?”

A persuasive signal of clear and present danger. An urgent killer call to action. The car manufacturers have accepted paying the rectification costs. It is their obligation and in the interest of people’s lives. Logically this is as it should be.

In stark contradiction, owners paid, in good faith, for a compliant, safe home. They were defrauded. Now powerless and helpless, our government has compelled them to pay for the second time (some via a loan with interest). The outcome is a double whammy!

If we compare the cost of an average car at say $50,000 with an average apartment at 10 times the price (for most people the biggest investment of their lives), it is inconceivable that owners could be so unprotected? Then there is the risk factor. A one in two chance of the inflator airbags rupturing in an accident, and possibly an equal or greater chance of harm from the cladding-coated buildings.

Let’s contemplate the threat to human life. By comparison with cars, the loss of life in one building would be way higher than in the case of one car accident – hundreds of people could die. How could a government gamble so readily and remove all requisite obligations for the big end of town?

People’s lives should count.

This is an incontrovertible case of profits ahead of people. Another shocking story will illustrate what builders will do to control reputational damage in their “commercial interest”. In October 2017, LU Simon Builders publicly promised to rectify the hazardous cladding on the Lacrosse Tower. The outstanding Council Order on the owners required rectification by July 2018. Astutely, LU Simon asserted their commitment as a “gesture of good faith” but it was purely a publicity stunt.

No action was taken.

In September 2018, the killer cladding remains on the Lacrosse building. This is four years after the raging inferno, and when, given the intensity of the fire, the experts were incredulous that no-one died. Now, long after the rectification was to be completed, the owners have been notified about taking loans and are facing huge expenses to fight the builders in VCAT. This likely to be a triple whammy – Wynne’s solution for the victims.

We know a killer fire could flare at any time. We know that the financial burden placed on millions will drive far too many to bankruptcy, to end up broke and broken. At the mere stroke of a pen, millions of people have been targeted to prop-up the untouchables.

It is unimaginable that the servants of the people have empowered a small elite to ignore consumers’ and public safety. Most telling is the preparedness of those in power to limit the fundamental rights of the majority of people. This is in defiance of our own state and federal consumer laws, and contrary to the international organizations to which we are signatories.

Future Shock

This scenario is not science fiction. It is happening right here, right now.

This critique does not take account of the Australia-wide damage bill for this cladding – liable to be hundreds of billions of dollars.

Nor is there any examination of the plight of tenants. Nor the predicament of future purchasers. Nor the financial, building and safety legacy to the community. Through information asymmetry, untruthfulness and corrupted government and governance, we have all been nullified, compelled to be the uninformed. Literally thrown to the wolves!

No protection and no consumer rights. Denied the right to even pursue preventative buyer-beware research for self-protection: this too stolen from us all.

More perversely, apart from rendering the innocent victims as responsible, these latest ruthless reforms have reinforced the fail culture and buttressed an industry constructed on the law of no consequences. This is a red flag for an ever-worsening disaster.

The privileged remain protected, legalized fraud lingers, and all of us are left to suffer in silence as the biggest losers.

We are in a minefield, one char-grilled over 40 years, the architects of the plan knowing that one day the bomb would detonate.

The aftershocks and the full fallout for consumers lie ahead. What we do know is that there will be horrific losses for the community and far-reaching, painful consequences for families.

We also know that our government will continue to hide the truth. Brace for the future shock!

In a ruling published late Tuesday, Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York delivered a devastating blow to the US-led conspiracy against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. In his ruling, Judge Koeltl, a Bill Clinton nominee and former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, dismissed “with prejudice” a civil lawsuit filed in April 2018 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) alleging WikiLeaks was civilly liable for conspiring with the Russian government to steal DNC emails and data and leak them to the public. Jennifer Robinson, a leading lawyer for Assange, and other WikiLeaks attorneys welcomed the ruling as “an important win for free speech.” Article by Eric London, first published on 31 July 2019 at https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/31/assa-j31.html. Illustrations by candobetter eds

Judge dismisses lawsuit

The decision exposes the Democratic Party in a conspiracy of its own to attack free speech and cover up the crimes of US imperialism and the corrupt activities of the two parties of Wall Street. Judge Koeltl stated:

If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.

The ruling exposes the illegality of the conspiracy by the US government, backed by the governments of Britain, Ecuador, Australia and Sweden and the entire corporate media and political establishment, to extradite Assange to the US, where he faces 175 years in federal prison on charges including espionage.

The plaintiff in the civil case—the Democratic Party—has also served as Assange’s chief prosecutor within the state apparatus for over a decade. During the Obama administration, Democratic Party Justice Department officials, as well as career Democratic holdovers under the Trump administration, prepared the criminal case against him.

The dismissal of the civil suit exposes massive unreported conflicts of interest and prosecutorial misconduct and criminal abuse of process by those involved. The criminal prosecution of Assange has nothing to do with facts and is instead aimed at punishing him for telling the truth about the war crimes committed by US imperialism and its allies.

The judge labeled WikiLeaks an “international news organization” and said Assange is a “publisher,” exposing the liars in the corporate press who declare that Assange is not subject to free speech protections. Judge Koeltl continued: “In New York Times Co. v. United States, the landmark ‘Pentagon Papers’ case, the Supreme Court upheld the press’s right to publish information of public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party.”

As a legal matter, by granting WikiLeaks’ motion to dismiss, the court ruled that the DNC had not put forward a “factually plausible” claim. At the motion to dismiss stage, a judge is required to accept all the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true. Here, the judge ruled that even if all the facts alleged by the DNC were true, no fact-finder could “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Going a step further, the judge called the DNC’s arguments “threadbare,” adding: “At no point does the DNC allege any facts” showing that Assange or WikiLeaks “participated in the theft of the DNC’s information.”

Judge Koeltl said the DNC’s argument that Assange and WikiLeaks “conspired with the Russian Federation to steal and disseminate the DNC’s materials” is “entirely divorced from the facts.” The judge further ruled that the court “is not required to accept conclusory allegations asserted as facts.”

The judge further dismantled the DNC’s argument that WikiLeaks is guilty-by-association with Russia, calling the alleged connection between Assange and the Russian government “irrelevant,” because “a person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.”

Judge Koeltl also rejected the DNC’s claim “that WikiLeaks can be held liable for the theft as an after-the-fact coconspirator of the stolen documents.” Calling this argument “unpersuasive,” the judge wrote that it would “eviscerate” constitutional protections: “Such a rule would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a coconspirator in the theft.”

In its April 2018 complaint, the DNC put forward a series of claims that have now been exposed as brazen lies, including that Assange, Trump and Russia “undermined and distorted the DNC’s ability to communicate the party’s values and visions to the American electorate.”

The complaint also alleged: “Russian intelligence services then disseminated the stolen, confidential materials through GRU Operative #1, as well as WikiLeaks and Assange, who were actively supported by the Trump Campaign and Trump Associates as they released and disclosed the information to the American public at a time and in a manner that served their common goals.”

