Amazing isn’t it? The federal government sets immigration policy. And yet the immigration minister can’t even answer the most simple of questions.

In Part Two, Liam Bartlett again takes Alan Tudge to the Woolshed:

Liam Bartlett: “So, when are we going to hit 30 million”?

Alan Tudge: “We outline a 10-year, for example, infrastructure pipeline”.

Liam Bartlett: “Great, so where are we in 10-years?”

Alan Tudge: “In part we’re going through a process”.

Liam Bartlett: “30 million? 35 million? 40 million? Stop me when I am getting close”

Amazing isn’t it? The federal government sets immigration policy. And yet the immigration minister can’t even answer the most simple of questions.

Well done 60 Minutes.

Lib Candidate David Leyonhjelm says Northern NSW koalas are not endangered by logging. Animal lawyer, Angela Pollard, says, "Logging density has doubled, with an extra 140,000 ha of coastal forests targeted for clear-felling. She adds that the previous protections on retaining mature trees have also been removed, and this impacts most severely on the koalas’ main source of food tree. The new logging rules also remove the requirement to check for koalas in the canopy before a tree is felled."

In a press release headed, "Labor’s Great Koala National Park bad for North Coast communities, " David Leyonhjelm, the lead candidate for the Liberal Democrats, NSW, has vowed to oppose Labor Party election promises to create a Great Koala National Park.

“There is no evidence that koala populations are in decline in northern NSW,” he says

In the press release, it is further claimed that "An extensive research effort undertaken by the Department of Primary Industries over three years has shown that koala occupancy was influenced by elevation, cover of important browse trees, site productivity and the extent of bushfires in the last ten years. Previous timber harvesting did not influence koala occupancy with no difference between heavily harvested, lightly harvested and old growth sites. The study also found evidence that the koala population in north-east forests was ten times higher than previously estimated."

Leyonhjelm's press release claims that research undertaken by the Department of Primary Industries is independent, however most wildlife protection groups would say that it is anything but.

Animal Justice Party upper house candidate, Angela Pollard, a long term resident of the Northern Rivers who has spent many years reafforesting her property near Nightcap National Park, rejects Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm's claims about north east coast koala numbers:

"I'd be paying more attention to the research undertaken by North Coast environmental campaigner Dailan Pugh who received the Order of Australia Medal for his services to forest conservation, rather than a politician cosying up with the timber industry," she says. Dailan Pugh cites a number of studies addressing the reduction in koala numbers across the east coast and he questions the validity of DPI Forestry's acoustic recording of koala calls as opposed to reliance upon the standard method of checking for scats [droppings] under koala food trees. On reading these studies (Is_Logging_Really_Benign_For_Koalas_as_DPI_Forestry_Claim.pdf), it is abundantly clear that the felling of large koala food trees has had a major impact on koala numbers on the north east coast."

"Just as concerning is the impact that the Berejiklian Government's new logging rules are already having on koalas. Logging density has doubled, with an extra 140,000 ha of coastal forests targeted for clear-felling. The previous protections on retaining mature trees have also been removed, and this impacts most severely on the koalas’ main source of food tree. Horrifyingly, the new logging rules also remove the requirement to check for koalas in the canopy before a tree is felled."

Animal Justice Party's Angela Pollard states:

"In order for north coast koalas to survive into the future, we need to recognise that the time for logging of our state forests is over. They have already been plundered, with their best timbers already taken and now we are taking smaller and smaller trees, which are of limited to no use for koalas. We are creating wildlife deserts where we should be providing havens for our native animals."

Meanwhile, Mr Leyonhjelm is trying to justify logging koala habitat with the Department of Primary Industry's (Koala research in NSW forests study, which Leyonhjelm claims, “undermines both Labors’ and environmental groups’ rationale for closing down the timber industry in northern NSW by creating this large new park,” Mr Leyonhjelm says.

But wildlife activists think that the Department of Industry has a highly conflicted portfolio.

David Leyonhjelm is standing for the Legislative Council and Greg Renet is standing for the Legislative Assembly seat of Coffs Harbour at the state election on Saturday.
Angela Pollard is an animal rights lawyer and an Animal Justice Party candidate for the Upper House NSW in 2019.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has released visitor arrivals and departures data for the month of January, which posted record annual permanent and long-term arrivals.

In the year to January 2019, there were 835,310 permanent and long-term arrivals into Australia – up 6% from January 2018 and an all-time high. This was partly offset by 546,310 permanent and long-term departures from Australia:

Put together, there were 289,000 net permanent and long-term arrivals into Australia in the year to January 2019, way above the 42-year average of 154,249:

While the ABS is at pains to state that “permanent and long-term movements… are not an appropriate source of migration statistics”, since they relate to the intention of passengers arriving, not actual outcomes (measured using the 12/16 rule), there is a strong correlation between this series and the ABS’ official quarterly net overseas migration (NOM) estimates:

Given the strong rise in net permanent and long-term arrivals over the second half of 2018, there’s a strong likelihood that ABS’ NOM estimate for September 2018 will jump when it is released on Thursday.

Mindgardens Neuroscience Network (Mindgardens) has commissioned a white paper on the burden of disease and cost of brain disorders in AustraliaThe burden of all brain disorders in Australia accounted for 20.5 per cent of disability-adjusted life years, nearly twice the global figure of 11.1 per cent illustrating the scale of the health care challenge. The white paper reports the disease burden associated with neurological, mental health and substance use disorders is in excess of $74 billion. Between 2010 and 2017 substance misuse (drugs, alcohol) grew at 24.7 per cent, followed by neurological disorders at 15.6 per cent and mental health disorders by 8.6 per cent.

Formed in 2018, Mindgardens sought to determine the current burden of brain disorders in Australia, the associated costs and where innovation and collaboration could help build a new healthcare architecture for all Australians over the next ten years.

The white paper titled ‘Review of the burden of disease for neurological, mental health and substance use disorders in Australia’, highlights the economic costs associated with the rise in the spectrum of brain disorders – neurological, mental health and substance use disorders. Mental health disorders and suicide cost the nation over $33 billion each year. Neurological disorders cost over $31 billion and substance use disorders almost $10 billion. Together brain disorders in Australia cost over $74 billion per annum and will shortly represent a greater cost to the Australian economy than heart disease, cancer, and respiratory disease combined.

“Our aim is to become an international leading precinct for innovative research and compassionate healthcare for all brain disorders,” says Professor Peter Schofield AO, Interim Co-CEO of Mindgardens.

“We wanted to understand the current burden of disease and associated costs that arise from the spectrum of brain disorders - neurological, mental health and substance use disorders. With this knowledge, our focus, actions, and solutions can be targeted to better understanding, treatment, cure, and prevention of these great societal challenges,” says Professor Schofield.

Working together the Australian Comprehensive Brain Disorder Centre plans to establish a new healthcare architecture using “Apex Clinics” that examine, simultaneously, the whole health of the person - from physical health, neurological, mental health and substance use and will encourage and support collaborative care approaches to ensure quality health care outcomes.

Says Professor Helen Christensen AO, Interim Co-CEO of Mindgardens, “The approach to care must aim to review brain disorders in totality not in isolation. Often these disorders are connected and coexisting, they share brain mechanisms and behavioural patterns. We need to take a helicopter view that cuts across siloed’ service provision, creating better and more comprehensive care".

This white paper combined with other recent reports (e.g. Investing to Save1) highlight how the national research agenda should be providing an evidence base from which new and improved interventions can be adopted. Workplace interventions, assertive support after a suicide attempt, and dementia support services result in both economic returns on investment and positive health and wellbeing outcomes for individuals.

Mindgardens is based in Sydney, Australia.

To keep up with global food demand, the UN estimates, six million ha of new farmland will be needed every year. Instead, 12 million ha are lost every year through soil degradation. Australia lost 36 million ha of agricultural land in just the four years from 2005 till 2009. Some of this lost land has occurred because of urban sprawl which is swallowing up some of our best soils close to cities that used to supply the fresh fruit and vegetables. A scathing report by the Royal Commission has gone as far to accuse the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) of negligence and being "incapable of acting lawfully," apparently because they overestimated the amount of water returned to the river by a factor of ten. The many warning signs all around us are continually ignored by politicians obsessed with economic theories that defy even the basic laws of mathematics.

Australia is mostly a big desert

Australia is the sixth largest country in the world and also the driest inhabited continent on earth, with the least amount of water in rivers, the lowest run-off and the smallest area of permanent wetlands of all the continents.

Its ocean territory is the world's third largest, spanning three oceans and covering around 12 million square kilometers.

One third of the continent produces almost no run-off at all and Australia's rainfall and stream-flow are the most variable in the world.

Soil

Australia also has some of the oldest land surface on earth and, while rich in biodiversity, its soils and seas are among the most nutrient poor and unproductive in the world. This is due mainly to the country's geological stability, which is a major feature of the Australian land mass, and is characterized by, among other things, a lack of significant seismic activity.

Only six per cent of the Australian landmass is arable. As a result, agricultural yields are low compared to other nations: German farms produce over nine metric tonnes/ha compared to Australia's two tonnes.

Australian soils are highly dependent upon vegetation cover and insect biomass to generate nutrients and prevent erosion. It is the native vegetation's long root systems that help break down the sub soil and bring nutrients to the surface, while insects, bacteria, and small animals, reduce ground litter and add nitrogen.

Land clearing, water extraction and poor soil conservation are all causes of a decline in the quality of Australia's soils, now the collapse of insect populations adds another blow. [1]

What causes land-degradation in Australia

The two most significant direct causes of land degradation are the conversion of native vegetation into crop and grazing lands, and unsustainable land-management practices.

Other factors include the effects of climate change and loss of land to urbanization, infrastructure and mining.

However, the underlying driver of all these changes is rising demand from growing populations for food, meat and grains, as well as fibre and energy. This in turn leads to more demand for land and further encroachment into areas with marginal soils.

Market deregulation, which has been a trend since the 1980s, can lead to the destruction of sustainable land management practices in favor of monocultures and can encourage a race to the bottom as far as environmental protection is concerned. The 2016 State of the Environment report noted that:

”Current rates of soil erosion by water across much of Australia now exceed soil formation rates by an order of magnitude or more. As a result, the expected half-life of soils (the time for half the soil to be eroded) in some upland areas used for agriculture has declined to merely decades.”

Our soils are losing their fertility

The carbon content of Australian soils, which is a measure of fertility, is now some five to 10 times lower than when measured in 1845. The UN has warned that there could be as little as 60 harvests remaining before the world's soils in places like Australia reach the limits of agricultural production.

To keep up with global food demand, the UN estimates, six million ha of new farmland will be needed every year. Instead, 12 million ha are lost every year through soil degradation. Australia lost 36 million ha of agricultural land in just the four years from 2005 till 2009. Some of this lost land has occurred because of urban sprawl which is swallowing up some of our best soils close to cities that used to supply the fresh fruit and vegetables.[2]

Despite this, agricultural products accounted for 15 per cent of Australia’s total exports in 2015-16, and the gross value of farm production was more than $63 billion largely because we currently have around two ha of arable land per person, one of the highest rates in the world.

Murray Darling Basin

However 40% of that production came from the Murray Darling irrigation area which had high production based on historic over-allocation of water, something that has now come back to bite us. A scathing report by the Royal Commission has gone as far to accuse the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) of negligence and being "incapable of acting lawfully," apparently because they overestimated the amount of water returned to the river by a factor of ten.

