citizens' rights

It is likely to be just as nasty as the one on same sex marriage with all sorts of accusations that target people rather than immigration policies. There will be a rash of claims made against Asians, Muslim, Middle East, and African migrants matched in venom by attacks on the WASP (White, Anglo Saxon Protestant) Rednecks who dared to question their suitability to be citizens. Just like the SSM debate very few people will be persuaded by the opposing claims and instead will only be entrenched further in their own beliefs.

Some of the opening salvos from politicians have already been fired - Scott Morrison has said cutting immigration will cost the economy more than a billion a year which seems like small beer alongside his proposed $64b in tax breaks. Tony Abbott, perhaps sniffing the wind, has called for a cut of 80,000 per year which would bring the rate down to that set by John Howard. Bob Carr wants the present immigration number halved, the Greens want it increased by 50,000, the Sustainable Population Party wants it cut back to the pre-Howard level of 70,000 and the Scientific community say we have already overshot our sustainable numbers - but then nobody listens to the science. However, perhaps the most insidious pro-immigration argument – one that has been aired many times – is the claim that Australia is the best in the world when it comes to accepting different cultures. It’s the sort of feel good statement that appeals to our vanity, a bit like being told we are the best sporting nation, so consequently very few people bothered to challenge Chris Bowen MP the former minister for immigration when he said were indeed the world’s most successful multicultural nation. So while we all sat back and marvelled at how wonderful we are, no one remembered that the other major culture in our society is our indigenous population who, given the level of disadvantage they experience, have good grounds for disagreeing with the statement.

And they would not be alone. Bowen's appeal to our good nature was probably an attempt to detract from the negative comments made earlier by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said Germany's attempt to create a multicultural society had failed completely, while Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented a bill in parliament that read:

“The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model.... A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore.”

It was a sentiment echoed by Britain's former Prime Minister David Cameron, France's former President Nicolas Sarkozy, Spain's former leader, Jose Maria Aznar, and Belgium's former PM Yves Leterme. Indeed most of Europe is of the same mind with many seeing the rise of extreme right wing political parties as a direct result.

In fact MC has had a dismal record almost everywhere around the globe. Czechoslovakia fell apart and it’s not going well in Ireland. Scotland is not happy in GB, and the US, once the poster boy for immigration, seems to be on a race-related downward spiral. China spends an estimated 1.24 trillion yuan ($193 billion) on its domestic security system mainly in areas with major populations of religious and ethnic minorities; an amount that is more than its spending on external security.

However, while there are many MC problems in Europe, they pale in comparison to those countries that have fallen into internal conflict, the result often descending into ethnic cleansing. This is a relatively new term that originated in 1992 when, in the former country of Yugoslavia, the Serbians tried to drive out the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The process is, however, as old as human history and the number of victims as large as human diversity. Even if you don't believe the biblical account of the Passover the Jews have been persecuted at least since the Roman era, a process that continued intermittently in most nations, culminating in the holocaust, an event in which most of the Nazi-occupied nations participated. More recent atrocities such as those in Myanmar, Rwanda, Tibet and Sri Lanka have received much media attention but the murder of about one million Armenians, Assyrian’s and Greeks during the chaotic collapse of the Ottoman empire was largely ignored by a world lost in its own troubles. Unfortunately other such crimes, like the actions of Indonesia in east Timor and Papua, which are ongoing in the latter, are ignored for political reasons.

One list of the 10 bloodiest civil wars of the twentieth century (Sarkees 2000), half of the cases were ethnic conflicts and these all involved minority groups that were identifiable by religion, color, language or culture. The outbreaks of violence were usually triggered by factors such as unemployment, food prices, exploitation or repression, problems that are increasing in Australia. Over the last decade or so, Australian governments have considered it necessary to respond to a perceived terror threat by increasing ASIO's budget 471 per cent over 9 years.[1] Athol Yates, executive director of think tank the Australian Security Research Centre, has calculated that Canberra has spent about $10.5 billion on homeland security, while state and local governments plus private industry have forked out another $5.5 billion, taking the total domestic security bill to about $16 billion. Oddly enough this expenditure increases our GDP allowing politicians to boast about the economic benefits of Multiculturalism but in reality the real success for governments has been the division it has created in the population, enough apparently to divert attention away from our absurdly high immigration rate.

NOTES

[1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-bill-27b-and-counting-20110910-1k32c.htm and #10;</body></html>">

In a new stand-up special, "Russell Brand takes a very literal approach in explaining immigration, and further points out the absurdity of fearing others due to "imaginary geopolitical borders." Aren't we all just part of the same, mysterious, rotating sphere?" Huffington Post

Russell quite rightly points out the absurdity of being anti-immigration. The poor, or under privileged, or others simply seeking a better life may wish to move from one country to another. Nobody can reasonably oppose that basic aspiration; within reason.

But each country does have some role to play in managing the flow of people across its borders. Society, by definition, is the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. If restricting migration flows serves the greater humanitarian good in both the emigration and immigration countries, then open minded due diligence in verifying that reality (or otherwise) will serve that greater good. Globalisation, in the Darwinian sense, is a planet-wrecker regardless of how it occurs.

Global social order does rely on the management of the parts of a whole. The "rotating sphere" that Russell Brand refers to is not a perfect world and management of each part, and the whole, tends to be slightly more complex than a "funny" joke.