At the time the DNC filed its complaint, the New York Times wrote that the document relies on “publicly-known facts” as well as “information that has been disclosed in news reports and subsequent court proceedings.” The lawsuit “comes amid a swirl of intensifying scrutiny of Mr. Trump, his associates and their interactions with Russia,” the Times wrote.

It is deeply ironic that Judge Koeltl cited the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, in his ruling.

The DNC’s baseless complaint cited the New York Times eight times as “proof” of Assange and WikiLeaks’ ties to Russia, including articles by Times reporters Andrew Kramer, Michael Gordon, Niraj Chokshi, Sharon LaFraniere, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Eric Lichtblau, Noah Weiland, Alicia Parlapiano and Ashley Parker, as well as a July 26, 2016 article by Charlie Savage titled “Assange, avowed foe of Clinton, timed email release for Democratic Convention.”

The first of these articles was published just weeks after the New York Times hired James Bennet as its editorial page editor in March 2016. James Bennet’s brother, Michael Bennet, is a presidential candidate, a senator from Colorado and former chair of the DNC’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In 2018, Bennet signed a letter to Vice President Mike Pence noting he was “extremely concerned” that Ecuador had not canceled asylum for Assange, who was then trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

“It is imperative,” the letter read, “that you raise US concerns with [Ecuadorian] President [Lenin] Moreno about Ecuador’s continued support for Mr. Assange at a time when WikiLeaks continues its efforts to undermine democratic processes globally.”

In April 2019, after the Trump administration announced charges against Assange, the New York Times editorial board, under James Bennet’s direction, wrote: “The administration has begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime.” Two weeks later, Michael Bennet announced his presidential run and has since enjoyed favorable coverage in the Times editorial page.

Additionally, the father of James and Michael Bennet, Douglas Bennet, headed the CIA-linked United States Agency for International Development in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

On Wednesday, the Times published a brief, six-paragraph article on page 25 under the headline, “DNC lawsuit against election is dismissed.” In its online edition, the Times prominently featured a link to its special page for the Mueller Report, which is based on the same DNC-instigated threadbare lies that Judge Koeltl kicked out of federal court

Script by Mark Allen of Population, Permaculture and Planning and Michael Bayliss of Sustainable Population Australia.

Australia’s political economy has turned into one gigantic lie. Via AAP:

Pauline Hanson’s push to have a national vote on immigration levels has been crushed in the Senate.

The One Nation leader on Monday asked the Upper House to support a plebiscite, arguing the country’s roads and health system were buckling under the weight of new migrants.

But Senator Hanson and her partyroom colleague Malcolm Roberts were the only votes in favour of the Bill, which was thrashed 54 votes to two.

Pauline Hanson is 100% right. Australian standards of living are tumbling owing to the mass immigration economic model:

• wage growth is finished;
• infrastructure is crushloaded;
• house prices are pressured higher and quality control has collapsed.

These are simple statistical truths. They are not racist. Yet we can’t talk about them because Pauline Hanson does. Perhaps it’s the other way around, Pauline Hanson talks about them so we refuse.

Either or both ways, if Pauline Hanson said the world was round, the national discussion would declare it was flat.

This stranglehold of the imagination is gutting what was once great about Australia: fairness, classlessness, meritocracy and democracy. Replaced by exploitation, class war, corruption and oligarchy.

That this is led by the Left is one the great ironies of contemporary politics. The Right simply loves it. It is its natural tendency.

It’s insane.

Article originally published by Houses and Holes in Australian Economy, Australian Politics, at 11:45 am on July 30, 2019.

Medical professionals have recently published guides to reducing insulin and other diabetes medications for patients on low carbohydrate diets because many of these patients are suddenly getting better. Their improvement and sometimes remission carries a diminishing need for insulin or oral antihyperglycaemics. If doctors and nurses fail to realise this, their patients risk overdose, with potentially rapidly fatal results - and not just with where insulin is concerned. This means that a new approach to diet for both main types[1] of diabetic - Types 1 and 2 - is making a big difference. In some cases it is effecting complete remission.

Diabetes is big business and so it should not surprise us to hear that there are commercial forums to attract and market to diabetes sufferers. There are also free forums, like https://healthunlocked.com/, which I prefer. However, the other day I found an article in diabetes.co.uk, entitled, "Healthcare professionals publish low carb diabetes medication guide." I was interested in this because it clearly shows the beneficial impact of low carb high fat diets on diabetes 2, a modern day epidemic. What has happened is that people are curing themselves of diabetes 2 or substantially improving it, by changing from starchy diets to high fat low carbohydrate diets. Further reading also indicated improvement in Diabetes 1. [2] These improvements are obviously so important that doctors are being forced to lower or stop anti-hyperglycaemic medications, including insulin and oral drugs, because these (especially insulin) can cause rapid coma and death in patients who no longer need them, or who suddenly require lesser doses. High blood pressure also frequently reduces, making anti-hypertensives potentially dangerous.

Medically induced and other diabetic comas

There are two types of life-threatening coma involved in diabetes. One comes with the disease and the other is iatrogenic - or doctor/medically caused. Few patients or professionals ever think this through.[3] The first kind is from high glucose and the second is from low glucose. The first and original diabetes coma comes with the patient's inability to produce insulin to process food that breaks down to glucose, hence glucose builds up to abnormal levels in the blood and causes dysfunction and death eventually. This kind of coma usually builds slowly, over days. The second kind, or medically-caused, comes from treatment with insulin, which is prescribed for patients who cannot produce enough insulin to process glucose. Insulin comas can occur within minutes and hours, ending quickly in death when unattended and risking brain injury when attended. Before insulin treatment, insulin comas did not occur in diabetes. Insulin comas may also occur in Type 2 diabetics treated with oral antihyperglycaemics. (See, for instance, Gian PaoloFadini et al, Characteristics and mortality of type 2 diabetic patients hospitalized for severe iatrogenic hypoglycemia, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice Volume 84, Issue 3, June 2009, Pages 267-272.) To my mind, this places a very sombre perspective on Type 2 diabetes, treated with traditional low fat diets and oral antihyperglycaemics. Patients should therefore be made aware, as a matter of urgency, of the success of high fat low carbohydrate diets in removing or reducing the need for oral antihyperglycaemics or injectable insulins.

The rise of Agriculture and diabetes

There is an obvious association between agricultural civilisations and diabetes. Diabetes was probably extremely rare among hunter gatherers, and it is thought that Australian Aborigines did not suffer from the disease until they were exposed to flour, sugars and alcohol, with European take-over of Australia. In hunter-gatherer societies, healthy humans create glucose from animal protein, but they may also access it from modest amounts of vegetables and fruits in season. In contrast, agricultural societies have introduced to human diets unnaturally large quantities of carbohydrate, via sugary and starchy vegetables, grains and fruits. Wheat, corn, fruit, potato, and their products - flour, rice, corn, bread, cake, candy, pasta, fries, chips, tacos, corn-syrup/fructose, and abnormally abundant fruit in and out of season. Among the first reports of diabetes came from the agricultural society of Ancient Egypt, where doctors tasted patients' urine (which is normally fairly sterile due to our complex filtration systems) and diagnosed diabetes when it was sweet. In India doctors noticed that ants were attracted to high glucose urine.

