growth lobby

Canada going Bush on abortion

America may have reversed the ruinous international family planning policy of George Bush, but Canada has re-installed it . Forget the ugly American, think now of the ugly Canadian. With a big fat black eye inflicted by our gung-ho, full-steam ahead development of the Albert tar sands project, we now have another black eye thanks to our refusal to fund abortions abroad. It was once said of Americans that they love democracy so much that they want to keep it all to themselves. American governments habitually supported third world dictators while boasting that their nation was the beacon of liberty.

Now Canada is about to deny women of other nations the same right that Canadian law affords women here---the right to a safe and legal abortion.

The CBC reported the Harper government’s policy position this way:

“The federal government has disclosed for the first time that Canada will not fund abortions in its G8 child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries. Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced late in 2009 that Canada, as the host of the upcoming G8 meeting in June, would champion maternal and child health in developing countries. But until Monday, no one in the government had disclosed whether abortion would be included in the corresponding programs Canada supports. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said the government would consider funding family planning measures such as contraception, but not abortion under any circumstances.” http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/26/abortion-maternal-health.html

Equation of death by abortion or death by hunger

So not only has the Harper government continued the fine Canadian tradition of dispensing foreign aid to developing countries without making it conditional on family planning, it has gutted family planning of an essential tool. Consider this coincidence. The global population grows by approximately eighty million people each year, and each year there are some 80 million unplanned pregnancies. The implication is clear. We need to get serious about family planning. The ideological and philosophical division over abortion is irrelevant. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that abortion consists of the murder of human life, “the pre-born”, according to the Christian “pro-life” terminology. What then is the death of children from the scourge of over-population to be termed? In a nation that is suffering from critical overshoot, the addition of a child that otherwise would have been aborted if abortion was a safe option would jeopardize the life of an existing child. Those who promote “life” in effect, by their opposition to safe abortions, are promoting death. Death by disease and hunger from over-taxed resources and over-crowding. One could conceivably accept that a foetus is a human life form, and regard abortion as the termination of that life. But in many contexts, killing is not murder, but homicide. And some kinds of homicide are justified. Especially homocide that results in less harm in the long run.

Madeline Weld, the president of the Population Institute of Canada, was moved to write the following letter in response to a story about this issue in the Ottawa Citizen:

Young soldiers sent to wars in overpopulated countries

“Canada is sending its young soldiers to fight and die in distant lands. Now in Afghanistan, and possibly in the (Democratic Republic of) the Congo next. These countries, and many others convulsed by conflict (Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan) can be viewed as failing states. A multitude of factors contribute to the failures, but one prominent factor common to all is rapid population growth. The average Afghan woman has 6.5 children. Afghanistan now has 28 million people and is projected to have 74 million people by 2050. On the first Earth Day in 1970, Afghanistan had 15 million people. In the Congo, each woman has 5.9 children on average, and the current population of 68 million is projected to be 148 million by 2050. In 1970, the population of the Congo was 22 million. The environmental degradation resulting from rapid population growth helps fuel the conflicts in all failing states.

In view of the above, the Conservative government's refusal so far to fund the International Planned Parenthood Federation, one of the most effective agencies in making contraceptives available to millions of women around the world, is counterproductive to our national security. In the same vein, the Harper government refuses to fund abortions in its G8 maternal health initiative and included contraception only after intense public and international pressure. Yet each year, 38% of pregnancies around the world, some 80 million, are unintended. Forty million result in abortions , of which 83% occur in developing countries. Unsafe abortions account for 13% of maternal deaths (70,000 women ) each year.

From any perspective, the Harper government's refusal to acknowledge the vital importance of contraception to women's health and environmental sustainability is destructive.”

Amen.
Tim Murray

A graph from "Australian Population Scenarios in the context of oil decline and global warming" at http://www.crudeoilpeak.com shows that the bulge in the Australian population pyramid which growth economists say will cause a larger number of aging people than the economy can cope with, was obviously caused by high levels of post-war immigration. Dr Jane O'Sullivan has quantified the enormous cost in new infrastructure and maintenance of population growth.

This population pyramid, which appeared at http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=1300 was made using ABS on-line population modeling software and purports to represent our population at 2007. [1]

Bulging Australian population pyramid

The graph shows that the bulge in the Australian population pyramid which growth economists say will cause a larger number of aging people than the economy can cope with, was obviously caused by high levels of post-war immigration. (The lighter coloured parts of the pyramid represent the overseas-born part of the Australian population.)

Without this high immigration, projections would show a much more moderate increase in the future proportion of aged to other cohorts in Australia's population. [a]

A growing population grows the problem: Dr Jane O'Sullivan

By continuing immigration at higher and higher levels our governments and the developer lobby will create a real monster of a problem.

University if Queensland, Agricultural Scientist, Dr Jane O'Sullivan has quantified the cost of constantly increasing infrastructure stock. She says:

"The point most overlooked about population growth is that it costs bucket-loads more than ageing, and many times more than the additional revenue from the extra people. You might think that, at 2 per cent growth, we need 2 per cent more infrastructure and services each year.

The problem is, to add 2 per cent to our infrastructure stock each year, we need more like 100 per cent more infrastructure construction activity that we'd need for a stable population. It works like this: if a cost-weighted average lifespan of infrastructure is around 50 years, we need to replace around 2 per cent of it each year to maintain current stocks. If we also have to grow by 2 per cent, that is twice the infrastructure burden.

The same multiplier principle applies to any durable asset. It turns out that the average lifespan of an asset is equal to the percentage increase in cost caused by each 1 per cent of growth. If buses last on average 15 years, we need to spend 15 per cent more on buses per 1 per cent of growth, just to maintain current service levels. If the average doctor or engineer works for 25 years, we need to graduate 25 per cent more per 1 per cent growth - at 2.1 per cent growth, that's over 50 per cent more graduates, and 65 per cent more enrolments per head of total current population.

Little wonder that the skilled migration program has only made the claims of skills shortages more strident.

The 2010 Intergenerational Report anticipates additional ageing-related costs of only 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2050, with population growth to 36 million.

Stabilising at 24 million would only increase this cost by around 0.8 per cent of GDP."Newcastle HeraldApril 28, 2010

Of course the Australian growth lobby knows this perfectly well and has ... um... engineered ... the situation. Australia, unlike European countries, pretends that this growth will create its own wealth, seeing population growth and demand for more infrastructure as an economic stimulus. In Europe it is rightly considered a cost.[2]

Notes

[a] [30-4-2010 this sentence was edited from one which said there would be no increase, which was overstating the situation.]

[1] I erroneously attributed the 'population pyramid' to the Productivity Commission, on 29-4-2010 when I first published this, but when I sought further details the next day, I found that it came from http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=1300 My apologies.
[2] See Chapter Seven, notably the heading, "Reasons for Connections made to Housing and Demographics", in Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and Its Absence.

ADI Site -

Vandals prevail

JK Williams Bulldozers roll over precious woodland habitat

Bulldozers today rolled at the ADI Site in Penrith clearing 6 hectares of the critically endangered ecological community, Cumberland Plain Woodland. The clearing by J K Williams on behalf of developer, Delfin Lend Lease, is the first of 6ha of a total of 360 ha within the Penrith LGA. 3500 lots dwellings, with some up to 6 stories are proposed.

Garrett protects malignant growth lobby project

The news of the clearing has been met with sadness by the many opponents of the development. Recently they called on Peter Garrett the Federal Environment Minister to intervene in the imminent clearing. Peter Garrett was called on to act to overturn a dubious approval decision by the former Howard Govt in 2002 that allows Delfin Lend Lease immunity from Peter Garrett's Federal Environmental Law. Meaning they do not have to refer any development proposals to the Federal Minister for assessment. Peter Garrett was asked to consider, as he is allowed to do under section 207A of his federal environment law, to list additional areas of the sites critically endangered CPW as Critical Habitat.

But correspondence recently received from the Minister in response to that call from the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance indicated a complete lack of political will and an unwillingness to interfere in Delfins development plans.

Geoff Brown, President of the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance Inc., said,

"Peter Garrett could of acted, he has the capacity under his legislation to intervene, but he has turned his back on us and our environment. The reality though is he is just one of many of our political leaders that have done the same. The same is true of Kristina Kenneally who had the opportunity when she was Planning Minister to amend the ADI Site zoning plan. She was called on by WSCA to rezone CPW at the site from urban to conservation. She ignored our calls. So sorry is this ADI story is that the finger of blame must be pointed at hundreds of political leaders across all levels of government. This has been a shameful chapter in the history of Western Sydney one which its residents should never forget".

Keep fighting for what is right!

Brown added:

"People should never give up though. This is just 6 ha's and there are many more approval processes that Delfin need to get in order to get their way. We must take a stand and say enough is enough. In this day and age we should never accept housing that comes at the cost of our critically endangered natural heritage. Everyone should pick up their phones today and speak directly to their local elected representative from Council, State and Federal Government to let them know enough, its just not on anymore. What is happening here at ADI is the thin edge of the wedge and unless we collectively say no to the overdevelopment of our suburbs, this development cancer will move right across Western Sydney and before we know it we will have no bushland, no rural areas and another million people to cope with."

Merciless Moonscaping

Only one tree appears to have been left on the 6 ha site. The massive bulldozers of JK Williams, a local civil engineering firm, remain on the site ready to resume earth works on Thursday

Comments attributed to Geoff Brown President of the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance Inc
0431 222602
www.wsca.org.au

Western Sydney Conservation Alliance
Wednesday 28th April 2010

We look at Dr Katharine Betts's latest graph of ABS statistics on the ratio of working to dependent in Australia, noting that it is both untrue and discriminatory to imply that the 'Aged' are by far the biggest group of 'dependents.' In relation to the graph, we also look at the role of land-use planning and the social division of work in industrial society in creating financial dependencies where none previously existed. We note that established financial and institutional investment in the post-war industrial-contractual model makes it inflexible and resistant to changes in economic feedback, but that change it must as fossil fuels deplete. Left to their own devices, Australians would probably return to the human default social organisation around kin and place, which is flexible and low cost. This will only become possible, however, with cheaper land and an economic system which permits increasing relocalisation and more flexible use of land than the current plans for packed appartments and dense dormitory-suburbs anticipate.

Click on above image to see larger full-size graph.

Sources: Disability, Ageing and Carers: Summary of Findings, Australia 2003, Catalogue no. 4430.0, ABS, Canberra, 2004; Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Catalogue no. 6291.0.55.001; General Social Survey 2006, Confidentialised Unit Record File supplied by the ABS.

Notes: The ABS defines a profound disability as one where the person always needs help with one or more of the activities involved in communication, mobility and self care, and a severe disability as one where the person sometimes needs such help.

The data on labour force participation are for December 2009, but detailed age break downs were only available for June 2009. All of the data have been standardised to the age/sex structure of the population in June 2009.

Graph and "Notes" (above) by Assoc. Prof. Dr Katharine Betts, (Swinburne University, Victoria) author of Immigration Ideology, MUP, 1988 and The Great Divide, Duffy and Snellgrove, 1999. She is also the co-editor, with Bob Birrell, of the Monash demographic quarterly, People and Place.

Introduction: We look here at Dr Katharine Betts's latest graph of ABS statistics on the ratio of working to dependent in Australia, noting that it is both untrue and discriminatory to imply that the 'Aged' are by far the biggest group of 'dependents.' In relation to the graph, we also look at the role of land-use planning and the social division of work in industrial society in creating financial dependencies where none previously existed. We note that established financial and institutional investment in the post-war industrial-contractual model makes it inflexible and resistant to changes in economic feedback. Left to their own devices, Australians would probably return to the human default social organisation around kin and place, which is flexible and low cost. This will only become possible, however, with cheaper land and an economic system which permits increasing relocalisation and more flexible use of land than the current plans for packed appartments and dense dormitory-suburbs anticipate.

Discussion

This is a complicated graph. Rather than start out looking for the greatest number of dependents, it is probably easier to look for the greatest number of full time then of part time workers. What is outside those full-time and part time workers gives you your main 'dependents'. Many of those are defined as dependent simply because they are not working in a paid job or deriving an income from a source in their own name. They may however be receiving support from a partner, such as a husband, while they are rearing children. In addition, many of the students aged 15 and over have paid jobs, some of them full-time.

However the real dependents are those who are literally unable to work.

Dependency is defined economically, by material income and paid work or the ability to participate in getting an income, and it carries a stigma, since it is assumed that 'dependent persons' cost the taxpayer. Although we know that many women do an enormous amount of unpaid work in the home as mothers, partners and grandmothers and as volunteers, if we only count people in paid work as making an economically useful contribution, this unpaid work is overlooked. (The ABS does know about this problem; they don't mean to denigrate domestic work). If dependent means not in paid work, women are the largest 'dependent' category at all ages (even in infancy, because more survive).

How the growth lobby misrepresents the ratio of dependency

Because the growth lobby likes the idea of women having lots of children, there is a tendency to misrepresent dependency as only occurring among the elderly.

We can see, in fact, that the numbers of officially totally dependent people (the red category) remain quite small in all cohorts. These are people who, because of some disability, need help from others in order to cope with tasks of daily living, such as washing and dressing. We can also see that the largest totally dependent category- pink and pale turquoise with border - are not actually classified as such at all. They are classified as infants or students. [Due to possible confusion of similar colours, let us precise here that light blue, as opposed to turquoise with border, represents students who are employed part-time.]

It looks like the government’s and the growth lobby's constant use of 'Aged' as virtually synonymous with 'dependents' is a blatant case of age discrimination, since it implies that elderly people are by far the biggest group of the totally dependent.

There is another group in yellow which isn’t in paid employment. From the age of 60 the yellow category starts to get quite large. That doesn’t mean that it is ‘dependent’. The people in the yellow category are living by some means – probably through superannuation, pension or investments.

Much larger, however, are the pale turquoise and pink categories. These categories extend over the first 15 to 20 years of a person's life. [1]

The non-dependent categories

The green categories – i.e. the ‘employed’ – both part-time and full-time – are considered to be supporting the yellow, the red, the pink and the pale turquoise with border categories. From a purely financial perspective, it doesn't matter if they are generating taxes to support babies, students, homemakers, disabled people or elderly infirm people.

Some people worry that if the number of new babies dwindles, there won't be enough people moving up from the bottom of the pyramid to carry the dependencies that increase at the top. They forget that if a population has a smaller base than middle, that means that by the time the people in the middle stop working and the smaller population base enters the workforce, the competition for land will have reduced, so the cost of living will be much less. This will reduce the cost of funding retirees.

Positive economic impact of decrease in number of young dependents

Also to be considered is the fact that, as the proportions of pink and pale turquoise infants and full-time students decrease, so will the burden on taxpayers. Schools, child-care and health and welfare services for the young are supported by taxpayers, just as are old age pensions. But children also involve heavy private costs for their parents. And often this means that parents have to forgo earned income, as they stay out of the labour force in order to provide care. Of course children bring many intangible benefits to their parents, but from the point of view of time and money, there would be more resources for other needs if we had rather fewer of them.

With regard to the yellow categories, just because they are not in paid employment, it does not mean that they are not doing something useful. Wives or husbands support their working partner by looking after house and garden, growing food, doing accounts, looking after children, and participating in the community. Many grandparents may also look after children so that parents can work, or they provide knowledge, experience and an example to the community. Elderly people are the eyes and ears in a street where everyone else goes to work all day. There are also so many things which need attention in our society and housewives/husbands and elderly people and the unemployed are among the ones free to participate in groups monitoring the environment and political developments at all levels.

Dependency and Variations in the Social division of work and land-use planning systems

Australia's industrial social organisation and its land-use planning system have also come to mean that the extended family, with which the responsibilities of earning a living, raising a family and participating in the politics of one's community were formerly shared, has become disorganised and dysfunctional. This is not, as is often suggested, simply because Australians are 'selfish'. The early and strong continuing urbanisation of Australian society, with drift to big cities in search of work, harsh expectations of relocation along with one's employer, and migration from one country to another or one end of Australia to the other end, splinters clans from their original location, isolates nuclear families and splits up parents and children. This makes most of us ever-more-dependent on the industrial models of salaried employment, bank loans and insurance, new housing, and, notably, contractual nurturing, caring, and nursing arrangements. The industrial state has adapted to try to mitigate this fragmentation and fracture of human social systems, in formal 'social services', which it finances through much higher taxes than in pre-WW2 years. If these professionalised and contractualised services are privately contracted, they need somehow to make a profit, which also raises the costs of dependency, as we see in child-care centers and private nursing homes.

Established financial and institutional investment in this industrial contractual model makes it resistant to change, but change it must, in the face of declining margins of profit associated with declining availability of cheap and abundant fossil fuels. It is not surprising that the state is concerned about its ability to provide for 'dependent' Australians, but it should be able to recognise how the system it relies on has created more dependency and more expensive dependency. Left to their own devices, Australians would probably return to the default social organisation around kin and place, which is flexible and low cost. This will only become possible, however, with cheaper land and an economic system which permits increasing relocalisation and more flexible use of land than the current plans for packed appartments and dense dormitory-suburbs anticipate.

Notes

[1] This span of years of dependency of youth could well expand in the future if the industrial employment model doesn't last as which have tended to last for something like 20 years.

Note that finishing study, around the age of 15 or 20, does not necessarily mean an end to 'dependence'. Dependence, in the form of 'unemployment' could well expand in the future if the industrial employment model doesn't last as depletion of fossil fuel progresses. Partial dependence could expand through categories if median wages are unable to afford unsubsidised accomodation or food, power and water if land-prices continue and push up the cost of everything else.

