Propaganda Watch

No room at nature's feast? How do governments deal with catastrophic mistakes?

How does a government deal in parliament with something embarassing but also catastrophic, like its total loss of control over a program for forced population growth? Only a few years ago, this was the kind of question one might apply to Mexico or Jakarta, but now, most unhappily, it applies to Melbourne.

Matter of Public Importance

On Wednesday, 16 April 2008, at a session known as "Matter of Public Importance" in Victorian Parliament, Ms Green, Member for Yan Yean set the topic.

Under the general heading of "Government: performance", Ms Green's "Matter of Public Importance," was:

"That this house congratulates the Brumby government for ensuring Victoria is the best place to live, work and raise a family for a million more Victorians."

Big Barbecue

In an understatement which should go down in history, Ms Green went on to describe how the way Victorian government's population drive has gone into massive overshoot was really like a big barbecue where too many guests came too early.

"At the outset I referred to the 1 million additional people coming to Victoria. In 2001, when we delivered our 2030 plan, we were planning for that level of growth to occur by 2030 but, because of the popularity of our state and what this government has done with its infrastructure and its people, it is now expected that the population growth predicted in 2001 is actually going to be here in 2020 rather than in 2030. To express it in terms that those opposite would understand - 2020 is only 12 years away - it is like 1 million people coming around to your place next Sunday and expecting a sausage at a barbecue. (...)."

She then burbled on to say that "We have to prepare for that growth. We have to be welcoming to those people who will come here. (...)"

"We" have to be welcoming

"We" have to be welcoming. Hmm. And just who invited all these people, Ms Green? Does the member for Yan Yean intend to put them all up in her back room or something? Is Mr Brumby going to lodge them all on his wife's farm? Maybe members of the Brumby Government are going to give out a million permits to camp in the treasury gardens. Mr Bracks and Mr Thwaites may have retired into big business, but they did send out a lot of the invitations to the barbie before they scootled. So they really do need to open up their homes to the overflow, and perhaps give up their children's places in schools and universities to newcomers, to show they are really welcoming. I am sure there would be plenty in the community prepared to help them pack and leave some room for the rest of us, and maybe a bit of democracy as well.

Ms Green continued, mentioning, among other things, that "Well-known and respected demographer Bernard Salt" has projected that "in the late 2020s Melbourne will again become Australia's largest city. This means that we have had to make some changes to our planning systems."

Bernard Salt is a salesman for growth to the people who market products, Ms Green. Will the Victorian people be able to hold him accountable for decisions which you and the rest of the government may make on his advice? Don't forget that, we, the people, on the other hand, have an entire department full or professional statisticians called the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Why don't you consult them? They are actually independent sources without any vested interest in growth. They are there to inform governments and we paid for them with taxes just so you could consult them.

Ms Green: I welcome the Premier's recent announcement of zoning changes ...

Ms Green continued. "I welcome the Premier's recent announcement of zoning changes and the speeding up of zoning within the urban growth boundary which will allow Melbourne to accommodate family growth. Those changes mean that about a year will be taken off the time required for building lots to come onto the market."

It sounds to me as if Ms Green has been introduced to some of the government's associates, possibly from the Property Council of Australia, or APop, or maybe she has had some contact with the Multicultural Foundation or the Scanlon Foundation, or ATSE (although they seems to be more for Federal Politicians).

This barbecue is sure going to cause us all a lot of inconvenience. I wonder if it's really worth it just to sell a lot more chops and sausages?

After a lyrical excursion into the wonders of a Stockland development where she had opened a new road called Mernda Village Drive, and the Catholic community there, the preservation of the river gums, (but not the kangaroos; this is an area known to the Australian Wildlife Protection Council as a wildlife-catastrophe zone) Ms Green (Yan Yean member) concluded her paean to out-of-control population growth:

"I commend this matter of public importance to the house. It is important that we are forward-looking and do not sit on our hands and say, 'Well, we will say “G'day” to these people coming round to the barbecue on Sunday'. We have to do more than be welcoming, although I know Victorians and Melburnians are welcoming.

With the usual logical irrelevance, she adverted to cultural diversity, marketed by successive Victorian governments as an unassailable justification for the high rate of immigration which has impacted in homelessness, wildlife devastation and the disorganisation of communities:

"We are a very culturally diverse community, which is another reason why people are moving to the state."

She insisted unreally: "We are a government that is forward-looking, investing in these people and being welcoming, while retaining our livability at the same time."

'Livability'; a vexed concept

Well, not everyone agrees on this point of retaining our 'livability'.

The member for Ferntree Gully, Mr Wakeling, exclaimed, "How disappointing that, with all the things the government could deal with in this house - the problems with public transport, problems with the health system, and the problems with education - the most pressing issue it can find facing this state at the moment is to congratulate the Brumby government on making Victoria the best place to live, work and raise a family.