Low Carbohydrate High Fat diets and the "Food Pyramid"

For a century or so, as diabetes has become more and more a feature of 'modern' life, doctors and dieticians have been performing dietary gymnastics in order to somehow keep diabetics eating the modern diet. A belief has come about that humans require starches and fruits, in order to survive and make glucose. Whilst non-starchy vegetables and fruits contain helpful nutrients and are not too difficult to break down for most people, starches and fruits are dangerous for diabetics and, as I pointed out above, appear to exacerbate diabetes 1 and to cause diabetes 2. Diabetics have to take oral anti-hyperglycaemics or inject themselves with insulin in order to prevent the accumulation of glucose in their blood when they eat these starches and fruits. So, why would dieticians continuously advocate these starches and fruits when drugs are required to generate insulin in order to avoid high glucose comas? Why would they advocate these when there is a high incidence of neurological complications and death from these drugs?

The reason appears to be received wisdom that humans not only need vegetables and fruit, but that they need wheat, bread, pasta, jam, tapioca, corn, rice, fries, chips and several pieces of fruit daily, in and out of season. This is what the 'Food Pyramid' you still see in doctors' surgeries is all about.[4] This received wisdom fails to account for the success of hunter-gatherer diets and their very limited supplies of starches. A reason for this failure to reference these diets could be the belief that hunter-gatherers all died at around 30 years old - something that you will read in many places - even though it is patently untrue. You cannot rely on the average health professional to personally test the information they receive from 'respected authorities'. Influenced by 'modern' schooling and universities, they have been taught by people who actually believe that agricultural diets, because they accompanied modern civilisation - generally valued for its abundant technology and material wealth - must be better than pre-agricultural diets. Somehow the concomitant epidemic of diabetes causes too much cognitive dissonance to investigate, so it is just avoided.

Athough Allan Mazur writes that the "primacy of diet diminish[ed] once insulin became available [discovered 1922], leading to the primacy of medication. Weight loss apart, there is still today no evidence-based consensus on proper diabetic diets," he also notes the success of high fat low carbohydrate diets before insulin:

"Newburgh and Marsh report on 73 cases, apparently mostly adults, admitted to the University of Michigan Hospital, where the state's physicians referred their severest cases as a "court of last appeal." On entering the clinic, patients were not fasted but placed on a diet of 900-1,000 calories, high in fat, low in carbohydrate. After being sugar free for one or two weeks, the diet was increased from 1,400 to 2,500 calories, depending on the needs of the person, most calories coming from fat, least from carbohydrate. Excepting three patients who died within a day of admission, and another who "went into coma after eating a bag of oranges brought by a relative," the urine of all patients became sugar free, none developed severe acidosis, and the investigators were "greatly impressed by the excellent condition of our patients months after leaving the clinic".

I am not submitting the Michigan study as definitive, but it fortified the position of anti-starvation physicians who argued that carbohydrates were the main source of glucose in urine and blood, so it was unnecessary to starve patients as long as carbohydrate was limited, and for seriously ill children there was little that could be done in any case. Critics also claimed, as had Allen himself in 1913, that "fat feeding is not to be feared in diabetics." (Allan Mazur, Why were "starvation diets" promoted for diabetes in the pre-insulin period? Nutr J. 2011; 10: 23.) [5]

Online community may be finding its own solutions, despite grain-lobby

Probably the impetus to examine our modern diets and dietary needs logically has come from people who became afflicted with diabetes 2. With the rise of the internet, it has become much easier for these people to communicate with each other. Health professionals and scientists have been among their number, and the fact that doctors are now warning each other to reduce diabetic medication dosages because many people are recovering through low carb and high fat diets is significant.

NOTES

[1] Diabetes insipidus is a different kettle of fish from diabetes 1 and 2.

[2] Diabetes 1 is probably not diet-caused, but it can be partly diet-treated and some people who have been diagnosed with diabetes 1 may experience remission with low-carb diets, arguably indicating that diet was involved in their diabetes, rather than pure lack of insulin production. Belinda S. Lennerz, et al, Management of Type 1 Diabetes With a Very Low–Carbohydrate Diet, Pediatrics June 2018, VOLUME 141 / ISSUE 6.

[3] In non-diabetics there are few major causes of hypoglycemia but it may occur in alcoholic crises, "critical illness, counter-regulatory hormone deficiencies, and non-islet cell tumors." People have also been known to receive or take insulin surrupticiously to induce coma or death. See, for instance, Philip Mathew; Deepu Thoppil: Hypoglycemia. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2019 Jan-. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534841/

[4] M Nestle, Food lobbies, the food pyramid, and U.S. nutrition policy. Int J Health Serv. 1993;23(3):483-96.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8375951

[5] Allan Mazur, Why were "starvation diets" promoted for diabetes in the pre-insulin period? Nutr J. 2011; 10: 23.
Published online 2011 Mar 11. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-10-23 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3062586/#B27

[5]

It has been great to re-live the Apollo 11 Moon Landing’s 50 th Anniversary. What a monumental achievement and tribute to human intellectual candlepower, endeavour and above all courage. I was a Year 9 student at the time; like other classes we downed tools to watch it unfold. Our teachers were just as astonished by the audacity and precision of the Landing as we were. I – and I think most of the people who I talked with or heard from at that time – had a very rosy view of the future. Yes we were involved in a stupid war in Vietnam, but I thought the Second World War and the Holocaust were so wicked and so evil that we’d learned from that, and that there was a very strong worldwide appetite for peace. I thought that war and conflict would become a thing of the past.

I also thought that we were learning from our environmental mistakes, and that the public interest and community action groups springing up to oppose air pollution, water pollution, toxic pesticides and habitat destruction would see us lift our environmental game. In short, I thought everything would improve.

But to reflect on the Apollo 11 Moon Landing raises the question for me – what has actually happened to the world in the last 50 years?

The most striking global phenomenon of the past 50 years has been population growth. It took us the whole of human history to get to the 3.6 billion people we were in 1969. It has taken just 50 years to more than double that, to 7.7 billion now. Australia is no exception – back in 1969 we were 12 million; now we are 25 million.

The impact of this growth on wildlife and the environment has been catastrophic. The latest World Wildlife Fund Living Planet Report says that since 1970, 60% of the population of all mammals, birds, reptiles and fish has been lost.

60% in 50 years. It is a disgrace. It makes an absolute nonsense of the idea that we’re decoupling growth from environmental damage; that we can continue to grow, and our wildlife won’t disappear. Let me repeat – in the last years our numbers went up by over 50%, and the world’s wildlife went down by 60%.

Co-incidence? Hardly. As has been noted by The Overpopulation Report, the total weight of vertebrate land animals 10,000 years ago was – Humans 1%, Wild Animals 99%. Today it is Wild Animals 1%, Humans 32%, Livestock 67%.