Report on the Federation Square (Victoria, Australia) Population Forum on 23 April 2010, where Mark O'Connor debated Marcus Spiller.

Report on the Federation Square (Victoria, Australia) Population Forum on 23 April 2010, where Mark O'Connor debated Marcus Spiller.

Put on by the City of Melbourne at the suggestion of Mary Drost of Planning Backlash to Councillor Peter Clarke, the Forum was a very well attended event.

The hall was almost full and, from the clapping, it was obvious where the majority stood. They heavily supported Mark O'Connor, co-author of the book, Overloading Australia, Enviro Press, 2009, who spoke very well against the rapid increase in population in Melbourne. He said there are actually 3 elephants in the room - population, climate change and economic growth.

He called the 'ageing population problem' a "proveable sham", noting that we all age exactly one year per annum.

There were five people on the panel.

O'Connor's main opponent was Marcus Spiller, formerly of the Planning Institute and now adviser to the Ministers of PLanning and Housing. He is still pushing Centralized Planning, just as he was back when Minister Hulls was in charge of Planning.

He may well have a lot of involvement in the current Review of the Planning Act, which promotes centralized planning. Spiller is totally optimistic about a bigger population.

Another panelist, Charles Berger, spoke sensibly. He said that we must do away with 'bigger is better' and go for quality not quanitity He said we must preserve threatened species. He described how our water usage would have to drop with higher and higher population numbers. He also said that there is very little evidence linking population numbers and successful economies.

Saul Eslake, seemed to have moderated his economic views. He said that Melbourne would be different in 2050 with 8 million - not marvellous, more expensive, and more crowded. He said business grows with population growth, but it does not mean people are better off. At present we are losing factories and exporting very little from Victoria and importing a lot.

Kelvin Thomson had been asked to be there but was overseas so could not accept.

Planning Backlash was officially recognized by Cr Peter Clarke in his welcome as being an instigator in them doing this forum.

Source: Planning Backlash

For background to this public protest see "Save Williamstown requests help..."

Republished here to give background to Sheila Newman's remarks in her debate with Steve Bracks on the Jon Faine show 19-4-2010. You can comment on Jon Faine's "Population Forum" about the debate here and you can listen to the podcast here. The sector in Australia that has the most costly dependency ratio must be the property sector, since it costs all Australians an enormous and unreasonable amount just to cover the cost of land for housing, business and agriculture. Most of the very high costs involved are completely unnecessary, except in the eyes of greedy developers and their hangers-on

Mr Salt, wrong again

Yesterday (4 Feb, 2010) the Australian had Bernard Salt raising the alarm about the dependency ratio (again). But the man is hopelessly misinformed. Elderly people are not the big problem. And children (who are more dependent and for longer and who outnumber elderly people) are not the problem either.

The sector in Australia that has the most costly dependency ratio must be the property sector, since it costs all Australians an enormous and unreasonable amount just to cover the cost of land for housing, business and agriculture. Most of the very high costs involved are completely unnecessary, except in the eyes of greedy developers and their hangers-on. The only reason that the costs are so high is that the industry wants it that way and our state and federal governments are in cahoots with it.

The housing industry is making life in Australia miserable

Australians pay these monstrous costs first and must deduct them from their disposable income. These unnecessary costs affect the amount of hours we must work and how hard we must work and whether we can afford to take holidays. They affect our health and happiness. The high prices affect the cost of doing business, of manufacturing, of storage, garaging etc. When these costs are inflated they take away from other economic and social obligations, which are to provide education, hospitals, child support and retirement funding in the form of pensions and superannuation. Yes, even for self-funded retirees, the cost of doing business is inflated by the cost of land and is deducted as a variety of costs from any profits which devolve to shareholders.

Australia's inflated land-costs

Australia's inflated land-costs mean that small business has had increasing difficulty surviving and that for an increasing number of Australians, survival itself - in terms of accessing shelter and having enough money left over for food and clothing - has become difficult and sometimes impossible. For more Australians each year, transport to get to work or education to train for employment, are luxuries. Yet all this could be changed if property development and housing were no longer considered as private profits but as public expenses and the factors that contribute to their inflation were adjusted accordingly. These factors are those which drive up demand. Demand is affected by births, deaths and immigration and, to a lesser extent, by household size, location and position, which may all be to some extent discretionary.

What drives the high cost of land in Australia?

The most noticeable adjustable drivers of demand are overseas and interstate immigration. Interstate immigration can be dealt with by adjusting building permits at local levels. Overseas immigration can be dealt with by State Governments ceasing advertising for new immigrants and by National Government revising immigration quotas downwards. For maximum reduction of costs, land and housing availability should be exactly equal to demand.

In a steady state society, houses would become available as people died, with some overlap, at very little cost.

It is Australia's housing industry which is responsible for elderly people being scapegoated instead of honoured and supported to enjoy the long and happy lives that we should all be able to look forward to.

ABS data

"For most Australians, whether buying or renting their home, the provision of adequate housing for themselves and their families involves substantial ongoing expenditure throughout much of their lives. Housing costs are often the largest regular expenses to be met from a household's current income.

The housing costs measure compiled from the Survey of Income and Housing is defined as the sum of:

* rent payments,
* rates payments (general and water), and
* mortgage or unsecured loan payments, if the initial purpose was primarily to buy, add or alter the dwelling."
Source: 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008

It is always very difficult to get information from public sources on how the cost of land affects the cost of living in Australia because the Australian Bureau of Statistics refuses to treat land as a 'commodity' and our cost of living measure, the consumer price index, only factors in the cost of 'commodities' - other things you buy.

This kind of information is about the best we can get from the ABS (see below). It doesn't tell us very much. Most of the information is in the private sector and costs a lot to see.

It also doesn't tell us how much people who have businesses pay for rent and buildings on top of the money they pay for their own housing.

The ABS doesn't admit that land is like a commodity in Australia

Yet land is treated like a commodity in Australia, and we know for sure that for many of us it is our greatest burden:

“The development of stock mortgages and wool and crop liens in Australia represented legal ingenuity in that on traditional analysis, a property transfer was taking place with respect to something which would only come into existence in the future – the crop or wool to be grown.

In Australia land was not in itself a source of power but an asset capable of producing wealth. Improvements, particularly fencing, represented a high proportion of the value of real estate and borrowings on the land seem to have been greater than in England. It is thus argued that land in Australia was always viewed as a commodity, see Davidson and Wells, “The Land, the Law and The State: Colonial Australia 1788-1890” (1982) 2 Law in Context 89 AND Whalan, D., The Torrens System in Australia p.98.” Source: Adrian J Bradbrook, Susan V MacCallum, Anthony P Moore, Australian Property Law, LBC Information services, 1996, p.1.103:

Is the Property Development industry becoming an embarassment to its members?

Mr Salt recently argued that the property sector was being too timid. He implied that they had become somewhat embarrassed by bloggers highlighting the industry's reasons for promoting high immigration. He urged them to weigh into public debate and wondered why usually high profile growth lobbyists were acting like such wall-flowers.

"... I must say the “growth vs no growth” issue is ascendant and is likely to remain so during 2010. What disappointed me about this debate was the lack of supporting comment emanating from the property industry. No-one that I could see was out there putting the case for growth.

And I suspect the reason is that “big (property) business” doesn’t want to draw attention to itself on a contentious public issue. There seems to me to be almost a timidity in property individuals getting involved in public debate about growth. The logic seems to be don’t rock the boat."

Who would want to admit they are in this industry?

Well, maybe, the property industry is becoming a little more self-aware and less inclined to shoot from the mouth. Perhaps some of the younger people in the industry are becoming ashamed of the role the industry plays in creating and increasing poverty and inequality. Perhaps some of the young planners and builders aren't too keen on trashing the countryside. Maybe when young property developers, engineers, planners and developers you go to parties these days, their mouths go dry and they blush when some nice girl or bloke asks them what they do for a living.

I mean, what do you say? "I make my money out of unaffordable housing." "My boss is a land-speculator." "I serve the land-lords of the world." "We're in the business of overpopulation. It's good for our profits." "Oh, your mother protested on the steps of parliament last week?" "You hate people who bulldoze trees?" "Um, you think we cause most of the carbon gas increases in Australia?" "Well, I didn't choose to have small animals flee at my approach." "Gee, I might be responsible for people dying of thirst in a few decades, and I'm already responsible for animals dying of starvation, but hey, it's a job."

"The only way to offset the impact of the baby bust next decade is to grow the tax base through immigration. That’s why we need a big Australia, at least in the short term. And, make no mistake, this trajectory is good news for the property industry," writes Bernard Salt.

Well, no, Bernard. There is another way and it involves downsizing the property development industry so that we can afford what any normal functioning society can expect to provide for its children and elderly.

I look forward to some intelligent and responsible leadership from those young people who are currently embarrassed by their industry.

Anticipating the counter-argument

Basic economics requires profit to be made from land so that society can have publicly available infrastructure. Land commodifiers and speculators use the need for a profit margin to justify the buying and selling of land at unreasonable prices and for government and business conspiring to inflate those prices. But, when the costs of land are so high that they make business impossible, the time has come to say good-bye to the private housing and development industries.

NOTES

First published here 2/6/2010 but republished to give background to my remarks on Jon Faine Show - 19-4-2010

Help requested by Williamstown Saturday 10th at 1pm

Save Williamstown Meeting and Workshop at Seaworks Tavern this Saturday 10 April at 1pm

Seaworks is on Nelson Place, parking entry on Ann St.

This is an important meeting.

See below video from 29 March, which gives the story up to the most recent outrages:

Arbitrary rezoning tramples democracy

The Minister, Justin Madden, has already rezoned the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site residential, preventing any mixed use which could have benefited the community and protected the shipyards. Hobsons Bay Council has been excluded from the rezoning decision and was not informed until minutes before the Minister's press release on 26th March. The rezone was on the request of the developer, Nelson Place Village Pty Ltd with no reference to our council or the community or the industrial stakeholders.

The council had NOT delayed the decision on the development application, the developer had only submitted the application in August 2009 and the Council considered it in December 2009.

The Minister has set up an advisory committee to report to him on what is suitable development criteria for the site BUT individuals in the community will not be permitted to make submissions to the Minister's committee. The committee's report is to be provided within 8 weeks of submissions closing.

see: http://www.savewilliamstown.net/Save_Williamstown/NEWS/Entries/2010/4/8_Draft_Terms_of_Reference_for_the_Ministers_Advisory_Committee.html

Community locked out of consultations - outsider developers indulged

The community needs to be aware that the Minister's draft Terms of Reference for his advisory committee do not include third party responses or open community consultation. Only community based groups such as Save Williamstown, WNSRA and POW are to be invited to submit to the Minister's advisory committee. Therefore attending Save Williamstown meetings will be your opportunity to tell Minister Madden what our community believes is appropriate development.

Issues such as:

Heritage,

Impact on Williamstown jobs,

Heights and

Impact on Infastructure of an increasing Williamstown population

will be discussed in preparation for the Save Williamstown submission.

Please make sure that everyone who wants to be on our emailing list gives us a contact email address. Lists will be available at the meeting. People not at the meeting who needs to add their name to the list should send an email to [email protected].
If you know people to telephone, please establish telephone trees to let as many people know what is happening.
Funds will also be needed for letterboxing.
If you have skills or time please also let us know on the lists at the meeting or by email to [email protected].

AND FOR THOSE WHO THINK RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS OKAY AS LONG AS THE HERITAGE OVERLAY AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS APPLY.. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE DEVELOPER STILL WANTS AT LEAST 46.5 METRE TOWERS (OR UP TO 17 STOREYS) AS SHOWN IN DESIGN OPTION 5.

THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THEY ARE SEEKING WHATEVER MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND PROFIT THEY CAN OBTAIN OUT OF THIS SITE.

AND THIS WILL BE A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.

Thanks,

Save Williamstown

--

Save Williamstown Working Group
Website: http://www.savewilliamstown.net
Email (General): info[AT]savewilliamstown.net
Planning and Design Issues: [email protected]
Communications and Media Issues: [email protected]
Legal Issues: legal[AT]savewilliamstown.net
Strategy Issues: strategy1[AT]savewilliamstown.net

Today Treasurer Wayne Swan has tried to justify another rise in interest rates by claiming in true polly-speak that such an impost is a sign of a stronger Australian economy. Swan’s growth fettish belies the LibLab's stale 20th Century baby-boomer ideology. Last month Swan's fettish for strong economic growth and strong population growth for Australia was reaffirmed at the Population Summit in Brisbane held 30th March 2010.

But Swan's growth fettish and consequential rising costs of living do not augur well for most Australians with mortgages.

Swan on the issue of Australia’s current record population growth claims:

“a population cap would compound, not solve, the growth challenges Australia faces.”

“Capping growth over the next 40 years at 0.8 per cent instead of the 1.2 per cent projected would wipe 17 per cent off the nation's gross domestic product by 2050.”

“Restricting population growth in fast-growing southeast Queensland would result in regional product on a per capita basis dropping by 5 per cent.”

“Australia faced a steep decline in workforce participation due to ageing, which would hit growth and government revenue while dramatically pushing up health spending. Boosting productivity would be critical in coping with the ageing trend.”

Swan premised that economic and population growth can only be good for Australia and the task is for Australia to learn how to "grow smarter".

But Swan only sees the economic data yet has no broader social plan. Swan promises to protect national living standards and environmental sustainability, without saying how he can do this.

This is on the back of Prime Minister Rudd infamous October 2009 pronoucement:

"I actually believe in a big Australia I make no apology for that. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing."

It made Australians reel in fear.

On uttering that dire portent, Rudd cast the demise of Australian lifestyle, inviting hoards of legalised arrivals. And neither Rudd nor Swan offers any plans for coping with this enlarged population – no plans for sustainability, infrastructure and maintaining the Australian quality of life. Both are blinkered to the narrow economic interpretations and have lost sight of the social and environmental consequences of high population growth. Rudd’s response on the run is:

"That is why we're taking a leading position on climate change but also the long-term sustainability of the Murray-Darling and the proper provision of water supplies for the future. "This Government is building for the future - we call it nation-building for the future.”

What crap. Some future. Interests rates have just gone up again and are set to continue only exacerbating house unaffordability, the cost of living and degrading Australian living standards. Australian cities have run out of potable water, so billions in taxes are going into desalination plants. Utility charges are going up. Energy Australia is set to raise electricity prices by 60% over the next three years in order to fund Sydney’s massive electricity infrastructure to catch up with the growing urban sprawl. Roads are congested in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. Public transport is old and overloaded.

Swan's and Rudd’s Hong Kong vision for Australia does a not sit well with most Australians. Neither Labor or Liberal have no mandate to impose a growth fettish on Australians. Most Australians already feel that our environment can not cope with a larger population. Treasury’s projection of a population of 35 million by 2050 is obscene.

Back in October 2009, even Federal Treasury head Ken Henry expressed concern that Australia would not be able to sustain a predicted 60 per cent growth in population over the next four decades.

Prosperity is not aggregate GDP figures. It is maintaining and improving the quality of life and standard of living per capita. Swan being a numbers man hasn’t worked out how to measure that so he ignores it. Rudd’s Labor Government has run out of ideas and ideology relevant to Australians.

Rudd’s initiating the role of Minister for Population this month doesn’t change his 'Big Australia' vision, but just wastes more taxpayer money to find a way to justify and spread the 35 million. hardly a priority, population features in Mr Burke's mixed bucked portfolio of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. his only mandate is to deliver some population strategy in 12 months, after the election. Clearly, this is purely electioneering appeasement to disaffected Labor voters. Rudd has responded tokenly to Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown’s proposal for a Senate inquiry into Australia's population. Rudd's population minister appointment effectively hijacks what ought to be an independent review process.

And NSW Labor puppet, Premier Keneally expectedly tows the Labor line: ''I believe Sydney can grow and can grow sustainably, economically and environmentally...Cities can either grow or they can shrink. Shrinking is not an option for Sydney.'' While NSW Liberal planning spokesman, Brad Hazzard, ducked the migration issue saying it was being discussed in the community as Sydney became more crowded.

The Liberal-National Coalition are little different in their ideological response. They listen to Howard’s old Productivity Commission which strangely enough advocates for more productivity and with that more population. The Opposition wants an independent specialist body to inquire into future policies dealing with Australia's population growth – just like the Productivity Commission. Otherwise these listen to self-serving growth fettish extremists the Urban Taskforce.

Not surprisingly, Urban Taskforce chief executive Aaron Gadiel argues for no cap on immigration and says:

"One of the reasons that we don't have the infrastructure that we all want and expect is that in many cases our population in our urban centres is just not large enough," he said. "The larger the population, the more the Government is getting the tax revenue in and has the labour force available to build up the infrastructure."

More people, more urban development, more profits for Urban Taskforce members.

Swan argues that countering pressures of immigration can be addressed by Rudd Labor Government’s education revolution, health reform, welfare reform and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. How so? Population fueled mainly by immigration drives pressures on water scarcity, urban planning and infrastructure. Population growth is pushing up interest rates, making housing even more unaffordable for Australians. Swan makes no mention of addressing the direct cost of immigration – employment opportunities, housing affordability, cost of living, congestion, inadequate hospital beds, inadequate child care places, utility costs up – electricity set to rise by 60 % in NSW.

"We're determined to make sure that this government and subsequent governments stay dedicated to that task...if it doesn't, we'll all be poorer and we won't necessarily be socially cohesive or environmentally sustainable."