Groundwater

With our highly variable surface water supply, groundwater resources are critical for many Australian communities and industries. In some cases, groundwater is the only reliable water supply available to support towns, agriculture and the resources sector. Australia is a very dry country so groundwater is extensively used right across the continent.

Perth relies heavily on the Gnangara Mound aquifer for its water supply, but the water table has been dropping for the past 40 years or more because of reduced rainfall, increased extraction, and decreased recharge.

The Great Artesian Basin, underlying about 1.7 million square kilometres of Australia, contains about 65,000 km3 of water, but it is a “Fossil water”, being up to 2 million years old, so extraction is far faster than replenishment.

It is not widely understood that vegetation and many streams and rivers are supported by the availability of groundwater, either as discharge into streams and rivers or through groundwater uptake by plant roots directly.

In the Northern Territory, Palm Valley has an average rainfall of only 200mm, but spring fed pools allow its unique flora to survive. The same applies for the Doongmabulla Springs Complex, a one-square-kilometre expanse of nationally important wetlands near the proposed site of the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland, which would probably be destroyed if Adani is allowed to extract the water it needs.

As the pressure in the Great Artesian Basin has declined and the water table drops, mound springs (where groundwater is pushed to the ground surface under pressure) have begun to dry up in South Australia and Queensland.

Associated paperbark swamps and wetlands are also being lost and it gets more and more expensive to extract the groundwater for irrigation and other commercial applications. On average, rates of groundwater extraction across Australia have increased by about 100 per cent between the early 1980s and the early 2000s, reflecting both our increased population size and the associated commercial usage of groundwater stores.

We are also putting these resources at risk from pollution. Already there have been many incidences of ground water being polluted by petroleum products, chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, salt and even nuclear waste. However the main aquifers are being put at risk from fracking, acid leaching of minerals like uranium and underground coal gasification.

Converting the aquifer’s recharge area into farmland is likely to increase the level of nitrogen compounds while the large blasting used in open cut mining is fracturing rock formations deep underground, allowing contamination of water from above or intermingling with salty water.

Growth economics deaf to reason

All of which explains why scientists have been warning us for years that we cannot continue to grow without doing great damage to our fragile nation, but they are continually ignored by politicians obsessed with economic theories that defy even the basic laws of mathematics.

and......
Underground Coal Gasification was trialed and was proved to have failed in three sites in Queensland with the operator gas company Linc Energy charged with five counts of wilful and unlawful environmental harm. They faced penalties of up to $9 million but were declared bankrupt, leaving the Qld government with a clean up bill of $80m.

Despite this, a similar plant at Leigh creek has been given the green light after a failed challenged by the Adnyamathanha people in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The chairman of Leigh Creek energy claimed that Linc energy was a great company and that there was no environmental damage. Well he would have to say that since he was also chairman of Linc before they went broke.

The dire state of legal assistance funding in Australia has been highlighted as a matter of critical importance in the Law Council of Australia’s 2019-20 Pre-Budget Submission, with a boost of at least $310 million a year required to address critical gaps in the system.
Additional funding should also be provided to introduce Justice Impact Tests, improve resourcing of federal courts, and establish a National Justice Interpreter Scheme, said Law Council President, Arthur Moses SC.

“Legal assistance funding in Australia is abysmal and in need of urgent review. Some of our most vulnerable people are slipping through the cracks, as the Law Council’s Justice Project illustrates,” Mr Moses said.

“At least $310 million a year is needed to provide adequate funding for Legal Aid Commissions, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and family violence prevention legal services. This would provide a much needed injection of funds for frontline legal services to increase civil legal assistance and will come close to restoring the Commonwealth’s share of funding for Legal Aid Commissions to 50 per cent.

“Commonwealth legal aid funding is at its lowest in decades. In 1997 the Federal Government spent $11.22 per capita. Today, it is spending less than $8 per capita. Many living under the poverty line are ineligible.

“Disadvantaged Australians are not the only ones impacted by the shortfall. Many Australians simply can’t afford legal representation and if required to attend court, are forced to appear alone. Lives are being destroyed because successive governments have failed to invest in critical social justice infrastructure.”

In the UK, Justice Impact Tests have proven to be a vital tool in facilitating the smoother development of laws and policies with downstream impacts on the justice system and ensuring adequate funding is provided for any repercussions. The Law Council believes such a system should be implemented in Australia.

The Law Council’s submission also calls for urgent additional funding of the federal courts, especially the Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

“Australia’s family law system is chronically under-resourced, under-funded and overburdened. Families and children are having to wait up to three years, in many cases more, to have matters heard. As the federal courts’ workloads continue to increase, more resourcing is desperately needed to keep up with demand. This must include appointing further judges and registrars, and additional legal assistance,” Mr Moses said.

“Law Council calls on the Australian Government to commission a review of the resourcing needs of federal courts and tribunals in consultation with the community and key stakeholders. There is also a need for a national interpreter scheme to assist those for whom English is not their first language to access justice.”

Other key funding priorities identified by the Law Council include the need to:

Adopt and adequately resource a transparent judicial appointments process; and
Establish and adequately resource a Federal Judicial Commission to provide training for federal judges as well as a fair mechanism to hear any complaints that may be made against the judiciary.

The opposition leader said this week that the next Federal Election will be a referendum on wages & the Reserve Bank Governor was saying he couldn’t understand why wages weren’t going up more given the underlying strength of the economy. Michael McLaren of 2GB Radio is joined by the Hon. Kelvin Thomson, former Federal Member for Wills now advisor for Sustainable Australia Party’s Clifford Hayes to talk about Bill Shorten’s declaration that the upcoming election will be a ‘referendum on incomes’.

Michael is joined by the Hon. Kelvin Thomson, former Federal Member for Wills now advisor for Sustainable Australia Party’s Clifford Hayes to talk about Bill Shorten’s declaration that the upcoming election will be a ‘referendum on incomes’.

The opposition leader said this week that the next Federal Election will be a referendum on wages & the Reserve Bank Governor was saying he couldn’t understand why wages weren’t going up more given the underlying strength of the economy.

This seems a remarkable thing for him to say given that the answer is obvious… that Australia’s high migration program of the last 15 years has provided a pool of surplus labour which is used by employers to keep wages down.

Yesterday’s commentary by the Reserve Bank Governor suggested that the issue was not confined to Australia, and that it was a 21st century phenomenon.

Other Western countries have also seen employers using “open borders” to keep wages down, and in Australia’s case the migration numbers took off from around 2004 – so yes it has been a 21st century development.

Download this podcast here

Spirit of Eureka condemns the Morrison government and the ALP Opposition’s compliant endorsement of the US intervention and preparations for a “regime change” in sovereign Venezuela. This points to the urgent need for an independent Australian foreign policy that upholds and promotes the sovereignty and independence of countries to determine their own destiny.

Less than four days after the US announced the removal of its diplomatic recognition of the elected Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and declared its support for Juan Guaido, a self-proclaimed and little-known Opposition politician as the new President of Venezuela, the Morrison government dutifully echoed US policy.
The toadying Australian government condemned the democratically elected government of President Maduro and called for his replacement by the un-elected and largely unknown Guaido.

The shameful fawning by the Australian government to US imperialist plotting in the affairs of sovereign Venezuela was mirrored in an ALP public statement signed by Bill Shorten, Leader of the Opposition and Penny Wong, Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister. The ALP statement recognises the un-elected Juan Guaido as the new President of Venezuela, withdrawing diplomatic recognition of Maduro.

In effect the two main parliamentary parties obediently threw their support behind the US intervention and preparations for an illegal and undemocratic regime change.

This is in spite of the UN National Assembly confirming its continuing recognition of Maduro as the democratically elected President of Venezuela.

There is ample evidence indicating US imperialism has been planning a “regime change” in sovereign Venezuela since Venezuela’s oil industry was nationalised in the early 2000s. Many years of severe economic sanctions imposed by the US aimed at crippling the Venezuelan economy have taken their toll on the lives and living conditions of the people, particularly the poor.

On January 24, 2019, John Bolton, US National Security Advisor told Fox Business “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”

In their wholehearted endorsement of US intervention in Venezuela both the Morrison government and the ALP Opposition are acting as puppet agents of US imperialism andits oil monopolies.

The recent oil sanctions imposed on Venezuela’s state-owned oil firm by the US aim to force Maduro to hand over power to US backed Guaido.

Trump and Pence have repeatedly stated that “all options are on the table”, refusing to rule out military intervention, whilst the figure of 5,000 US troops to Columbia is being canvassed by Mike Pence and the US military.

Political and economic interventions by the US in Venezuela have deepened the hardships for people in that country creating political and economic instability and thus the context for direct foreign military intervention by the US to impose its “regime change”. It’s a very dangerous situation for the people of Venezuela and the region that can lead to a prolonged bloody civil war in Venezuela and in the region.

The Australian government’s and the Opposition’s obedience and support for the US political and economic interventions and preparations for an illegal “regime change”, implicate Australia in any future violence, civil war and suffering in Venezuela.

Spirit of Eureka has fervently opposed US imperialist invasions, destruction and suffering imposed on the people of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries subjected to its foreign interventions, coups and “regime changes”. We do not wish this to be repeated and imposed on the people of Venezuela.

We in Australia have also had a taste of US engineered semi-coup in the 1975 removal of a progressive Whitlam government which was taking tentative steps towards independence from US and Britain.

We call on the Australian government and the Labor Opposition to:

‐ reverse their support for the un-elected puppet Guaido as the new President of Venezuela
‐ recognise the Maduro government as the legitimately elected government of Venezuela with Nicolas Maduro as its legitimate President
‐ condemn US interference and intervention in Venezuela’s sovereignty
‐ call for an end to US economic sanctions
‐ support self-determination of the Venezuelan people without any foreign interference

We call for an independent and peaceful Australian foreign policy upholding the sovereignty, independence and self-determination of all people and countries.

Website: www.spiritofeureka.org

The next Meeting of IPAN in Victoria will be on 20 February, Level 4 Trades Hall at 5.30 pm. This meeting will commence earlier due to a small overlap with a meeting on Venezuela on the same night, at 7pm in the Trades Hall, at which the Venezuelan Consul will be speaking. IPAN meeting will be at 5.30pm – 7pm to enable people interested to learn more about the situation in Venezuela to attend.
Just when you thought all your co-citizens were asleep at the wheel on Australian Government support for America's latest regime change initiative, the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) has issued a response. IPAN reminds us that this is not our decision, nor the USA's to make, but is a decision for the Venezuelan people. IPAN has made several recommendations, including that Australian needs to develop an independent foreign policy.

IPAN made the immediate points that:

 Venezuelans have the right to decide who governs them
 US sanctions on Venezuela are not endorsed by the UN
 UN diplomacy needed immediately for non-military resolution to the crisis
 Urgent need for an independent Australian foreign policy

The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) has reported that it is deeply concerned with the Morrison government and ALP Opposition’s support for the United States call to remove the current rule of the Maduro government and the installing of the interim president Guaido in Venezuela. This is not our decision, nor the USA’s to make, but is a decision for the Venezuelan people.

“The position of the Australian government and opposition flies in the face of lessons from the recent, and not so recent, US led wars that Australia has supported and engaged in”. stated Ms Annette Brownlie, IPAN Chairperson.

What is required is an urgent diplomatic solution facilitated by the UN – not military intervention nor US sanctions that have not been endorsed by the UN.