And the population doubling in 50 years has not just been catastrophic for our wildlife and environment; there have been many other consequences too. Back then Australia had negligible unemployment. Now we’ve got unemployment, we’ve got underemployment, we’ve got job insecurity, we’ve got no wage growth.

Back then we had virtually no homelessness and much lower levels of mental health problems and drug addiction. Now we have homelessness and beggars in the streets, our young people have mental health problems. Ice used to be something you needed to keep the beer cold. Not any more. We have housing unaffordability. In 1969 Australians not only owned their own homes, many Australians had a holiday home down by the beach as well. Not any more. In 1969 there was no such thing as traffic congestion. Now the traffic congestion is terrible. We have road rage (unheard of in

1969) and Melbourne is on track to add over one million extra cars in the next 20 years. How will we go with another million cars?

In 1969 we did indeed take a giant leap forward. But it’s the increasing size of the foot, and our footprint on the earth, that the past 50 years will be most remembered for in time to come. The next giant leap for mankind will be the one that moves us from using “growth” as our measuring stick, to using “wellbeing”, and which enables us to put into effect the lesson of those beautiful photos of the earth taken by the astronauts – that we’re all in this together.

The Hon. Kelvin Thomson
22 July 2019

Kelvin Thomson will be speaking at an event organised by the Builders Collective of Australia on the 25 August 2019. 'In light of the cladding crisis, Builders Collective of Australia present a public event to discuss the causes, consequences and solutions'. https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/cladding-conversations-tickets-65666711903

About this Event

With an aggregate rectification bill of billions of dollars, the fallout from flammable cladding is unfolding through the building industry, property market, and legal systems.

As well as immediate practical challenges of making buildings safe and compliant, flammable cladding raises broader questions around risk in our buildings and cities, and the frameworks that govern them. How do we, and how should we, assign responsibility for cladding issues and for fixing them? How do governments balance tensions between accountability, certainty, and the immediate need to make buildings safe? How did we get here and what are the options moving forward?

In light of such questions, Builders Collective of Australia, present a public event comprising an expert panel with a primary purpose to discuss the causes, consequences and solutions to flammable cladding. The expert panel draws together a range of perspectives to help illuminate how the flammable cladding problem came about, what the range of consequences are, and what could or should be done to fix it.

Speakers will discuss government, consumer, academic and industry-based insights into different aspects of the combustible cladding challenge. The discussion will cover questions around the building industry, litigation, regulation, owners corporations, fire engineering, consumer rights, and planning processes.

The event will comprise a short facilitated panel discussion, but more importantly it then gives the Moreland residents and the wider Victorian community a chance to particpate in an audience discussion on the issue.'

https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/cladding-conversations-tickets-65666711903

A couple of days ago, when I was driving from Melbourne to Brisbane and the only radio I could get was the Jon Faine Show on 774, I heard Jon on the subject of the Dan Andrews Victorian Government's intention to subsidise recladding of unsafely clad buildings in Victoria by the sum of $AUD200m, half of which was to come from taxes on the public and the other half sought from the federal government - but not from the perpetrators themselves. Jon put to a woman he was interviewing that she might give some acknowledgement to the Dan Andrews Government that this was a positive act. I was really impressed by the woman's response, which put Victoria's continuing building fraud and the government's facilitation of it in proportion and Jon Faine in his place at the same time. With interest I scribbled down the name of the organisation she represented and looked it up when I got to Brisbane. It is the Victorian Building Action Group Inc (https://www.vbag.org.au/) and it describes itself as "the only consumer organization in Australia representing the interests of all building consumers." Anne Paten is the President of the Victorian Building Action Group Inc.

Image from https://bostonreview.net/literature-culture-arts-society/john-crowley-inside-every-utopia-dystopia

"Consumers who attempt to build, extend, renovate or do repairs are totally unprotected and we can prove that this has been the case for the last 23 years. Many independent inquiries have confirmed this fact, but no government will listen or act to stop what is essentially 'legalized' building fraud. Just read some of the stories of those whose lives have been ruined, then come join us and be a part of bringing genuine change. The stories of those affected are heart-wrenching. It is virtually impossible to claim on the mandatory insurance and the various levels of the dispute system are utterly dysfunctional. The financial toll often mounts into hundred of thousands of dollars and the emotional toll is incalculable. No-one deserves to be bankrupt or suicidal because they try to build a home for their family." (The Victorian Building Action Group Inc (https://www.vbag.org.au/.))

VCAT process exposed

Here is an animated critique of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on the question of dealing with building fraud, described as follows at https://www.vbag.org.au/victorian-civil-administrative-appeals-tribunal/: Find out about VCAT: How it really works; Why building owners are bound to ‘LOSE’ and the role of solicitors in ensuring they do!’ In fact the video was created in 2012, but the process has become even worse since then.

Construction chaos and corruption Australia-wide

In reality, the situation is Australia-wide. Elsewhere, in the national corporate press, I read that the "Building Sector 'could collapse'. (Richard Ferguson, Brad Norington, "Building sector 'could collapse', The Australian, July 16, 2019, p.1.)

"Mr Massey [JMG Building Surveyors] said certifiers were concerned that state governments were responding to skyrocketing insurance premiums with legislation to allow policy exclusions in the mistaken belief 'this will somehow make the problem disappear'." [...] The JMG chief's warning comes as a proposal by Industry Minister Karen Andrews yesterday for a national taskforce to formulate a nationally consistent approach to building regulations was immeditely rejected by state governments ahead of a joint minister's meeting called to deal with the crisis on Thursday.

We republish an article from Global Research and an excerpt from the World Health Organisation on this politically, commercially, and thus medically, fraught topic. The World Health Organisation's ongoing research project page on Electromagnetic fields (EMF) is at https://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/. Not mentioned in the Global Research article below is the World Health Organisation's report that "studies suggest that children exposed to EMF magnetic fields have an associated increased risk of leukaemia." The Global Research article below the WHO introduction is useful because it gives a number of strategies for minimising exposure to EMF, particularly where children are concerned. Furthermore, it gives access to opinion from different countries. We should remember that X-Rays were not banned for pregnant women until the mid-1980s, a long time after it was well-known that they were the major cause of childhood cancers. (See Margaret Heffernan, Wilful Blindness.) A much more intensive and pervasive level of electromagnetic fields involved in 5G and "smart cities" is being introduced to Australia and many countries as we write this. Smart cities carry their own dangers of total surveillance and automation that seem calculated to remove almost all possibility of democratic engagement, although that is not the subject of the reports cited below. (See Prof Justin O'Connor in "Smart Cities vs Creative Cities Symposium".)

World Health Organisation: "What is the International EMF Project? - Introduction

Background
Potential health effects of exposure to static and time varying electric and magnetic fields need scientific clarification. Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which there is anxiety and speculation are spreading. EMF exposure now occurs to varying degrees to all populations of the world, and the levels will continue to increase with advancing technology. Thus, even a small health consequence from EMF exposure could have a major public health impact.