What a vague uncommitted statement!

Australia's Big Picture

According to former NSW Premier Bob Carr, I think we've got to recognise that our cities don't get better economically or in terms of liveability if we force feed population growth into them with this surging level of immigration, that when it comes to skills shortages for example, any new trades person brought into this country to fill a skills shortage also brings dependants. Nor does high immigration solve the problem of an aging population We've got to look at nurturing workers to stay in the workforce longer.

Australian businesman, Dick Smith, says Australia should cut population by slashing immigration and encouraging women to have only two babies. Mr Smith said Australia did not have enough water or food to support millions more people. It was crazy that seawater was being desalinated for drinking water to supply a booming population. "I feel they're going to spend most of their time working out how we can cope with 36 million, rather than looking at whether we really want 36 million."

But currently the facts are that Australia’s population growth rate (September 2009) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics is 2.1%. The preliminary estimated resident population (ERP) of Australia at 30 September 2009 was 22,066,000 persons. This was an increase of 451,900 persons (2.1%) since 30 September 2008 and 110,400 persons since 30 June 2009.

Compounding at 2.1%, Australia’s population will not be 35 million by 2050, but 35 million by 2030, less than a generation away. [Refer table below]

Sep-08 21,614,100
Sep-09 22,066,000
Sep-10 22,529,000
Sep-11 23,002,000
Sep-12 23,485,000
Sep-13 23,978,000
Sep-14 24,482,000
Sep-15 24,996,000
Sep-16 25,521,000
Sep-17 26,057,000
Sep-18 26,604,000
Sep-19 27,163,000
Sep-20 27,733,000
Sep-21 28,315,000
Sep-22 28,910,000
Sep-23 29,517,000
Sep-24 30,137,000
Sep-25 30,770,000
Sep-26 31,416,000
Sep-27 32,076,000
Sep-28 32,750,000
Sep-29 33,438,000
Sep-30 34,140,000
Sep-31 34,859,000
Sep-32 35,591,000
Sep-33 36,338,000
Sep-34 37,101,000
Sep-35 37,880,000
Sep-36 38,675,000
Sep-37 39,487,000
Sep-38 40,316,000
Sep-39 41,163,000
Sep-40 42,027,000
Sep-41 42,910,000
Sep-42 43,811,000
Sep-43 44,731,000
Sep-44 45,670,000
Sep-45 46,629,000
Sep-46 47,608,000
Sep-47 48,608,000
Sep-48 49,629,000
Sep-49 50,671,000
Sep-50 51,735,000

MESSAGES:

This Rudd-Swan trend for Australia is:

1. 35 million by 2030, not by 2050
2. 50 million by 2050!
3. A million per year (1/4 of Melbourne every year)

Lib/Lab politics have run out of ideology relevant for Australia in the 21st Century. Both are stagnated in 20th Century ideals of economic rationalism, economic growth and globalisation. Neither have workable long term answers to Australia’s entrenched triple bottom line (TBL) dilemmas.

Three simple and effective decisions to stem Australia’s population blowout and give Australia room to explore capacity ready options are:

1. End the Baby Bonus

2. End the Subclass 457 – Business (Long Stay) Visa Scheme

3. Restrict all work visas to Employer Nomination Scheme Occupation List (ENSOL), which requires each applicant to be nominated by an Australian employer to fill a position in an occupation that appears in the ENSOL and for the applicant to demonstrate that they have the necessary skills (including conversational English skills).

But, if economic growth and population growth are causing unacceptable social costs, then what is the alternative?

Clive Hamilton in his 2003 book Growth Fetish argues that our politicans and media are smitten with growth and have an obsession with economic growth (growth fetishism) and the marketing society lie at the heart of our social ills. For decades our political leaders and opinion makers have touted higher incomes as the way to a better future. Economic growth means better lives for us all.

Hamilton points out that 'despite many years of sustained economic growth and increased personal incomes Australia has large social divisions and we don’t seem to be any happier. Economic growth and the marketing society have corrupted our social priorities and political structures, and have created a profound sense of alienation among young and old. lies at the heart of our current political, social and environmental ills - and offers a thought-provoking alternative.’

=======================================================

References:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/23/2721924.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/wayne-swan-goes-for-growth-in-population-debate/story-e6frgczf-1225847691025

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cap-no-solution-to-australias-population-challenge-swan-20100330-r994.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/cut-population-now-by-slashing-immigration-and-encouraging-women-to-have-only-two-babies-dick-smith/story-e6frf7l6-1225823124407

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/04/2863763.htm

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201004/s2866051.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/wayne-swan-down-on-growth-for-its-own-sake/story-e6frg6nf-1225825707741

http://www.familyassist.gov.au/Payments/familyassistance/baby_bonus/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=growth_fetish

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/skilled-workers/sbs/how-the-visa-works.htm

Wayne Swann obfuscates

According to recent reports Wayne Swan ..."can't bring (him)self to agree with those who think we can solve all our problems by putting a freeze on national
population growth”. No Wayne, we certainly can't solve all our problems by reducing runaway population growth, but it sure would go a long way toward easing house prices, shortening hospital queues, preserving the environment and cutting our carbon footprints.

Who is this ‘We’?

A great many Australians these days would really like to know who exactly Mr Swan is referring to when he talks about "we" solving “our” problems. Is it the "working families" struggling in the outer suburbs to pay off hefty mortgages on second-rate housing stock on the fringes of our cities - or is it the vested corporate interests at the big end of town which possess an insatiable appetite for more growth, more markets and more people? Whose problems are you trying to solve Mr Swan?

Political addiction to population growth

The gap between the policies of the Liberal/Labor (Liboral?) party elites - that are politically addicted to massive population growth and mass-immigration - and the wishes of the electorate has never been greater. It’s a bipartisan problem. Tony Abbott has been whipping up mass hysteria about boat people lately, trying to make it an election issue. He's going to "close the borders" screamed the Herald Sun last week. But on the broader topic of mass-immigration, like the P.M. and Wayne Swan, Mr Abbot has also nailed his colours to the mast as a "big Australia" man whose "instinct" is to bring in "as many people as possible".

Who benefits and who loses by population growth?

Cheerleaders for the growthist lobby in the media have been doing their level best to scare the bejesus out of the public by raving on about retiring baby boomers and even raising the prospect of an armed invasion should we dare to consider putting the brakes on. The problem is no-one seems to have any real insight into where all this growth is heading for our country as well as the thorny question of who benefits and who loses from it? Who gets the profits and who gets to pay? How does the average citizen benefit when GDP per capita declines through massive population growth? Exactly what are the long-term implications for the environment and the famed liveability of our cities of this new "mega-trend"?

Rudd like a deer caught in headlights on population numbers

Despite the creation of a new population ministry, Labor has not had a great deal to say on these questions so far other than "growth is good". Mr Rudd hasn't even had an opinion this year. He appeared like a deer caught in the headlights recently when Kerry O’Brien confronted him on the 7:30 report - which is a bit strange considering that he "made no apology" last year for his support for “a big Australia”.

These questions are being ignored by our leaders other than a very vague undertaking to perhaps grow somewhat “differently" than before - presumably by stacking people 50 stories up in ugly high rises or transforming our urban areas into Los Angeles-style megalopolises with double-decker freeways and ghettoes of haves (those who bought houses before the great population explosion) and the less-fortunate have-nots that didn’t.

Some commentators in the media are suggesting that Rudd has "gone cold" on a big Australia this year. But what is far more likely is that he is simply being a very clever politician – like his predecessor John Howard - and is saying nothing publicly. Behind closed doors, however, he and his minions are champing at the bit to raise the volume as high as they can get way with without provoking too great a backlash from so-called working families whose marginal seats Labor took back from “Howard’s battlers” at the last election.

Expect Spin

To keep population growth ticking along at 2.1% per annum and maintaining a docile and electorate Rudd will try to do what politicians do best - bombard us with a mountain of meaningless words on things like the "programmatic specificity" of his new population ministry - but without of course actually doing anything.

One thing is certain, if the present growth trajectory is going to be maintained by Canberra indefinitely, the volume of complaints rising from the public is going to grow incredibly loud. When it takes the average person more than a lifetime to pay off a mortgage on an average house and when commuters have to spend half their lives stuck on clogged freeways or dysfunctional public transport systems, the politicians that continue to push growthist polices are going to eventually pay a heavy price at the ballot box.

Stable Population Party of Australia - a new alternative

Let's hope the newly formed Stable Population Party of Australia can capture many of the votes of the people that are most badly impacted by our government’s mad growth-at–all-costs agenda. We desperately need to lobby and apply pressure on our elected leaders to change their current policies. This is going to require constant media campaigns to get the public's attention as well as a small army of committed activists to get the message out.

Growth Lobby vs The People

The public needs to be made aware that there is an alternative to growth for growth's sake and that there is an alternative to the "Liboral Party” and their bipartisan and undemocratic policies which are failing to maintain a sustainable population. Make no mistake; the growth lobby is a formidable opponent with enormous financial resources on its side as well as the backing of both major parties and large sectors of the media. Only a very vigorous and determined grass-roots campaign the likes of which we haven’t seen before in Australia is going to have any chance at success at slowing down this juggernaut.

NOTES

7 April title was changed to better reflect newsworthy content

A few years ago I heard about the Australian Multicultural Foundation in the context of donations by the Scanlon Foundation (formerly the Brencorp Foundation) to the Australian Academy of Technical Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) for the production of the "Scanlon Report on "The technological implications of Australia at 30 million in 2030". The AMF was also the recipient of Scanlon Foundation funding together with the Institute of Global Movements, at Monash University, run by Professor Nieuwenhuysen, who used to be with the Bureau of Immigration. What initially got my attention was the enormous amount of money and publicity the AMF and the IGF attracted. Then what absolutely arrested my attention was the membership of the Australian Multicultural Foundation - made up largely of prime ministers and almost-prime ministers of every political complexion. I then became interested in the history of the AMF and decided to try to track down its origins and early associations. This is an interim report.

Private organisations and public policy

A few years ago I heard about the Australian Multicultural Foundation in the context of donations by the Scanlon Foundation (formerly the Brencorp Foundation) to the Australian Academy of Technical Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) for the production of the "Scanlon Report on "The technological implications of Australia at 30 million in 2030".[1] The AMF was also the recipient of Scanlon Foundation funding together with the Monash University Institute of Global Movements, run by Professor Nieuwenhuysen, who used to be with the Bureau of Immigration. ( Do have a look at this article which shows the Australian Multicultural Foundation in the bigger political and corporate picture.) What initially got my attention was the enormous amount of money and publicity the AMF and the IGF attracted. Then what absolutely arrested my attention was the membership of the Australian Multicultural Foundation - made up largely of prime ministers and almost-prime ministers (such as John Hewson and Mark Latham) of every political complexion - (but not Gough Whitlam). I then became interested in the history of the AMF and decided to try to track down its origins and early associations.

Australian Prime Ministers and social engineering programs

It seems pretty clear that the Scanlon Foundation and ATSE's, "The Scanlon Report 30/50 - The Technological Implications of an Australian Population of 30 million by 2050," (2007) has furnished a sort of recent technological blueprint for successive governments to impose higher and higher intakes of immigrants on Australia.[2] The donations to the Institute of Global Movements and the Australian Multicultural Foundation fit broadly into the area of social engineering to try to get Australians to accept these impositions. The association of successive prime ministers all the way back to Bob Hawke with this is absolutely fascinating and somewhat chilling, because it seems to indicate objectives at a high level which have not, to my knowledge, ever been discussed with the Australian public and for which their consent has not been sought.

The Memorandum of Association of the Foundation was signed by R.J. Hawke in 1988. The President of ATSE was one of the signatories. The Foundation is supposed to be non-profit. I have previously published the information below, but only as a footnote to this article. If anyone can stitch some of this together, please write to me.

The Australian Multicultural Foundation

[Links to information about members are made by candobetter.net and do not appear on the AMF page itself.]
Australian Multicultural Foundation (AMF)
Board of Directors

The Hon Sir James Gobbo AC CVO (Chairman)
Major General Peter Maurice Arnison AC CVO
Ms Carla Zampatti AM
Professor Kwong Lee Dow AM
Executive Director and Company Secretary

Dr B. (Hass) Dellal OAM
Administrative Assistant

Mrs Brigit Murikumthara

Ms Azmeena Hussain
Project Co-ordinator

Ms Athalia Zwartz
Training and Project Development Manager

Ms Lynn Cain

Members of the Foundation

The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP
[Added here from the Multicultural Foundation site on 5 May 2013.]

The Hon. Julia Gillard MP, Prime Minister of Australia
The Hon. Tony Abbott MHR, Leader of the Opposition [Ed. Added here from Multicultural Foundation site on 5 July 2012]

The Hon. Kevin Rudd MP (Prime Minister of Australia)
The Hon. John Howard AC
Dame Beryl Beaurepaire DBE AC [Generally noted for activism in girls' education and women's affairs in Liberal Party and historic involvement in WAAF, but described as company director in the registration of the Foundation.]
The Hon. Kim Beazley AC (See Pronatalist policy in Australia 1945-2000)
The Hon Mr Simon Crean MP
Mr Ivan A. Deveson AO
The Hon. Alexander Downer
Sir Llewellyn Edwards AC
Mr William Charles Fairbanks [?Secretary of Landcare Australia P/L)
Ms Gaye Rosemary Hart AM
The Hon. Robert Hawke AC
Dr J. R. Hewson AM
Ms Vivien Suit-Cheng Hope (Careers and Counselling Centre Tutor, Centre of Asian Students, University of Adelaide)
The Hon. Paul Keating
Mr Mark Latham
Mrs Irene Kwong Moss AO [Home Building regulation]
Mr Robert Brooker Maher AM Executive Director, American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, Paddington NSW and Former board member of The Australian Rail Track Corporation
Ms Wendy Elizabeth McCarthy AO Interestingly, this woman is also a patron of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance, which has links with Sustainable Population Australia. She is also Chair of McGrath Estate Agents, currently expanding into Australia's iconic Blue Mountains.
Mr Lindsay Gordon Crossley Moyle AM
Professor John Nieuwenhuysen AM
The Hon. Andrew Peacock AC
Lady Stephen
Mr Ross Tzannes AM
Mr George Wojak AO MBE

Source: http://amf.net.au/about/australian-multicultural-foundation/
Further documentation

Link to Memorandum of Association of Australian Bicentennial Multicultural Foundation Limited

The link has changed. Updated here on 5 May 2013 to http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FParliamentary_Business%2FCommittees%2FSenate_Committees%3Furl%3Dlegcon_ctte%2Festimates%2Fbud_0910%2Fag%2FQON_011_AHRC_ATTACHMENT_A.pdf&ei=Vq2FUfK8IcSziQfUqYDQDw&usg=AFQjCNH-SIHtY-DkyBzzK97NkqAG7pLueA&sig2=KYb6k_I2Exqr9Zop46odBQ&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dGI&cad=rja
If that link also fails, there is now a pdf copy on the candobetter.net site. Access by clicking on the link here: /files/http___www.aphref.aph_.gov_.au_senate_committee_legcon_ctte_estimates_bud_0910_ag_qon_011_ahrc_attachment_a.pdf.

[For documentation purposes, the discontinued link originally used in this article was Memorandum of Association of the Company, known as the Australian Bicentennial Multicultural Foundation Limited. ]

Dated 1988, with illegible month (maybe September), it is signed by R.J.Hawke, (witnessed by his senior private secretary in the prime ministerial lodge in Canberra); Sir James Augustine Gobbo (Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria); Michael George Kailis, Governing Director of M G Kailis Group of Companies, West Australia [Seafood and pearl culture industries]; George Wojak; Lindsay Gordon Crossley Moyle, Chief Executive Officer, State Bank of Victoria, 131 Powlett Street, East Melbourne; Sir David Ronald Zeidler, Company Director, Park Avenue Towers, Parkville, Victoria [Past Chairman of ICI and 1983 - 1988 President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering];Dame Beryl Edith Beaurepaire, Company Director, Mt Eliza, Victoria; Vivien Suit-Cheng Hope, Careers and Counselling Centre, Tutor, Centre of Asian Students, University of Adelaide, S.A.; Ross Tzarthes, Solicitor, Pryor, Tzannes, Glebe, NSW; Marie Anna Elizabeth Blake, Managing Director Jetset Tours (Old) Pty Ltd, New Farm QLD; William Charles Fairbanks, General Manager, Finance and Management Services, The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Wahroonga NSW; Gaye Rosemary Hart, General Manager Programs, The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Elizabeth Bay, NSW; James Frank Kirk, Chairman and Chief Executive, The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Edgecliffe, NSW; Wendy Elizabeth McCarthy, General Manager Communications, The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Mary St., Longueville, NSW.

The Scanlon Foundation

The information below is taken from the Foundation's website at
Social Cohesion and it provides confirmation of links between the organisations already mentioned, plus demographers from the ANU.

"The Scanlon Foundation believes that the future prosperity of Australia, underpinned by continued population growth, will depend on our ability to maintain social cohesion in a society with even more cultural diversity than we have successfully accommodated historically.

The Foundation, in seeking to create awareness and knowledge based discussion about Australia's population growth and its relationship to social cohesion, has provided substantial funding grants in the following areas of research:

1. The Australian Centre for Population Research at the Australian National University, led by Professor Peter McDonald and Rebecca Kippen, have undertaken projections of Australia's population that have enabled the Foundation to “lock in” on a future population target of 30 million Australians by 2050. In shorthand we refer to this as 30/50.