"What a disgrace; what an absolute sham! For those people expecting this government to start listening to the concerns of the Victorian community and identifying ways to improve our services, this is the best that those opposite can come up with," he said, referring to the members in government as 'those opposite'.

(...) "I will tell members one thing: it is the worst place to live, work and wait for a delayed train. It is also the worst place to live, work and have reduced police on our streets; the worst place to live, work and be stuck on a trolley waiting for surgery; and the worst place to live, work and be educated by this country's lowest paid teachers. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame. While those opposite sit and laugh about the plight of teachers and about the problems besetting public transport, police and other important issues in this state, we on this side of the house are out there listening to the concerns of the community and expressing those concerns in this house. I call upon those opposite to follow the lead and to take on board the concerns of the Victorian community." (...)

"I will touch very briefly on the member for Yan Yean's comments about Melbourne 2030. What an unmitigated disaster! Melbourne 2030 is the planning blueprint to take the state forward to the year 2030, but the government made one slight mistake: it got the figures wrong. It was not one year out, it was not two years out, it was not three years out - -"

Mr Burgess (Member for Hastings) asked, "How many?"

Mr Wakeling replied, "It was 10 years out - in its own 30-year plan. What a disgrace! Melbourne 2030 is predicated on infill development and unit development in local communities. It was going to include the provision of upgrades to infrastructure - that is, public transport." (...) "My community got the worst of both worlds. It got the infill development and, more importantly, it did not get any public transport."(...)

Mr Northe, the member for Morwell, pointed out some more of the costs of population growth:

(...) "The assertion is that in the near future Victoria will have a population growth of some 1 million residents. That begs the question of how well Victoria is positioned to cater for those future additional residents, and from my perspective, what impact it will have on the growth of regional Victoria. Of course population growth equates to an additional demand upon essential services and infrastructure, and issues arising from that have been highlighted in recent times.

"They include the congestion on our roads, the overcrowding on our public transport, the waiting lists in our health system, the shortage of police resources, and disputes that are ongoing with the nurses, police and other public servants.

"An increase in population will create additional pressures in all these areas and will create increased demand for electricity, gas and water." (...)

"The Minister for Health (...) would be well aware of the growing waiting lists and the statistics that unfortunately are worsening with each revelation that comes out through the statistics. With population growth comes an additional demand on our health services. That is indicated by the population growth within Traralgon and the Latrobe Valley in recent times. It has put an enormous burden upon our hospitals and community health centres. That is indicated and verified by some of the statistics that are produced, not only by the Latrobe Regional Hospital, but also the Latrobe Community Health Service, and particularly the dental waiting list over time. It is very difficult for us to try to attract and retain health professionals in rural areas. So as the population grows it is imperative that we have systems in place to attract people to the health-care system in regional areas."

(...)

"Recently we have seen disputes with the police about the lack of police resources. I talk to police officers in my local area on a regular basis; they inform me they are struggling to make ends meet. They do not have the opportunity to be on the beat, where they should be, to protect the community, and they have grave concerns about that.

"An example is the town of Churchill, which has a population of somewhere in the vicinity of 5000 people, and does not have a 24-hour police station. That is of grave concern to the community of Churchill.(...)"

(...)

Mr Thompson (Sandringham): "'Victoria is a great place to live, work, raise a family and speak in clichés"

Mr THOMPSON, the member for Sandringham's speech indicated that he perceived a certain slickness in the Matter of Public Importance (which was, you may recall, "That this house congratulates the Brumby government for ensuring Victoria is the best place to live, work and raise a family for a million more Victorians"). He claimed that, "One of the great political lies perpetrated on the Victorian people in the last decade was the Labor promise that it would build the Scoresby freeway, the EastLink freeway, toll free. Victorians for the next 30 years will be paying an exorbitant amount as they commute from their local suburb. The matter of public importance (MPI) today really should be under the heading of a grievance motion. The topic is that the house congratulates the Brumby government on making Victoria a great place to live, work and raise a family for a million more migrants. Fundamentally it should be retitled 'a great place to live, work, raise a family and speak in clichés', because that is what the Labor Party regularly does and treats this house with disdain.

He gave many examples:

"We have seen other jurisdictions around the world where people speak in clichés. They speak in mottos - be it China, be it the Soviet Union or other regimes around the world. It makes a mockery of this Parliament to parrot these clichés on a regular basis. If one googles the phrase, one will find how many other countries around the world use the cliché, the phrase 'a great place to live, work and raise a family'. I could refer to the United States of America and the town of Annapolis, where the residents regard it as the 'greatest place to live, work and raise a family'. One could go to the area of Cary in the United States, where the locals promote their town and region as the 'greatest place to live, work and raise a family'. One could go to the township of Saskatchewan in Canada, where the state is promoted as the 'greatest place to live, work and raise a family'.