“This situation also points to the urgent need for an independent Australian foreign policy that upholds and promotes the sovereignty and independence of our country and all other countries”, stated Ms Brownlie.

IPAN considers support for military or economic intervention would be counterproductive to resolving the crisis being experienced by the Venezuelan people.

Former UN special rapporteur to Venezuela, Alfred de Zayas, who finished his term last year has criticized the US for engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela which he said is hurting the economy and killing Venezuelans.

Mr de Zayas has argued that,

“The key to the solution of the crisis is dialogue and mediation… There is nothing more undemocratic than a coup d’état and nothing more corrosive to the rule of law and to international stability when foreign governments meddle in the internal affairs of other states.”

“Only the Venezuelans have a right to decide, not the United States, not the United Kingdom … We do not want a repetition of the Pinochet putsch in 1973. What is urgent is to help the Venezuelan people through international solidarity – genuine humanitarian aid and a lifting of the financial blockade so that Venezuela
can buy and sell like any other country in the world – the problems can be solved with good faith and common sense”.

Support IPAN

The next Meeting of IPAN in Victoria will be on 20 February, Level 4 Trades Hall at 5.30 pm. This meeting will commence earlier due to a small overlap with a meeting on Venezuela on the same night, at 7pm in the Trades Hall, at which the Venezuelan Consul will be speaking. IPAN meeting will be at 5.30pm – 7pm to enable people interested to learn more about the situation in Venezuela to attend.

National Conference in Darwin

The next conference of IPAN is planned for Darwin.

"My objective, with your help, honourable members, is to make Melbourne, and even Victoria, a great place to live. Not merely a great place in population size or area to rival such places as Shanghai, New York, London or Sao Paulo. Such greatness would be mere obesity, with all the disadvantages of such. Not a city or a state where people are crammed into dogbox apartments, living on crowded and congested streets in an environmentally unfriendly concrete heat island. But a spacious city with open skies, open and tree-filled streets, with gardens. An environment where children can play safely, where the car is not king but a servant.
Walkable patchworks of various styles of housing, where one would enjoy walking, cycling or travelling through by public transport. A city of learning, education, the arts and self-supporting industry, where families and communities can thrive. Where the less fortunate who may be living on lower incomes are not segregated into high-rise towers but live in affordable detached or medium-density housing spread throughout the suburbs. Where their children have the same opportunities as other children. Where ghettos of crime and despair are not created. A city where the environment—the living environment—is prized and of prime importance. A sustainable city or cities in a sustainable state. This can only happen when people are proud of their neighbourhoods and where they, as citizens, have control over what they create—the built form, the environment, the infrastructure. This is what, I believe, we as a Parliament can achieve." (Clifford Hayes, Extract from speech.)

[This speech was paragraphed by candobetter.net editor. It was taken from the unproofed Hansard transcript and will be revised if there are changes.]

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (16:54:47): President and honourable members, especially new members, congratulations. I grew up in Brighton, the son of a doctor and a school teacher, so in many people’s eyes I had a life of privilege, but my parents had just bought a house, my father was starting his own medical practice from scratch and I was sent to Gardenvale state school. However, I did not like school, particularly getting the strap in my first few days there for playing in the third graders’ playground.

So when I learned to read, quite well, I told my mum I wanted to leave school. She laughed and told me I had to do another 12 years before I could leave.

I was devastated. By grade 3 my parents were able to send me to Brighton Grammar.

But in grade 4 my father suffered a terrible car accident, which affected him and his earning ability for the rest of his life. Mum worked, which was not that common in the early 1960s, and Dad brought in some money, so we got by okay. My two sisters and I managed to finish at private schools, but my father's situation got worse, and he relied on drinking and heavy medication, which by the end of our schooling left him totally incapacitated.

Being a bit of a rebel and not a great student, I decided on a very different course to the academic life so beloved by my parents. I had become interested in photography and filmmaking, and to my parents’ horror I wanted a career in the film industry. So I left home and went to work.

The Australian film industry was almost non-existent then. I found a job in the nascent television industry with Hector Crawford at Crawford Productions in Collins Street. My first job was on Homicide as a music editor, although I only had the vaguest idea of what that job entailed when I started. Over the next few years Crawfords produced the top three or four highest rating TV dramas in Australia at that time.

I went on to become a freelance film editor, and in 1979 I won an Australian Film Institute award for my part in editing Mad Max.

Members applauded.
The PRESIDENT: As tempting as it is, can we hold the applause until the end.

Mr HAYES: However, it was my experience working in the Northern Territory on the feature film We of the Never Never that changed my view on how we treated the first inhabitants of this land, and I came home a firm believer in Aboriginal land rights.

My parents, particularly my father, who was a keen advocate to the few who would listen back then for Indigenous recognition and other social issues, were both academic and left wing in political inclination, which was a pretty unusual stand compared to many of my friends’ parents in Brighton. So I was always interested in politics and comparing and arguing various points of view.

However, it was travelling overseas for six months when I was 24 which opened my eyes on how we lived in Australia. I was trying to find my way around the gridlocked streets of Bangkok, and looking over a bridge I saw swarming below a mass of humanity living in shacks on the side of a city canal, which would be no bigger than the Elwood canal down our way. A couple of hundred people were living down there—working, living and laughing.

I realized that there were many ways to live the life that I thought was normal from my little bubble in suburban Melbourne. I also realized that which so many Australian travellers come to see: we are all so enormously privileged to grow up and live in the open spaces and remaining nature of our suburbs and the surrounding countryside.

I lived in Sydney for a while working as an editor. Here I was in the heart of the film industry and lived the life of a continual after-work party—restaurants, bars, parties, picnics, drinking, eating and all that goes with it. It was the 1980s, and Sydney was a beautiful city and definitely the place to be. Few would disagree that most of the beauty around the harbour has now been spoiled by overdevelopment.

I got married and divorced in fairly quick succession. I bought an old farm house in a small town, Deans Marsh—between Geelong and Lorne—as a weekend retreat, and I became more and more interested in small-scale farming, self-sufficiency, agriculture and alternative lifestyles.

I got married again and we had a daughter followed by a son a couple of years later.

Computerisation had swept through the TV industry, enabling me to work from our farm house but often requiring travel back and forth to Melbourne. I studied for a diploma in applied science, farm management, by correspondence through Melbourne University, with a view to starting a small vineyard, which would certainly supplement my growing wine cellar. That was when devastation struck and my life had to change.

My wife wanted out, citing my lifestyle, the working, the drinking, the parties and generally being away from home too much. I was not much use as a father—and what is more, she was taking the kids. My drinking, smoking and party life had to stop.

I realised my health was being affected and my lifestyle was costing me more than money. I was losing friends, my lucrative business and now what I valued most—my family. I sought help and I found it through an organisation which pointed me to a path of spiritual recovery. As a result I no longer drink or smoke, nor do I take any mind-altering substances except caffeine, and have not done so for many years.

However, I did start that small vineyard on the Mornington Peninsula with a business partner. After a while I managed to reconcile with my family, and though my wife and I did not resume our marriage we became good friends and I had the opportunity to be the father I had always wanted to be to my children.

In 2003 I sold the vineyard and I moved back to Brighton again, buying an older style apartment with a backyard, where I still live today.

While I always had a political interest, my real political activity was about to start in the most unlikely way.

My mother, who still lived in the old family home nearby, told me that a developer had plans to build a 5-storey building of more than 100 apartments right behind her house. The whole street was affected, most of the houses being single storey.

All of our neighbours were up in arms: 'They can’t do this here!’. And the reply from our council: 'Oh yes, they can’.

It was Melbourne 2030, and we had been declared, without our knowledge, to be living in an activity centre.

What is more, the council had plans for more 4 and 5-storey buildings scattered around North Brighton.

Our group of residents decided to run someone against the local councillor. I was the only volunteer, and I ran on the issue, opposing high-rise development.

With huge community support, I was elected by a sizeable majority seeking to maintain our village character. Once elected, I had the full support of council in moving for more restrictive height controls in our village-style shopping centres and surrounding residential streets.

The minister, through his department, would not allow the changes, but after much lobbying he did grant so‑called 'discretionary’ height controls but at heights greater than the council’s decision.

The developers were still not happy and took the council to VCAT, where the VCAT member overruled the council’s refusal, saying discretionary controls gave him the discretion to break them. What is more, he and other members over the years took it upon themselves to give council lectures about our housing policy, developed out of widespread community consultation, for being too restrictive.

VCAT continues to grant permits for building heights far in excess of our meaningless discretionary controls as granted by the state government.

So much for the wishes of the community, or democracy, where elected bodies such as municipal councils can be overridden by a bureaucrat and increasingly by the state government.

This is where I discovered the general attitude of the planning bodies.

Senior planners in the government said to me, 'Councillor, if you don’t want high rise, you must want sprawl’.

I said, 'I don’t want either’, to which they replied, 'Well, where will you put the population?’.

Research showed me how population growth had been ramped up in recent years from a long-term average of 70 000 per annum to 200 000 people per annum. Melbourne is now growing by 2500 people, seeking accommodation, every week.

This fact is used by the government to overpower councils on the issue of planning in particular. Most government planners advocate urban consolidation and the destruction of our valued Australian suburban life. They talk of high-rise schools. Where will the children play?

To achieve this so-called consolidation, governments, planners and developers want to bring in more and more people, not from the outer suburbs but from overseas, to densify the inner city.

Who benefits? The developers and the property industry.

After being elected mayor of Bayside I joined an organisation called Planning Backlash. Led by the awesome Mary Drost, OAM, we represented planning groups with similar issues all across Melbourne and regional Victoria.

This group has led the campaign for greater say for residents and councils and has regularly met with all planning ministers, both Liberal and Labor, up until this minister, who no longer consults with us.

Rapid population growth has been connected with our planning problems.

Around this time I saw Dick Smith’s documentary and found the policies of Sustainable Australia. I came to see that global population growth and the corresponding increased pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, species decline and habitat destruction have made population growth the major environmental problem, both globally and locally.

Yet population growth was not even mentioned by the major political parties, including the Greens.

The Greens advocate lowering consumption, and rightly so, but until they realistically tackle the population issue they cannot address the current rate of environmental destruction and greenhouse gas emissions in this state or in this country.

This issue has nothing to do with race or religion, nor should it. For no matter how much we reduce consumption and the ensuing pollution per person, if we increase the population at the same time, we will make zero or even negative progress.

And we in this country are growing at rates far above the world population growth rate, and our greenhouse gas emissions keep on rising.

A similar charge could be made against the major parties, Labor and Liberal, who cry economic ruin if we reduce population growth by returning to 1980s or 1990s levels of immigration, as our party advocates.

They say the current rapid population growth raises gross domestic product. Yet, as we all know, GDP per head of population growth and wages growth have been stagnant over recent years as we have imported more and more workers.

In 2010 I met William Bourke and joined Sustainable Australia. Their policies on local planning, affordable housing, infrastructure, the environment and a more diverse economy appealed to my frustrated desires, particularly at a local level.

As to planning in this beautiful city and this bountiful state, planning should be a good thing, not like here, with our planning system—deregulated, discretionary and encouraging the atrocious.

Then we, the residents, hopefully with the support of our councils, try to make the proposal less bad. Even this process is under attack, with planning bodies such as the Grattan Institute seeking to remove third-party appeal rights. Even less local democracy is being demanded.

Planning, we believe, should be conceived at the local level, initiated by local planning groups or citizen juries. Planning should then set the agenda, set the social and environmental goals, the population density and height controls. Then developers would have to conform to these established local requirements—a democratic process.