2. The Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering in 2007 have released a major study Report entitled “30/50 The Technological Implications of an Australian Population of 30 Million by 2050” which concludes that there are no insurmountable technological, engineering or environmental barriers to Australia sustaining a population of 30 million by 2050, assuming that thorough analysis and planning occur and that leadership is exercised by governments. See the Foundation's Chairman, Peter Scanlon's address at the ATSE launch of this Report;

3. The Monash Institute for the Study of Global Movements, in partnership with the Australian Multicultural Foundation, are continuing to undertake a major Social Cohesion Research Program for the Foundation. Further to a first National Benchmark Mapping of Social Cohesion 2007,survey this has been followed up with a second round Mapping Social Cohesion 2009 survey. See the Foundation Chairman, Peter Scanlon's address at the launch of this second round Report. This research is focused on monitoring how Australia in the future can maintain the “immigration with social cohesion” success story of the last five decades.

4. Monash University’s Institute for the Study of Global Movements have recently published a Discussion Paper on the Implications of the Economic Downturn for Immigration and Social Cohesion."

NOTES

[1] If anyone wants an electronic copy of the 2007 ATTSE Report itself, "The technological implications of Australia at 30 million in 2030," contact me through candobetter.net and I will send one to you. The file was too big to upload here. There old URL for "The technological implications of Australia at 30 million in 2030" was a href="http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=128 no longer works. I have linked above to an new URL. I have also copied and pasted the 'Address' by Peter Scanlon in the Appendix below, to document the launching of the document. This speech is quite interesting because it gives us an economic belief context and even admiringly cites a chapter written by Harvard economist, Benjamin M. Friedman, written with the notorious Milton Friedman: Benjamin M. Friedman, Milton Friedman, A. W. Clausen, "Postwar Changes in the American Financial Markets," in Martin Feldstein, ed., The American Economy in Transition," University of Chicago Press, 1980.

[2] The 2007 Report is no longer accessible on the ATSE site or from the Scanlon Foundation site, perhaps because projections for 2050 have Australia massively overshooting 30 million and heading towards 45 million. The population project has got totally out of hand, yet none of the people responsible for these population growth stimulation projects are sounding the alarm.

APPENDIX

ADDRESS BY

FOUNDATION CHAIRMAN, PETER SCANLON

TO ATSE REPORT LAUNCH

18th April 07

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Honourable Robert Smith MLC, President of the Legislative Assembly.

The Honorable Jenny Lindell MP. Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Parliamentarians;

Mr. Peter Laver, Vice president of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

Mr. Vaughan Beck
Distinguished guests.

The Scanlon Foundation is committed to the belief that Australia needs to continue to grow and that this growth will require a substantial and increasing role for migration. As a consequence we see social cohesion as critical to both migration and Australia’s growth.

In that context and separately from the study by ATSE The Scanlon Foundation’s Social Cohesion Research Program incorporates six (6) individual projects, managed by the Monash Institute for the Study of Global Movements and the Australian Multicultural Foundation.

One of these projects is the innovative benchmark survey throughout Australia measuring the current status of social cohesion in Australia. This survey has been commissioned and field interviews will commence in May. We anticipate results in July ready for analysis and preparation for release at Metropolis 2007.

However, the study released today by ATSE, and although very much part of our program, has different origins. In the early days of our work on social cohesion it was clear to us that there are a number of people in Australia across a broad spectrum who queried the underlying principal of growth because they worried whether the country was able to accommodate more people. In essence they asked “can we have a population of 30 million people by the year 2050 without creating substantial infrastructure and environmental issues”.
It was to deal with this perception, this question that led the Foundation to commission this study. That is why it is specific both as to numbers and Australia. That is why we went to ATSE as the independent expert with its 750 eminent Fellows.

Clearly the study says we can accommodate 30 million people by 2050. However it does say there are issues and that these are legitimate issues that need to be discussed and dealt with. ATSE concludes in fact they need to be dealt with irrespective to 30/50.

However I ask that as you reflect on this study that you do not do so in isolation. There is a flip side to the debate. That is the consequences of Growth. Too often growth is mistakenly seen to be only about material outcomes.

In his book “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth” Benjamin Friedman demonstrates why the elements, held out by the Enlightenment thinkers so central to Western philosophy, of openness, opportunity, tolerance, economic and social mobility, fairness and democracy are all enhanced by growth.

Freidman explains that growth, rather than simply creating a higher standard of living, is the key to effecting political and social liberalization in the third world. He shows that even the wealthiest of nations puts its democratic values at risk when growth stops. Merely being wealthy is no protection against a turn toward rigidity and intolerance when a country’s citizens lose the sense that they are getting ahead.

Post war we had the growth of economic socialism which tried to deal with the imbalance of material well being by relying on redistribution rather than creation. It failed miserably.

Today, to me, in many ways there seems to be a populous move to a form of environmental socialism in that there is a concentration on regulating and redistributing what we have as was the case with economic socialism. It won’t be the answer. Separately from mans proven record of ingenuity and adaptation we need to get back to planning and doing. This will be the answer.

That we need to manage better is without doubt. The ATSE report is very clear about this. The short period of elected governments, our system of Federation together with upper and lower houses, the politicisation of the public service and so on has left us with ineffective long term planning. And this when there has never been a better time to set these priorities with our prosperity and surplus investment capital which is searching the world trying to find a home.

If Social Cohesion was not the Foundations main game I think we would have tackled this issue. Pressure and knowledge needs to be focused on our infrastructure and environmental planning. The current situation is a disgrace. We probably need for the want of a better title a Reserve Bank of Infrastructure.

However right now that’s not for us other than to support ATSE’s call for leadership and planning.

In conclusion the Foundation expresses it appreciation to ATSE. In particular my thanks to Vaughan Beck, Ian Duncan, Ian Rae and of course many talented authors and contributors to the 30/50 study.

We at the Foundation look forward to pursuing our ongoing work on social cohesion and positive migration strategies for the future prosperity of Australia.

Thank you

State and Federal Government on the defensive

The Sydney Morning Herald article, "Cap, 'Not the answer to population growth'"(AAP 30 March 2010) quotes only those on the high-population side of the debate. Yet it depicts almost all of them as desperately trying to hose down the arguments for capping population.

Why they are so on the defensive is clear from the Essential Research political poll that was released back on March 1st. Among the usual questions on voting intentions etc was included one on attitudes to population, and the results were stunning:

Poll shows Australians against more population growth

* 75% agreed and only 19% disagreed that "We just don't have the infrastructure and services to manage more population growth."

* 64% agreed and only 29% disagreed that "Immigration should be slowed as it causes too much change to our society"

* 61% agreed and only 30% disagreed that "Australia has a fragile environment that cannot cope with a much larger population".

* 38% agreed but 52% disagreed that "Having a larger population will help our economy."

* 35% agreed but 58% disagreed that "Australia has the space and resources to cope with a much larger population."

* Coalition, not Labor, supporters were more likely to agree to the first two propositions.

See Source.

Obfuscation

Predictably the growth side tried to argue that it isn't the number of people you cram into the cities that counts, it's the superb way they plan to house them. Growth-promoter Bernard Salt once again got himself described as a "demographer". He also tried to run the aging population scare in reverse, as an optimistic claim that an immigration intake of 180,000 each year is Australia's "get out of jail free card to fund our retirement of the baby boomers".

Fuel crisis

However Salt admitted that "One thing that you can be confident about in the next 40 years is that, in real terms, petrol will be $5 a litre." It did not occur to him that high-priced fuel implies similarly high-priced fertiliser and food. (Food riots broke out last time oil reached $100 a barrel, because even the third world now grows its food with nitrate fertilisers derived from oil and gas.) One problem with the mega-cities that Anna Bligh and others would create is they will be totally unsustainable -- dependent on people elsewhere being willing to send them millions of tanker-loads of fuel and millions of trucks of food. It is far from clear what these cities can produce to offer in exchange.

Just at present the really valuable commodities, like oil and food, are dirt cheap whereas one pay through the nose for fashion accessories etc -- a situation which makes cities seem sustainable and provides millions of jobs for city dwellers. But it is unlikely this would be the case in an oil-starved world.

Wayne Swan swats problem away

Wayne Swan is still trying to swat away the population issue without descending to debate it: "I can't bring myself to agree with those who think we can solve all our problems by putting a freeze on national population growth." But the democratization of the internet makes it harder to get away with such tactics. One internet correspondent, Skooner, retorted:

"No Wayne, we certainly can't solve all our problems that way, but it sure would go a long way toward easing house prices, shortening hospital queues, saving the environment and cutting our carbon footprints. I, and a lot of other Australians would also like to know who exactly you are referring to when you talk about "we" Mr Swan? Just who are "we"? The "working families" which elected you - the Australian people - or just the vested corporate interests that possess an insatiable hunger for more growth and more people.

The ideological gap between the Liberal/Labor (Liboral?) party elites - that are addicted to huge population growth, baby bonuses and mass-immigration - and the electorate has never been greater."
("Skooner", on [email protected])

(Illustration: For more on Colonel Blimp see "Notes" [1])

Original title was: "Mr Salt and Mr Murdoch team up again to can Australians". See also: "Bernard Salt and Murdoch press cook up recipe for invasion" of 2 May 09.

Into the Salty abyss

According to yet another article in Mr Murdoch's Australian newspaper by self-styled demographer, Bernard Salt,

Australia "quivered when a passing Japanese submarine lobbed shells into the eastern suburbs of Sydney in May 1942: property prices plummeted."

You can find the article, "Invasion victory ensured by complacency" in the business and property section in The Australian. A sort of where to buy and invade section, I guess. Here Salt advertises Australia as an easy target for any enemies. Pretending that he is writing for a mythical Peoples' Army in Bernardistan, he plots entry via the Kimberleys.

Why Salt's antics here are not seen as treacherous and inciting invasion would be a mystery to anyone seriously subscribing to the Axis of Evil myth. More sophisticated readers may wonder, however, if the property development industry is so worried by the Australian public's louder and louder calls for population stabilisation, that they must have decided to ask Mr Murdoch and Mr Salt to try provoke a full-on invasion.

Mr Salt probably realises that conducting a military invasion of Australia (rather than the economic immigration one) is not as easy as his imaginary character pretends. What may still be possible, however, is to misinform elderly Australians (members of the property lobby and readers of The Australian, for instance) via one of our only two national newspapers, and panic them into calling for a bigger population. Either strategy could work and, without an invasion - of immigrants or armed forces - the Colonel Blimps (and Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swann) of the Property and Development Lobby are doomed. A welcome extinction, in the view of many ecologists, which would prevent so many sad ones.

Australia Overloaded author, Mark O'Connor wrote recently in response to Bernard's attitude which seems to be that Australians are complacent cowards and the country needs more of them:

"If the Australians of our fathers' or grandfathers' generation had been as faint hearted as Mr Salt, back when our population was only a third of what it is today, Australia might now be a province of Japan."

(O'Connor was responding to an article, "Australia told to grow or risk invasion", in the Canberra Times, 31/3/2010, p. 6 which was reporting on what seem like Bernard Salt's attempts to commercialise fear and ignorance in yet another forum.)

James Sinnamon commented on the facts:

In fact, Australia achieved self-reliance in 1942 and stood a very good chance of being able to defeat a Japanese invasion. That is why the Japanese Army in March 1942 vetoed the Japanese Navy's plan to invade.

The reason why the Japanese Army vetoed the Navy's invasion plans is explained in detail by Andrew T Ross in Armed and Ready - The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945 Turton & Armstrong, Sydney, 1995, on pages 408-418:

By June 1942, the earliest date an invasion force could have been assembled, Australia would have 8 fully equipped divisions in the field as well as an air force capable of denying the Japanese total air supremacy. To win, they would have had to capture a deep water harbour in order to enforce a blockade to prevent Australia being able the resupply itself with some of the very few materials with which we were not self-sufficient (including petroleum). The northernmost deep water harbour was Newcastle.

Mr Sinnamon, who obviously has no serious investments in housing or infrastructure or bank shares, continued:

During the Second World War Australia was one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, a technological edge we have largely lost since then thanks to Australia having allowed its manufacturing sector to be destroyed as mandated by free market orthodoxy.

Of Australia's contribution to the Second World War, US President Truman said to the US Congress in a report on Lend Lease (including on Australia's reverse Lend Lease to the US during much of the Pacific War) on 27 December 1946:

"On balance, the contribution made by Australia, a country having 7 millions, approximately equalled that of United States." (Andrew T. Ross, Armed and Ready: the industrial development and defence of Australia, 1900-1945, Turton & Armstrong, Sydney, 1995, p 427)

Sinnamon asks,

Why would Bernard Salt wish to deny this, as well as this country's impressive military achievements, by focusing on only two episodes in the war?

In the case of the bombing of Darwin, the attacking Japanese force exceeded that which attacked Pearl Harbour, so I would think that the panicked response by some Australians was understandable.

(See also "The myth of the Howard Government's Defence Competence" of 21 November 2007 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665)

Commercialising treachery

Well, I guess it doesn't matter to Mr Salt's objectives whether his statements are accurate or fair. The aim of the article seems to be to generate enough fear to overcome Australians' democratic desire for a small and stable population. This means we can expect many more articles like this one, sigh.

And the battle to invade and subdue Australia is half-won anyway. As Bernard Salt knows and Greg Woods writes, we are already well on the way to being a nation of disorganised captives to propaganda and consumerism.

So why would having a lot more of that kind of Australian serve to defend us against the tens of millions in some Bernardistan?

What The Australian wouldn't print

As Greg Wood writes:

Pray tell Mr. Salt, how would even tenfold more Australians, wedged into the alienating fringe of suburbia and the high-rise catacombs of your ambitions, and beguiled into apathy by myriad imported electronic eclectica, be of any practical assistance against this massed force from your imagination? As an audience to watch the news-feeds and up the ratings of the conflict perhaps?

Your narrow and convenient account of WW2 Australian response to Japanese attack is simply bad history. In fact the response was broadly self-sacrificing and heroic. That earlier time exhibited remarkable social identity and spirit, which acted as the glue that draws together the resistance your argument so disingenuously questions. That character is now largely lost as recent decades have seen genuine neighbourhoods sacrificed as commodities for trade in the game of property speculation and growth-for-profit that you advocate.

And the futility of your proposition sucks one’s breath out. Why bother to invade Australia when it is already for sale world-wide on the internet to the highest bidder with the strongest exchange rate? N.B. 80% of Australians (and growing) need not apply – insufficient funds!

Well, that's right, Greg. And the Property marketers of the Growth Lobby want more customers with ready cash. For some reason they think that the Peoples Army might have the ready. (After all, armies are where a lot of foreign aid ends up and big spending goes on.) So Bernard is getting the message to them, via Mr Murdoch's Australian that it would be a doddle to invade Australia. While they're perusing our topology on GoogleEarth, they can also have a look at property on Mr Murdoch's www.realestate.com.au

But Greg continues, referring to the treacherous conduct of The Australian as a 'community sell-out' in printing an article that purports to give fail-safe directions to invade your country:

Harking back to WW2 and what it truly does take to secure freedom, a community sell-out of this magnitude would have earned a bullet in the back of the head from the French Resistance. Or does your curious brand of history see them as an extremist terrorist group?

However, if you peruse the emailed responses to Salt's article, it really isn't so easy to invade Australia. Perhaps, in fact, Mr Salt was just using the Peoples' Army as a kind of code for the elderly tax-payer army that supplements the Growth Lobby's continued purchase of power in this country.

At any rate, here are some of the best of the responses in The Australian:

ID Langford Posted at 6:13 AM Today

Bernard, you are entirely out to lunch... Consider the SE Asian archipelago that you navigated down to get here...you don't think we will see you coming? Consider the vast interior of the Australian landmass that you will need to penetrate in order to project military force into our decisive areas...does it remind you of the German attempt to conquer the Soviet Union in WW2? Or Napoleon's attempt a century earlier?? Consider the logistics involved in forcing entry onto Australia and then sustaining it...consider the wet season which prohibits movement in northern Australia for much of the year...go read some the Defence of Australia foundational documents that are out there. Most of us are complacent about history; some of us however, are students of history and understand the efforts required to lodge and deny access to an area the size of the Kimberley would be a truly monumental task. It took over 205 German Divisions to invade the Soviet Union and even this massive war machine failed. Have a real think about it...who can even closely imitate this force structure today??

Jason Ransome of Basel, Switzerland Posted at 7:29 AM Today

Fantastic article! But did you take into account our anzus treaty with America. Let's not forget Australia is a huge country, you can start from the west and move east but our army will come from behind and cut your supply routes every time, so you better bring enough personal to protect those supply routes. If it was so simple to invade Australia then it would of been tried by more than just the Japanese Good luck with your invasion, your going to need it

I like this one - short and to the point:

Mr Squiggle of Melbourne Posted at 9:58 AM Today

What an odious little article this is. China's population is 1.3bn. Indonesia's is 231m. Even if we increased our population size four-fold tomorrow, we would still be strategically outnumbered. Just let it go Bernard, we'll never create national security by ramping up our population. The starting gap is too large.

neil of melb Posted at 11:05 AM Today

The problem with invading Australia is purely logistical, How may countries have the capability of transporting 150,000 soldiers, equipment and ongoing supplies over 1000's of km of ocean? The only countries that could conceivably do it are the USA because of their military power and Indonesia because of their proximity. But Indonesia does not have the capability to destroy our air force or stop it being reinforced from allies. They don't have the capacity to land 10's of thousands of paratroopers. We would have control of the skies and the resulting carnage inflicted on a marine invasion would catastrophic. Military strategists run simulations on these scenarios constantly, this is why we are spending billions on long distance radar, aircraft and submarines rather than a huge army. A war would be fought in the Pacific or Indian oceans or Timor sea, not on Australian soil.