He went on to name more examples, finishing up with Amityville:

"(...) One could go to Amityville - I understand there is a film called the Amityville Horror - where again people find it to be the 'greatest place to live, work and a raise a family'. It may be from this very township that the spruikers for the Bracks and Brumby governments found the phrase in a Hollywood film script. (...)

"(...) The Labor Party is speaking in clichés. It makes an absolute mockery of this chamber. In terms of the matter of public importance before the house, we as Australians should value the opportunity to live in a wonderful country which allows us freedoms and advantages not experienced in many other parts of the world.

"(...)The member for Bentleigh was speaking about public transport, and it will not be long before the commuters going on the Frankston line through his electorate will not have room on board the train with the seats removed, and they will not have room anywhere else. They will have to climb on the roof and follow the New Delhi trains there by way of a precedent in looking at good public transport examples."

(...)

Thompson: "Do I believe this state has the capacity to absorb a million new migrants in the short term?"

"Do I believe this state has the capacity to absorb a million new migrants in the short term? I do not believe so. Why is that? I will outline why. We are still waiting on the delivery of better water infrastructure, better roads and better public transport, real tax reform, and a vision for manufacturing which will provide a fundamental employment base for Victoria, drawing on our energy reserves."

(...)

"(...)We have water shortages that have not been envisaged by the current government. It has been in office for 19 out of the last 26 years in this state. There was provision for better water infrastructure 25 years ago, but the Labor Party has failed to deliver."

(...)

"We need a plan for our electricity supplies and to make clean use of our coal resources, but we have seen recently a decline in the service reliability of power companies. A number of senior citizens in my electorate experienced power blackouts for 48 to 72 hours. We need affordable housing." (...) The Brumby government refuses to recognise the effect of the huge stamp duty windfalls as part of this process. We have the highest stamp duty in the nation. The government continues to collect the money and impose that burden affecting the fertility rate of the next generation and the ability of working families to maintain an affordable quality of life in addition to meeting their housing repayments.

"Looped into their mortgage repayments is the money borrowed to meet the stamp duty commitment.

"Public housing lists are blowing out, with no addition to the public housing stock. There is a disability housing crisis. We confront as a community increases in the cost of petrol, water, power and food, and these are adding to the household budgets of Victorians. The housing boom on the fringes of Melbourne requires hundreds of extra doctors and hospital beds and dozens of new schools as well as billions of dollars in infrastructure spending to supply new roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, shops and child-care centres, but there has been a lack of planning on the part of the Bracks and Brumby governments to provide appropriately for these needs." (...)

And so on.

Look, just before all the members of government give up their homes, and go out into the wilderness to make room for the guests at the big barbecue, could I suggest that someone responsible should consider putting a message up here, on the Government's immigration site, saying, "Immigration program cancelled indefinitely due to overshoot of oil, water, shelter, and soil?"

Source of parliamentary dialogue:
www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/assembly.htm, MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 16 April 2008, beginning at p.1274

The man I’ve heard jokingly called ‘Pel Pot’ has come out saying that ruthless commercial forces are against procreation.

“Cardinal George Pell, speaking after the Pope's arrival in Sydney for World Youth Day (WYD), said Western nations were producing too few children as the institutions of marriage and procreation came under attack.” July 14, 2008, AAP (Murdoch press)

Since my own research has revealed to me that ruthless commercial forces are pouring billions of dollars into boosting Australia’s population, via births and immigration, I was amazed to read this.

Further reading of the article made me think that Cardinal Pell is actually worried about the marriage rate and thinks a decline in this will bring down the birth rate. I don’t know what he uses as a norm for the birth rate; Australia’s is pretty high for a first world country.

I would like to know if Cardinal Pell actually has any evidence for his fears that ruthless commercial forces are out to slow down the birthrate. Because, if such ruthless commercial forces exist, I would like to know what on earth they see in promoting small populations when every major commercial force I know of will do anything to push up the number of consumers of land, resources, mortgages and disposable products, no matter what miseries result.

If I knew what was in it for big business to depress the birth rate and the rate of immigration, you can bet I would be grateful for the information.

In the mean time, I can only assume that the press are publishing Pell’s unmitigated nonsense because they are among the forces which want to keep on driving population growth upwards. And Pell’s strange pronouncements will help to keep the public confused about what is really happening and who the real community enemies are.

I cannot help wondering if Cardinal Pell is performing for friends in the big end of town as a way of cooperating in order to reduce coverage of his own embarrassing attitude to the prosecution of pedophiles within the church.