Concerns have been expressed that exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields at power frequencies (50/60 Hz) could lead to an increased incidence of cancer in children and other adverse health effects. The evidence comes primarily from residential epidemiological studies. These studies suggest that children exposed to ELF magnetic fields have an associated increased risk of leukaemia.

Radio frequency (RF) fields are used to great benefits in many facets of everyday life, such as radio and TV transmission, telecommunications (eg mobile telephones), diagnosis and treatments of disease and in industry for heating and sealing materials. With the rapid introduction of mobile telecommunications devices, especially among the general public, there has been a focus on the problems associated with near field RF exposure to the head from the small radiating antenna of mobile phones. In addition, concerns persist that exposure to pulsed and amplitude modulated RF fields may cause specific health effects.

As societies develop, greater use of certain technologies leads to increasing exposure to static electric and magnetic fields. This is especially the case in industry, transport, power transmission, research and medicine. Possible health effects from static fields have never been properly assessed. Given the rapid expansion of medical devices and imminent introduction, potentially on a large scale, of magnetic levitation transport systems that use strong static magnetic fields, any health impacts need to be properly assessed.

As part of its charter to protect public health and in response to public concern over health effects of EMF exposure, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. The EMF Project encourages focused research to fill important gaps in knowledge and to facilitate the development of internationally acceptable standards limiting EMF exposure."

Top 10 Facts About Cell Phones and Wi-Fi

Article first published in Global Research by Environmental Health Trust on July 18, 2019 at https://www.globalresearch.ca/top-10-facts-about-cell-phones-and-wi-fi/5683939.

1. All Cell Phones And Wireless Devices Emit Radiation.

Every wireless device is actually a two-way microwave radio that sends and receives a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation called radio frequency radiation RF – EMF. This machine-made radiation is millions of times higher than the natural electromagnetic fields (EMFs) our grandparents were exposed to. Numerous peer reviewed published research studies shows that these made-made pulsed electromagnetic frequencies cause adverse biological effects and are very different than the natural electromagnetic fields that have existed in the environment for years. Research on humans has found an association between cell phone use and serious effects such as brain cancer, headaches, damage to the brain and immune system. Yale studies found that cellular radiation exposure during pregnancy led to increased hyperactivity and memory problems in offspring.

2. Our Brains And Bodies Are Penetrated By This Radiation.

When we hold a cell phone against our head to talk, the radiation from the phone moves into our brain. Likewise, when we use a wireless laptop, the radiation penetrates into our abdominal region, chest area and brain.According to the International Agency for the Research on Cancer:

“the average radio frequency radiation energy deposition for children exposed to mobile phone RF is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults”.

(Read it on page 44 of the IARC Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields)

Multiple research studies report cell phone radiation penetrates more deeply into children’s brains (Fernandez-Rodriguez 2015 , Fernández 2015, Mohammed 2017) in comparison to adults.

Research also has found that radiation from tablets penetrates more deeply into children’s brains (Ferreira 2015.) A 2018 study that considered the radiation dose into the brain of teenagers found that teens who used cell phones up to their head had decreased memory performance on researchers tests.

3. Cell Phones And Wireless Devices Emit Radiation Constantly, Even When You Are Not Talking Or Using The Phone.

A powered on cell phone is always “checking in” and maintaining a connection to the nearest cell tower by sends intense bursts of radiation several times per second. Likewise, a wireless-enabled laptop, tablet or other device is always “checking in” with the nearby router or a network base. These “check ins” are radiation emissions—happening several times per second, and whether or not a connection is successfully established.Medical doctors have written many letters to schools calling for administrators to reduce exposures to this radiation in schools. Harvard doctors have published research linking electromagnetic fields to autism.

4. Every Wireless Device Has Fine Print Instructions Buried In Its User Manual That Specify A Distance Between The Device And User That Should Not Be Surpassed.

For example, most cell phone manuals state the phone should be held at specified distance (often around 5/8th of an inch) from the body. If you look in the user manual for your DECT cordless home phone, wireless laptop or printer, it will state that the device should be at least 20 cm (approximately 8 inches) away from the body to prevent “exceeding FCC radiation exposure limits”. These instructions are in the user manuals because cell phones and wireless devices are tested for user radiation exposures at those specific distances.

In other words, if you are using a laptop on your lap, you are exposing yourself to untested radiation emissions that could exceed the radiation levels our government regulations presently allow. When you use a device closer than the manufacturer’s distance instructions, you risk exposing yourself to radiation levels that our federal government understands can cause sterility, brain damage and tissue damage. Learn more about the fine print warnings on various devices here.

Read more: Brain Wave Warping Effect of Mobile Phones, Study Reveals

5. These Fine Print Instructions DO NOT Protect You From All Health Effects.

The instructions buried in your manual are not safe enough. Even if you follow these instructions, you risk your health. Note: radiation exposure at the specified distances is much higher than zero. Accumulating research now shows a myriad of health effects occur at levels far far below (literally tens of thousands times lower than) government regulation limits. Wireless devices were not adequately tested before they came on the market.
.

6. Research Shows Low Levels Of This Radiation Impact The Brain And Reproductive System.

Wireless radiation has been shown to change brain function even at levels hundreds of thousands of times below federal guidelines. In 2011, Dr. Volkow’s NIH research showed that the brain increased glucose metabolism when exposed to cell phone radiation. Dr. Suleyman Kaplan has published multiple research studies showing damaged brain development in the offspring of prenatally exposed test subjects. Significant research shows that wireless exposures decrease and damage sperm and that prenatal exposure can alter testis and ovarian development. These are just a few examples from a large body of accumulated science which shows effects from cell phone and wireless radiation.
.

7. Radiation Emitted By Cell Phones And Wireless Is Officially Linked To Cancer.

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer first classified cell phone and wireless radiation as a “class 2 B Possible Human Carcinogen” based on these research studies that showed long-term users of cell phones had higher rates of brain cancer on the side of the head where they held the phone.The United States National Toxicology Program completed a $30M study that found “clear evidence” of cancer in male rats exposed to long term low level radio-frequency radiation. Due to these findings, several scientists have published that the weight of current peer reviewed evidence supports the conclusion that radiofrequency radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen.

8. As The Evidence Linking Wireless Radiation To Cancer Has Significantly Increased Since 2011, Now Scientists State That Cell Phone Wireless Radiation Is A Human Carcinogen.

In 2016, a major US government study found cell phone radiation caused increased cancers (brain and heart nerve) in rats exposed at low levels for two years. The results were stunning because the cancers the rats developed are the same type humans are developing after long term cell phone use.

Furthermore, since 2011, new research studies have been published linking wireless radiation to cancer. CERENAT (a case control national study in France) again showed a statistically significant association between glioma (brain cancer) and long-erm cell phone use. Another study out of Jacobs University (which replicated previous study results) showed that RF acted as a tumor promoter. The study details in its conclusion how, “Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure.”