For example, there are over a billion desperately poor in the developing world. Most live under autocratic regimes where GDP per capita is less than $1,000 per year. Under such regimes this calculation of GDP per capita can be misleading when the autocrats "own" and control most of the wealth.

In countries like Australia (or the UK for that matter), the Budgetary cost of supporting each individual is far higher than $1,000 per year. In Australia it is roughly $17,000 per person per year. Escalating debt in developed countries is testimony to the cost of supporting the populations of such countries exceeding the capacity of GDP to sustain them. Free market capitalism sucking the lifeblood from the economy is clearly one part of this problem as Russell seeks to highlight.

Many of the poorest people need the most help, but assisting them by facilitating their migration into Australia or the UK is not possible from a humanitarian perspective. A billion people cannot be accommodated in Australia and $17,000 x one billion is $17 trillion dollars a year. The current Australian Federal Budget is less than $400 billion per year and already struggles to support 23 million people. The same logic applies globally to mass migration from the developing world to the developed world.

So there is a shred of logic in seeking to help such people in their home countries where each dollar spent can do more good, rather than sanctioning the preferential mass migration of relatively fortunate people into high cost countries that do not have the capacity to support such rapidly growing numbers of people. If mass migration reduces the capacity of a developed country to provide much needed philanthropic aid to the world's poorest people, why simplistically mischaracterise that reality as anti-immigration? Is this part of a world view based on ideological dogma that lacks a rational, coherent action plan?

Russell spends a large part of his time rightly condemning the free market capitalism that drives global destruction in the name of GDP growth (which is driven by extreme population growth). He promotes equitable distribution of wealth. Does he realise that mass migration of relatively fortunate people into high cost, developed societies is in direct conflict with his popular ideological dogma? This migration clearly exacerbates the redirection of spending on growing migrant populations in the developed world at the expense of the poorest in the developing world.

Here's what Russell had to say:

"Do not pause to reflect that free movement of global capital will necessitate free movement of a global labour force that meet the demands of the free movement of that capital. That is a complex economic idea and you won't understand it."

It seems to me that Russell Brand doesn't understand it either.

Bandicoot writes in Our rights to jobs negotiated awayabout how Australian government has signed away the rights of Australians to self-govern on the question of mass immigration, a problem now affecting our employment opportunities and conditions. Indeed, many problems affecting Australians arise from a trend of the late 20th century to conflate trade in goods across borders and trade in people across borders. Goods-imports depress our prices and people-imports depress our wages and conditions, but, even more importantly, they depress our democracy. In the end neither producers nor workers win, unless they are multinational corporates.

Bad economic farming

The seeds of the predicament that Bandicoot so ably documents in "Our right to jobs negotiated away" were contained in the multilateral trade agreements that people protested in 1994 when a trendy-sounding Mr Keating signed us up for them. Arguably the Greens and the so called socialists of the Socialist Alliance that field a lot of potential youthful energy for protest, could have led Australians against this had they educated their followers. It seemed then, and seems now, however that the Greens and the Socialist Alliance failed to defend Australians rights on this matter because they have a core that defends immigration against any criticism, for reasons best known to their leaders.

The problems we are now deeply affected by arise from a trend of the late 20th century to conflate trade in goods across borders and trade in people across borders. Goods imports depress our prices and people imports depress our wages and conditions. In the end neither producers nor workers win, unless they are multinational corporates. This is because of an ideology that pretends that all our interests are promoted by economic liberalisation. It is obvious, however, that economic liberalisation (the ability to go to any bank in the world looking for the best rates, the ability to buy any commodity or product from anywhere) does not apply generally to most people. For instance, ordinary Australians cannot go to the Bank of Paris and access better terms for chequebooks and housing loans. Similarly, authors cannot publish with amazon.com and expect their earnings to be paid electronically into their accounts unless they are located in a certain few countries and you cannot usually freely download electronic books and dvds from French Amazon.com because the rights are restricted to certain countries. And you cannot off-shore your personal accounts to tax havens if you are a PAYE employee.

The philosophy of free trade, such as it is, is that ordinary people benefit from the transfer of wealth to international business entities because it may trickle down in the form of employment via these entities or in the form of the very cheap goods that flood our countries to the detriment of local small to medium business. Australia has also almost abolished the notion of property rights for ordinary people; Free trade in property acquisition means that land-prices have become inflated - affecting housing, farming and business rents so that Australians must compete with corporates and wealthy international investors and landlords to buy property where they only competed with each other previously. The same inflationary pressure on land is now acting on water and power because of the ideology of privatisation which is also associated with free marketeering.

History of cheap worker flood

Primeminister Howard

The absolute flood of immigrants now taking Australian jobs was not possible until Mr Howard's WorkChoices. Before WorkChoices, it was not generally profitable to import immigrant workers in Australia because our conciliation and arbitration system required any worker in an industry with an award to have the same wages and conditions as his/her fellows. This also applied to foreign workers. So you could not, until very recently, import a worker from overseas and pay them less than Australians and treat them worse.

However our capacity to bargain industrially has been pulled apart in a series of successive damaging attacks on our Conciliation and Arbitration system that was the hallmark of the Australian Federation democratic agreement.