Rhetorical Question to the Elites who make money out of the rest of us through war and housing games

Is The Australian in fact un-Australian? Didn't the diggers die to preserve free speech? How come only Mr Salt and his doyen get to say whatever they like?

NOTES

[1] Colonel Blimp was a cartoon character created by Sir David Low (1891-1963), a New Zealand political cartoonist and caricaturist who lived and worked in the United Kingdom for many years. Low was a self-taught cartoonist. Born in New Zealand, he worked in his native country before migrating to Sydney, Australia in 1911, and ultimately to London (1919), where he made his career and earned fame for his Colonel Blimp depictions and his merciless satirising the personalities and policies of German dictator Adolf Hitler, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and other leaders of his times. Source, Wikipedia

See also: "Bernard Salt and Murdoch press cook up recipe for invasion" of 2 May 09, "Madang landowners fight ecologically devastating Chinese mining invasion" of 1 Apr 10.

Article by Amanda Burchell

Aesthetics of a prosthetic and over-regulated world

One of the suggested topics for this discussion was: The aesthetics of a prosthetic and over-regulated world.

Though I had a problem in tweaking the word aesthetics to suit my purposes in relation to prosthetic, I learnt to use the latter word in a metaphorical sense and the rest found poetic license in its final expression by me.

And did I want to challenge the meaning of the word aesthetics in order to suggest precision, restraint, a certain punctilious and concrete approach?

Yes, I thought that I did.

So the translation for The Aesthetics of a prosthetic and over-regulated world would be:

The precise and concrete arrangement, to which a world propped up on plastic, is delivered in a rigid and untenable manner, devoid of joy and equity.

Welcome to Australia, folks!

Welcome to Australia, folks ~ this is the world we appear to be striving for.

… ‘A mundane metal cupboard in the bowels of the Australian Museum is a last resting place for lost mammals.’
… ‘In the past 200 years Australia has driven 27 of its mammal species to extinction.’

You may not give a damn that a Quoll or a Caladenia brachyscapa (Short Spider-orchid –Tasmania) – is rare or extinct but you might, however, spare a thought for your own survival, if it comes to that.

What's next? You perhaps?

Having ruined the habitat for other mammals and flora to boot, you might think – what’s next?

You, perhaps? Since it is always all about you, you may well consider that, if Australia keeps importing extra people – and you keep producing children yourself, you may just run out of room.

Perhaps each person who steps onto Australian soil, as well as the current residents, should be buying multiple blocks of land.
A man marries a woman and has two children: multiply that out by three generations - a house for the original couple, two more for each of their children and their families, and so forth.

Well, unless everyone stops procreating for a while, we are going to have serious problems in supplying sufficient housing, food, jobs and water, for everyone.

Water

Water… do you remember that, during Jeff Kennett’s regime, he made it illegal to buy and install water tanks?

That’s because during his time, water was privatized, and he, the politician – elected by the people - had a mandate to support the private enterprise that he and his government had further encouraged in the purchase of our public utility.

By the way if you’re wondering who would like to see Australia’s population expand infinitely, I would suggest that developers and real estate agents have a vested interest in population growth, wouldn’t you?

Immigration means more listings and sales – but, if you take a good look at where they’re building these house and land packages, they’re getting further away from real infrastructure and the CBD than ever before.

Now demographers are discussing self contained satellite cities where people are contained within, never needing to leave, really.

Is that what you want? Because that’s what they are talking about as a means to grow Australia, in a 'sustainable and manageable way'.

'They' includes those politicians I mentioned before; politicians like Jeff Kennett’s who just know what’s good for us and for Australia.

Well, I’d like the voting public to think about how tough things are at the moment – and how much tougher they are likely to get with a bigger squeeze on strained resources.

The Builders and Developers are Wrong

The builders and developers are wrong. More people does not equate to a cheaper, better standard of living.

I heard the case for increasing Australia’s population back in the 1980’s and I cannot see any proof to date, that an increase’ has served the interests of that population, in general terms.

And forgive me, my youngest son; I am not a racist pig, as you once accused me of being – I just want a country that will give you a job and home – and enough water to drink.

I want a sustainable population with equity for all – for a long, long, time to come.

Amanda Burchell

Online References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_flora_of_Australia
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=3915&cn=394

Message sent to growthsummit[at]premiers.qld.gov.au on Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:57 PM by Daniel Boon

Subject: Re Anna Blighs 'Foreword'

Queensland is unique and does have a diverse landscape; however, it doesn’t have a strong economy (otherwise income producing assets wouldn’t be for sale) as a failure to balance the budget indicates; our community identity is fragmented, given the influx of 2,100 people every week.

If, over the next 20 years, Queensland’s population does rise to 5 - 7 million people, then we are in for a harried life style similar to that of Sydney / NSW. The 'growth from record levels of overseas migration and to a lesser extent higher fertility rates' is something the State government does have some say over; an infrastructure fee should be levied on all new arrivals to lessen the environmental, financial and social impact of those incoming people.

Our population growth provides great financial benefits for corporations that fund the major political parties; short-sighted property sellers fail to realize that more land and nature surrounding their property will attract a premium in the not too distant future; however, continued growth will further over-burden our already stretched resources and infrastructures. Public works may create jobs in the short term, but in the long term, they just pose more financial burdens - as liabilities - on the populace.

The first challenge may be perceived providing places for people to live, work and play, but in reality, the Qld Labor Party - with unchecked growth - will see the eventual demise of the koala in Queensland as humans squeeze flora and fauna out. Building an additional one million dwellings will sorely test the forests and other resources and increase greenhouse gas emissions that the Labor government crows so much about introducing policies to decrease.

Population growth and preserving our environment, a classic oxymoron.

Queenslanders are among the highest consumers of energy and producers of waste in the world and our per capita consumption and waste is increasing each year and this is because despite claiming to have sustainable housing criteria, our houses consume more energy in construction and on-going running costs than homes in far colder / hotter climates; in other words, our houses are energy inefficient and that starts with a lack-lustre builder education process by organizations such as TAFE who employ staff with no real idea of what makes a house energy efficient; its far more than a batt of insulation and a mercury injected CFL light.

The 'global financial crisis' will continue regardless, mainly because governments spend more than they ‘earn’ to present a façade of successful management meanwhile spending our children’s future now.

The only option of the Bligh government is to stay within its earnings budget; however, past performance proves beyond all reasonable doubt that it neither has the ability or knowledge to manage in good times or the current situation, let alone plan for growth.

Every decision that involves spending more than one has will compromise everything we once loved about Queensland. Rather than a strong foundation, the Bligh / Labor government undermines our very future. The ‘grand plan’ - allegedly supported by 10 other regional plans across the state and covering about 90% of our population - was drawn up by what I call 'corporate government', corporations that direct the State government; and is not supported by thinking born and bred Queenslanders.

Bligh is right about one thing, it isn’t a one-way street, as our population increases our unique environment diminishes irreversibly. There is no such thing as sustainable growth because growth doesn’t understand the concept of balance.

The Queensland Government’s Growth Management Summit is a farce and the spin words ‘stronger, greener, smarter, healthier and fairer’ are the opposite of what will happen. Queenslanders wince noticeably when Laborites use the terminology 'smart state'.

See also: Queensland Government Growth Summit web-site at growthsummit.premiers.qld.gov.au.

Late 2008 a school teacher helped worried children in Epping write to the Minister for the Environment, Mr Jennings, asking him to help kangaroos marooned by development and battered by traffic. Why did DSE allow Wildlife Victoria to spend time and money on a plan to relocate the 21 remaining kangaroos to safe territory, but then secretly kill the kangaroos in a unilateral decision in January this year? Why did DSE, which is also responsible for planning, allow development to trap the kangaroos? A memorial protest will be held for these kangaroos on Sunday 28 March at 2pm at Oleander Drive off McDonalds Rd in South Morang.We the People can do more about this - see inside! See also "Children in Epping tread where politicians fear to go" and "Our State government appears to be on a campaign to eradicate native wildlife from Victoria, especially kangaroos"

Mill Park/South Morang kangaroos

In late 2008 a school teacher helped worried children in Epping write to the Minister for the Environment, Mr Jennings, pleading for his department to look after kangaroos in the area,[1] which were landlocked by Government policy to artificially stimulate human population growth and the associated commercial and housing development.[2]

The children were especially distressed by the frequent sight of injured kangaroos on roads which they tried to cross in efforts to find food and water.

To our knowledge, the Minister never answered the children's emails, but the schoolteacher and children were silenced. Obviously one would write more about this except that it would not be in the interests of the children and their teacher. Why this should be so in Victoria in 2010, I leave to the reader's imagination.

Wildlife Victoria searched for kangaroos which DSE has shot without telling them

McDonalds Rd., South Morang and Bunnings, Mill Park, Feb 13, 2006 (Google Earth) with Inset of local kangaroos caught in further commercial development (Photo Fiona Corke).

Note that this area has changed enormously since the latest google-view of Feb 13 2006, such is the forced pace of change in Australian cities. South of McDonalds Road is where the mob was, and that is now quite heavily built on, with commercial development, including Bunnings. North of McDonalds Rd is largely overtaken by residential development, but there are also kangaroos over there, particularly near the two water tanks that can be seen on the top right hand edge of the area. There are not as many as there used to be. Wildlife rescuers are trying to ascertain with regular monitoring how many may have disappeared from there as well, and if any of these may have been killed. The kangaroos can get some passage through up into the northern area and beyond. Alas that takes them into farming areas where they are likely to also be shot with permits issued by the DSE to farmers.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) dissolved the South Morang Kangaroo Working Group Committee last year, but DSE told Wildlife Victoria that they could submit a relocation plan, although it clearly stated that the plan would have to meet all recommendations. So far these recommendations have all been met and the plan is currently under review with an Ethics Committee that is chaired by a DSE employee.

On Friday 19th March 2010, however, after being questioned by Wildlife Victoria about the disappearance of kangaroos under focus, the Department put out a media release, stating that the kangaroos had been shot in January. The DSE employee who was left continuing to chair the ethics committee had not been informed either.

The grounds given for killing the kangaroos were that development was reducing them to starvation, but Wildlife Victoria says that recipient sites were available for them. Yes, there is land available, because of the depletion of populations due to last year's bushfires in other areas. This relocation option was to be presented before the ethics committee for approval next week.

Why did DSE, which is also responsible for planning, allow the situation which preceded this final tragedy to arise in the first place? Why did they also allow Wildlife Victoria to spend considerable time and money on a plan to relocate these animals to safe territory, then secretly kill the kangaroos in a unilateral decision?

Substantial Wildlife Corridors are still possible and must be created

It would still be possible to create corridors to safeguard Victoria's kangaroo population if it were not for the attitude of the commercially obsessed and development-mad Victorian Government, which seems to intend to get rid of every kangaroo in the State without letting anyone know what it is doing. Since similar attitudes prevail in other States, it seems possible that Australian governments could have plans which will make the kangaroo extinct, for all the public knows.
See also "Children in Epping tread where politicians fear to go" and "Our State government appears to be on a campaign to eradicate native wildlife from Victoria, especially kangaroos"

Secretive elimination of wild kangaroos in South Morang and Mill Park

The Sth Morang kangaroos that people have fought so long to save have been secretly killed by commercial shooters contracted by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

The kill happened in January, although their relocation was and theoretically still is under review by an Ethics Committee. The chair of that Ethics Committee is a Senior DSE Wildlife employee who was not informed that the kangaroos had been killed.

21 remaining members of the original mob of 30 (depleted by road accidents), which rescuers had been focusing on, had been missing for weeks. Wildlife Victoria Members, Fiona Rowley, Narelle Smith and their northern network, Wildlife Rescuers, had been searching the area. All the while they suspected that the kangaroos had secretly been killed.

After Freedom of Information (FOI) notification and recent questions from Wildlife Victoria, the DSE issued a media release dated 19 March 2010.

The DSE media release [cited below] uses the fact that property development in the area was eliminating these animals' habitat and that they would starve to death to excuse the unilateral kill and implies that relocation was too unsure and costly an option to consider.

Kangaroo defenders say, however, that Wildlife Victoria’s submission to relocate the kangaroos was panning out well. Fiona Rowley had been an effective advocate for a rescue plan and both she and Narelle Smith had been involved in key aspects of the relocation plan and submission, and were keeping up monitoring of the area. The City of Whittlesea and Westfield Shopping Centre were prepared to cover the costs of the relocation, according to Fiona Rowley.

DSE "Out of touch" on wildlife issues

In response to the DSE press release, a distressed Fiona Rowley said:

“No proper study of the effects of relocating kangaroos has ever been undertaken, so how do they know it’s not possible. We were prepared to undertake one and the relocation project was pending approval via an expert panel.

"Money has been spent on statistical consultants, having site assessments done on recipient sites and it was determined by these consultants that the sites were suitable and could accommodate this mob of kangaroos with little to no environmental impact.

"Furthermore the City of Whittlesea and Westfield Shopping Centre were also supportive in relocating the kangaroos and were prepared to cover the costs of this project. The DSE are out of touch with wildlife issues and don’t consider what the community wants or expects in these situations.”

Ms Rowley added:

"In the South Morang Kangaroo Working Group Committee that many of us were involved in over the past few years the DSE admitted to being afraid of public backlash and noted the media attention when hundreds of kangaroos were killed at the Belconnen Naval Transmission site in Canberra 2 years ago. They also admitted on a number of occasions during the working group meetings that they were opposed to relocating these kangaroos as they did not want to set a precedent of relocating kangaroos in Victoria. DSE finally agreed that a relocation plan could be submitted and that it would have to go through an animal ethics committee for approval.

Why is the Department of Sustainability and Environment so cruel, callous, devious and incompetent?

The Department of Sustainability and Environment may have perceived an interest in defeating Wildlife Victoria's attempt to relocate kangaroos because, had this attempt succeeded, it could have been the first of many. The Department would then have been forced to admit that their duty of care towards these indigenous animals involves finding them alternative habitat or ceasing to grant new building permits in affected areas.

There are many groups of kangaroos in similar man-made predicaments - more every day. Kangaroos are high visibility animals (unlike some solitary, smaller creatures which often die unnoticed). Relocating kangaroos requires very noticeable efforts and organisation, drawing even more attention to their plight and government responsibility, cruelty, and over-release of building permits.

The public get very upset when they are confronted with the merciless impact of population growth and development on wildlife and the last thing that DSE wants the public to realise is the extent of the suffering of kangaroos and other wildlife through its already unpopular and unnecessary population growth and development objectives. The public really need to know about this, however.

DSE Victoria is already in trouble for failing to collect and maintain competent wildlife statistics, which means that it has failed to identify threatened and endangered species, let alone fulfill its international obligations to draw up plans. A recent auditor general's report on the matter estimated that it would take the Department nearly 30 years to catch up with its obligations if it continued to allocate so few resources to the task.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment is in charge of all the planning in Victoria and responsible for releasing too many building permits and inviting too many people to come and live in Victoria. To allow the DSE to be responsible for the welfare of kangaroos is like putting the fox in charge of the welfare of hens, a maniac in charge of a child, or a drunk in charge of a bar.

DSE should reimburse Wildlife Victoria and Volunteers involved in relocation efforts for their time

Is DSE going to reimburse the many weeks and months which volunteers have spent doing the department's work for them in researching relocation options and plans? In my view, the volunteers deserve the same hourly compensation as DSE managers would expect for undertaking similar responsibilities. If DSE is prepared to pay shooters rates to kill the kangaroos, it can pay volunteers for their time that it has wasted.

Reimburse Stress and suffering for Wildlife volunteers as well

Some also speak of compensation for pain and suffering - the awful stress of putting yourself out - literally for years - to find a solution for wildlife to a problem caused by incompetent planning - only to be assaulted with the information that the department was apparently not even attending to your input. Those months and years of forgone income, time with children, time maintaining home and fitness, in order to put in time for kangaroos with the Department of Sustainability deserve full compensation, including holidays and penalty rates and medical expenses for stress.

There is a lot we can do about all these wrongs!

Complain

Write a supportive comment under this article.

Email Ron.Waters[AT]dse.vic.gov.au to voice your protest
Email Gavin Jennings, the Minister for the Environment gavin.jennings[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au to let him know how disgusted you are. His phone number is (03) 9888 1910.

Send us copies of emails you send to politicians.

Change your vote!

Join the Animal Justice Party, which is a new political party in Australia that is seeking members in order to become an effective voice for all creatures great and small in every state of Australia.

Alternatively, join one and or vote for both (using preferences) of the two parties which intend to reverse government policy for rapid population growth in Australia. After all, population growth and development are the greatest cause of suffering for our native fauna. The parties are The Stable Population Party of Australia and the New Australia Party. Support Federal ALP member, Kelvin Thomson's population reform plan and vote for him if you are in Thomson's Federal electorate (Wills), which borders on the areas discussed here. You can contact him at (03) 9350 5777 or email him at Kelvin.Thomson.MP[AT]aph.gov.au Tell other MPs that they should get behind Kelvin's plan.