The Catholic Church has for a long time been in the business of land-speculation and encouraging high immigration and birth rates. It must have made plenty of powerful friends through these habits.

If Pell is truly worried about fewer marriages and consequent reduction in very large families, he should consider the stress placed on family life by the corporate forces which profit from international property speculation and ensure that families are mortgaged to the hilt. (Banks, developers etc.) Who, with a working brain, would consider marriage and a family in such a situation?

If Pell is actually worried about drug taking and promiscuity, then perhaps he might consider that those habits accompany social precarity and that social precarity is an outcome of the policies which drive continuous diasporas within this country. In fact, the corporations which push up population growth very successfully in this country also manufacture the the commercialised culture that vehicles binge-drinking, recreational drug-taking, and predatory sex.

I can barely resist telling Dr Pell that if he is so concerned he should not be encouraging celibacy among priests. I can only be thankful that he does.

An Analysis You Don't Get From the PC CBC

I once wrote that the CBC was an infallible guide as to what was not happening at home or abroad. It was like a weathervane that if it pointed in one direction, it offered me the assurance that the wind was blowing in exactly the opposite direction. Yet so many people for so many generations have been spoon fed information from Mother Corp that they have come to accept it as gospel when it is not. Pull the plug and maybe, just maybe, these people might learn to shop around , compare sources, match them with reality and feed themselves. Then bingo, a generation of smart, self-sufficient information consumers might emerge in this country.

The CBC treatment of the South African riots presented a case history of prefabricated politically correct journalism. The CBC reporter on assignment need not have bothered going to South Africa—he could have simply huddled with his former journalism professor in Ottawa at Carleton and written up a good storyline about xenophobic rioters who take out their misery upon poor foreigners who have a right to displace their jobs. The xenophobia template has served the CBC well for stories about riots in France, Germany, Cronulla and elsewhere—there is really no need for complexity or idiosyncratic national difference. The theme is the same. The rioters are an ignorant, reactionary, racist, evil bunch who are being manipulated by sinister forces. The foreign element must be accommodated without restriction.

Watching the CBC cover such events is like eating at MacDonalds. It is fast food journalism. It is news in a hurry all right, but it doesn't go down well. And it is the same old crap. Not very nutritious for the mind. Surely we are better off without the CBC. We are better off on a diet. Better just to shut our eyes rather than look at the world through their lens. Ordinary Canadians have an instinct for truth and balance that public broadcasting apparently doesn't have, as evidenced by this commentary I received from James Schipper of London, Ontario. It is about the tyranny in Zimbabwe that led to the riots in South Africa that the CBC allegedly was "covering". The CBC, however, did not take his holistic view of the problem which would have made the South African situation comprehensible. Schipper's common sense is the kind that our journalism schools filter out and the CBC doesn't hire. Schipper on emigration as a safety valve for dictators:

Zimbabwe illustrates how emigration allows countries to export problems and how emigration can delay political reforms. It should be obvious that Zimbabwe has massive problems. This has led millions of Zimbabweans to go abroad to SA, where they are competing against domestic unskilled labor, which is already superabundant and therefore plagued by high unemployment and low wages. The results have been the recent "xenophobic" attacks on foreigners. Zimbabwe simply exported its self-inflicted economic problems to SA.

Of course, this would not have been possible without the indulgence of the SA government, which has done very little to stem the massive inflow of Zimbabweans into its territory. Countries can't export their problems through emigration unless the country that is importing them allows it to happen.

What would have happened if no Zimbabweans had been permitted to settle abroad? Most likely, the economic situation in Zimbabwe would have become so desperate that there would have been a massive popular uprising and the overthrow of Mugabe's regime. In the short term, the situation might have been even worse, but the long- term prospects of Zimbabwe would have been better.

Emigration is a safety valve that helps tyrants to stay in power. When people know that they can't go abroad to escape the problems of their country, they have a very strong incentive to try to solve or mitigate those problems, while governments, knowing that the safety valve of emigration does not exist anymore, have stronger incentives to improve their performance.

As a postscript to Schipper's commentary I am moved to pose the question that many have asked before. Why then should special allowances be made to "refugees", or in the parlance of those outside Canada, "asylum seekers". I am puzzled why men like Dr. William Rees who have made a career talking about the need not to exceed our "carrying capacity" should, at the drop of a hat, be willing to accept literally tens of millions of refugees into my country because they are a different category of humanity than "immigrant". Excuse me, does the environment know this? Do refugees have no footprint Dr. Rees? James Schipper has just made the case, a case that a great many of us have long silently supported, that bulking up our countries with political refugees in the long term does neither us nor the country of emigration any good on many different levels. #comment-473317">Senator Bartlett take note.

Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
July 5, 2008

See also: CBC condemns South African rioters of 25 May 08, Will the great immigration debate take place of 21 May 08

This was originally #comment-213744">posted to a discussion concerning the article Garnaut draft report released by John Quiggin. I posted it in response to another #comment-213713">post:

This whole we are only 1% of the problem, however ill defined is missing another point… and that point is …

We are far more than 1% of internationally traded coal.

If we so choose, we have leverage.

But do we choose the thirty pieces of silver or do we choose salvation… a habitable planet?

#comment-213713">SP, you have raised an extremely important question which has been, surprisingly, dodged by many avowed environmentalists. I wasn't even able to get clear statement from former Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett on this question. (See #comment-473317">discussion in response to Larvateus Prodeo article Will “the great immigration debate” take place? of 21 May 08.)

Any serious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must include a winding back of the rate of extraction and export of coal. We should certainly not be contemplating increases in the rate of exports and building infrastructure in order to facilitate that increase.

On 12 February 2007 last year when Greens Senator Bob Brown advocated that we plan to wind back our coal exports, he was savagely denounced by the Courier Mail and I assume the rest of the Murdoch newsmedia. The front page headline shrieked some like "This man wants to destroy 50,000 jobs!" beneath a photo of Bob Brown. Inside the story Kill coal off, says Bob was only slightly less hysterical. The effect of this, of course, was to preclude any calm discussion of this issue amongst the wider community. This is only one of almost countless illustrations of why the Murdoch Press is part of the problem and not part of the solution. They helped get us into the mess we are now in by denying the evidence of global warming for decades, the reckless encouragement of population growth both in Australia and abroad (at least, indirectly, by its support of President George W Bush who as cut funding to family planning aid to the Third World) and they certainly won't be helping to get us out of the mess.

If we are sincere about cutting GHG emissions both here and in the rest of the World we have to plan to reduce our exports of coal. Carbon dioxide sequestration is clearly useless for all practical purposes, as the technology, and a systems to police it, even if they work, cannot possibly take effect for decades after which it will be too late, so this should not be held as an excuse not to reduce our exports. We should certainly not be contemplating increases in the rate of exports and building infrastructure in order to facilitate that increase (a barrow which the Murdoch media never loses an opportunity to push these days). Some links, which may be of interest include: www.risingtide.org.au, candobetter.org/about#coalcandobetter.org/NoMoreCoalExports.

Appendix: More on the stance of the Murdoch newsmedia on the Garnaut Report

Garnaut wisdom behind the detail, the Weekend Australian editorial of 5 Jul 08. Supports Garnaut recommendations but argues that trading scheme should start in 2010 and not 2012. Remains "optimistic that given the chance, the free market will find the technological solutions required to combat climate change". Nevertheless, it believes that Australia should not act alone. Nothing said about Australia's escalating rate of the extraction and export of coal and other minerals and no reference made to the relentless campaign by The Australian to have more infrastructure built to facilitate their export. No reference is made to its support for population growth through record high immigration which is the principle driver of Australia's increases in GHG emissions. See Workers welcome editorial of 16 May 08.

Time to get climate change right Courier Mail editorial of 5 Jul 08. Also supports Garnaut Report in principle, like The Australian's editorial, but argues that the commencement date be delayed to 2012. Correctly acknowledges, in part, the problems of carbon dioxide geo-sequestration, but uses this to advocates that nuclear power be used instead. The adoption of nuclear power in Australia is a barrow that the Murdoch Press that the Murdoch media has decided to push very hard recently. Also, there is an implicit acknowledgement that Australia's coal industry is adding to the problem:

The flip side of these warnings is the possibility that a high carbon price and a steep reduction trajectory could cause dramatic dislocation in regions dependent on trade-exposed, emission-intensive industries such as coal mining and aluminium production.

Clearly nuclear power can only possibly solve the problem for coal mining by replacing coal as a source of energy, but it remains to be seen if the Courier Mail will back away from its earlier strident support of Australia's coal mining industry.