Primeminister Malcolm Fraser

Primeminister Malcolm Fraser set the rot in motion with his laws against Secondary Boycotts which meant that workers could not withhold their labour from industries that behaved badly towards them. This fundamentally altered the human rights of Australian workers in a process that set in motion their degradation.

Premier Jeff Kennett

Industrial Awards were a very strong defense against a flood of cheap labour, especially State Industrial Awards.

These were first dismantled at State level, beginning with the Kennett Government in Victoria. Gradually industries were thrown into the disorganised mess of individual workplace agreements, stored in the tangled morass of the federal system. Unions lost rights to represent us at the same time as the laws they used to back us up on were watered down into uselessness.

It was obvious the whole time, to anyone who knew about the trade agreements that outlawed national differences in worker protection among signatories, that this situation would open up the sluice gates on cheap worker immigration in Australia. It was therefore obvious to the people responsible for signing us up with the WTO agreements and for dismanteling our industrial system.

Primeminister Keating

Keating set the scene for the undermining of citizens rights to determine our industrial laws and conditions as well as our rights to set limits on imports and foreign workers at the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization 1 in 1994.

In Under "PART III,SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS, Article XVI, Market access:

1. With respect to market access through the modes of supply identified in Article I, each Member shall accord services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable than that provided for under the terms, limitations and conditions agreed and specified in its Schedule.[152]

2. In sectors where market-access commitments are undertaken, the measures which a Member shall not maintain or adopt either on the basis of a regional subdivision or on the basis of its entire territory, unless otherwise specified in its Schedule, are defined as:

(d) limitations on the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular service sector or that a service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the supply of a specific service in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test;

PART IV, PROGRESSIVE LIBERALIZATION, Article XIX, Negotiation of specific commitments, commits the signatories to continuous relaxing of trade barriers and, presumably, movement of people across national borders and the granting of work permits. Obviously this agreement abrogates the rights of citizens to determine wages and employment conditions which are an intrinsic part of self-government in a democracy and were a notable feature of Australia until this agreement to free trade.

Primeminister Hawke

Hawke was responsible for instituting an ideology of multculturalism which was subsequently used to intimidate Australians from criticising mass immigration. A document of his involvement in setting up the Multicultural Foundation of Australia is available here. Whilst the Multicultural Foundation of Australia might seem a quite innocuously unimportant organisation, the fact that its small list of members contains the then Executive Director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia and every Australian primeminister and most opposition leaders since Hawke leads one to question this first impression. For more see Background on the Australian Multicultural Foundation

Hawke was also responsible for negotiating - in the Accord, against the background of the post 1970s oil shock, a centralisation of industrial unions that entailed the breaking up of diverse local and state power bases. These changes were probably necessary to weaken the union movement so that there would be no chance of Australians finding purchase to stand and fight against the slippery slide into third world conditions. The corporate model of huge unions had an inbuilt tendency to make unions allies of banks and the wealthy with professionalisation of traditionally voluntary offices, becoming stepping stones for parliamentary opportunists.

Corrupted Socialist movement helped destroy union solidarity and sense

Geoffrey Taylor (who writes for candobetter.net) would argue that a corrupted socialist movement in Australia kept up significant unwarranted agitation and confusion within unions so that workers and employers were unnecessarily alienated from their own interests. That is, he would argue that the socialist movement led poorly founded strikes and protests but that it also undermined well-founded protests and strikes - and does to this day. The underlying theory here is that the corrupted socialist movement was actually working for the government and the power elites of the day, and against the very principles that caused so many to pay their dues to it and follow its orders.

Did Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard et al all realise the harm their policies would do Australians or were they just caught up in a tsunami of Chicago School economics (called 'shock doctrine' by Naomi Klein) that seemed clever at the time? If there had been no oil shock in the 1970s, I do not think that their ideas would have gained purchase, but that series of shocks and countershocks helped to divide the 'developed world' into two different economic policy schools. Amongst the anglophones, the Thatcher-Reagan view of the world evolved to chisel away at citizenship and democracy in favour of a contractual society where we were all just economic units, in contrast to Western Europe, where a more citizen-focused solidarity created a bulwark for democracy, with smaller economic differences between citizens and a humanist view of one's fellows.

Oil and trade wars

Oil scarcity still looms however and Anglophone elite dominance of world political economy is now magnifying the division between the oil producing economies in the Middle East, Africa, South America and Russia and the massive consumer economies in the West. International banking deregulation has broken down Western Europe's solidarity with its citizens by investing government and personal funds in the USA stock, housing and futures markets, which are totally overcapitalised. These banking and investment institutions that have invested in the United States have created of the United States a monster debt that must be fed to keep its investors alive. To feed that monster, 'austerity measures' now erode the solidarity of citizens and government in Western Europe. In a related pact, The USA, England, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany and others are now aligned temporarily in illegal wars for trade where they are historically competitors.

I know only some parts of the history of Australia's loss of citizens' rights and welcome contributions and criticisms from others.