Get the relevant State and Federal Members of Parliament to put pressure on the relevant ministers

The area in question falls under two different State electorates - Yan Yean (administered by Danielle Green MP - danielle.green[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au Phone: (03) 9432 9782) and Mill Park (administered by Lily d'Ambrosio MP - lily.d'ambrosio[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au Phone: (03) 9465 9033 . These members need to tell the Minister for Planning to refuse any new building or clearing permits for the area and to provide safe crossings for animals in extant roads and to stop inviting immigrants to Victoria because there is no room.

The Federal member responsible for this particular area - Scullin electorate - is ALP member, Harry Jenkins: Harry.Jenkins.MP[AT]aph.gov.au Phone: (03) 94678055. He needs to tell the Prime Minister to cut down Australia's immigration because it is causing kangaroos to suffer by driving housing and infrastructure development on indigenous habitat.

Memorial Protest for these victims of DSE and Victoria's overdevelopment and lack of fauna management

A memorial protest will be held in honour of these kangaroos, who became the innocent victims of development and lack of native fauna management by the government department responsible for their wellbeing. It will be held next Sunday 28 March at 2pm at Oleander Drive off McDonalds Rd in South Morang.

Please – tell everyone you can, it’s really important that as many people attend as possible.

Enough is enough; this war against our wildlife has got to stop!

Kangaroo and Wildlife activists and carers hope to see many Victorians there from city and country areas.

The Department's media release in March about the shootings in January

The Department of Sustainability and Environment Media Release re the
"South Morang Kangaroosof 19 March 2010, [3] (reproduced in the "Notes" section of this article), was two months after the event.

It said that DSE had

'humanely put down a group of kangaroos that had been isolated on land at South Morang.' It said that "The welfare and safety issues associated with the capture and relocation of kangaroos were significant” and that “Finding suitable habitat to relocate kangaroos to is also a challenge.”

The choice of the words 'significant' and 'challenge' is interesting. 'Significant' is a useful term for avoiding quantification, comparison or documentation. Why wasn't the decision on the kangaroos scientifically and ethically informed by the relocation study concurrently being carried out? 'Challenge' is a political word that covers a multitude of omissions, including the fact that there was a choice. DSE chose to kill the kangaroos. It chose to deprive them of life and people working on this problem of the opportunity to attempt to save their lives. Victorian observers could be forgiven for seeing this as expedient or cowardly or callous.

One long-time wildlife campaigner wrote:

"I may be wrong/out of line but as I've said before, probably the only way to save some kangaroos is to dart and move them illegally, at night. Government departments that are supposed to protect wildlife almost never help when we ask them to protect animals and seem to take every opportunity to kill them. I cannot help but wonder if there is a criminally corrupt aspect. Someone's brother may be a 'roo shooter. Wildlife carers get nothing for the work they do, but shooters get paid. What is the going price for shooting 20 kangaroos, I wonder, after you split it with someone in a department meant to help the roos?

Of course there must be people in departments that are supposed to protect wildlife who actually do care about animals, but they have to follow orders and the directions from the top seem to be universally callous."

Notes

[1] "in the area": This particular tragedy came to the attention of the public through a mob of about 30 kangaroos which became trapped behind Bunnings/Westfield in Mill Park. This mob was split as the roads became busier with increasing development and population growth. As the other side of McDonalds road is South Morang, they are known as the Sth Morang kangaroos as they were once the same mob. The mob over on the other side has farmland on the other side of the large residential development, but many have become increasingly locked in there as well under a transmission station and Melb Water land.

There are also other isolated and landlocked mobs in Somerton Rd, known as the Somerton mob, (see video) also pockets in Lalor and Bundoora, which are all in trouble.

[2] Most citizens are not aware of the Victorian government policy to invite immigrants from other states and from overseas to live in Victoria - hence the population growth, which drives undemocratic development throughout Victoria.

[3]

Department of Sustainability and Environment Media Release re the
"South Morang Kangaroos

19 March 2010

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has humanely put down a group of kangaroos that had been isolated on land at South Morang.

DSE Wildlife manager Ron Waters said this was a difficult decision for everyone involved but the welfare of the kangaroos had to come first.

“The health and safety of these kangaroos was at risk. They were facing dehydration and starvation because of the progressive loss of habitat at the site,” Mr Waters said.

“The site is largely private land and there’s no long term future for kangaroos on this site that has effectively become enclosed by roads and commercial development.”

“DSE had been monitoring the group of about 30 kangaroos closely for a number of years and had hoped that they might naturally disperse from the area as development proceeded.”

“It became clear that despite significant and increasing disturbance at the site, animals were reluctant to disperse naturally and DSE took the tough decision to use professional shooters to humanely destroy them before they starved or were pushed onto adjoining roads.

“The welfare and safety issues associated with the capture and relocation of kangaroos were significant.”

“Finding suitable habitat to relocate kangaroos to is also a challenge.”

When the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration hearing convened to hear from Peta Duke on 12 March 2010, she did not attend in answer to the summons. She had written the notorious Media Plan proposing a sham public consultation process to earn favour with the electorate. Mr Madden, who had not been summoned, sat in the chair reserved for the witness – his former Ministerial adviser - and said that he would answer questions. This was a blatant attempt to take over the inquiry being carried out by Parliament into his office’s conduct. - Protectors of Public Lands (Victoria)

When the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration hearing convened to hear from Peta Duke on 12 March 2010, she did not attend in answer to the summons. She had written the notorious Media Plan proposing a sham public consultation process to earn favour with the electorate. Mr Madden, who had not been summoned, sat in the chair reserved for the witness – his former Ministerial adviser - and said that he would answer questions. This was a blatant attempt to take over the inquiry being carried out by Parliament into his office’s conduct.

By his crass tactics in derailing the hearing of a properly constituted committee, the Minister of Planning has tried to frustrate the accountability to Parliament of himself and his office. The Premier and the Attorney-General have supported this tactic.

"Grave abuse of power"

This impropriety strikes at the heart of Parliamentary democracy and is a grave abuse of power.

Julianne Bell, Secretary of Protectors of Public Land, Victoria, (PPL Vic), attended the hearing. She commented:

“The Minister had the opportunity to explain himself during the nine hours of debate on the subject the previous Wednesday but chose not to attend. Why would he expect a hearing now?

Minister failed to use legitimate opportunities to explain himself

Over the last six months PPL has made extensive submissions to both the Planning Department and Heritage Victoria on proposed policy, and on planning decisions, including:
• the Review of VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal),
• the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary,
• the Mornington Peninsula Link (through Westerfolds);
• the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show in the Carlton Gardens; and
• the Windsor Hotel development.

Any suggestion that public consultation could be treated as a sham is of grave concern to PPL disclosing as it does a cynical attitude to the people of Victoria. The actions of the Minister have now treated the Parliament, to which he is accountable, and which represents the people of Victoria, with contempt. The community expects our democracy to be respected.”

"Scandalous situation made worse"

Brian Walters SC, President of PPL Vic, said:

“Minister Madden has made a scandalous situation far worse. As found by the Children Overboard inquiry in the Senate, ministerial advisers have no immunity from appearing before parliamentary committees, yet it seems the Government has attempted to direct or advise her to disobey the summons to do so. This undermines the rule of law and Parliamentary oversight. If the Minister’s office is not accountable to Parliament, we have lost one of the most fundamental checks of our democratic system.”

Source: Press Release from PPL (Vic), 14 March 2010

Article adapted from original report by Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands.

Hysteria in Victorian Parliament disrupts Hearing on Finance and Administration

In Parliament yesterday (12 March 2010) television cameras from several stations caught a remarkable fracas when Planning Minister Madden gatecrashed the hearing of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. Madden's staff member, Peta Duke, was subpoenaed to attend but was apparently instructed by the Attorney General NOT to attend. ALP MP Matt Viney disrupted proceedings and effectively took over, upon which the Chair Gordon Rich Phillips left and then Peter Kavanagh, which meant that there was no quorum so the meeting collapsed.

What democratic Planning activists said to the Press

Following an interview with Madden there were excellent interviews with Peter Kavanagh, David Davis and Greg Barber. Community representatives, Mary Drost for Planning Backlash, Brian Walsh for Kew Cottages Coalition, and Julianne Bell for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, made brief statements to the press. They spoke of their dismay at revelations that public consultations over planning developments had been revealed as sham and said that the farcical proceedings at the Parliamentary Inquiry were an insult to Parliament and hence to Victorians.

See the the "Inquiry into Victorian Government Decision Making, Consultation and Approval Processes."

Purpose of the Hearing

On 3 March 2010, the Committee agreed to the following resolution: To inquire into and report on Victorian Government decision making, consultation and approval processes, and any knowledge and/or involvement of Ministers, Ministerial staff and/or Victorian Government officers since 1 December 2006 and, in particular, issues arising from media plans prepared within the Victorian Government since 1 December 2006.

The Public Hearings were scheduled for today in relation to the Inquiry. In particular the Windsor Hotel redevelopment planning process was to be looked into. These hearings were to have included one with Ms Peta Duke, Media Advisor to Planning Minister Justin Madden.

Public Submissions invited until 26 March 2010
For display on Parliament Website

However your submissions are treated in the Inquiry, having them on the Parliamentary Website is your opportunity for a real democratic voice. Tell people what you know and have seen and suffered through the planning and population push by big business and government in Victoria.

The Committee is inviting any individuals and organisations, wishing to express views on the terms of reference. Instructions are on the Inquiry website Guidelines for submissions may be downloaded here. Submissions will close on Friday, 26 March at 5.00 p.m. Once submissions are received, they will be displayed here: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/SCFPA/PC/Submissions/Index.html
Other contact details for this very important inquiry are as follows:

Inquiry into Victorian Government Decision Making, Consultation and Approval Processes
Council Committees Office
Department of the Legislative Council
Parliament House
Spring Street
East Melbourne, 3002
Phone: (03) 9651 8696
Fax: (03) 9651 6799

Parliamentary Press Release 3 March Terms of Inquiry

Here is a press release from the Inquiry dated 3 March 2010. In it we can see that the terms of the Inquiry were frustrated. This may be an indication of what is often said, that Victorian laws make it impossible to get answers from politicians so that corruption is unstoppable unless we change those laws.

Source was: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/SCFPA/PC/PRESS%20RELEASE.pdf
PRESS RELEASE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION INQUIRY INTO VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING, CONSULTATION AND APPROVAL PROCESSES

The Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration today met and resolved to inquire into and report on:
Victorian Government decision making, consultation and approval processes, and any knowledge and/or involvement of Ministers, Ministerial staff and/or Victorian Government officers since 1 December 2006 and in particular issues arising from media plans prepared within the Victorian Government since 1 December 2006.

The initial focus of the inquiry will be on the Windsor Hotel redevelopment process. The Committee has resolved to conduct public hearings and take evidence from the following witnesses:

• Hon. Justin Madden, MLC, Minister for Planning
• Mr Yehudi Blacher, Secretary, Department of Planning and Community Development
• Mr David Hodge, Department of Planning and Community Development
• Ms Peta Duke, media adviser
• Mr George Svigos, Premier’s media unit
• Ms Fiona Macrae, Premier’s media unit

Hearings are scheduled to commence on Friday 12 March 2010.

The Committee has also resolved to seek access to the ‘Minister for Planning Justin Madden Media Plan’ document and similar media plan documents.

GORDON RICH-PHILLIPS, MLC
CHAIRMAN
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
3 March 2010

Google aerial photo of ADI Site giving an idea of size. Obviously it is surrounded by suburbs. Humans have not been denied species representation here, but, if this site is taken away, they will be denied their natural right to access natural ammenity and wild environment, which we should all be able to do, without compromising it. (Ed.)

Geoff Brown
President
Western Sydney Conservation Alliance Inc
PO Box 4134
WERRINGTON NSW 2747
Thursday, 4 March 2010
The Hon Peter Garrett
Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts
cc David Bradbury Member for Lindsay

RE: Urgent Ministerial intervention required to halt the clearing of Cumberland Plain Woodland at the former ADI Site – Penrith Local Government Area

Dear Minister,

We have been reliably informed that Delfin Lend Lease is about to commence
clearing Critically Endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) within the Western Precinct of the former Commonwealth owned ADI Site. This first 6 hectare subdivision will be one of many out of the total 230 hectares within the Western Precinct. The Central Precinct, some 130 hectares is proposed to be developed in some 5 years time. This combined area of 360 hectares is predominately CPW
Aerial detail of water body at part of the site.
Your DEWHA recently listed CPW and Shale Gravel Transition Forest as Critically Endangered Ecological Communities. It is believed that the basis for the Critically Endangered Listing was that CPW had been reduced in area by some 400 hectares.
Minister here at ADI a developer is allowed to clear nearly the same amount of CPW that justified elevating CPW from Endangered to Critically Endangered and they don’t even have to refer their development applications to your DEWHA to have those assessed against the EPBC Act.

This is [...]

morally bankrupt and your DEWHA and the local member for Lindsay know that what Delfin Lend Lease is proposing is clearly a breach of the EPBC Act.

The justification for that statement is that DEWHA in 2008 received a delegation from Delfin, Penrith Council and David Bradbury to negotiate changing the National Estate boundaries of the ADI Regional Park. DEWHA told the delegation, and this
was paraphrased by your Adviser Peter Wright when we met him last month, that such an amendment would require Lend Leases 10 year old approval Certification – a dubious certification and assessment issued under the Howard Government – to be reassessed under the EPBC Act. Essentially DEWHA told the delegation that Delfin would not like the outcome of such assessment as it would result in the protection of CPW within proposed development areas and therefore a reduced housing lot yield and lower profits for the developer.

We know that Delfin Lend Lease has some shonky certification from the Howard Govt (see below)

Assessment and approval under Commonwealth environmental law was granted to the entire St Marys development under the former Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (EPIP Act) prior to the gazettal of the EPBC Act. Correspondence from the former Environment Australia (now DEWHA) was provided to the applicant in July 2002 advising
that despite the repeal of the EPIP Act and gazettal of the EPBC Act, no further Commonwealth approval would be required for the St Marys property. This certification was provided under the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1999.

But for your DEWHA and the local ALP Member to hide behind this dubious certification and turn a blind eye to the bulldozing of Critically Endangered CPW is immoral and in reality, when assessed against the EPBC Act, as it should be, ILLEGAL.

Minister we now call on you to urgently intervene and to call in the ADI Site development proposal by Delfin Lend Lease so that Critically Endangered CPW is properly assessed under the EPBC Act. It is clear the current assessment Delfin Lend
Lease has - that gives them immunity from the EPBC Act - is scientifically flawed. The entire ADI Site assessment process under the Howard Govt was dubious and now as the bulldozers are about to roll those wrongs need to be corrected .

I recently emailed and phoned David Blumenthal – with no response - calling for him to act on this issue; we also said the same to Peter Wright last month in Sydney. A failure to protect these last great remnants of CPW at the ADI Site under the guise that legally we have no come back on the developer will not be accepted and viewed dimly by large numbers of voters in Western Sydney concerned with the protection of our Natural Heritage.

Yours truly,
Geoff Brown

Article by Mark O'Connor

Despite The Age's headline, "Populate or Stagnate," (March 10, 2010) most of Saul Eslake's[1] article is about admitting the costs of population growth. He makes some very useful admissions (see the phrases I have marked in bold, below).

Even at the end when he swings round predictably to backing growth, he warns his allies:

"But building public acceptance for ''a bigger Australia'' requires a greater willingness to acknowledge that it has costs, as well as benefits. It also needs more readiness to deal with those problems than has thus far been shown by those most enthusiastic about the benefits of faster population growth."

This is a tactic the growth lobby and our politicians are already following. At the Queensland Property Council's conference last Friday both Anna Bligh and Tania Plibersek repeatedly stated that they understood people's pain, and that they admitted and deeply understood the problems population growth was causing. Yet in the end their solution was to press on regardless and tell people to get used to it. Hence they talked vaguely about how "better planning" or "us in government trying harder" or "letting people see a few iconic examples of good high rise development as soon as possible" would solve the problem. I call this their "Yes, repeat No" approach.

"Yes, we hear your pain and we understand absolutely. No we don't intend to take any notice of your protests."

While this tactic is infuriating, it is also a sign that they know they are in a weak position. It will rapidly become untenable if we articulate (as I have above) what their ploy is, and demand that they stop doing it (or even that they apologise for having tried to hoodwink us with it).

In Saul's case, he hangs almost everything on his argument that if government was prepared to borrow more boldly to provide extra infrastructure in advance of the population needing it rather than, as at present, "in a discontinuous or ''lumpy' manner" ---then the problems of population growth would be solved.

Infrastructure for growth costs vastly exceed benefits of growth

He fails to understand the points made in Jane O'Sullivan's recent article "The downward spiral of hasty population growth"

As she points out, the reason governments can't catch up with infrastructure is that the costs of infrastructure for additional people so vastly exceed the extra benefits that extra people bring. The infrastructure costs can in some respects outweigh the economic gains by as much as 30 to 1.

"Does it make sense," asks Jane O'Sullivan, "that we’re incurring a 25 per cent of GDP cost to avoid less than 0.8 per cent of GDP cost?"

Saul's (and the Grattan Institute's) biases also show when he lists the "dampening" of wages in favor of business profits as a self-evident good.

Mr Eslake seems to have placed the same article in several papers and online forums. Google "saul Eslake" + "Populate or stagnate" for the list.