We must act now on climate change: Ross Garnaut in The Australian of 5 Jul 08, and Climate fight will cost us all In the Courier Mail of 5 Jul 08

In recent years, newspapers of the Murdoch-owned News Limited media empire haven't been in the least shy in counselling, indeed demanding of Governments to disregard the will of the public to implement policies it deemed to be in the public's best interest. One obvious example which springs to mind is the Australian's strident endorsement of the current attempts by the Iemma Government to privatise NSW's electricity assets, even though it's opposed by 85% of the public and even though when privatisation was last specifically put the the NSW public in the 1999 elections by the Liberal Opposition they were roundly trounced. Other past examples include the Murdoch press's campaigns for:

• The privatisation of Telstra;
• the (aborted) privatisation of the Snowy Mountains Electricity Corporation
• The forced amalgamations of local governments by the Queensland Beattie state government in 2007
• Calling on the Queensland Government to use dictatorial powers to over-ride local councils opposed to over-development who were elected in in the March 2008 elections.
• Rebuking of Anna Bligh for using powers to prevent the destruction of the historic Regent Theatre by developers

The editorial Protection in name of popularity of 26 Feb 08 in the Murdoch-owned Courier Mail concerning Bligh's decision to save the Regent Theatre, complained:

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

However on other occasions, when it suits the Courier Mail editorial writers, “playing to the crowd” is precisely what they demand of our political leaders. Take for example the editorial Rising costs an expensive issue for PM of 23 June.

The editorial seems to be part of a growing pattern in the Murdoch Press which appears to be directed towards undermining the popularity of the Rudd Labor Government in the face of the growing global economic and resource shortage crises. Even though the current Federal Government cannot possibly be held responsible for these and even though the Federal Opposition is not proposing policies to deal with these which are likely to cope any better with these crises than those being implemented by the Federal Government, the Murdoch press appears to be attempting to engender the idea in the Australian public's consciousness that it is appropriate for them to automatically punish whatever Government in office when things turn sour. So stories and opinion pieces such as this editorial, which seek to imply that the Rudd Government's honeymoon with the Australian public is over are becoming more common.

The editorial begins by noting that more people now consider Labor (53%) to be better economic mangers than the Liberal opposition(37%).

However, astonishingly, it proceeds to argue that Labor, having finally convinced the public after many long years, that it is more economically responsible than the Coalition should immediately abandon economically responsible policies in one critical area:

But on other indicators Labor is found wanting. Almost 70 per cent, for example, feel Mr Rudd "should have done more" in his first Budget to alleviate cost of living pressures. And if increasing mortgage repayments, rents and groceries are biting hard into household budgets, the soaring cost of petrol must surely hurt the most.

Startlingly for Labor, three out of four Queenslanders are dissatisfied with the way Mr Rudd has handled petrol prices. More worrying for the Prime Minister will be the finding that two out of three Queenslanders support Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson's plan to reduce petrol prices by cutting fuel excise. …

As the editorial noted, Labor had dismissed the proposal as economically irresponsible. The editorial made no attempt to prove otherwise, but, nevertheless, proceeded to argue that Labor should adopt Nelson's proposals all the same.

Why?

Whilst it conceded that “Most Queenslanders don't blame Labor for rising fuel costs.“ it nevertheless maintained that Labor needed to be seen to be doing something, no matter how futile or counterproductive in the longer term. Here are its words:

… all Australians nonetheless expect their newly-elected government to do something tangible about inflation that sees real prices coming down, especially in - if nothing else - petrol.

Australians might also wonder what happened to the human sensitivity that Labor demonstrated last year in opposition. When Mr Rudd talked passionately during the campaign about the cost of petrol, housing and food, voters listened intently, with many switching their support to Labor on this message alone. But in the past six months the Prime Minister appears to have blunted his finely-attuned antennae. And, semantics aside as to what Mr Rudd actually promised on food and fuel, Australians now expect the Prime Minister to act decisively on bread-and-butter issues.

So the Courier Mail is apparently demanding of Rudd that he “act decisively” even though such ‘decisive’ action could well deny the Government millions in necessary revenue whilst having almost no significant effect in comparison to the price rises caused by the increasing scarcity of petroleum.

The editorial concludes:

… while a deteriorating economy is in itself unlikely to prise Labor from office after a single term, Mr Rudd should know he will be punished if voters believe that he failed to act on the cost of living when he at least had the chance.

The audacity in this is breathtaking. The editorial writer knows full well that it is within the power of his/her own newspaper to make the Queensland public understand why such band-aid measures as proposed by Brendan Nelson would be harmful to its interests. If the Courier Mail was truly serving the public interest, it would do its utmost to ensure that a Government that acted economically responsibly would not be punished by the public for having done so.

#LetterToEditor" id="LetterToEditor">Appendix: Letter to Editor concerning Coalition's proposal to lower fuel excise

25 May 08

Title: Coalition never governs again ?!?

MP Hockey proclaims: "Petrol will always be cheaper under the Coalition than it will be under the Labor Party."

Obviously, Hockey never expects the Coalition to lead Government again, with oil prices predicted to rise, and competition for existing oil supplies to increase substantially.

The Opposition would have to eliminate completely the 38-cent fuel excise tax once petrol hits AU$2.00/L for petrol to approximate its current price. Dropping GST entirely on petrol would save three times the five-cent fuel excise tax reduction. But the Opposition couldn't advocate that, as the Opposition gave us the GST in the first place!