Finally, just before I finish, I would like to thank a few people who helped me take this journey to find my way to this most historic and honourable chamber: William Bourke, our hardworking federal president and an invaluable mentor; Mary Drost, of indomitable spirit, and the committee of Planning Backlash; Richard Rozen and my supporters in Brighton Residents for Urban Protection; Derek, Evelyn, Kerrie, David, Beth, David and John of Restore Residents’ Rights; Jill Quirk, who ran in an election with me; Kelvin Thomson, a former MLA and an early advocate on population growth, who is now my fantastic chief of staff; Noel Pullen, a former MLC, who helped us in the planning battle; Alex Del Porto, James Long, Sonia Castelli and Bayside councillors past and present; my family, especially my two children, Alice and Harry.

My objective, with your help, honourable members, is to make Melbourne, and even Victoria, a great place to live. Not merely a great place in population size or area to rival such places as Shanghai, New York, London or Sao Paulo. Such greatness would be mere obesity, with all the disadvantages of such.

Not a city or a state where people are crammed into dogbox apartments, living on crowded and congested streets in an environmentally unfriendly concrete heat island. But a spacious city with open skies, open and tree-filled streets, with gardens. An environment where children can play safely, where the car is not king but a servant.

Walkable patchworks of various styles of housing, where one would enjoy walking, cycling or travelling through by public transport.

A city of learning, education, the arts and self-supporting industry, where families and communities can thrive. Where the less fortunate who may be living on lower incomes are not segregated into high-rise towers but live in affordable detached or medium-density housing spread throughout the suburbs. Where their children have the same opportunities as other children. Where ghettos of crime and despair are not created. A city where the environment—the living environment—is prized and of prime importance. A sustainable city or cities in a sustainable state. This can only happen when people are proud of their neighbourhoods and where they, as citizens, have control over what they create—the built form, the environment, the infrastructure. This is what, I believe, we as a Parliament can achieve.

Members applauded.

The Hon. Kelvin Thomson, former Federal Member for Wills, is joining the Sustainable Australia Party. Mr Thomson served as an Australian Labor Party Councillor for the City of Coburg from 1981 to 1988, Member of the Victorian Parliament for Pascoe Vale from 1988 to 1996, and Federal Labor Member for Wills for over 20 years from 1996 until the 2016 Election. Mr Thomson will be advising Sustainable Australia’s first elected Member of Parliament, Mr. Clifford Hayes, who was elected as a Legislative Councillor for the Southern Metropolitan Region at the recent Victorian election.

Mr Hayes said, “Kelvin Thomson’s knowledge of all three levels of government, his campaign experience - he stood for public office 12 times in his career and was successful on each occasion - and his policy development expertise, having been a Shadow Minister for the Environment amongst other Shadow Ministries, Parliamentary Secretary and member of many Parliamentary Committees during his parliamentary service, will make him an invaluable asset to me, my office and to the Sustainable Australia Party.

Mr Thomson said, "I first joined the Labor Party in 1975. It was an honour and privilege to represent the Australian Labor Party in two Parliaments and three levels of government for a total of 35 years. To say the Labor Party has been my life is putting it mildly. So I have submitted my resignation from the Labor Party with a very heavy heart.

“For a decade now I have set out what I believe to be the myopia, greed, vanity and ecological illiteracy that drives Big Australia, Australia's policy of rapid population growth. I have arrived at a point where there are irreconcilable differences between the course I believe Australia and the world needs to chart, and the course that the Australian Labor Party is charting. I set out in my Valedictory Speech my great appreciation of the support I received as an MP from ordinary members of the Labor Party, and those sentiments remain true. I retain a hope that in time the Labor Party will embrace views about Australia's population that are more in keeping with the needs of this generation, the needs of those who will come after us, and the needs of the many other species we have the good fortune to share this ancient, beautiful and fragile country with.

"What this world needs now is not more people, but more courage."

Sustainable Australia Party Founder and President William Bourke said, "Kelvin Thomson played a key role in kick-starting the population debate in Australia 10 years ago, with a speech he gave in Parliament in August 2009, and with a media release he put out in September 2009, in response to Treasury figures showing that Australia's population would be 35 million by 2049, a massive jump from the previous projection of 28 million by 2049, made just a couple of years earlier. He described this as a recipe for environmental disaster and called for population reform."

"The Sustainable Australia Party, formed in the wake of that debate, is a party of the political centre, and Kelvin and other mainstream, like-minded Australians are very welcome here."

Kelvin Thomson's letter of Resignation from the Australian Labor Party 13 January 2019

Samuel Rae
Victorian Branch Secretary
Australian Labor Party
438 Docklands Drive
DOCKLANDS VIC 3008

Dear Sam

This is a very hard letter for me to write. I first joined the Australian Labor Party in 1975.

Within a few years I had become a Branch Secretary, then Branch President, then delegate to the Victorian State Conference and President of the Wills FEA, Policy Committee member, and member of a number of local, State, and Federal Campaign Committees. I was later elected as a member of
the Public Office Selection Panel and served for a time as its President.

In 1981 I was elected as an endorsed Australian Labor Party Councillor for the City of Coburg, and reelected in 1982 and 1985, serving until 1988. In 1988 I was elected as an endorsed Australian Labor Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for the electorate of Pascoe Vale. I represented Pascoe Vale until 1996 and served as a Shadow Minister and Manager of Opposition Business during that time.

In 1996 I was elected to the Federal Parliament as the Labor Member for Wills. I was re-elected in 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013, serving for over 20 years until I retired from Parliament in 2016. I served as a Labor Shadow Minister from 1998 till 2007. When Labor was elected to Government I became Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, and later on served as a Parliamentary Secretary under 2 Labor Prime Ministers.

It was an honour and a privilege to represent the Australian Labor Party in 2 Parliaments and 3 levels of government for a total of over 35 years. To say the Labor Party has been my life is putting it mildly. As you know, I received my 40 Year Membership Medallion a couple of years ago. Since retiring from Parliament I have continued to provide assistance and support to Labor MPs and candidates in my area.

So I am writing this letter of resignation with a very heavy heart. There are many things I could talk about, but I accept this is always going to be true of any large political organisation. The one thing I cannot overlook is this. The world is undergoing unsustainable population growth – it has more than doubled in the last 50 years. I can’t do much about that, but Australia is one of the worst offenders. So too Victoria. So too Melbourne. The Australian Labor Party of the 21st Century has embraced Australia’s 21st Century rapid population growth, known by the shorthand expression of Big Australia. The 55,000 annual net overseas migration of the Whitlam years, when I joined, has turned into over 200,000 annual net overseas migration. Here in Victoria we have embraced Big Victoria
and Big Melbourne.

For a decade now I have set out what I believe to be the myopia, greed, vanity and ecological illiteracy that drives Big Australia. I won’t insult your intelligence by repeating my arguments. Suffice to say that I have arrived at a point where there are irreconcilable differences between the course I believe Australia and the world needs to chart, and the course that the Australian Labor Party is charting.

It is true that neither the Liberal nor the Greens Parties have any more enlightened approaches to the issue, but there is a Party – Sustainable Australia – which does get it. As they say in the US, everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. It is well established that an important ingredient of happiness is the opportunity to spend your days doing something you believe in. What I believe is that exponential population growth is not merely a problem, but that it is the problem that reinforces all others. I agree with David Attenborough – “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more”.

I have been given an opportunity by the Sustainable Australia Party’s Victorian MLC Cliff Hayes to do something I really believe in. It is an opportunity too good to pass up. Obviously that is not consistent with my remaining a Labor Party member, hence this letter.

I set out in my Valedictory Speech my great appreciation of the support I received as an MP from ordinary members of the Labor Party, and those sentiments remain true. I retain a hope that in time Labor will embrace views about Australia’s population that are more in keeping with the needs of this generation, the needs of those who will come after us, and the needs of the many other species we have the good fortune to share this ancient, beautiful and fragile country with.

Yours sincerely
The Hon. Kelvin Thomson
[email protected]
11 January 2019

Kelvin Thomson's resignation letter as pdf file - click here.

In November 2018 The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) published an analysis of the higher education overseas student industry. It was framed around the remarkable growth in the share of commencing overseas university students to all commencing students over the years 2012 to 2016. This share increased from 21.8 per cent in 2012 to 26.7 per cent in 2016.

Bob Birrell and Katharine Betts
(This post is republished from John Menadue’s site, Pearls and Irritations, 27 December 2018.)

In November 2018 we published an analysis of the higher education overseas student industry. It was framed around the remarkable growth in the share of commencing overseas university students to all commencing students over the years 2012 to 2016. This share increased from 21.8 per cent in 2012 to 26.7 per cent in 2016.

Since publication, higher education statistics for 2017 have been released. They show  that the share of commencing overseas students to all commencing students have increased to 28.9 per cent. In the case of the Group of 8 (Go8) universities, by 2017 this share had reached well over 40 per cent in the University of Sydney, ANU, and the University of NSW (Table 1).

The following brief summary indicates why such extreme reliance on overseas students should be of concern. We then explore another issue, not canvassed in the November report. This is the implications of the rapid growth in overseas student commencements for access to higher education on the part of domestic students.

This a highly topical matter because in December 2017 the Coalition government announced that it would henceforth cap the level of domestic higher education enrolments. Since that time, Australia’s universities, including the Go8, have mounted an offensive against this decision on the grounds that it limits opportunities for domestic students. Yet the enrolment data examined below indicates that, at least since 2012, the Go8 have effectively enforced just such a cap on domestic enrolments.

A summary of the November report’s findings
The November report argued that the overseas student industry was in a precarious state because of its increased reliance on overseas student enrolments. The share of overseas commencing students to all commencing students at Australia’s universities increased from 21.8 per cent in 2012 to 26.7 per cent in 2016.

We concluded that the tail was wagging the dog. That is, such was our universities’ reliance on overseas students, that most were prioritising the health of the overseas student industry over the educational needs of domestic students. In the case of research, the universities’ focus was primarily on basic research. This is because it is this that is relevant to their aspiration to achieve a place in the top 100 institutions in the global university ratings systems. As documented in the November report, research of this kind is the most likely to be accepted by the top international journals that drive the ratings system. Research focused on local priorities wouldn’t make the cut.

Australia’s overseas student industry is split into two distinctive markets. The first includes most of the Go8 universities, where overseas students were charged some $40,000 a year, mainly for courses at the undergraduate and post-graduate-by-coursework level in business and commerce. Most of the students are Chinese. Indeed, between 2012 and 2016, the total increase in overseas student commencers at Go8 universities was 13,738 . Of these 12,198 were Chinese.

Students’ (or parents’) willingness to pay for such high priced courses can be attributed to the fact that they deliver credentials from a university rated in the international top 100. (This includes almost all of the Go8.) Qualifications from these universities appear to be highly regarded in the Chinese labour market. Relatively few of these Chinese students stay on in Australia after completing their studies.

This enrolment pattern helps explain the universities’ focus on basic research. In order to maintain enrolments from China, they have to promote such research because it scores best on the metrics used by the international ratings systems.

The second market is composed of almost all the other universities. The number of overseas students enrolling in these universities also increased significantly between 2012 and 2016 (though at a slower rate than occurred in the Go8). However the countries of origin were primarily located in the Indian subcontinent. Most of these students were attracted to Australian universities because of the access their enrolment gave them to the Australian labour market and thus to the potential of a permanent residence visa.