This superb document establishes a history of concerted public demand for protection of the green wedges and a host of reasons for that public opposition to Matthew Guy's six new suburbs. It represents more than 80 groups of Victorians - (Ed. Candobetter.) "The whole rationale for extending the Urban Growth Boundary is to accommodate the unprecedented flood of population to Victoria. PPL VIC considers that the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary is really the thin end of the wedge. As there are no plans to stop the present high rate of population growth (mostly from immigration) the process of loss of Green Wedges and agricultural land is endless. There will be another extension when the proposed boundaries are seen to be filling up. The Government must abandon the Green Wedge land grab as destructive of the environment, a threat to wildlife, including endangered species, and as a major contributor to Green House Gas Emissions. Around the urban fringe we have a concentration of some of the most endangered eco- systems in Australia..." Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Land, VictoriaJulianne Bell, Protectors of Public Land, Victoria.

The superb document below establishes a history of concerted public demand for protection of the green wedges and a host of reasons for that public opposition to Matthew Guy's six new suburbs. It represents more than 80 groups of Victorians protesting against Victorian government population growth and development policies for reasons that damn Matthew Guy's extension of the Urban Growth Boundary. These extensions are even worse than those planned by the preceding government, however the preceding Kennett, Bracks and Brumby Governments created the planning precedents and undemocratic conditions that give the Baillieu Government the delusion that it has the right to ride over citizens rights' to conserve public land and wildlife habitat from private greed.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

Mr George Seitz
Committee Chair
Outer Suburban/Interface Services & Development Committee
C/- Parliament House
Spring Street, Melbourne
VIC 3002

19 October 2009

Dear Mr. Seitz,

Submission to Parliamentary Outer Suburban Interface/Services and Development Committee Inquiring into the Impact of State Government Decision to Change the Urban Growth Boundary

Introduction:

I am making a submission on behalf of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC.) I should by way of introduction mention that our organisation, established in 2004, is a State wide coalition of over 80 environment, heritage, resident and parks groups across Victoria. We are dedicated to keeping public lands in public hands and to protecting and conserving iconic heritage places and environmental sites of significance.

Summary of Grounds of Opposition: In addressing the terms of reference we are considering

“The impact of the State Government’s decision to change the urban growth boundary on landholders and the environment…”

PPL VIC draws the Committee’s attention to the failure of the State Government in strategic urban planning over the last 10 years and in encouraging uncontrolled entry of settlers to Victoria without examining sustainable population levels. We object to creation of growth areas outside the existing boundaries as extending and creating urban sprawl; alienation of established Green Wedges; destruction of the environment and wildlife; loss of biodiversity; creation of “dormitory” settlements without infrastructure and services; likely social alienation of youth; loss of arable land for food production; increasing car dependency; worsening Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to climate change with land clearance, unsustainable housing and reliance on road transport; plus knowingly approving the building of new settlements in fire-prone areas. Additionally we deplore the imposition of a vendor tax on landowners in order to fund the infrastructure of the new settlements and the impetus given to land speculation and “land banking.” PPL VIC supports the submissions made by our colleagues from the “Green Wedges Coalition” and “Taxed Out”.

The grounds of our submission are as follows:

New Growth Areas = Future Urban Sprawl = Major Failure of Strategic Urban Planning:

The Bracks Government guaranteed in 2002 that, under a Labor Government there would be no changes or amendments to the Urban Boundary or to the Green Wedges corridors. The fact that there are now radical changes represents a serious breach of faith with the electorate by the Brumby Government. Melbourne 2030 was considered to be the blue print for future development and was expressly intended to contain future urban sprawl; to prevent urban incursions into rural land; to concentrate residential growth into areas served by high capacity public transport; and protect sensitive environmental zones around the city. Many planners have pronounced Melbourne 2030 dead in view of recent radical departures from the plan.
Before the 2002 election the State Government announced protection of Melbourne’s green wedges from subdivision and inappropriate urban uses. There was bipartisan support - the Opposition supported the green wedge protection legislation when it passed through the Legislative Assembly before the 2002 election.
The Government has additionally broken a 2005 promise when 11,500 hectares was excised from Green Wedges land that there would be no further changes until 2030. The community accepted the excision on this proviso. Apparently, the Minister for Planning gave a number of assurances right up to the announcement of the review of the Urban Growth Boundary that there would be changes to Green Wedges. .
The State Government announced its review of the Urban Growth Boundary in December 2008 when it released the Melbourne @5 million, an update to Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Development. This signalled the State Government’s plans to open up at least 23,000 hectares – including land in Green Wedges areas - for urban expansion to allow for construction of 600,000 houses with 284, 000 of these to be located in growth areas. It was only apparently belatedly realised by Government advisers and planners that Victoria needs to accommodate another 1 million people before 2025. By 2036 Melbourne is predicted to have a further 1.8 million, twice the number forecast by Melbourne 2030 planners. By anyone’s reckoning failure to predict this massive population boom is a monumental blunder in strategic planning (See also comment under population)
We can see no improvements under the current Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities (DMNSC) report on the Urban Growth Boundary Review released in June 2009. PPL VIC was alarmed to see that according to the Green Wedges Coalition the report proposes to excise a further 41,663 hectares from Melbourne’s Green Wedges, nearly twice the area estimated to have been needed in last December’s Melbourne @ 5 Million report.
Minister Madden has added to proposals by announcing on 6 October 2009 that new “Precinct Structure Plans guidelines” were to be added, a kind of overlay for suburbs of 3,000 dwellings or more. These guidelines were drawn up to try to ensure developments avoided becoming isolated, so called “dormitory” suburbs - places where there is nothing to do but sleep. The Age article of 11 October 2009 “Sprawl of the wild,” by Melissa Fyfe says “

The Victorian Government has discovered sustainable communities. Pity it’s 10 years late.”