What is Hockey smoking??? I hope he shares it with the rest of us "average Australians"!

Judy Bamberger,
O'Connor ACT

+61-2-6247-6220 (work and fax)
bamberg[AT]eaglet.rain.com

Almost invariably reporting of Australia's acute housing unaffordability crisis does not inform the public of its causes, nor help it to arrive at a solution. The ABC's report No relief in sight for Brisbane's renters of 20 June 08 is no exception.

See also: Rent gouging threatens Brisbane inner city retail community of 8 Mar 08

Yet another article, this time on the ABC's online news service, No relief in sight for Brisbane's renters of 20 June 08 provides yet further confirmation that the polices promoting rapid population growth by all levels of government in Brisbane - local, state and federal - are recklessly harmful to many of Brisbane's existing inhabitants.

However, this obvious link is ignored by the article, and, in spite of its promising headline, the article, instead, turns out to be nothing more than another serving of propaganda in the service of the very people who caused the problem in the first place, namely the growth lobby consisting of property developers, land speculators, lenders, construction companies and others who profit from population growth at the expense of the rest of the community.

#SpeculatorsLobby" id="SpeculatorsLobby">Property speculators lobby for higher immigration

Record and escalating property values and the consequent high rents is precisely the intended effect hoped for by the property interests who have been lobbying for population growth behind the backs of the Australian public for decades. Indeed, this hope was openly expressed by an economist working, as I recall for the Real Estate Institute of Australia in 2004 on Radio National's Australia Talks Back program on 19 May 2004 (it is now called just Australia Talks). The topic of the day was the supposed ‘problem’ of a short-lived slump in housing prices, which caused land speculators momentarily not to be able to reap the normally high profits to which they had become accustomed . Several times, the REIQ economist stated that when immigration picks up, the woes of property investors would end.

At the time, I strongly doubted claims that high immigration was, in any way, in the interests of the current residents of this country. In the past I had naïvely accepted the view that the immigration program was undertaken for altruistic reasons, even if I believed them to misguided. Whilst I was becoming more skeptical about this over time, the open acknowledgement of sectional self-interest behind our immigration program was still a surprise to me. I did phone in and speak on Australia Talks Back to make the point that housing prices, even at the supposedly depressed levels, were still impossibly high on a remotely normal income, but I had not sorted out my thoughts on that other question sufficiently as to be able to speak to it coherently. Two days letter at mid-day on Friday 21 May, I sent a letter, in the hope that it would be read out during Friday's "Week In review" program. However that was a week in which an "Australia Talks Books" was scheduled on Friday instead, so it was not read out. The letter was:

Dear Sandy McCutcheon et al,

Firstly thank you for giving me a say on your show on Wednesday.

However, I forgot to comment on what one of your invited guests said, which I thought to be extraordinary and revealing.

He expressed his hope that further immigration will help the property market to 'recover', that is, presumably, that the crowding of further new arrivals into Sydney and Melbourne, will drive the already hyper-inflated housing prices even higher.

This confirmed my suspicion that the motivations of many advocates of immigration were not as altruistic as they had once led me to believe.

Those on the lower rungs of our society were not informed or consulted about the consequences of such an increase in our population, and so now they can no longer afford what was affordable to them a generation ago.

As a matter of urgency, the process of decentralising our economy needs to be commenced, so that everyone can once again find somewhere affordable to live and to work, and before we increase our population levels even further, there needs to be a full and open discussion.

Yours Sincerely

,

James Sinnamon

Housing hyper-inflation the direct consequence of the property lobby's successful lobbying efforts

Subsequently, land speculators and property developers got their wish. John Howard, the man who told the Australian public during the Tampa crisis of 2001, "We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come," secretly ramped up Australia's immigration ever higher and, as a consequence, Australia has some of the least affordable housing in the world. Many, who could previously have hoped to take out a mortgage for a house if they made sacrifices, have been completely priced out of the market as a result, and have no choice but to rent.

Renters at the mercy of ruthless landlords and real estate agents

As the numbers of those seeking rental accommodation have greatly exceeded available rental stock, many tenants are now at the mercy of unconscionable landlords and real estate agents. In 2006, I witnessed the life of a neighbour destroyed during a six month period, as real estate agents and prospective buyers marched into her rented half-house almost at will. On one occasion, whilst the tenant was out, damp washing left hanging, which was considered an obstruction, was dumped on the ground. Eventually the house was sold and the new owners raised the rent beyond what the existing tenant could afford, so she had to move out.