In light of this published science, several World Health Organization experts are stating that the evidence has now substantially increased. Dr. Anthony B. Miller has testified on the increased evidence, and he and colleagues have written several published papers detailing their opinion and in 2018 he was lead author on a published literature review concluding that cell phone wireless radiation is a human carcinogen. Scientists from Israel researching cancr in radar operators also concluded that the evidence indicates radiofrequency can cause cancer (Peleg 2018.) Dr. Hardell and colleagues have long published papers concluding that that wireless “should be regarded as human carcinogen requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines.”

9. Solutions Exist: Hundreds Of Scientists Worldwide Recommend Taking Action To Reduce Exposures To Wireless Devices Because Of The Serious Health Effects From These Devices.

In 2015, a large group of scientists and medical doctors signed onto a formal Appeal to the United Nations and the World Health Organization, calling on them to take immediate action on this issue. This Appeal is now signed by over 250 experts and is published in the International Journal of Oncology.In 2014, a group of U.S. physicians, including the Chief of Obstetrics at Yale Medicine, presented scientific studies at the launch of the BabySafe Project, issuing specific recommendations to pregnant women on how to decrease wireless exposures in order to decrease risks to babies’ brain development. We do not have to give up our technology but we can make smarter choices about the way we use it. Every person can easily decrease exposure to this radiation by making simple changes every day.

10. Government Regulations Are Outdated And Antiquated.

In the United States, the last review for radio frequency limits was in 1996, and the reality is that these are limits are based on research from the 1980s. Many countries are using guidelines developed by the IEEE or ICNIRP—guidelines that have remained unchanged for decades. Those guidelines do not consider the more current science showing harm. Thankfully other countries – over twenty countries- are enacting protections to reduce public exposure to this radiation and have radiation limits far lower than the FCC and ICNIRP. Some have banned Wi-Fi in classsrooms, other have banned cell phones made for young children and others have cell tower limits 100x lower than ICNIRP.Regulations are antiquated because they have not kept pace with the manner in which consumers use devices—usage has changed considerably since 1996. For example, the regulations only consider one radiating device at a time and do not account for a residence, classroom, or workplace, healthcare, retail, recreational and other venues filled with multiple devices. The regulations do not consider that people carry their cell phones tightly in a front pocket of jeans or in a bra. They do not consider that laptops would be placed on laps by schoolchildren in the classroom. Regulations did not consider research that looked at long-term exposures to vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women or to medically compromised individuals. Guidelines were set by only considering the impact to a full-grown man. Many scientists and major medical organizations have written about the inadequacy of these outdated guidelines.

Final Bonus Fact: No Safe Level Of This Radiation Has Been Identified.

Scientific studies have not been done to develop a “safe level” of exposure. The latest science clearly shows that biological effects could occur at non-thermal (non-heating) levels. Science also shows that children and the developing pregnancy are far more vulnerable to these damaging effects. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not do the research necessary to define a safe level that the public can be exposed to without harmful effects.

In a 2015 study (replicating prior scientific findings linking RF to cancer promotion), the researchers state, “Since many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones, further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms.” and “We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure. Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones.”

No medical organization has determined a “safe level” of this radiation for long-term exposure to children. In fact, medical organizations worldwide – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the largest group of children’s doctors in the United States and the Athens Medical Association and Vienna Medical Association – are calling for eliminating and reducing radiofrequency cell phone wireless radiation exposures.

Ancestor worship, or the belief that your ancestors look after you and live among you, seems like a good kind of belief to me, when I consider the anonymity and general invisibility of the old and the dead in modern Australian society. Although money can sometimes buy you a big send-off, like the truly grandiose one for a big sports-mogul the other day, it may inspire resentment: "Seems kind of unfair," commented an elderly friend, "When you and I shall be forgotten, absent any fanfare."

Ancestor worship in a small endogamous and sedentary (viscous) population keeps the dead alive and recycling as the living. It makes everyone important members of the tribe, never to be forgotten. Everyone knows each other and the dead cannot have been much different, so you feel as if you know them. They are a part of you. What the lives of ancestors many generations back may lose in detail, they gain in heroic stature and magic powers. They have their own spirit realm where they may be reached for consultation, using various rituals. As they grow up, individuals look in themselves for inherited skills and heroic tendencies that they know to exist in the tribe.

In 'modern' western settler states tribes are too dispersed for people to be able to remember their ancestors properly. Their direct experience of ancestors is usually limited to a couple of generations, not necessarily complete. The problem is that people in such societies no longer live in the same place as their ancestors, experiencing the same trees, animals, and sights of the same local environment, and the food and water it produces. They now live in recently constructed houses and apartments that have obliterated all the nature around them and all trace of the people who lived there, including their burial places. Our existences seem as fragile as the photographs and documents we retrieve from family-tree searches. Deceased blood relatives seem rootless in an abstract history full of strangers. The need to search for one's ancestral tribe remains strong nonetheless, as we see from people having DNA tests to try to get a vague idea of their origins, but all they get back is links to a hotchpotch of anonymous lost souls.

You can understand why people get so upset when a tree is cut down or an old building destroyed, when the park is paved over, or the bush where they grew up is destroyed, along with its wildlife. It's because we have deep instincts for roots, relatives, and for an intimate long-term tribal relationship with our local environment, which our lives once depended on and which they may again depend on.

Conveniently for capitalism, the yearning for one's lost tribe is easily displaced onto brand names, football teams, NGOs, employers, schools, political parties, temples, aged-care, and other institutions. Many such false tribes practice conditional acceptance, based on whether you are paid-up or not. Even cemeteries now dig you up after a few decades, if you don't pay their ransom. More and more of us go up in smoke these days, contributing to climate change and robbing the earth of our nutrients.

There is an old proverb that says that you can break a stick, but a bundle of sticks if very hard to break. Just imagine for a moment if we married second and more distant cousins, and inherited our land from each other - like the Rothchilds or the Windsors.[1] Some of us would not marry because we would run out of cousins, but we would all have a place. We would share our illustrious and villainous ancestors; the history of how they won and defended our land would inspire us. And when the developers came to build on our cemetery, we would fight them to the death. The very wealthy know this and found dynasties. By marrying their relations, they preserve land, assets and power within family and clan.

Australian society is however, increasingly disorganised by routines of lengthy commutes, and property and custody struggles following divorce. Families are geographically separated due to global employment opportunities and social drift. Suburban infill and housing insecurity resulting from large influxes into cities churn neighbourhoods so that we no longer have old neighbours and a sense of community. The cliche that "we are all migrants" has some truth to it, but in the ways mentioned, we are prevented from truly making Australia our home in the long term sense that would allow us a connection to our ancestors as fellow inhabitants of this place.

See also "Overpopulation: Endogamy,Exogamy and fertility opportunity theory."

NOTES

[1]On the Rothschild strategy for consolidating wealth by staying as a tight-knit clan: https://www.academia.edu/39626199/The_House_of_Rothschild.

The below is from another fascinating article by Adam Kuper, "Incest, cousin marriage, and the origin of the human sciences in nineteenth- century England, Past and Present, 2002: https://www.academia.edu/38993793/INCEST_COUSIN_MARRIAGE_AND_THE_ORIGIN_OF_THE_HUMAN_SCIENCES_IN_NINETEENTH-CENTURY_ENGLAND.