On 16 October 2009 Planning Minister Madden announced the draft legislation for Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution Bill. We have only been given time to make comments until 2 November 2009. (It is not known if the legislation will be introduced to Parliament before this Committee has reported.) The problem is that arrangement to levy the GAIC have been changed or significantly amended. Michael Hocking of Taxed Out says on his website:

“This is taxing the landowner by stealth. The tax is still applied at a flat rate regardless of the sale price yet the land may be twenty years from development. A property owner needing to sell in the short-term will find it virtually impossible to find a purchaser who is prepared to accept a GAIC liability when he sells, meaning the only likely purchaser is a developer not interested in the value of the dwelling and not interested in paying development prices for land that won't be developed for decades. The Growth Areas Authority assumptions relating to value uplift remain fundamentally flawed and Taxed Out Inc. intends to expose these issues at the Parliamentary Inquiry…In many respects this situation is worse than that originally proposed.

PPL VIC deplores the fact that the State Government appears to have attempted to mislead affected landowners. We also point out that this debacle over changes to the GAIC further illustrates that our contention that this is planning on the run.

What is a Sustainable Population for Victoria?

The whole rationale for extending the Urban Growth Boundary is to accommodate the unprecedented flood of population to Victoria. It is instructional to Google the “Population Clock” of the Bureau of Statistics. This shows the resident population of Australia which increases by one person every 1 minute and 12 seconds. This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 31 March 2009 and assumes growth since then of:
• one birth every 1 minute and 44 seconds,
• one death every 3 minutes and 39 seconds,
• a net gain of one international migrant every 1 minutes and 53 seconds leading to
• an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 12 seconds
PPL VIC considers that the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary is really the thin end of the wedge. As there are no plans to stop the present high rate of population growth (mostly from immigration) the process of loss of Green Wedges and agricultural land is endless. There will be another extension when the proposed boundaries are seen to be filling up.

The extension of the Urban Growth Boundary does not save private or public open space in the established suburbs - the rate of population growth is so high that Melbourne is getting more urban densification daily as well as urban sprawl. As we have pointed out the State Government is devoid of coherence in these planning matters and its approach to endless population growth.
PPL VIC considers it imperative that the Victorian Government hold a forum to determine the population sustainable for Victoria, especially in view of water shortages and the likelihood of future droughts. (Excuses used have been “immigration is a Federal matter” but State Premiers have influence in Canberra.) At a rally on 14 July 2009 protesting over Planning Minister Madden’s “Cash for Chat” with developers, PPLVIC and allies delivered a set of resolutions to the Minister including the need for a population forum. There were over 500 people at the Rally which indicates the strength of public feeling concerning the issues raised here.
I have a quote here from Mr Kelvin Thomson MHR, Federal Member for Wills who says that:

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate. We must implement a strategy to control population growth, urban expansion and development. Our way of life, open spaces and infrastructure cannot be sacrificed on the altar of ever expanding population. We have a responsibility to secure our city’s future by thorough, thoughtful and detailed planning. This planning should not include an expanding Melbourne waistline.” (“Five Million is too many: Securing the Social and Environmental Future of Melbourne” Submission to the Urban Growth Boundary Review July 2009.

Destruction of the Environment and Green Wedges:

The Government must abandon the Green Wedge land grab as destructive of the environment, a threat to wildlife, including endangered species, and as a major contributor to Green House Gas Emissions. Around the urban fringe we have a concentration of some of the most endangered eco- systems in Australia including the Western Basalt Plains Grasslands and Grassy Woodlands in the Darebin, Jackson and Merri Creek valleys, with 400 year-old red gums, and plus loss of habitat for a range of threatened species (e.g. Southern Brown Bandicoot.) PPL VIC supports the submission of the Green Wedges Coalition as being an excellent detailed statement of the threats to significant landscapes, endangered species and wildlife plus indigenous vegetation.
The 15,000 hectares of grassland reserves to be provided over 10 years as a trade-off for grasslands is apparently of poorer quality than the kangaroo (themeda) grasslands to be destroyed
The removal of environmental protection from all areas within the Urban Growth Boundary would seem to indicate that areas such as significant parts of the Merri Creek Catchment will not be protected from environmental damage or even clearing.
Areas for development are clear felled by developers. The loss of trees and other vegetation for housing adds to global warming effect. Is there any provision for conservation?

The proposed high density, low open private space in these outer suburbs means they will be hotter - urban heat island effect - from the lack of the cooling effect of vegetation/transpiration - low ratio of vegetation to concrete and other hard surfaces.

What provision is made for public open space? There is no mention made of public open space for passive recreation as well as sports fields and recreation areas.

On past performance, no allowance will be made for wildlife in outer suburban development. PPL VIC has had experience with kangaroos of Somerton and Morang where animals get trapped in developed areas and just left to get killed on roads. The outer suburban interface is considered terra nullius it seems. What of smaller animals/birds what about the grasslands and inhabitants? There appears to be no consideration given to the creation or maintenance of wildlife corridors.