We concluded that the overseas student industry was in a precarious state. In the case of the Go8, overseas enrolments were vulnerable on three points.

First is the risk of reputational damage on account of the poor quality of the education overseas students are receiving. In the business and commerce faculties at the Go8, where Chinese students often constitute the majority, such courses have had to be made less demanding so that the many Chinese students with relatively limited English language skills can cope with their requirements. Then there is the risk from geopolitical tensions that threatened Chinese enrolments. And finally there is the risk of competition from other countries.

For the other universities the main issue is current changes in the rules governing overseas-student access to the Australian labour market and to long-term employment contracts. This means that their chances of obtaining a permanent residence visa are contracting. As a consequence we argued that these changes would diminish the attraction of enrolling for higher education at a non-Go8 Australian university.

Table 1: Per cent share of commencing onshore* overseas students to all onshore commencing students, Go8 universities and all Australian higher education institutions, 2012, 2016 and 2017

Source: Department of Education and Training, Higher Education Statistics, Table 1.10, Commencing Students by State, Higher Education Provider, Citizenship and Residence Status.
* The term onshore is used to distinguish overseas students being educated in Australia from those in Australian campuses set up overseas. The latter are not included in these figures.

Higher education opportunities
Australia’s universities repeatedly assure the Australian public that increased enrolments of overseas students are not damaging the prospects of domestic students aspiring to a university education. Rather, they state that the two sets of enrolments are independent of each other; opportunities for locals are not being crowded out.

How could this be? Well, according to a 2014 policy document from the Go8, international students actually ‘directly facilitate domestic participation in higher education’. This is achieved, the document claims, because revenue from overseas student fees contributes to the costs of domestic education. It asserts that international student fees ‘subside each domestic student by around $1,600’.

This might seem plausible given that domestic enrolments have increased since the removal of enrolment caps for domestic students in 2009. Over the years 2012 to 2017 (years in which overseas enrolments expanded rapidly) the number of commencing domestic students at Australia’s universities increased from 370,314 to 416,371.

The result is that a very high share of the cohort of university age are currently enrolled as higher education students. In fact, university competition for potential domestic students is such that some universities have seen a drop in their domestic enrolments over the past couple of years. Concern that this enrolment scramble had gone too far (and was costing the Commonwealth government too much in funding) prompted the Coalition government in December 2017 to announce that it would re-impose enrolment caps in 2018 (caps which Labor promises to withdraw should it win government in 2019).

The universities have responded to these caps by insisting throughout 2018 that they amount to a reduction in opportunities for domestic students. According to Margaret Gardiner, Vice Chancellor at Monash University, the cap acts as a funding freeze which ‘will limit the share of highly-skilled well-paid jobs in our economy that can be done by qualified Australians in the decades ahead’. Or, in the words of the newly appointed (in June 2018) Chief Executive  of Universities Australia, the reinstating of caps puts an end to the ‘unearthing and unleashing’ of talent that has occurred since the caps were removed, starting in 2009.

If expansion of overseas student enrolment was helping to create opportunities to increase domestic enrolments you would expect that more domestic students would be gaining places in Go8 universities. Over the period 2012 to 2017, when there were no caps on the number of domestic students that any university could enrol, domestic student commencements at Go8 universities barely moved. They were 87,939 in 2012 and 87,930 in 2017. By contrast, over these same years the number of overseas student commencements at the Go8 increased from 30,320 to 56,363. (The data are drawn from Higher Education Statistics releases, various years.)

Given that there were no caps in place, the Go8 could have taken more domestic students over these years. Many more thousands of these students would have jumped at the opportunity to attend a Go8 university. They were precluded from entry by the high ATAR  entry thresholds imposed by Go8 universities. Such is the Go8 universities’ prestige that they attract the best domestic performers in secondary school exams. Like the overseas students, domestic students know that a credential from a Go8 university gives them a competitive advantage in the labour market (in this case within Australia).

The stabilisation of domestic enrolments was not because the Go8 lacked the capacity to increase their student load. They did have the capacity, but all of it has been taken up by increased enrolments from overseas students.

Clearly, the Go8 universities preferred to enrol overseas students. In effect, the benefits of the allegedly superior education that these universities offer went to overseas students rather than to local students. This was not because overseas students had superior potential to take advantage of what the Go8 offers. The contrary is the case. The Go8 do not preference high performing overseas students. There are minimal entry barriers to their enrolment other than the ability to pay the huge fees required.

Conclusion
Australia’s universities, especially the Go8, are caught in a vicious circle as their reliance on overseas student revenue deepens. This reliance means that they cannot prioritise teaching which benefits the vocational needs of their domestic students, to expand enrolment opportunities for domestic students or to focus on research activities relevant to Australian industry or the well being of Australian citizens.

Report authors
Bob Birrell (mobile 0413 021 126) is the Head of the Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI), an independent, non-profit research organisation. Katharine Betts is deputy head.
This paper is based on two TAPRI research reports:
Australia’s higher education overseas student industry revisited, December 2018  and Australia’s higher education overseas student industry: in a precarious state, November 2018.

The discovery of a new fish at a famous WA fossil site is in such good condition that it provides an exciting fresh glimpse into the evolution of species from 380 million years ago. The new fish - named Pickeringius acanthophorus (honouring the late Museums Victoria fossil collection manager David Pickering) - lived in the Late Devonian Period. Its beautifully preserved fossil skeleton was discovered by Flinders University’s Professor John Long at the Gogo Formation, in the Kimberleys of Western Australia. This has become a world famous fossil site, containing superb 3-dimensional preservations of entire fishes in limestone nodules, and has so far yielded more than 50 species.

Pickeringius, about the size of a sardine, was one of the earliest ray-finned fishes – a lineage that accounts for more than 98% of all living fish. There are about 30,000 ray-finned fish species alive today, but in the Devonian period, they were greatly outnumbered by other fish groups, with fewer than 30 species described worldwide.

The new find is especially significant because the braincase of this fish is exquisitely preserved. Devonian ray-finned fishes have mostly been found squashed flat, so the new discovery will enable CT scans of its skull at ANU, allowing palaeontologists to digitally render its endocast, and provide important information on early fish brain evolution. Only two previous Devonian ray-fins (Mimipiscis, from The Gogo Formation, and Raynerius, found in France) have had their brains subject to this level of detail.

The Pickeringius is distinctive for having enormous spiracular openings on the top of its head, though these present a mystery to palaeontologists. Most ray-finned fishes of this period had minute spiracles, and these are now vestigial or lost in most modern forms. The only living ray-finned fishes with well-developed spiracles are African bichirs, which use them to breathe air at the surface. Alternatively, modern rays (which are not ray-finned fishes) use their spiracles to breath while they are on the seabed (with their mouths and gills pressed under their body).

The fish is also excessively prickly, hence the name acanthophorus (which means spine bearer). The top of its skull is covered in little conical denticles. The underside of the pectoral girdle and the belly scales also covered in sharp denticles. Each of the fin-rays has rows of pointy barbs, giving the fins a serrated appearance. Even the bony spines leading to the tail fin (basal fulcra) have rows laterally projecting spikes, meaning that even its spikes have spikes.

The paper, A New Actinopterygian from the late Devonian Gogo Formation, Western Australia, by Dr Brian Choo, Jing Lu, Sam Giles, Kate Trinajstic and Professor John A Long, has been published by Papers in Palaeontology. (doi/epdf/10.1002) It can be read online here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/spp2.1243?shared_access_token=A_FKIuAwpUE8FHttQsCxyk4keas67K9QMdWULTWMo8Paz3_Fs79HomKiypL_30Plhd0SCFxG3zFN4ceNKkbChkSPtLMIp5j2PywttSVRn1G51BwiVarAaHrbu1DIqAt_PK9f2_dm81wCWlYSsco6jg%3D%3D

"Media resistance has always been one of the big problems," says Sandra Kanck, who came from a family where there were seven children and she learned early that one wage did not go as far for seven as it might for fewer. From 1994-2009 Sandra served as an Australian Democrats’ Member of the upper house of the South Australian Parliament. Her ‘maiden’ speech in parliament was – predictably for those who know her – about population. For more than nine years Sandra Kanck has been either President or Vice-President of SPA, mostly the former, including reluctantly juggling the role of Acting Treasurer for three months during one of her stints as President.

Dear 7.30.
The statements being made by politicians and commentators re the size and growth of the population/immigration intake are (deliberately) ignorant, seriously uninformed or deliberately politically biased. And the coverage of this issue by your program and ABC journalists more generally also lack quality research, lack of 'joining the dots', failure to question unfounded claims by the above and, in some cases, unquestioned acceptance and repeat of demonstrably untrue statements.
Please consider the following demonstrable facts and follow the inevitable conclusion.

Infrastructure, including, schools, hospitals, police stations, utilities for water and electricity, roads etc. do not last forever. It's estimated that across the broad sweep of all infrastructure, infrastructure has a life of ~50 years. Thus 2% of the total capital value of all infrastructure must be spent every year just to maintain but not to improve infrastructure for the existing population.

Recently, largely due to high immigration intakes, our population has been growing at 1.6% pa. Not long ago the rate was as high as 2%. But at 1.6% this means that 3.6% of the total capital value of all infrastructure must be spent each and every year just to maintain the level of service; that is an 80% increase in the cost of infrastructure just to maintain the same level of service.

This cost is not only ignored when it is claimed that high immigration is economically beneficial, the error is massively compounded and used to mislead by the way in which GDP is used as the criterion of economic benefit. The additional cost of the required 80% increase in infrastructure is added to GDP not subtracted. This is a function of the way GDP is calculated. It adds together all the dollars spent on goods and services whether the 'goods' are 'goods' or 'bads'. This money spent on expanding infrastructure cannot be spent on other things to improve real welfare for the existing population. Everyone seems to agree that the infrastructure required by the deliberately expanded population (through the Federal Government's immigration policy) should be built before the new intake arrives. Witness the very loud and universal applause on your QandA program when this point was made. Thus the burden falls on the existing population one way or another. If the infrastructure is not built before the new intake arrives, existing citizens suffer a decline in service, if it is built before the new intake arrives it is the existing citizens who pick up the cost. This is consistent with several Productivity Commission reports that it is not the existing population that benefits but the migrants.

Nor does the dishonesty over claimed economic benefits of high immigration stop there. As populations increase and cities expand most ordinary citizens bear increased costs: car maintenance, travel distances, petrol etc. These are real costs borne by these citizens but they add, yes add to GDP. It is this failure of GDP to measure, but to be used by many, including ABC journalists, to be a surrogate measure of quality of life that is used to mislead.

Another related matter poorly presented by the ABC. The Premier of S.A. is calling for an increase in migration to South Australia, again claiming economic benefit, yet at the same time hospital services have broken down badly: ambulances are banking up at emergency departments (ramping) and nurses and doctors are bitterly complaining about inadequate facilities to serve their patients. There are 4,794 public hospital beds in South Australia. If our population is to grow by 1.6% per year we would need an additional 77 beds this year and an exponentially increasing number in following years as populations became larger. Against this 77 extra beds the Marshall Government has pointed with some pride at reopening 20 beds in the old Repat Hospital. The hospital problem is clearly related to the issue of high population growth rate but journalists are not making the connection.