[...] Queen Victoria, a model of propriety, married her first cousin, Albert, her mother's brother's son. This was and remains a Hanoverian tradition. George I had married his father's brother's daughter, and George IV his father's sister's daughter.

George V and Elizabeth II carried on this tradition, both marrying second cousins. The tradition may be traced back to the Stuarts.

The parents of James I were first cousins, children of a half-sister and half-brother.25)
Love and marriage between cousins became a regular topic of novels in nineteenth-century England. In Mansfield Park (1814), Fanny married Edmund, her mother's sister's son. In Persuasion (1817), Charles Hayter similarly married his mother's sister's daughter, Henrietta Musgrave. In the same novel, Elizabeth Elliot dreams of a marriage with her cousin and her father's heir, William Elliot (apparently her second cousin in the male line), and he later woos her sister Anne. Any objections to these relationships had to do with such extraneous factors as the difference in status between Fanny and Edmund or Henrietta and Charles. There were similar marriages within Jane Austen's own family. Jane's brother Henry married his widowed cousin, Eliza de Feuillide, after Eliza had rejected his brother James.27 (Another of Jane Austen's brothers, Charles, married his dead wife's sister in 1820, albeit 'to general disapproval'.)

Cousin marriages continued to feature regularly in English novels and plays to the end of the nineteenth century, without being represented as strange or problematic. As late as 1895, The Importance of Being Ernest ends with the happy discovery that Ernest and Gwendolen are cousins. His mother was not a handbag, or Miss Prism, but Lady Bracknell's sister. Since they were the children of two sisters, Lady Bracknell could have no objection to their marriage.

What the anthropologists were later to term sister exchange was also an established royal tradition. The Hanoverians were famous for it. In the nineteenth century it became a familiar practice in middle-class circles. The marriage of Charles Darwin to Emma Wedgwood was a case in point. Not only were they first cousins, but since Emma's elder brother, Josiah Wedgwood III, had married Charles's elder sister, Caroline, the two men were also exchanging sisters. The combination of marriage to first cousins with a propensity to sister exchange (or with the marriage of two brothers to a pair of sisters) meant that it was not uncommon in the next generation for double first cousins to marry. Darwin's father-in-law Josiah Wedgwood II and his brother John Wedgwood (themselves children of third cousins)married two sisters. In the next generation, John's daughter, Jessie, married Josiah's son, Henry Allen Wedgwood. She was his father's brother's daughter and also his mother's sister's daughter.

[...] Recent studies show that the incidence of first-cousin marriage was significantly higher in some British or British-derived population during the nineteenth century than George Darwin's statistic suggested. Men of Boston Brahmin families had a remarkably high level of close kin (mostly first-cousin) marriage from 1680 to 1859, averaging around 25 per cent, but climbing to 66.6 per cent in the middle of the eighteenth century. Sibling exchange was also common." Close-kin marriage was by no measure restricted to the elite. In the first half of the nineteenth century, 20 per cent of marriages among Protestant Northern Irish immgrants to the Midwest were with first cousins. Highland Scot migrants to New Zealand were also strikingly endogamous. What Maureen Molloy calls 'kin group endogamy' reached 70 per cent in some areas. Sibling exchanges were frequent, and 'it is quite common to find three siblings marrying two sibling cousins and a third cousin or cousin's cousin'. Molloy found genealogic evidence to show that this pattern preceded emigration, and argued that it was perhaps related to the imposition of British rule and population resettlement."

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has commenced an inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. The inquiry was referred by the Attorney-General, The Hon Christian Porter MP, on 4 July 2019, for the PJCIS to inquire into the Terms of Reference. (Details inside.) This is a reaction to public and press reaction over the raid by the Australian federal police of the home of News Corp Australia journalist Annika Smethurst, to find out how she had come by a leaked plan to allow government spying on Australians. A warrant from an ACT magistrate gave police authority to search the home, computer and mobile phone of the journalist. News Corp Australia called this a "dangerous act of intimidation targeted at public interest reporting." Smethurst had authored an article about heads of defence and home affairs ministries in Australia having talked about "draconian new powers to allow the Australian Signals Directorate to spy on Australian citizens for the first time. Under the mooted plan, spies would be allowed to secretly access emails, bank accounts and text messages with approval from the defence and home affairs ministers." See inside for how you can contribute - by 26 July 2019. Consider how Australian governments have failed to protect Julian Assange in the name of a perceived right to conceal war crimes.

The Committee has been requested to report back to both Houses of Parliament by 17 October 2019.

The Chair, Mr Andrew Hastie MP, said ‘the government has referred this inquiry based on concerns raised in relation to recent search warrants executed on members of the press, and the issue of balancing national security with the freedom of the press’.

‘This inquiry will allow the Committee to hear from the media, government agencies and other interested stakeholders as to the direct impact of these powers on civil society and their importance to both national security and the public interest. We will consider these issues closely and carefully.’

The Committee invites written submissions to this inquiry, to be received by Friday, 26 July 2019.

Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website.

Media inquiries:

Chair, Mr Andrew Hastie MP (Canning, WA)
08 9534 8044 (Electorate office)
(02) 6277 4223 (Parliament House)

For background information:

Committee Secretariat, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
(02) 6277 2360
[email protected]

For more information about this Committee, you can visit its website. On the site, you can make a submission to an inquiry, read other submissions, and get details for upcoming public hearings. You can also track the Committee and receive email updates by clicking on the blue ‘Track Committee’ button in the bottom right hand corner of the page.

Terms of Reference

The Committee is to inquire and report back to both Houses of Parliament on the following matters:

a) The experiences of journalists and media organisations that have, or could become, subject to the powers of law enforcement or intelligence agencies performing their functions, and the impact of the exercise of those powers on journalists' work, including informing the public.
b) The reasons for which journalists and media organisations have, or could become, subject to those powers in the performance of the functions of law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
c) Whether any and if so, what changes could be made to procedures and thresholds for the exercise of those powers in relation to journalists and media organisations to better balance the need for press freedom with the need for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate serious offending and obtain intelligence on security threats.
d) Without limiting the other matters that the Committee may consider, two issues for specific inquiry are:

whether and in what circumstances there could be contested hearings in relation to warrants authorising investigative action in relation to journalists and media organisations.
the appropriateness of current thresholds for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access electronic data on devices used by journalists and media organisations.
The Committee is to report back to both Houses of Parliament by 17 October 2019.

Thirteen species of seabirds are declining off the coast of south-eastern Australia, a 17-year study by researchers at the Centre for Ecosystem Science at UNSW Sydney revealed. The species include iconic and globally threatened birds such as the enormous Wandering Albatross, as well as locally breeding Flesh-footed Shearwater. Pelagic citizen science data was used in this study.