NOTES

[1]Saul Eslake was for 14 years chief economist at the ANZ Bank. In August 2009 he moved to the Melbourne-University-affiliated Grattan Institute as Program Director for its Productivity Growth Program. The Grattan Institute is part of the growth lobby, or in the more genteel language of the University’s media release “The Grattan Institute is a new think tank aiming to shape the direction of debate on many of the important challenges facing Australia. It was set up with substantial support from the University of Melbourne in conjunction with the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments, and BHP Billiton. Note by Mark O’Connor )

The TRUTH comes out of Maddens office. Consultation is faked. This is what we have all know for a long time as we spend hours of our time working away putting in submissions.
Well it is official; they just tick the boxes, as in: "Consulted with the community - tick."
And this is Madden who wants to be Premier?

This article was originally published on 25 Feb 10. It was updated on 28 Feb 10 with embedded videos #MaddensGrilling">below (thanks to Marvellous Melbourne) showing Madden being grilled by the newsmedia. - JS

The TRUTH comes out of Maddens office. Consulation is faked. This is what we have all know for a long time as we spend hours of our time working away putting in submissions.
Well it is official; they just tick the boxes, as in: "Consulted with the community - tick."
And this is Madden who wants to be Premier? See http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/25/2830415.htm?section=justin

Here is an example of the way Justin Madden consults, as highlighted by an exchange in Parliament:

The subject was the Commonwealth Games Athletes' Village and Royal Park Protection Group. The Protection group, run by Julianne Bell, has snowballed into a quite a big movement of diverse groups in Melbourne - notably in Protectors of Public Land. The initial group had resulted from the Victorian Government actually giving away 20 ha of public land from Royal Park, the oldest park in the heart of Melbourne, just next to the zoo, to Australand to build a housing estate for wealthy customers, many of whom would purchase them from overseas and migrate to live in them, i.e., not even to Australians in need of housing and already here.

Here I.J. Cover takes Madden to task for saying that he consulted when he had hardly done so:

Royal Park Protection
VICHANSARD
Whole Speech

________________________________________
Title Commonwealth Games: athletes village
House COUNCIL
Activity Questions without Notice
Members COVER
Date 24 April 2002
Page 729
________________________________________
24 April 2002 COUNCIL
________________________________________
Page 729
Commonwealth Games: athletes village

Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) -- My question is to the Minister for Commonwealth Games, because I care about the Commonwealth Games. I am delighted to hear that the minister has now agreed to meet with representatives of the Royal Park Protection Group on 3 May. Will the minister now admit that when he said on 21 March in this place that:

... I have continued to meet with representatives from the Royal Park group ...
he had not met with them since his commitment in October last year to consult on the preferred site and design of the Commonwealth Games athletes village, and in not meeting with them and giving that statement in this house he misled the house?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) -- As I mentioned in the house, I have continued to meet with members of the Royal Park Protection Group. I will continue to meet with them, as I have, and I look forward to meeting with them. I have not misled the house because, as I mentioned on that occasion, I am happy to meet with those groups and I am happy to have met with them. Further, I am happy to continue meeting with them.

Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) -- I have a supplementary question. My question on 21 March was clearly about whether the Minister for Commonwealth Games had consulted since October when the issue was debated in the house. He said he had continued to meet.

I have asked that question again today and I have a letter from the convenor of the Royal Park Protection Group who says it is simply not true that the minister has continued to meet with representatives from the Royal Park group.

Julianne Bell says that they have not met the minister for six months and they have not met him on the subject of the design and location of the games village. She concedes that she 'exchanged a few words' with the minister on the ABC 774 drive talkback program some months ago. I ask the Minister for Commonwealth Games whether the exchange of a few words on talkback radio with the convenor of this group is his idea of consultation.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) -- I thank the honourable member for his question. I again reinforce that Mr Cover has got it wrong; he got it wrong yesterday, he has got it wrong today and I am sure that he will get it wrong in the future. He is wrong because, as I mentioned in that answer, I have met with members of the Royal Park Protection Group. I will continue to meet with them. I look forward to continuing to meet with them. In terms of the dates, I did not refer to dates. I have said I have met with them and I have continued to meet with them.

I have spoken to them informally and formally and even on talkback radio. I have no problem with continuing to meet with this group and using consultative processes to ensure that it has input into wherever the Commonwealth Games village might be located.

See also: "Government email reveals plans to deceive" of 25 Feb 10 by Ryan Sheales on ABC Online, "Consultation with community a sham" of 27 Feb 10 on Marvellous Melbourne.

#MaddensGrilling" id="MaddensGrilling">Videos of Madden being grilled by the media

Thanks to Marvellous Melbourne for having published these videos on vimeo.com. Videos also embedded in Marvellous Melbourne's story "Fake Consultation - Proof of what we always knew....." of February 2010.

Editorial comment: It's unfortunate that politicians are not grilled in this way much more often. Surely it could not be that hard for our interviewers to manage, even if our politicians are not always caught red-handed in the way Madden has. If they had been prepared tod do this our politicians would have either long ago lifted their game or been booted out and Australia's standards of governance would not be nearly as bad as they now are.

Problems viewing these videos?: A friend was able to view these videos with Mozilla Firefox running on his Apple computer, however, I was unable to view these on my Debian Linux system with any of my Konqueror, Epiphany or Firefox browsers. If you also have problems, please let me know through the contact form. - JS.

Justin Madden - ABC News - fake consultation claims 25 Feb 2010 from Marvellous Melbourne on Vimeo at vimeo.com/9732178.

Staff of Victorian Planning Minister Justin Madden suggested faking community consultation. Brumby government spin doctors have been caught out with plans to engage in contrived public consultations, setting up photo-opportunities to boost ministers' local profile and leaking stories to the media. An email accidentally sent to the ABC, Planning Minister Justin Madden's chief spinner detailed plans to use the cover of a public consultation to knock back plans to build a massive 25-storey tower as part of the Windsor Hotel's re-build.

ABC Justin Madden reply to Jon Faine 26 Feb 2010 from Marvellous Melbourne on Vimeo at vimeo.com/9744001.

Justin Madden: Should he be sacked? 3AW 26 Feb 2010 from Marvellous Melbourne on Vimeo at vimeo.com/9752386.

Victorian Planning Minister Justin Madden arguably reduces himself to a bumbling mess on the 3AW Neil Mitchell program. But he 'has a job to do and will keep doing it'.

Victoria's Planning Minister Justin Madden ABC News 26 Feb 2010 from Marvellous Melbourne on Vimeo at vimeo.com/9771435.

Victoria's Planning Minister Justin Madden ABC News 26 Feb 2010 Justin Madden says the email leaked from his office contains inapproprate language. An email obtained by the ABC from Planning Minister Justin Madden's office shows a plan to use a sham public consultation process to stop the Windsor Hotel development in central Melbourne

Victoria's Planning Minister Justin Madden faces a tough task to keep his job from Marvellous Melbourne on Vimeo at vimeo.com/9758151.

Victoria's Planning Minister Justin Madden faces a tough task to keep his job, following the leaking of an embarassing email which revealed plans to scuttle the Windsor Hotel development. ABC Stateline 26 Feb 2010

Today at the Sustainable Living Festival there was a debate on the problem of Sustainable Transport. Fortunately Mary Drost was there to keep the speakers to the point.

The first speaker was Ross Garnaut, professor of Economics and author of a climate change review. He seemed very keen on a denser population, using more public transport and talked about cities with good public transport, giving Hong Kong and Tokyo as examples.

The second speaker was Greg Hunt MP, the Liberal Shadow Minister for Climate Action. In talking about transport, he pointed out that, in relation to measuring greenhouse emissions, it is consumption per head multiplied by population numbers. He said that the time is coming for a population debate.

He then took questions. Mary Drost of Planning Backlash said that she did not want to live in Hong Kong or Tokyo, but in Melbourne. She said she did not want to see Melbourne ruined and added that she agreed with Kelvin Thomson's ideas on population numbers for Australia. She asked Greg Hunt if he would work with Kelvin Thomson to get this population debate out into the public arena.

There was much clapping from the public for her comments.

Greg Hunt, who sounded a little surprised, replied that he would 'in a bipartisan way'.

Mary Drost asked Greg Hunt to "Tell Abbott" and she then said to Kelvin Thomson (the next speaker), "And you tell Rudd."

The third speaker was Kelvin Thomson.

Thomson said that ageing should not be seen as a burden because older people contribute, and as they retire young people get jobs. He said that we need more railways, the outer areas are being neglected. He commented that we have 2 million cars now, but by 2036 there will be 3 million cars. "We have to stop cramming people in," he stated. "Our biggest problem is rapid population growth." He advised people to say "No" to new suburbs and "no" to new high rise and infill."

Good to see some relevance at the Sustainable Living Festival, which sometimes looks as if it too is being taken over by the Housing Industry and the Recycling Industry along with the Spin Industry.

Picture by Sheila Newman
"Save our Bush" Rally
Wednesday 24 February from 12-2pm
on Parliament House steps

The Rally aims to draw public attention to the destruction of our native bushland by the State Government's "growth-at-any-cost" policy of building freeways -- instead of promoting alternative modes of transport.

The Rally will coincide with a motion to the Legislative Council by the Greens MP, Sue Pennicuik, opposing construction of the Peninsula Link -- which would destroy much of The Pines Flora & Fauna Reserve (220 hectares) near Frankston.

Other important areas of native bushland and wetlands due to be bulldozed for roads in Greater Melbourne and beyond include:

* Browns Mountain (S-W Victoria)

* Coomoora Woodland Flora & Fauna Reserve (Keysborough)

* Belvedere, Witternberg & Pobblebonk Reserves (Mornington Peninsula)

* Devilbend Reserve (Mornington Peninsula)

* Westerfield Heritage Reserve (Mornington Peninsula)

* Bushland in the Cities of Banyule and Kingston

Rod Quantock is M.C. and the rally will include speakers and entertainment .

Join the Rally to Save our Bush and bring as many others as possible! Please also circulate the attached poster!

Save Our Bushland Contacts for further information:

Gillian Collins – Friends of Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve (impacts of Peninsula Link on the Pines): Mob: 0414 309 960; Email: [email protected]

Damon Anderson – Save Coomoora Reserve Coalition (impacts of the Dingley Bypass on Coomoora): Mob: 0425 784 983; Email: [email protected]

Marion Ware – Friends of Banyule (impacts of North East Link through Banyule Flats and Warringal Swamplands): Mob: 0413 41 88 32; Email: [email protected]

Rosemary West – Joint Coordinator of Green Wedges Coalition (urban growth and the impact on Green Wedges): Mob: 0418 554 799; email: [email protected]

Colin Long – Greens Candidate for South-East Metro Upper House (cultural heritage value of Westerfields) : Email: [email protected]

The Victorian Government is turning Melbourne into a junior version of Los Angeles without a proper cost-benefit analysis. Photo: Jason South

Before the 2002 state election I was asked to chair a meeting of Banyule citizens who had good reason to believe the Bracks government was planning to build a freeway connecting the Metropolitan Ring Road to what is now EastLink.

The Heidelberg Town Hall was full. The audience was sufficiently large and threatening that the then transport minister, Peter Batchelor, and local ALP state member Craig Langdon each promised that it wouldn't happen. From the platform, I saw the tension go out of the audience.

How easy it is to gull the electorate. The freeway was on the VicRoads agenda even before the first stage of the ring road was built. It was classic salami tactics - one slice at a time.

In parliament in 2001 Batchelor was even less circumspect. Hansard records he said: "It is not on our radar ... there is no truth in the suggestion. It is a tragic and sleazy attempt by a conspiracy of the deluded to try and frighten people living and working in this area. I need to set the record straight once and for all, and these people will have no basis for making the suggestions in the future."

Of course, Batchelor knew that by the time the plan was public, he in all probability would be responsible for a different portfolio (he is) and Langdon would know he would be on the point of retirement (he is).

Now VicRoads is seeking $15 million for a feasibility study for the road Batchelor swore wasn't even on the government's radar. On the other side of Melbourne, the government wants to fast-track Westlink, a road tunnel linking the Port of Melbourne with West Footscray and, ultimately, the Western Ring Road in Sunshine West. As usual, the further incremental transformation of Melbourne into a junior version of Los Angeles is being undertaken without a proper cost-benefit analysis to see whether there are cheaper, better public transport alternatives or a public environmental impact study. They aren't even on the radar.

And why should they be? Last October the Parliament passed the Orwellian Major Projects Facilitation Bill. The president of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Brian Walters, SC, said the legislation was designed to bulldoze freeways through residents' rights.

Once a project is "declared", it can be sped up and the community will have no rights of objection.

According to Walters, the hastening of big projects of developers, at the expense of the community and good planning, appears to be legislation for millionaire mates rather than the good government of Victoria.

The Brumby government appears most sleazy when it attempts to justify the handover of public land that morally belongs to the most disadvantaged groups in the community.

The government justified the sell-off of 3.5 hectares of Carlton public housing land to a developer by claiming it was essential for the social integration of public housing tenants into the broader community. Rubbish. The plans show the private development will be in the form of two gated communities, secured against public tenants by a 2.5-metre wall.

According to the Carlton Residents Association newsletter: "The much-heralded Public Housing Estates redevelopment is mostly about private housing for sale into the buoyant Carlton real estate market for private profit, and very little about desperately needed public and affordable housing. Despite 40,000 people waiting for public housing, there will be no net increase in public tenant numbers on the Carlton Estates following the $200 million development."

The redevelopment of the 27-hectare Kew Cottages site that displaced 400 intellectually disabled residents was justified on the grounds that they should be reintegrated into the community - a bogus argument that ignores the evidence that most prefer to be integrated with their peers rather than the general community who, in the main, reject them.

It was also a cruel argument because it ignored the needs of some 4000 disabled on the waiting list for institutional care and their increasingly desperate, ageing carers. Building more cluster housing on the Kew site offered the best hope of an increase in institutional care and a serious effort to reduce waiting lists.

Even worse, instead of making money for the government, the development has somehow lost $17 million from building and selling the first 55 up-market homes on one of the most valuable sites in Melbourne.

The Kew Cottages Coalition of parents and concerned citizens want the development stopped immediately, at least until the Ombudsman's inquiry into the fiasco is completed and its results published, hopefully before the election.

But this coalition is a tiny organisation with just a small bank deposit. It is up against powerful Sydney developer the Walker Corporation, which employs former Labor senator Graham Richardson as its government lobbyist. Between 1999 and 2007, the Walker Corporation donated $205,000 to the state ALP, $300,000 to the federal ALP and $300,000 to the Coalition parties. In Victoria, money talks.

Kenneth Davidson (kdavidson [AT] dissent.com.au) is a senior columnist for The Age newspaper and, with Lesley Vick, one of the two co-editors of Dissent Magazine. (see, also, #dissent">below). Article originally published as "Projects built at expense of community" in the Melbourne Age of 15 Feb 10.

kdavidson [AT] dissent.com.au

#WhatYouCanDo" id="WhatYouCanDo">What you can do:

Attend the "Transport for Sustainable Cities" forum
3.00-4.30pm, Thu 18 February at BMW Edge, Federation Square, Melbourne (off Flinders St).
Speakers:Professor Ross Garnaut, eminent economist, The Hon Greg Hunt MP, Federal Shadow Minister for Climate Action, and Kelvin Thomson MP, Federal Member for Wills

This is part of the Sustainable Living Festival (SLF) from 15-21 February 2010 which is well worth attending as there are many sites and events of interest. Visit the stall of Sustainable Population Australia - a PPL VIC member. It will be near the "Think Area". Collect a sticker with the message "Say No to Melbourne @ 5 Million". Contact is Jill Quirk Mobile 0409742927. The full festival program can be viewed on www.festival.slf.org.au.

(Thanks to Julianne Bell (ph 0408 022408) of Protectors of Public Lands (PPL) for providing this notice.)

In the current edition (No. 31, Summer 2009/2010) of Dissent magazine

#dissent" id="dissent"> Editorial: The National Water Initiative is based on the lie that water use efficiencies and water licence buybacks can save the Murray-Darling-Goulburn basin which supports the production of 22% of Australia's GDP. In fact state and federal governments' real aims are to create a water market fit for privatisation rather than focusing on security of supply at the lowest possible cost to users and the environment. Clinton Fernandes questions the John Howard version of Australia's role in bringing about East Timor's independence in 1999. Howard's view is used as the basis for Paul Kelly's interpretation of events in his latest book The March of Patriots.#main-fn1">1 Trevor Cobbold describes how the Rudd Government is undermining public education by subjecting schooling to the market forces of competition, choice and privatisation, even though, thanks to the GFC, markets are under question now as never before. Joanne Knight applies a human rights framework as a counterweight to neoliberal market amorality which is frustrating the right to adequate housing for households whose low incomes exclude them from the market. Dirk Baltzly reviews Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice. Sen advocates a historical and comparative approach to political philosophy to discover which system offers more justice, as compared to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice which offers a thought experiment that would reveal an ideal system of justice to which society should aspire. John M. Legge reviews Simon Jenkins' Thatcher & Sons: a revolution in three acts to show that Thatcherism was built around a false view of human motivation that voters are driven entirely by self-interest. This was used to coerce people into acting like greedy automatons of economic theory but Blair went further when he trashed the conventions of cabinet government, the separation of powers and the independence of the civil service. Jeff Richardson dissects the three myths which underpin the powerful private health lobby, namely that private health insurance is a major factor in financing total national health expenditure, that a health crisis is looming because of the ageing population and that public hospital queues are evidence of inefficiency in the public system. Margaret Swieringa points out the hypocrisy of Australia's complaints to the Chinese about their incarceration of Australian citizen Stern Hu on national security grounds without due process when the Rudd Government has made no effort to revoke similar laws passed by the previous government to counter perceived terrorist threats. Melody Kemp discusses the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation's role in planning the development of a dam in Western Nepal. The growing local opposition to the project on social and environmental grounds looks likely to cause the Asian Development Bank to withdraw funding support for the project. Stanley Schaetzel looks at human development through the prism of the history of science and finds that despite the unprecedented expansion of scientific knowledge in the last half of the 20th century the period has been characterised by growth in uncertainty because the new knowledge has generated more questions than answers. Julia Thornton argues that if ordinary people are to deal positively with climate change they must be given a picture of a sustainable future with a detailed path to it and not be depressed into inaction. Dianne Proctor looks at the connected issues of sustainability and population growth from the perspective of her life time involvement in NGOs dealing with family planning and women's health and reproduction. One of the biggest barriers to a sustainable population is organised religion while the best solution involves investment in reproductive health and the education of women and girls as a development priority.