The State Government appears to have taken little notice of report by the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Mr Ian Mc Phail, in “The State of the Environment Victoria 2008”. In it he comments:

"Victoria's population growth, increasing affluence and the expansion of our cities and towns has contributed to unsustainable levels of resource consumption and waste production. This has direct environmental impacts through changes in land use from conservation and agriculture to cities and towns. To supply our cities and towns, we harvest water for residential and manufacturing purposes, changed river flows, discharge wastes to land and sea, remove native vegetation and send damaging gases into the atmosphere." (Refer in the report to A Culture of Consumption. Drivers of Change – Population, Change and Settlements Page 9)

The report continues:

“Continuing growth of Victoria’s population will increase demand for land, as well as housing and transport services, potentially leading to more waste and pollution. Extra demand for water is particularly pertinent given the predictive effects of climate change on already depleted water storages.”

Mr Mc Phail concludes on a depressing note:

"It is currently cheaper to protect the environment to than to restore it but it is even cheaper to degrade it…”

Urban Growth Areas in Fire Prone Areas:

Whether it is advisable settling thousands of people in outer suburban fire prone areas does not appear to have occurred to the Government. These are the outer suburban areas classified as "Growth Areas": Beveridge, Bulla, Devin Meadows, Cranbourne East, Clyde North, Diggers Rest, Donnybrook, Kalkalo, Melton, Mt Cottrell, Officer, Pakenham, South Morang, Sunbury, Tarneit and Truganina.

Councils opposed to the extension of the Growth Areas Boundary and the imposition of the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution are Melton, Casey, Cardinia and Mitchell. Wyndham refuses to comment.

It is apparent that these areas are either under resourced by fire services or not serviced at all. We assume this also goes for ambulance and police. Would the State Government be liable if fire services were not provided and a fire went through the settlement?

The Age reported on 4 July 2009 (Lessons to Learn) on the proceedings of the Bushfire Royal Commission and pointed to urban sprawl as one of the “fatal confluence of factors” that led to Black Saturday.

Cost to Victorians:

The cost of building new homes in the rural fringes of Melbourne is double that of constructing infill dwellings in the inner city. This is the hidden cost of suburban sprawl. This is an unacceptable financial burden for Victorian tax payers to shoulder. The added costs include extra infrastructure such as power, water and transport, as well as higher health costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
The report, commissioned by the State Department of Planning and released in July, cites research that found

"for every 1000 dwellings, the cost for infill development (in existing suburbs) is $309 million and the cost of fringe developments is $653 million".

It has been stated by Minister Madden in Parliament (and reported in the Sunday Age 11 October that the funds to be raised by the $95,000 hectares Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution will cover only 15 per cent of total infrastructure costs. The Minister is prepared to sacrifice Green Wedges land that makes Melbourne “livable” and to destroy the livelihoods of many small landowners and farmers for this minor financial return.
Unfair Tax on Land Vendors: The Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution is an unfair, discriminatory tax on family farms and small landowners, even after amendment by the State Government in draft legislation. As we have consistently maintained, the tax needs to be withdrawn and any charges levied at the point of development, consistent with the approach taken in other Australian states. PPL VIC supports the campaigns of “Taxed Out” and as mentioned above held a joint rally on 14 July 2009 to protest against the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution.
Perpetuation of Car Dependency: The plans to construct major freeways/ring roads and the absence of plans for extensive rail networks to serve the new suburbs spells out that the population of Melbourne will remain dependent on cars despite the uncertain future of oil. We are particularly concerned over plans to build the E6 freeway through Woollert. The roadway appears redundant.
Reduction of Arable Land: Given our population crisis and likely food shortages with the drought it is unthinkable that the Government can even be contemplating turning over arable land for housing development. The loss of vegetable farms including prime market garden land in the Westernport Catchment will increase food miles for our produce.
Increase of Green House Gas Emissions: Climate change is the most important moral question of the age and must be at the forefront of our public policy. The State Government appears to have its head in the sand. Compared to other cities in the world Melbourne has one of the highest rates per capita. Our private vehicles and public transport were recently recorded to generate 11 million tonnes of carbon monoxide a year compared with 8.5 tonnes in London. The increase in urban sprawl will worsen our figure.

Accommodation of Population within Existing Urban Growth Boundaries:

No examination has been undertaken of how the increased population can be accommodated in Metropolitan Melbourne.

Suggestions have been made that an inventory should be conducted of development applications which have already been approved by Council within the Urban Growth Boundary but which have not yet been built. Utilizing existing approvals might go some way to addressing the issue.

An inventory also needs to be undertaken of brown field sites and land which could be available for residential development – former transport depots, rail sidings and Commonwealth Government sites eg the Maribyrnong Defence site.

It is most unfortunate that the practice of “land banking” by developers appears widespread throughout the city. Take for example land on the former Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital site in Parkville which was given to Australand and the Citta Property Group to build a residential development then used for 2 weeks for the 2006 Commonwealth Games Village. The original plans showed a wall of 700 units in a 9 storey block along City Link. The land is still vacant and there have been no attempts to commence building. The developers are said to be waiting until the “market is right.” The truth is that developers prefer green field sites and are unwilling to invest in developing brown field sites.

Request to Committee: PPL VIC urges the Committee to reject approval of the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary and the iniquitous Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution and to develop recommendations for accommodating increased population within the Urban Boundary plus arriving at consensus for determining a sustainable population for Melbourne.