This is not in any way to blame migrants for these problems. It is the Federal Government that is responsible for the migration program, not the migrants. Nor is the above any reflection on the composition, religious background, sex or sexual orientation of migrants. This is simply about numbers and the failure of most media including the ABC and your program to do some simple maths and join the dots.
Yours sincerely,
John Coulter

Please see attached pdf call for submissions to kayaking at Frankston Nature Conservation Reserve. "[...] I nor the friends received this directly. It was forwarded to me from the equally outraged Frankston Environmental Friends Network. The Regulations specific for the reserve which were put in place by the Minister for the Environment in 2015 were revoked on 1 February 2018, making the reserve a free-for-all. All of the protection work for the reserve, fought for many years has been ignored and overridden by the Andrews Labor Government. Accordingly, Paul Edbrooke will find his place last on my ballot paper," writes Frankston Councillor, Quinn McCormack.

Quinn McCormack writes: "Please put in a submission against this proposal. I suggest sending not only a submission to Parks Victoria but also to the Minster for the Environment, Shadow Minister for the Environment, and to the reserve email address so that it doesn't get lost in the Parks Victoria system. Due date is is December 1.

The claim is that the community was consulted in December 2017 - I was not consulted and I am not aware of a single member of the reserve friends group being consulted. There WAS NO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION. It seems that it was a selective survey of a handful of recreational interest groups and mates.

Relevant email addresses:

[email protected]
lily.d'[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

In a nutshell, the proposal to introduce kayaking is inconsistent with the reserve status as a Nature Conservation Reserve, inconsistent with the full community consultation undertaken over more than 10 years, damaging to flora, damaging to fauna, damaging to water quality and downright dangerous.

- Frankston Nature Conservation Reserve specific Regulations, which were in place until 1 February 2018 expressly excluded activities such as kayaking and cycling. Why would any decent management authority create a management plan which is directly contradictory to enacted Regulations?

Toxic deepwater danger in old mine shaft 20m deep - No ranger present either

- There was no assessment as to the quality nor impact to the flora and fauna condition at the reserve before making changes to access arrangements and determining future appropriate activities.

- Kayaking will ultimately result in a rare high quality freshwater body (previously potable water) becoming contaminated, and eventually having toxic algal blooms as the water body is too deep to turn over.

- Public safety has not been assessed - no ranger is present and the water body is 20metres deep, having been constructed as a reservoir from an old mine site. A water body of this magnitude is rare in an urban setting and planning should consider it in this context.

Ecological impact

- Kayaking will have a detrimental impact to two endangered vegetation communities - Submerged Aquatic Herbland and Aquatic sedgeland, endangered and vulnerable in the Gippsland Plains Bioregion respectively.

- FFG Act listed species - Musk Duck, Blue-billed Duck, and Freckled Duck - use the water body.

- Additional species at risk locally such as the Snake-necked turtle and frog species which inhabit the reserve, such as the nationally threatened Growling Grass Frog.

- There was no consultation with key stakeholders (such as the Friends group for the reserve) nor with the broader community about potential future activities at the reserve."

[Candobetter.net Editor: The points put forward by Councillor Quinn were rearranged by the editor.]

Ex Labor leader, Mark Latham, recently joined Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and will be running for the NSW legislative council at the next state election. Here is his 8-Point Plan to "save Sydney “suffocating” from overpopulation and overdevelopment."

Latham's 8-Point Plan

1. Our immigration program must be framed in the interest of the people who live here now. This is especially true of policies impacting on an over-crowded, increasingly dysfunctional city like Sydney.

2. Permanent immigration numbers should be slashed, bringing them closer to their 20th Century average of 70,000 per annum (down from 190,000 currently). Temporary visas must also be cut back.

3. NSW should not take any more special refugee intakes, given the mismanagement of Syrian refugee settlement by the Baird Government.

4. Sydney’s planning laws must be overhauled to make the city more efficient and sustainable. An urban containment strategy is needed. For existing suburbs, One Nation supports development and density restrictions in under-serviced, over-crowded LGAs. The Government should publish a comprehensive report identifying these suburbs (most likely, most of the city).

5. The release of greenfields residential land also needs to be limited to prevent further urban sprawl. Priority should be given to the development of employment land in Sydney to reduce commuter-travelling times, especially in the city’s outer suburbs.

6. The Greater Sydney Commission should be disbanded (at an annual cost saving of $18 million) as it has become a mouthpiece for Big Australia immigration and unlimited population growth in Sydney. Political appointments and unrealistic planning strategies have dominated the Commission’s work.

7. The Greater Sydney Commission’s excessive housing and population growth targets should also be abandoned. NSW Planning should be given the task of containing the city’s growth to reasonable lifestyle, infrastructure and environmental limits. Local Councils, as the level of government closest to the people, also have a critical role to play in limiting densities and development in line with local infrastructure/service capacity. One Nation respects this vital local government urban planning role.

8. The State Government should scale back the responsibilities of the so-called Western Sydney Aerotropolis to focus on employment creation in the immediate vicinity of the new Badgerys Creek Airport, rather than land acquisition and development for residential purposes. In the fair treatment of existing property rights, affected landowners should be bought out at enhanced (rezoned) land values, rather than current unimproved rates.

BRAG has always tried to remain unaligned politically but the plans the Andrews’ Government has for centralizing planning, if re-elected, require us to take a stand. The plans are being developed in secret by Labor to ensure that massive changes can be rammed through, if re-elected, to push at least 70% of new medium to high density housing into the middle suburbs of Melbourne. What this means is that you can expect multi-storey blocks of flats in your local street and neither you nor your council will be able to do a thing about it. You will have no right to be advised, object or appeal and the first indication will be when construction commences.

And these flats won’t be just two or three story, they could be up to seven or eight storeys or even more. No more mandatory heights, no real restriction on how many dwellings per block, as Planning Minister, Richard Wynne, has told the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee that, under the changes, 10 or more dwellings could be built on a single block. Previously the maximum per block was only two dwellings per block. No more backyards or gardens and lots of concrete.

On the other hand, the Coalition has announced at our Restore Residents’ Rights Rally on the steps of Parliament, that, if elected it will restore the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and General Residential Zone protections introduced under the former Coalition Government recently torn up by Labor. In addition we have established that the Coalition will review VCAT’s practice of acting as another “Responsible Authority” and overturning over 80% of council properly arrived at decisions. We attach a copy of David Davis’ presentation at the Rally which confirms the Coalition’s position and we also have confirmation in writing from David Davis (Shadow Minister for Planning).

BRAG is raising this issue because Labor’s plans for intense densification of our suburban residential areas will drastically change the way we live.

You can do something about this at the coming election if you don’t want to live in an overcrowded neighbourhood.

BRAG

www.brag.asn.au

Dave Davis, (Lib) Shadow Minister for Planning committments to restore protections to residential zones

Shadow Minister for Planning,
The Hon David Davis Mp
Speech to the Restore Residents' Rights Rally
Front steps of Parliament House
8 June 2017

I am very pleased to be here today, determined to support people right across Melbourne- There are many of my colleagues here as well who are determined to see that the liveability of Melbourne is protected and enhanced.

lnterjection (lndistinct).

Well, we did do some very significant things. We put in neighbourhood residential zones and protections on general residential zones. What I would say is this: We are at serious risk at the moment. The Plan Melbourne Refresh that came in in recent weeks and VC110, the planning amendment that accompanied it, strips away many of the protections that were put in place, the protections of neighbourhood residential zones and general residential zones.

General residential zones go from 9 metres to 11 metres, neighbourhood residential zones go from 8 metres to 9 metres and the cap of two residences per property has now been removed completely,
removed completely. And Richard Wynne admitted under pressure at PAEC, the public accounts committee, the other day that 10 or more can now be crammed onto one of those neighbourhood
residential blocks.

I make a commitment today, that if we are elected in 2018, we will restore the residential zones those protections.

A key aspect of where this (Andrews Labor) government is heading is public land and they are on a mission seize public land across the state and to develop it with massive, massive The people at Markham Estate know exactly what I am saying. Everyone supports, in the case of Markham, everyone supports the replacement of old public housing stock with new publlc housing stock. But no-body imagined for a second that massive towers would be built on that site. No-one imagined for a second that the density would be taken in that way. lt is a sell off of public land and as the FOI that was achieved by Graham watt makes clear, it was about achieving - their words {Labor), not mine - "super profits", "super profits".

Well let me just say very clearly the (Labor) government, through its new Development Victoria body, a merger of Major Projects with Places Victoria and that has got a remit to develop public land right across the state. We sought to put in protections for the community to say that those developments had to be approved by councils, that councils must support them' That was defeated in the upper house, but that protection now not there means that the new Development Victoria
body is going fast and wide across the state to find public land parcels that they can put intense development on.

The other point I want to make is the lnfrastructure Victoria document the 30 year plan does not have the support behind it that is required. And that document aims at one single thing. lts first and
primary objective fo1 Melbourne for the next 30 years is densification. Well I say that is the wrong objective for Melbourne. lt's about liveability. lt's about quality of life. lt's about a decent and fair Melbourne, not a Melbourne where densification is the objective of the whole State Government.

So I say to density Dan (Andrews): No, we actually want a fairer system. We actually want to protect land. We want to see more open space and we want to protect vegetation. Today, there are trees being cut down on St Kilda Road - the loss of the hundreds of trees along the Skyrail corridor - just ripped out. No Environmental Effects Statement. No process' Torn away' Never to be replaced in any realistic way. And that loss of vegetation that is occurring through our suburbs has got to be protected.

On the peninsula, it is very clear the Government is seeking to ignore the Peninsula specific planning protections that were put in place in 2014, that try to treat the Mornington Peninsula as a distinct and unique zone that needs its own protections. The GRZ changes down there will see the proliferation of three storey buildings right across the Peninsula as of right. And that is where we are heading and I think it is wrong and I think it is a terrible risk for Melbourne.

So we need to protect Melbourne. We need to have more involvement for our regional cities which want to play a bigger role and want to have a better outcome there. I say to the Planning Backlash people here today and to those from groups all across the city and beyond, we are prepared to work and make sure that we have a better city, a more liveable city and we will restore the neighbourhood protection zone protections that were put in place and restore them to protect those areas of Melbourne that need it and right across and beyond.

The latest film clip by Dr Liz Allen via the ABC explains why we apparently shouldn't be worrying about Australia's population size, because the real issue is in fact social inequality. But what Dr Allen is doing here is creating a false dichotomy. In doing so she is attempting to channel all discussion on what is actually a highly nuanced issue into one where those involved are forced to pick a side.

In reality we can play a major role in reducing inequality at a global level by providing universal access to education, family planning and healthcare. That is, of course, what many people who care about the issue of population, advocate for, because this is the most effective and least coercive way to enable populations to stabilise over time.

In Australia rapid population growth is compounding social inequality, as it is a catalyst for urban sprawl and the over-priced, poor standard high-density development that is springing up across our conurbations. This has the impact of both gentrifying and slumifying communities at the same time and, in turn, it has the knock-on effect of pushing people on lower incomes out to the increased social isolation of the urban fringe.

Life on the urban fringe has huge ramifications in terms of social inequality and this translates into increased reliance on driving, a lack of walkability, a lack of access to non-human nature and major difficulties in services and infrastructure keeping up with demand.

The environmental impact of urban sprawl is also significant and as the sprawl increases, so does our average per capita carbon footprint (and this challenges another false dichotomy).

As we are experiencing a climate emergency, anything that adds to the problem of climate change will have huge ramifications for those who are living in poverty because they will be the first in the firing line.