Working with data collected by seabird enthusiasts of the Southern Ocean Seabird Study Association, who regularly take boat trips out to sea from Port Stephens, Sydney and Wollongong, the scientists found that almost half of the 30 most commonly observed seabird species in the region had declined over the 17-year period from 2000 to 2016. The study is published in the latest issue of the international scientific journal, Biological Conservation.

“Seabirds are critically important organisms for maintaining the health of marine ecosystems,” says lead author and UNSW Science Honours student Simon Gorta.

“They act as apex predators, feeding on a range of prey such as plankton, squid, fish and carcasses across the world’s oceans.

“Our findings are worrying, not just because thirteen of our more common species are declining, but because we don’t know for sure what is driving these declines.”

While the exact mechanisms are unknown, the researchers suggest that warming ocean temperatures are likely to be contributing to this trend. The East Australian Current has strengthened off south-eastern Australia, which has led to warmer and less productive waters in the region, potentially driving birds to forage elsewhere, as the marine habitat in this region is no longer suitable for them.

“We can predict that as surface temperatures increase with climate change, we will be seeing fewer species that prefer cooler-than-average surface temperatures. The most dramatic example of this was in summer species – Pomarine and Arctic Jaegers - which showed this surface temperature preference and consistently declined in the region over the 17-year study period,” Mr Gorta says.

Worryingly, many other species may also be declining. This is supported by declines in breeding populations of seabirds, linked to a number of threats globally. The researchers say that determining the exact causes of these declines should be a priority.

“Seabirds are the most threatened group of birds on the planet, with roughly 30% of them listed on the IUCN Red List as at risk of extinction,” says co-author Professor Richard Kingsford, Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science.

“They are threatened where they forage at sea, and where they breed, from commercial fishing and pollution at sea, as well as habitat degradation and introduced predators such as rats at breeding sites.”

Relatively little is known about seabirds away from their breeding grounds, as most research efforts are focused on protecting the species at these sites. The researchers identified a clever solution to this by analysing a citizen science dataset, collected by passionate birdwatchers who go on birdwatching trips or “pelagics” out to sea, looking for seabirds almost every month of the year.

“These types of at-sea observations of seabirds are difficult to come by, so we relied on a unique dataset, collated from birdwatchers’ observations. These datasets are just sitting around from all over the world – waiting to be fully dusted off and used to investigate broader patterns which go well beyond usual three-year funding cycles,” says senior author Corey Callaghan, PhD student at UNSW.

These pelagic seabirds occur in coastal and shelf waters off the coast of every continent except Antarctica, and observations from these trips offer a different, and important insight into the behaviour of seabirds, only otherwise attainable by using expensive tracking equipment on a few individuals.

“These observations inform real and informative trends of great importance to marine ecosystem management and conservation, and they do so through the engagement of the general public. It is important that everyone, not just the researchers, know what is going on in our oceans, because we depend on them, yet they are degrading before our eyes,” says Mr Gorta.

“These issues must be addressed in order to halt the long-term declines of seabirds.”

Did you know that you cannot insure buildings over three stories high in Australia? On Sunday 16 June apartment owners and renters were locked out of a 122 unit apartment tower called Mascot Towers, in Sydney. Due to serious structural weaknesses, residents were rendered treeless like so many koalas, and with little more assistance. In Melbourne on Sunday 23 June, residents and shop owners in a 237 apartment building known as "Liberty Tower" were told to leave because the flooding had cut power throughout the building and damaged the lift. Apparently the water rose to 1.5m in some parts of the basement.

Faulty towers Australia may require immigration shut-down

It seems that the Australian construction industry has become so unregulated, corrupt, incompetent, and uninsurable, that residents buy high-rise apartments at their own risk in Australia. The risks involved: huge financial loss and costs, homelessness, and injury, are themselves a reason to dramatically slow down development and the huge immigration levels that drive the reckless, 'self'-regulated construction that now characterises Australia. If Australian governments cannot make sure that high-rises are actually long-term viable and insurable as such, then developers should not be given permission to build them. That means that the mad schemes for population growth via mass immigration need to stop, pending significant changes in law and practice.

Architects Geoff Hanmer, Steve Gleeson and Mark Maugham discussed the following in comments at https://theconversation.com/buck-passing-on-apartment-building-safety-leaves-residents-at-risk-119000:

- Home warranty insurance is not available for buildings over three storeys high in NSW. (Neither is it available in Victoria and probably other states.)

- Since construction companies often have short lives, a 25 year insurance policy should be purchased by the developer, upfront. It should be lodged as part of the final handover of the building to a government department. This would mean that the 'department' has the job of looking after the records and of paying out, and that the process would not be affected by change of ownership. The beneficiaries would be the apartment owners. It would be in the interests of the insurance company to ensure that the building is properly designed for a long life.
Probably all buildings should have this kind of insurance that benefits owners.

- That there is a need to employ architects and give them authority to approve the final product, since they are held responsible for its defects. Apparently at the moment the developer is deemed to be the 'consumer' and carries no responsibility. So, if the developer had to take out insurance for the rectification of defects, they would probably act more responsibly. It has been suggested that insurance companies should require a building professional to represent them onsite to ensure quality control before they give the developer insurance.

Until such changes are implemented, it seems to me that the 'program' for high density in Australian cities and suburbs needs to halt. Since this is the program that is supposed to retrofit a doubling of the population (and more, sky's the limit) in this country, the mass immigration of cities full of people needs to stop, because we simply won't be able to house them.

A case in point would be the proposed redevelopment with residential towers of the old Gas and Fuel Site known as Highett Gasworks. If the Victorian State Government has its way, and changes the height limit for the public land at 1136-1138 Nepean Highway, Highett to 26m, then the site will be doomed to be covered in uninsurable high-rises. As it is, any densification of this public land reduces the ratio of public open green space per person.

This is an incredibly good interview. If only the ABC had interviewers of this public interest standard. McLaren and Thomson seem to touch on almost everything in about 20 minutes, with appropriate emotion. We have so many problems caused by massive population growth.

Michael McLaren introduces the interview: "What are some of the really big issues that people around the country and around our cites are talking about? Water shortages particularly in the cities. Dam levels are heading down to 50% and falling Many are talking about record multi-billion dollar infrastructure spends, particularly by state governments that are increasingly heading towards debt; Certainly, in Sydney, many people are talking about shoddy, rapidly builtcrumbling, high-rise apartment towers, and more broadly, [...] the green elements of our society people are talking about increasing biodiversity loss. These diverse topics have in common unsustainable rapid population growth. These are all symptoms of that root cause, and yet, the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that Australia's population growth is speeding up! In other words, all of those issues and more are only going to get worse." (Michael McLaren of Wake Up Australia 2GB radio) Michael McLaren is joined by Kelvin Thomson, former Federal Member for Wills now advisor for Sustainable Australia Party’s Clifford Hayes to discuss the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that Australia’s population growth treadmill is speeding up. Figures released Friday for the end of December 2018 show that in 2018 Australia’s population increased by over 400,000 to pass 25 million. Net migration contributed around 250,000 of this increase while natural increase (births minus deaths) contributed around 150,000 of this figure.