Yours sincerely

Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
P) Box 197
Parkville 3052

0408022408
jbell5[AT]bigpond.com

Australian Citizenship Pledge

'From this time forward
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.'

When new Australians pledge their loyalty to Australia, it is not some token spiel, it is a solemn oath!
Personally I have never had to take this pledge, because I was born here. But I would be happy to take it without hesitation. My loyaty to Australia, its people, its values, its laws are unequivocal.

Australian citizenship is a privilege, highly valued and sought after globally. It is not a right.
Citizenship comes with prerequisite conditions and performance conditions. With those privileges come responsibilities.

Foreigners are welcome* as Australian citizens according to Australian conditions:

# be law abiding
# respect Australian liberties and rights
# respect and share Australia's democratic beliefs
# speak, read and write English
# proactively assimilate and integrate
# accept Australian traditional culture
# rescind any cultural mores that irreconcilably conflict with Australian values.

[*Subject to Australia's carrying capacity and commensurate with adequate Federal Government infrastructure investment.]

Breach those conditions and your citizenship should be made null and void. Commit a serious crime and you shoudl be automatically deported, and barred from ever returning to Australia. This clause needs to be enshrined into Australian law and I call on it to be the basis for a Conditional Citizenship Bill to be put before the Australian Federal Parliament.

Australia must control who comes to this country, else all Indians, Asians, East Asians, Africans, Europeans, Brits, Russians, Kiwis and Americans could argue a self-serving entitlement to swamp Australia. Bugger that! That would be unjust on Australia and Australians - a fairness justification any country would stand by. As if Australian Aborgines haven't suffered from successive waves of colonising immigrants from the British torrent and then succumbed to British authorised foreign herds every since?

If one looks at the facts, Australia has and is being overwhelmed by immigrants. The problem is pathogenic and it skyrocketed exponentially after Whitlam's multiculturalism manifesto of 1973.

Some of these immigrants are committing serious crimes once in Australia. Immigrants who have a record of criminality and foreigners visiting Australia who then commit serious crimes while they are here are rightly automatically deported.

So why should similar serious crimes be immune from deporting the perpetrator simply by Australia's honourable process of residency or citizenship? Answer: It shouldn't!

Such defence of citizenship has no basis for someone who has breached the conditions of citizenship, flouted Australian laws and cause serious crime in Australia. Once convicted they deserve to be deported to their country of birth.
Simple rule, Fair rule. Try doing same overseas. Name one country that would be more lenient than Australia for such crimes by 'new' citizens!

Apply this rule universally and I challenge that any genuine injustice could emerge.

Australian citizenship is a world-leading privilege and don't millions of humans around the planet well know it?
But if all of India's and China's now millions of educated were deemed eligible to migrate to Australia what would protect the incumbent local Australians from beingh overrun?

Only birth rights present the fairest universal test. Else Australia risks being overrun by the world's populations that have a life less ideal than Australians.

Economic immigration is a form of human gravity. Humans flow to the attractive countries of least resistance. And at present our ethnic-biased Laboral governments keep the immigration door open despite no local electoral mandate permitting the bastards on Capitol Hill to do so.

To reiterate, the simply test ought to be that if one is not born in Australia, one's citizenship privilege is conditional on performance. If you commit a serious crime in your new host country - then simply that is a fundamental breach of your citizenship conditions and you have voided your privilege and entitlements.
Of course your offspring cannot if they were born here.

So-called 'naturalised citizens' agree to comply with the "same duties and obligations as those who were born in Australia.
If they breach those duties and are permitted to stay in Australia, then what message does that send to wannabe 'crims' overseas?

And think about it. This rule is not just for Australia. It should be universal. The only losers are the criminals.
With all the ethics in Australian gaols, it is about time they were deported and Australian draft and vote for a Conditional Citzenship Bill - foreigners are welcome as Australian citizens according to Australian conditions - be law abiding, speak English, procatively assimilate, accept Australian traditional culture, and rescind any cultural mores that irreconcilably conflict with Australian values.

Simple, fair and just...and I encourage other countries to do the same.

(Parts of cartoon based on one signed "V.D." which is all over the net, but no attributions available.)

Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution’ (GAIC)

From Beveridge in the north, Werribee and Melton in the west, to Cranbourne in the south-east, thousands of Victorians have recently been notified of the Victorian Labor Government’s intention to introduce what they are calling a ‘Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution’ (GAIC) for selected areas around Melbourne.

What kind of government just dreams up new taxes of $95,000?

In effect, this ‘contribution’ is a $95,000 per hectare tax on all vacant properties over one acre, and all properties over five acres with homes when you sell, regardless of the sale price.

Imagine the young couple who are struggling to pay the mortgage on a small property of six acres where they have built, or hope to build their dream home and raise a family. One of them loses their job due to the current economic climate and they decide they can no longer afford their dream. What chance would they have of raising enough from the sale of their land in a depressed market to cover what they owe the bank, plus over $230,000 for the Labor Government’s share?

Imagine the farmer who has put his blood, sweat and tears into life on the land and is coming to the end of his working life. His plans have always been, to sell his 100 acre farm. He’s struggled through years of drought to make ends meet and now, out of the blue, he has to pay the government over $3.8 million for the privilege of selling his property.