The environmental impact that medium to long-term rapid population growth is having, and will continue to have, is significant, especially at a time when we need to be tackling this emergency head on. This is why the education and empowerment of women (and men), as well as access to family planning, plays such a major role in climate expert, Paul Hawken's seminal book, 'Project Drawdown'.

Therefore, continuing to rapidly grow Australia's population to suit our GDP driven ponzi economic system makes no environmental or social sense, especially in face of the enormous challenges that the world is facing.

Dr Allen also perpetuates the myth that we must grow in order to counteract an ageing population. This has been disproved so many times and much has been written on this topic. For any population to stabilise, it is inevitable that there will eventually be a larger than normal cohort of older people (for a while). This is not something that we need to be scared of. Delaying the ageing population issue by a few generations will only exacerbate the challenge further down the track.

While we need to seize the opportunity to allow our domestic population to start to stabilise, an effective way of tackling population growth at a global level is through a system of mutual aid, where we share knowledge and expertise with as many different cultures as possible.

This mutual aid will not only help to provide access to education and medical services where they are needed, it will also help countries such as Australia to lower their per-capita emissions through learning resilient methods of land management and climate specific architecture.

Of course migration wouldn't have to end but it would be driven by a different paradigm; one that understands that we need to work to non coercively stabilise populations both at a global and at a local level in tandem with a much greater emphasis on retrofitting our existing built stock.

In short, the time has come to have an ongoing discussion about population; one that understands that it is complex and that it intersects with a whole range of hugely significant issues.

Mark Allen is an ex town planner and is the cofounder of Population Permaculture & Planning and Holistic Activism & Behaviour Change.

Senior law lecturer at UNSW, Bassina Farbenblum says, "Our study confirms that Australia has a large, silent underclass of underpaid migrant workers,” commenting on a report entitled, "Migrant Worker Justice Initiative." The authors do not question the impact on Australians of this corrupt industrial and academic underbelly, but observe complacently, that if Australia is to "position itself as the destination of choice for international students and backpackers, reforms must be urgently implemented to prevent wage theft and enable migrant workers to report and recover unpaid wages." This report would benefit from wider and more historical context: When most wages in Australia were regulated by state awards, and strong unions defended Federal awards, there was very little illegal labour, hence little motivation to import cheap labour. It was easy to enforce written awards that covered entire industries and occupations, and were regulated by dedicated entities. This changed when Kennett abolished Victorian State Awards in 1993, setting the scene for Howard's Workchoices, and going on to widen the use of the corporations clause in the Australian constitution, which exempted corporations from many employer obligations. (See /node/4612.) The privatised for-profit university system gave up on real research in favour of importing students like cash-cows, to pay large fees and rent university owned apartments. Many of these students had to work any conditions in order to survive and pay their fees, fearing that if they failed to retain student status, they would be deported. A win-win situation for exploiters all round, as it drove down wages for everyone. In fact, if 'reforms' were successfully implemented to prevent wage theft from migrant workers' we would soon see a huge reduction in the numbers of migrant workers. It's all slave labour under other names. (Candobetter.net Editor.)

An overwhelming number of international students and backpackers in Australia are suffering wage theft in silence, a landmark study by UNSW Sydney and UTS has found.

Fewer than one in 10 migrant workers took action to recover unpaid wages even though most know they are being underpaid, according to the report Wage Theft in Silence.

“Our study confirms that Australia has a large, silent underclass of underpaid migrant workers,” said senior law lecturer at UNSW, Bassina Farbenblum. “The scale of unclaimed wages is likely well over a billion dollars.”

The report draws on the first large-scale national survey of temporary migrant workers, with 4322 respondents from 107 countries working across all Australian states and territories. It is authored by Farbenblum and Laurie Berg, a senior law lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

Migrant workers comprise up to 11% of the Australian labour market. The authors’ previous report found most international students and backpackers are underpaid, with one in three earning about half the legal minimum wage.

The new report paints a bleak picture for the few who try to recover their unpaid wages. The study reported that for every 100 underpaid migrant workers, only three went to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Of those, well over half recovered nothing.

The authors conclude that for most migrant workers it is neither possible nor rational to try to claim their unpaid wages through the forums that currently exist.

“The system is broken,” said Laurie Berg. “It is rational for most migrant workers to stay silent. The effort and risks of taking action aren’t worth it, given the slim chance they’ll get their wages back.”

“There is a culture of impunity for wage theft in Australia. Unscrupulous employers continue to exploit migrant workers because they know they won’t complain,” said Bassina Farbenblum.

The study dispels the popular assumption that few migrant workers would consider coming forward. In fact, though few had actually taken action, a majority (54%) were open to trying to claim unpaid wages. The study identified the key barriers that prevented them from coming forward.

“The findings are deeply troubling but give cause for optimism, because they reveal a path forward,” said Laurie Berg. “The study indicates that some of the most significant barriers to wage recovery can be practically addressed.”

The most cited barriers were not knowing what to do and concerns about the amount of effort involved. However, more than a quarter said they would not speak up because of fears of losing their visa.

Migrant workers’ reluctance to come forward was not explained by poor English or foreign culture. In fact, Asian migrants were most willing to come forward.

The report concludes that if processes and support services are improved, and immigration safeguards strengthened, more migrant workers would report and seek redress for wage theft in the future.

The authors observe that if Australia is to position itself as the destination of choice for international students and backpackers, reforms must be urgently implemented to prevent wage theft and enable migrant workers to report and recover unpaid wages.

They urge the government, the education sector and business to act swiftly to implement the report’s recommendations.

The report is available at the Migrant Worker Justice Initiative (www.mwji.org). For further information on a new initiative by the education sector to address wage theft see https://www.mwji.org/international-students-in-australia.

About the survey:

· Anonymous, online survey of 4,322 people who worked in Australia on a temporary visa

· Available in 12 languages as well as English

· 2,392 respondents were international students; 1,705 were enrolled at a university and 523 at a vocational or English-language college

· 1,440 respondents were backpackers (Working Holiday Makers).

This is exciting and heartwarming footage to counter the general plague of kangaroo hating. Police rush into the surf to rescue a small kangaroo, who is later visited in its cell by Animalia staff, who are currently taking care of him elsewhere.

Rosebud police were on hand at Safety Beach on Saturday afternoon to give a lost kangaroo a second chance. They responded to numerous calls that a kangaroo was in the water just off Marine Drive about 5pm yesterday.

The kangaroo had made it back to the beach upon their arrival and had been covered in a blanket by a member of the public. Police were monitoring it but it decided to turn around and hop back into the surf.

It began to swim but got into difficulty in the swell and breaking waves and went under water a couple of times.

A Sergeant and a Senior Sergeant noticed the animal in distress and immediately jumped into the water.

They managed to carry the kangaroo, which was unconscious, to a grassed area where they successfully resuscitated it.

The roo was wrapped in blankets and taken to Rosebud Police Station where it was assessed by Animalia Wildlife Shelter and taken to receive treatment. The roo is currently being cared for but is said to be lucky to be alive given the amount of salt water he inhaled.

Please follow Animalia to keep updated about his recovery.

Thanks to the quick thinking actions of the public and the police officers this fella didnt lose his life.

If you would like to support Animalia so they can continue to rescue and rehabilitate wildlife you can attend their fundraising night: https://www.facebook.com/events/1698923100230514/

Or donate here: https://www.facebook.com/donate/314782549111876/

ABC 7.30 Report last night aired part one of its three-part population special, which included me as the economist. While I will reserve judgement until the final two-parts have been aired, my initial gut reaction is disappointment. The main problem I see with it so far is the ABC has inferred that a population of more than 40-million mid-century is inevitable rather than a direct policy choice. Nowhere did The ABC clearly show how the federal government massively increased Australia’s immigration intake from the early-2000

By Leith van Onselen

ABC 7.30 Report last night aired part one of its three-part population special, which included me as the economist.

While I will reserve judgement until the final two-parts have been aired, my initial gut reaction is disappointing.

The main problem I see with it so far is the ABC has inferred that a population of more than 40-million mid-century is inevitable rather than a direct policy choice.

Nowhere did The ABC clearly show how the federal government massively increased Australia’s immigration intake from the early-2000s:

Nor how immigration is the defacto driver of Australia’s population increase – both directly as migrants step off the plane, as well as indirectly when they have children (then counted as ‘natural increase’). This was made explicit by the Productivity Commission’s 2016 Migrant Intake Australia report, which showed that Australia’s population would barely increase without immigration:

While the segment at least didn’t include spruiker ‘demographers’ like Liz Allen or Peter McDonald, it instead replaced them with another cookie-cutter demographer from ANU. One wonders why Bob Birrell wasn’t contacted, who has been a strong critique of Australia’s ‘Big Australia’ Program:

Finally, the spokesperson for Infrastructure Australia (IA) claimed that “population growth is an opportunity” – conveniently ignoring that IA has issued several recent stark warnings about infrastructure failing to keep pace with population growth, as well as ignoring IA’s own recent projections showing that living standards in both Sydney and Melbourne will be crushed as their populations surge to 7.4 million and 7.3 million by 2046:

Again, while I will reserve judgement until the final two parts are aired, I am not hopeful that The ABC will analyse this issue correctly and actually inform debate.

[email protected]

Scott Morrison appeared on ABC Lateline denouncing the government’s plan to tag and release migrants to the bush as a policy brain fart:

TONY JONES: Can you have a debate on population without a debate on immigration numbers?

SCOTT MORRISON: Well of course you can’t… Two thirds of the increase in population is coming through immigration and so if that’s not part of the debate then I don’t know what these guys are going on about. You’ve gotta focus on the things that you can address. Now they can talk about all these other issues, they’re all really important, but those things are not going to solve themselves in the next term of government.

What you can do in the next term of government is ease the pressure on those problems by throttling back, and if this Government’s not prepared to throttle back then they are trying to put one over the Australian people…

We’ve also made it clear that we’re not comfortable with the 36 million [population] projection…

The Government says it is not about immigration and they want to put out this false hope that they can move all these people around the country differently. Well those who are coming into the country, less than 10 per cent of them currently go out and settle in regional areas and rural areas.

So to hold out some false hope that this problem’s going to be solved because a Population Minister is going to fantastically move people around like has never been done before in our history, is I think unfair to the Australian people to suggest that that is realistic option, certainly in the short or medium term. Long term I think there are still real doubts.

The history of settlement over centuries means that people will come and gravitate to areas where there is population…

Scott Morrison also appeared on ABC’s PM program, where he once again rubbished the ‘migrants to the bush’ policy:

It holds out unrealistic promises that all of this can be turned around by everybody moving to regional areas.

We simply know, through centuries of migration experience, that that simply isn’t how it happens.

Are you confused? Well you should be, because these interviews were done in 2010/2011 when the former Gillard Labor Government was also spruiking a ‘migrants to the bush’ policy to relieve population pressures in the major cities.

Fast forward to 2018 and Australia’s permanent migrant program is just as big as then, but even more concentrated than ever into Sydney and Melbourne, which received 86% of migrants last financial year.

History doesn’t repeat but it sure does rhyme. Don’t fall for the Coalition’s latest immigration smokescreen, especially when it has been cutting regional visas while in office:

Department of Home Affairs figures… show non-regional skilled migration visas have risen every year under the Coalition, while those dedicated to the regions dropped from a high of 20,510 in 2012-13 to 10,198 under the Turnbull government in 2016-17.

The five consecutive years of cuts to permanent regional migrant visas coincided with a rise in the total immigration level to record highs of 180,000 a year, meaning proportionally more migrants were arriving on non-regional skilled visas under the Coalition.