NOTE FOR EDITORS AND PRODUCERS: For permission to reprint articles, or for interviews, contact Kenneth Davidson or Lesley Vick on tel/fax 03 9347 7839 or email dissentmagazine [ AT ] dissent.com.au . D!SSENT is published 3 times a year, is available on subscription and is on sale nationally at newsagents and major bookshops.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ See also 'Interview' with Paul Kelly yet more free ABC advertising for Rupert Murdoch of 21 Sep 09.

Michael Danby is chairman of Federal Parliament's joint committee on migration. It is very disappointing, therefore, that in recent newspaper articles he expresses support for Australia having a population of 35 million by 2050. He says he is optimistic that we can cope with this huge increase by better planning, traffic management and water and energy conservation policies, and that he has good "vibes" about population growth being good for the economy. But he and the Rudd Government need to come up with far more convincing arguments to allay the concerns of the many sceptics who question the alleged benefits of population growth, and who believe that politicians are mere puppets of the business lobby on whom they depend for financial support.

The optimistic belief that environmental concerns can be mitigated by good management is at odds with our appalling record in traffic management, town planning, decentralisation, and environmental management and pricing. Add the current climate change debacle and the record is complete. What evidence is there to suggest that our socio-political-administrative skills have improved to the extent that we can do better in future?

Concerns about an ageing population need to be assessed in the light of historical trends. Birth rates and death rates have been in long-term decline for the last 150 years or more, but any potential burden of an ageing population this might have created has been offset by income growth. The recently released intergenerational report also projects that per capita incomes will continue to improve for another forty years (by an average 1.5% p.a. in real GDP compared with 1.9% over the last 40 years), despite an ageing population. Knee-jerk reactions to boost the birth rate or immigration numbers are clearly unwarranted.

Income growth has also prevented a run-away decline in housing affordability, as population growth pushes up land prices and housing costs. But if we could achieve population stability, house price inflation would be restrained and housing affordability would steadily improve, with profound benefits for low-income earners now priced out of the housing market and trapped in a vicious circle of rental dependency. A similar equity effect was obtained from the 2006 Productivity Commission study, which estimated that the main beneficiaries of skilled immigration were the owners of capital, but at the expense of the losers - wage earners. Why a Labor government would allow and even pursue a result so detrimental to its mainstream constituents defies belief.

Danby refers to an Access Economics study which estimated the positive effect of immigration on taxation revenue. The Productivity Commission study also found that skilled immigration increases taxation revenue, but that increase, together with the gains in property income, were outweighed by the loss in wages referred to above, resulting in a loss in resident per capita income overall. If environmental losses could have been measured and factored in, the results would have been even worse.

The argument that immigration is needed to overcome skills shortages is one of the great beat-ups in the immigration debate, designed to cover up our failings in education and manpower planning and provide a convenient excuse for businesses to take advantage of cheap imported labour. And how, in all conscience, can we aspire to helping poorer countries while depriving them of skilled labour they so desperately need? Where is the morality?

Politicians need to rely less on "vibes" and more on basic economic and environmental principles. Many believe that Australia's population has already exceeded optimum size, after which "diminishing returns" set in with declining productivity growth, welfare losses and environmental deterioration. These take many forms; for example, the enhanced costs of desalination plants, rail tunnels, high rise buildings and other infrastructure developments needed to cater for a growing population. Deteriorating parks and gardens due to water restrictions represent welfare losses, as do greater travelling times and outer urban isolation as cities spread out horizontally. Logging in water catchment areas, species extinction and land degradation are just a few of the many irreversible symptoms of a worsening environment resulting from human habitation. These cannot simply be avoided by good management, as Danby would have us believe.

Increased population has a "wealth diluting" effect, of both capital and natural wealth. This shows up in many ways, such as smaller sized building blocks induced by higher land prices, water shortages as our scarce water reserves have to be shared by an increasing number of consumers, and reduced family inheritances if family size increases (which, paradoxically, increases the burden of an ageing population!). Even attendance at major sporting events can require intense competition for tickets and limited space. Higher prices might bring markets into equilibrium, but the poorer among us miss out. What is Danby's solution to that?
Proponents who say that growth should be left to market forces must face up to the reality that many market imperfections cannot be effectively corrected by regulation. In particular, many "market externalities" (so basic to environmental understanding) cannot be effectively internalised, such as the disamenities inflicted on neighbourhoods by medium density housing development.

Kevin Rudd (ABC 1, 28/1) now adds "national economic security" as an objective of a larger population. Are we to believe that degradation and depletion of our natural resources is the way to achieve economic security? The population debate obviously has a long way to go.

...
...
Article by Geoff Brown

Delfin Lend Lease, the developer of the ADI Site, is now promoting its new suburb. It has the appalling name of Jordan Springs (another generic Delfin project with Springs in the name).

Jordan Springs is the 230 ha area of bushland - the now critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland - found on the western (Penrith) side of the ADI Site. Check out the spin from Delfin http://jordansprings.com.au/

There should now be a big question mark over this development

There should now be a big question mark over this development with both the NSW and Australian Government's upgrading Cumberland Plain Woodland from Endangered to Critically Endangered. You would assume any development that proposed to clear over 200 ha (there is still another suburb to go at ADI and it is 130 ha) of critically endangered bushland would be struggling to get approval.

Penrith Council recently approved the first 6 ha subdivision prior to the critically endangered listing.

Penrith Council, Delfin, Peter Garrett

They need to be hammered about this issue and reminded they have an obligation to reject developments that threaten critically endangered vegetation. They can easily justify refusal under the Threatened Species Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Delfin have also got some kind of get out of jail free card from Peter Garrett whereby they don't have to refer their plans to him for assessment under the EPBC Act. This is appalling as any other proposal in Australia that threatens matters of National significance needs the approval of the Federal Environment Minister.

We are meeting with Garrett's adviser next week and will be raising plenty of issues with him about protecting CPW and the Western Sydney Priority Lands. Also the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan which is a joint State and Federal Govt Plan.

Mark O'Connor's comments are in italics, in the form of a running commentary through Bernard Salt's article.

In "Inconvenient truth on ageing" (4 Feb 2010, The Australian), Bernard Salt, who markets his version of demography to business for profit, writes,

"WAYNE Swan clearly missed a great opportunity earlier this week with the release of the third Intergenerational Report. He referred to the report by the bureaucratic abbreviation 3IGR4, but if the Treasurer really wanted to appear "with it" he should have christened it the iGen 3.0 Report.

The Intergenerational Report is, of course, the government's key reference document canvassing policy options for managing the ageing of Australia's population."

O'CONNOR: Well at least, that’s Salt’s journalistic slant on it. He wants to see the report as about Gens X and Y and the boomers.

SALT: "-- the problem being that from 2011 onwards more baby boomers exit than Generation Ys enter the workforce."

O'CONNOR: This is a claim he keeps making, but like the basis for his claim to be a "demographer" it comes without explanation. He doesn't say whose projection he is using that shows this will begin to be the case from 2011. (Are we meant to take it on his own authority?) I note that a Google search reveals numerous demographers saying that in the USA Generation Y is bigger than the baby boomer generation, and I can't as yet find any saying the reverse for Australia. But ask Bob Birrell or Katharine Betts.

Since presumably the reverse has been the case up till 2011, I would suspect that the imbalance in 2011 will be, even on his preferred projection, very small. And probably it will not increase very fast either -- otherwise he would have laid stress on that. In short, I suspect this is a weak statistic.

SALT: "The issue is not just the number of baby boomers looking for an aged pension; it's the loss of this cohort's contribution to the tax base."

O'CONNOR: Well, by definition retirees tend to retire from higher salaries than young persons joining the workforce are on, but so what?

SALT: "The favoured solution so far to managing this matter has been to grow the worker base, and in this regard ... "

O'CONNOR: I’d have to check if that (wanting to collect more tax) was in fact Rudd’s stated reason back then. He has since offered other excuses, even defence.

SALT: "Kevin Rudd was emphatic on the ABC's 7.30 Report last October when he stated he believed in a bigger Australia, and further that he made no apology for that view. The Prime Minister's comments have sparked furious debate about the sustainability and advisability of future growth."

O'CONNOR: Yes, perhaps Salt has been feeling the heat on those interactive blogs and online letters that now follow the publication of an article. He used not to have to worry about people raising awkward debates re sustainability, water, food, etc because, at least in the Murdocch Press, there was no counter view.

Mark O'Connor is the author, with Bill Lines, of Overloading Australia, of which a new edition has just been launched. The book is about how Australia is suffering from overpopulation. Mark O'Connor will be one of three people putting the environmental case for a small population in a debate with some die-hard growthists at the next Property Council Conference.

On ABC TV Jan 28th 7.30 report the Australian PM appears to have backtracked on the idea of a "Big Australia" for which he said previously that he would make "no apology"

Are stages of governmental and media spin and treatment of forced population growth akin to the stages of grief-predictable and identifiable?

See also: "Rudd facing a Queensland backlash" by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily of 30 Jan 10, "Rudd cools on a 'big Australia'" in the Age of 29 Jan 10, "Rudd on a 'big Australia'" on the 7.30 Report of 28 Jan 10, "Future Australians could face starvation: Dick Smith" on ABC online of 25 Jan 10, "Population debate needed: opposition" in the Mackay Daily Mercury of 25 Jan 10 (also published in the Shepparton News), "Poll shows Australians do not share rudd's vision for 'Big Australia'" of 10 Nov 09 by Bruce Billson MP, (former) Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities, "Population to now hit 35 million by 2049" in the Australian of 18 Sep 09.

On ABC TV Jan 28th 7.30 report the Australian PM appears to have backtracked on the idea of a "Big Australia" for which he said previously that he would make "no apology".

Are stages of governmental and media spin and treatment of forced population growth akin to the stages of grief-predictable and identifiable?

1. Most of us would be familiar with the 5 stages of GRIEF:
2. Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
3. Anger (why is this happening to me?)
4. Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
5. Depression (I don't care anymore)
6. Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

With respect to Population growth in Australia , media and government spin goes through stages too but there are twice as many of them as there are for GRIEF ! One could identify them as follows:

1. Denial-Newspaper articles and politicians talking about our population plummeting - whilst all time it climbs -( during this stage maybe 10 years ago whilst driving past a new outer suburban housing estate my innocent passenger exclaimed "but where all the people coming from?"
2. Propaganda and indoctrination - Peter Costello a prime example talking up the population and encouraging a higher birth rate - a sickening article in the Herald Sun last Friday harked back to PC 5 years ago holding 6 babies with a look of glee -reunited with 4 of them the day before, another photo and of course "no apology" in the Rudd-ian sense of the expression.
3. Recognition - Pollie rhetoric and media speak is as though amazed and surprised (after the population supposedly being in "free fall) that the population is in fact rising but no acknowledgement that this has anything to do with government policies or advertising.
4. Convincing - the public that much of what they have always held dear to them about Australia- its democratic processes , its relatively egalitarian and relaxed way of life, has to change to make way for a socially engineered higher population and overcrowding.
5. "Consultation" with the public who is having great difficulty keeping up with changes in the environment and way of life- This stage involves meetings , forums, butcher's paper and submissions to government Green Papers as the long suffering public does the work of government- trying to find the best solutions and the least damaging ways of adjusting to at least twice the rate of population growth we would otherwise have- with no guarantee, no matter how much of citizens precious time and brain power is taken up with these processes that any heed will be taken.
6. Concealment and denial of any part governments play in the cause of the problems that beset our daily lives because of rapid population growth.
7. Garnering expert opinion to support what governments are doing - pushing population growth.
8. Embracing what's happening and what the next generation will have to deal with as though it has some abstract hidden benefit ("I'm in favour of a Big Australia" Kevin Rudd).
9. Underplaying it at a dose just less than lethal (Kevin Rudd says 35 million by 2050 but if the current rate of growth continues it will be nearer to 50 million) to prepare Australian for what will be even worse.
10. Backtracking and backpedaling when it is clear that one has gone too far in force feeding this issue to an unwilling public and in the face of warnings from independent experts. (Kevin Rudd on 7.30 report).

When we reach 50 million and head on to 100 million possibly 35 years later, if the environment has not already totally collapsed we can then collectively go through the 5 stages of grief of the loss of what could have been a beautiful country to live in for both people and wild life.

See also: "Rudd facing a Queensland backlash" by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily of 30 Jan 10, "Rudd cools on a 'big Australia'" in the Age of 29 Jan 10, "Rudd on a 'big Australia'" on the 7.30 Report of 28 Jan 10, "Future Australians could face starvation: Dick Smith" on ABC online of 25 Jan 10, "Population debate needed: opposition" in the Mackay Daily Mercury of 25 Jan 10 (also published in the Shepparton News), "Poll shows Australians do not share rudd's vision for 'Big Australia'" of 10 Nov 09 by Bruce Billson MP, (former) Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities, "Population to now hit 35 million by 2049" in the Australian of 18 Sep 09.

I have been putting off finishing a long and detailed article about why the Labor Party's business interests and the policies of Labor Governments in Australia are cause for disquiet. No, more than this, they give cause to question the right to govern of our governments. The area is so big and scary that one would rather read a novel or stare out the window. How to open up a description of the way I see our situation escaped me.

Tonight, however, I wrote this short article in reply to Peter Bright's comment, "Be fair; The Prime Minister has to overview the whole picture in the national interest, long term as well as short term. Although a Green, I believe that he and his government are being unfairly criticised and insultingly abused with insufficient cause."

Well, Peter was talking about whales, and so was Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, but he was really talking about politics and economics and that's what I am talking about here.

The White Whale

The PM is forcing population growth on Australians and thereby depriving them of secure and affordable futures through driving resource scarcity. We have not been consulted. Not unrelated is the fact that he and Wayne Swann were also involved in the initial creation of Labor Holdings P/L and Labor Resources P/L see "Expert discusses 'deliberately confusing' Labor donations" in Queensland (when they were working for Wayne Goss in the opposition). These ALP-owned companies helped build up massive property holdings and insurance and development investments for the ALP.

Governments or Commercial Corporations?

The ALP governments, state and Federal, now resemble huge commercial corporations, far richer than the other parties in Australia and richer than many others in the world, according to Steven Mayne. Labor Holdings and Labor Resources are used by the ALP to hold donations and other payments so that those moneys will not have to be declared as ALP donations from their original sources; they are declared as donations or 'other receipts' from Labor Holdings or Labor Resources. You can, however, look up income tax declarations for Labor Holdings and Labor Resources here and see where their income comes from. Then, in the same site, you can look for the ALP's income tax declarations and see where the money goes to.

State Laws made for private profit against democratic objection

State governments control land-use in Australia. One must suspect that the laws that the State Parliaments make to privilege property development (e.g. Major Transports Facilitation Bill; DACS) also privilege the ALP's investments or those of their friends. The ruthless pushing of laws to override democratic objections is an indication of where the state and Federal governments' loyalty really lies.

The growing presence of property lobby professionals in government and as the major options in elections should raise alarm bells. See, for instance, the participation of candidates from or backed by the Property Council of Australia in elections here and here.

Federal Government immigration and financial policy

The Federal Government's pushing of population growth through high immigration is a way of keeping property and infrastructure development going (at great cost to the rest of us) - and that seems to be a major business of Labor Party investments in Queensland where Labor Resources and Labor Holdings started, although they go way beyond that state now.

The Federal Government's nearly successful attempts to finance private development through taxpayer funding in RuddBank is another indicator of the sick state of our parliaments.

Labor: In government or in business?

The relationship between the Labor Party's friends in private Lobby Groups, their people in government, and the staff in State investment companies (such as Queensland Investment Company) has been the subject of damning journalistic investigations. See, for instance: "In the murky world of lobbying ..." and It is now so blurry that I think you would have to be naive or not to have been aware of these vested interests to believe that our governments were in government rather than in business for themselves. But maybe it is hard for most people to figure out what this all means unless they already know the picture in the jigsaw.

Governments or Commercial Corporations?

What I make of all this is that our governments have crossed over the line between being governments into the area of being commercial corporations. And my next question is: Have they abdicated their right to govern since they no longer represent the electorate?

I think they have. I don't think that we have representative government in Australia anywhere anymore. Even under the Westminster system our governments are supposed to be seen to represent the public. Such representation is easily fudged around the edges on issues where cost and benefits are hard to pin down, but that is not the case here. It has become obvious that governments at state and federal level routinely benefit private corporate interests over the objections and interests of constituents by making laws to remove virtually all democratic rights to control the size of population, the ownership of public assets, and the extent of infrastructure expansion - whilst financing these undemocratic investments with taxpayers' money.

See also: other articles about Labor Holdings