In the likely event that he doesn’t sell, Mr. Brumby and Mr. Madden will simply pass the $3.8 million debt (indexed annually) on to his children or widow when he dies. Whatever you do, Mr. Farmer, don’t get divorced and sell your property as part of the settlement, as they’ll take it from you then!

Who will stop this dictatorship?

When Victorians elected the Labor Government did we give them a mandate to simply take a large portion of our great Australian dream - a home which we have worked hard to get? We need to tell them, NOW, that we will not stand for a government that believes it has a right to introduce legislation such as this. The theft of privately owned property by force is something that we expect to hear of happening in communist or fascist countries, not in the lucky country, our country, Australia!

If you believe that it is unfair for Mr. Brumby’s duly elected State Labor Government to take a large portion of our homes in this manner please let them know that it will be political suicide for them to proceed with this legislation. Remember there’s an election next year! Today, email them, fax them or even just mail this page to them with a note voicing your disapproval at them stealing our homes by stealth.

Your home could be in the next lot that they steal, so tell them now, that it’s not acceptable!

John Brumby - Premier
Level 1, 1 Treasury Place, East Melbourne Vic., 3002.
Ph: 9651 5000 Fax: 9651 5054
[email protected]

Justin Madden - Minister for Planning
Level 17, 8 Nicholson Street, Melbourne Vic., 3000.
Ph: 9637 8087 Fax: 9637 8921
[email protected]

Source of article was Michael Hocking, Taxed Out Inc., PO Box 113 Beveridge, 3753. Backhouse & Thomas 3869TO

This interesting letter about the experience of a citizen representing a group's appeal at VCAT vindicates the citizen, educates others about the VCAT attitude, and shows VCAT up.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC).

The Hon. Justice Kevin Bell
President
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
55 King Street
Melbourne 3000
13 August 2009
Your Honour

ADDENDUM TO SUBMISSION TO VCAT REVIEW

I refer to my letter of 15 May 2009, written on behalf of our organisation Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., containing our submission to the review of VCAT. I am writing to you with an addendum about a number of urgent concerns about VCAT proceedings following a Practise Day Tribunal hearing on 13 March 2009.

See attached the VCAT Order (Reference P3692/2008) relating to the Practice Day hearing on 13 March 2009, the applicant being the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and the Responsible Authority Port Phillip Council. We were represented by a barrister.

A matter which perturbs us greatly is the failure of the Tribunal to comply with the Practice Note which sets out procedures for submitting evidence and submissions. Port Phillip Council failed to comply with the Practice Note as its legal representative produced additional documents at the hearing without having previously circulated them to us the requisite two days beforehand or at all. Apparently this is a routine occurrence at VCAT hearings and puts community groups at a significant disadvantage because they cannot afford the expense of an adjournment to consider fresh material. I have heard from a number of our member groups that this has happened to them. In our case the Port Phillip Council brought its request to strike out our case on 13 February 2009 yet came up with additional material five minutes before the hearing a month later on 13 March 2009. Hence Council’s legal representative had plenty of time to circulate additional documents.

I understand that there are many different jurisdictions (14 different lists?) and each has different procedures for “bringing applications”. There are different Practice Notes, different forms and requirements for the different jurisdictions. It appears that Tribunal members do not enforce them, as we found in our case.

The Tribunal member hearing our case justified allowing Port Phillip Council’s legal representatives to provide additional material five minutes before the hearing by saying:

“The applicant was aware of the statement of grounds being relied upon by the council prior to the hearing; they have not come as a surprise... In the present case, there was nothing in the council’s outline of submissions or the additional material that the applicant or I could not comprehend or respond to on the day”.

In fact, some of the material was new and there was no time to even read it closely. (See Paragraph 9, Page 2 of Order.)

The Chair further made the following comment:

“The applicant, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., through its spokespersons, Julianne Bell, appears regularly before VCAT and is familiar with Tribunal procedures, planning legislation and planning control. The applicant was represented by experienced legal counsel who himself presented detailed written submissions and was well able to request an additional opportunity to respond to anything at the practice day hearing if indeed he has been taken by surprise. He did not do so.”

(See Paragraph 10, Page 5 of Order.)

Not only was the statement about regular appearances before VCAT false, and not based on any evidence, it is apt to create great disincentive to community groups seeking to have a voice at VCAT hearings. The Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. has not appeared regularly at VCAT, in fact we have had two cases only since our establishment in 2004 - the present one included. The other case was an application in July 2008 to obtain information under FOI from Port Phillip Council. (VCAT referred the case to the Ombudsman who was unable to extract information from the Council and the case lapsed.) The organisation does not know about planning legislation or Tribunal procedures as claimed by the Tribunal Chair and accordingly engaged lawyers to represent it. I have only had very limited further contact with VCAT in other matters and do not pretend to understand the procedural requirements.

The comments by the Tribunal carry the implied slur that Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. has been vexatious, but of course there is no redress for a community group confronted by this kind of attack from a VCAT member.

Community groups come to VCAT in order to have a hearing according to law about issues of importance to the community. In many ways they ought to have more entitlement to a proper hearing than those who do so from motivations of profit. The refusal to hear a properly formulated proceeding, accompanied by this studied slight to the group bringing the claim, is typical of the type of alienation of the community by VCAT which has been so distressing for those involved in the process.

Yours sincerely

Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 2052