QED.

[email protected]
[Article first published on Macrobusiness, October 10, 2018 at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/10/scott-morrison-slams-scott-morrisons-migrants-to-the-bush-policy/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20MacroBusiness&utm_content=Daily%20MacroBusiness+CID_a2e8fef423e19939f632e11a3fdeb4df&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Scott%20Morrison%20slams%20Scott%20Morrisons%20migrants%20to%20the%20bush%20policy]

In response to claims that DNA from a 350-year-old dingo tooth could save the species in Australia, National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program spokesperson Dr Ian Gunn said the reverse was the case. “On past experience, the evidence will be used to justify a continued sheep industry campaign to exterminate the species across Australia. Just because of the introgression of domestic dog genetics in some individuals, or because they are not the dingo variety identified by the genes in this ‘one-tooth’, they then falsely claim the animals they are killing are not real dingoes."

The Dingo Genome

The dingo genome was identified first by the late Dr Allan Wilton. His research partner, Dr Kylie Cairns has recently discovered that there was more than one dingo introduction, at least two, probably with varying genetics.

Dr Gunn said,

“Given the long pre-history of trade between northern Australian Aborigines and the seafarers thought to have brought the dingo to Australia - from the Middle East, India and South East Asia over thousands of years - there is little doubt there were many introductions. In this context it is amazing to find a University of the Sunshine Coast researcher now seeming to claim the tooth of one will reveal ‘the full genomic breakdown of the pure dingo’. It will really only reveal the genome of one race of dingo, descended from one of an unknown number of introductions."

He added that the trouble with DNA science on this subject is its misuse by proponents of broad-hectare baiting, on the grounds that a small proportion of domestic dog genes means the animal is not a real dingo. He called a preoccupation with genetic purity a "distraction from the real issue, which is apex predator ecological function, which most hybrids are performing."

“In any case, the construction of a pre colonisation genetic benchmark would need to be representative and the collection of enough pre-settlement samples to achieve this, especially given evidence of different lineages, would be virtually impossible," he argued.

Current 'solutions' make the problem worse

On the issue of baiting, he stated:

“Baiting is a cruel and massively taxpayer funded industry with its own profit making agenda. It is already destroying ecological balances, endangering wildlife and, for farmers, worsening all the problems it claims to be solving. Broad-hectare baiting has already caused immense problems for farmers by driving dingoes from public lands, where they should be left alone, onto people’s farms."

“Proponents say it disrupts dingo pack structure and forces the dingoes to move on, as though these are good things. Farmers with properties adjoining public land might ask the authorities where the dingoes move on to, because the answer is their place."

“The breakdown of pack structure caused by baiting is the prime cause of the hybridization these people also claim to be concerned about. Without pack disruption, stable dingo packs will kill rather than breed with wild or stray dogs."

He observed that some cattle graziers say they are better off with dingoes controlling herbivore numbers and vegetable and grain growers have fewer problems with rabbits and rats. Even sheep farmers have far worse problems than dingoes – heat, cold, drought, flood and the real feral predators of the piece, the banks.

Millions of dollars wasted on baiting

“Dingoes are such an insignificant, though exaggerated problem, that official statistics in Victoria show it would be dramatically cheaper to pay farmers a better than market price for lost sheep than to spend the millions of dollars now being used to subsidise baiting."

Despite this reality, he said that the new research into the genes from one tooth will be used to manufacture public consent for more baiting, more poison and more extermination.

“Farmers will be worse off and so will we all,” he concluded.

This article comments on the Australian war propaganda that was used in a recent episode, involving Jaqui Lambi, of "Go back to where you came from" on SBS. It responds to a recent article (republished here) by Vanessa Beeley about very recent massacres conducted by IS, close to a US Army base, which has allowed IS convoys to pass through open desert, unhindered. On 2 October 2018, Mrs Thoraya Um Ammaar was executed on video by IS over two months after she and about 25 other women and children were kidnapped from the Sweida countryside, south of Damascus on July 25th 2018. US Coalition forces remain camped in Al Tanf, 330km to the East. It is simply intolerable that IS can occupy that part of Syrian territory while aggressively threatening anyone who comes near it.
Report by Vanessa Beeley

What makes me particularly angry about this, and the killing of the hostage on October 2nd, is that this week in Australia there has been a huge fuss about a live TV program called “Go Back to Where you Came From” – where numbers of celebrities have gone to “some of the most dangerous places in the world” to see what it feels like for refugees (those ones who try to escape to Australia) https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/jacqui-lambie-and-sbs-crew-caught-in-isis-attack-in-syria-20181002-p5079s.html

So where in Syria do you think that two women, one a former anti-Muslim immigration independent Senator, – would be taken? Raqqa. And in an event which I begin to think was staged, two days before the program started, an “IS sleeper cell” started shooting in the area near to where the TV crew was, so they had to be evacuated to Kobane - in Syria!(just under the Turkish border).

This sleeper cell purportedly raised the IS flag from a building not far from the centre of Raqqa, in mid afternoon. How likely is that, or even possible? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret

At no point in the introduction – where we saw the identities being rushed under cover, was the fact that US soldiers were assisting them even thought worthy of mention!

And of course Lambie and Marina would have no idea that they are just as much victims in this god-awful propaganda war as the rest of us. It may make you a bit sick to read that Lambie ( who has a better side as down to earth, and once in the army) found it thrilling to be “on the front line” and “to feel how our troops must have felt”. Never mind that Australia doesn’t admit to having any troops in Syria, only Afghanistan.

I’ve long thought that Jackie Lambie would be moved to know that upwards of 85,000 regular Syrian soldiers have been killed by the terrorist invaders, defending their countrymen.

This program began as a series about five years ago, as apparently a genuine attempt to make prejudiced Australians aware of just what refugees were going through. But now it seems that this message is not so important, while it is used to put the case for the US coalition staying in Syria because otherwise “IS could come back”. The threat of Islamist terrorism is constantly beaten up here in OZ, to suit the agenda of the powers that be; the threat that they present, along with their US and UK allies, is infinitely greater.

And of course this week we’ve also had the Nobel Peace Prize to the Yazidi woman – with some blurb about “fighting the use of rape as a weapon of war”. What about the use of the threat of rape as a weapon of war, for which the US would instantly qualify?

The hypocrisy is enough to make you go mad I think.

I will look at the pink hollyhocks that grow in front of our house with Syrians in mind now...

Ever wondered what domesticated cats think? Especially those rescued from the wild? Here are some snippets telepathically transmitted to the human caretaker.

The human tells me every day how beautiful I am. She reminds me how lucky I am to have a good home where I am loved, well fed and so on. She must think I have a very short memory. Luckily this doesn’t go on for too long. But then later once I’m sleeping she creeps up on me and starts patting me again. Of course I start purring but I know what’s coming – the flea comb. I let her comb me for about 4 minutes and then it gets annoying. My tail starts to slash left to right slowly and if she fails to notice she is rewarded with a sharp scratch with my claws that draws blood from her skin. She yells pathetically. I don’t know why she doesn’t expect anything different just because I’m purring as I slash her.

Anyway she is slowly getting trained. It’s only been about 4 years to this point and we still have major issues mainly around food and how often I am fed. My preference has always been to be fed in the middle of the night, morning, midday, afternoon, dinner and bedtime but she keeps feeling the size of my stomach and telling me I’m too fat and that if I don’t eat less I’ll end up with diabetes like her last cat, Ra. She tries to put me off by telling me that she had to put needles in him twice a day for 9 years to control his diabetes and how all her friends asked ‘When is she expecting kittens?’ I don’t believe it. My constitution, as a Main Coon mix, is to be a very big cat and especially since I was living in the bush for several years after my previous owner abandoned me. I became a huge tom cat. I won’t tell you why they abandoned me, will leave that up to your imagination.

As to my great physical beauty, I have huge paws like a tiger with long black fur growing between my toes. I have long white fur growing inside my ears that sometimes points up giving me the appearance of a bobcat. My tail is my pride and joy – bushy and sassy. My head is large and wide with green eyes. I have stripey tabby markings from grey to black and white under my chin. Handsome, eh?

The human tells her friends that for years she saw me streaking through the bush with bushy tail straight as an arrow flying behind me and always thought to herself ‘One day I’m going to catch that feral cat’. She doesn’t like the idea of cats in the bush killing native birds or anything but how else are we to survive? It’s not our fault that human owners throw us away, unwanted. We would rather be in a nice safe, warm house being fed our favourite foods instead of having to eat furry creatures (I just hate getting fur stuck in my throat) including part of their elimination canal. Yuck. Give me a can of human-grade salmon anytime.

Speaking of food again, the human is a pretty good hunter herself. I don’t know how she does it but she comes home with a big bag full of organic chicken necks and chicken breasts. No feathers, no grisly, stinky or bloody bits – just nice, clean, fresh, raw chicken meat. I follow her outside when we go for walks (my only escape from the verandah enclosure) but I don’t see her kill any chickens or anything for that matter. She doesn’t carry knives and she doesn’t have sharp claws so how does she do it? Some things will always be a mystery to our species about humans.

An Australian parliamentarian, Senator Hansen, has called for a plebiscite on immigration levels to this country. "In the decade to 2016 the Australian population increased by 3.5 million, 60% of which was from overseas migration. Given the impact a continuing population growth of this same order will have on already over-stretched infrastructure particularly, in our major cities, a national plebiscite should be held at the time of the next general election to allow the people of Australia to express their opinion.  The plebiscite will ask Australian their views on continuing with the current high rate of migration. The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level)Bill 2018 (the Bill) would establish the legislative framework for a compulsory, in-person vote in a national plebiscite that would ask Australians, in view of the level of population increase from migration in the ten years to 2016: “Do you think the current rate of immigration to Australia is too high?”"

Interview begins around 9.40 minutes into the show.Gung-ho interviewer, Bart Chilton, apparently hoping to recommend investing in Australian stocks, found out that Australia's economy is about as diverse as Uganda's and Ethiopia's, that it consists of holes and houses, and that Australian governments have stupidly marketised energy, making costs too high for Australian manufactures. "Energy and telecommunications are both being disastrously mishandled." Banks and mines dominate the Australian stock exchange, which reminds Keen of when they dominated the Japanese stock exchange - just before the 1990 bubble burst, with no important banks situated in Japan anymore. Our stock market is trivial compared to our bond market. Dr Keen also mentions the , which is worth a look.

As well as discussing the danger of opera house yabby nets for Australia's platypuses, Doug Gimesy talks about the impacts of human population on platypus populations.

Doug Gimesy - Victorian Alliance for Platypus-safe yabby traps: Conservation Photographer"

Enclosed opera house yabby nets are notorious for drowning air-breathing mammals, such as the platypus and the rakali (Australia’s otter equivalent!)

On assignment to photograph platypuses, Doug became aware of the issue, helped form the Alliance and swiftly secured a ban. Sounds easy? It’s all about strategy.

Doug talks us through why opera house nets are devastating to platypus populations and shares insights into the Alliance’s winning campaign.

Still more to do! Let’s make the ban national.

ACTION: Sign the petitions

Queensland https://chn.ge/2KavPWN

Tasmania https://www.change.org/p/hon-guy-barnett-ban-the-sale-of-opera-house-nets-in-australia

As mentioned in the interview, Professor John Thwaites’ presentation – ‘Selling the Dream’  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zcLu728ffA