More recently, another rental house occupied by a friend was put on the market. When my friend insisted upon being given adequate written notice by the estate agent before his floor of a two story house was inspected, the estate agent attempted to bully him over the phone. He, nevertheless, stood up to him, asserting his legal rights as a tenant. Fortunately, the landlord was more ethical than most and apologised profusely when he heard of this. The house was eventually taken off the market, and he was allowed to stay. Most tenants, of course, are not so lucky. The Courier Mail newspaper reported (will endeavour to obtain reference) in about two months ago that some Brisbane landlords are evicting their tenants without cause in order to replace them with other tenants able to pay higher rents.

Many who no longer can afford their own unit, let alone a free-standing home, now have no alternative but to share a roof with often incompatible strangers. Those who can't even afford that are resorting to living in cars or in tents in open spaces around the city. One prominent collection of tent dwellings is now to be found beneath the Story Bridge.

Small businesses are also paying the price. As reported in the story Rent gouging threatens Brisbane inner city retail community of 8 Mar 08 sudden exorbitant rent increases imposed by landlords, with the active encouragement of a local real estate agent, destroyed the economic viability of a number business in a formerly cohesive retail community the inner-city suburb of Paddington.

How housing unaffordability scandal is spun to suit the purposes of land speculators

Now, almost invariably, whenever housing unaffordability is raised in the printed media, radio and television, the ‘experts’ whose views are sought are invariably the exact same people who brought about this this human tragedy in the first place. They now would have the public believe that they are all working with single-minded determination to bring housing affordability back to the Australian masses once again. This line is accepted unquestioningly be almost all the newsmedia and the supposedly independent ABC is no exception.

In this story, the ‘experts’ consulted included:

• an unnamed spokesperson from economic forecaster BIS Shrapnel,
• Steve Greenwood, executive director of the Property Council of Australia,
• Dan Molloy, the managing director of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland,
• the pro-developer pro-population-growth Lord Mayor of Brisbane Campbell Newman,

In spite of the fact that the ‘solution’ proffered by these people is hotly controversial in South East Queensland, including on the Sunshine Coast and in Redland City, where anti-development councils have been elected, no critical views were reported in the article. The closest thing to a critical view was from Councillor David Hinchliffe, who, as former Labor majority leader on the Brisbane City Council, notoriously surrendered to Campbell Newman on nearly every key policy question, with disastrous results for Labor, during the March 2008 Brisbane City Council elections.

Economic forecaster BIS Shrapnel tipped that house prices in south-east Queensland were likely to rise by 22 per cent over the next three years. The obvious fact that this was almost certainly the result of the Federal Immigration minister Chris Evans having announced that the annual immigration intake was to be increased to 300,000 on 14 May was, of course, not mentioned.

Another contributing factor was Lord Mayor Campbell Newman's sudden hike in council rates directly counter to a clear commitment he made prior to the election of 15 March.

Naturally the whole discussion was couched in terms of what or would not entice investors to invest in rental property.

Campbell Newman and Steve Greenwood differed over the effect that his rate increases would have, with Newman absurdly insisting that his rate increases would have no significant impact upon rents.

Steve Greenwood naturally supported the federal rent-assistance scheme which does nothing but fuel housing inflation at the expense of taxpayers.

Greenwood claimed, as the Property Council invariably states in these sorts of stories, that the solution to housing affordability lies with the release of more land for housing development. In his words:

"But we need other things done, and those other things are increasing land supply.

"At the moment we have a regional plan that is being reviewed."

Mr Greenwood says land will need to be unlocked across the south-east to boost supply sufficiently and take pressure off the housing market.

In one sense Steve Greenwood could be right, to a point.

It is hard to imagine how the supply of more land would not make it cheaper, even if we take into account the extravagant developer's margins and the way that developers, themselves, notoriously withhold the release to homebuyers of land sold wholesale to them by governments in order to maximise their own profits.

If all other things remained equal, we could still expect the affordability of housing to marginally improve. Of course, this ignores the fact that the housing on offer is likely to be distantly removed from any worthwhile amenities, public transport or employment opportunities.

But, of course, all things are not going to remain the same as the greater demand caused by increasing immigration will almost certainly more than wipe out any marginal improvements.

Furthermore, most existing residents strongly object to the loss of open spaces, bushland and agricultural land that will be entailed in the release of new land for housing. As well as degrading the quality of life for existing residents the fragile ecology of the region could be destroyed and, with that any prospect of local food self-sufficiency, vitally necessary when the effects of ever higher fuel costs are inevitably to be felt.

It is for such reasons that the Redland City Council and the Sunshine Coast Regional Council are opposing the Queensland Government's release of more land. In response, Steve Greenwood complained:

"Just outside of Brisbane we've got a number of claims coming from some of the local government areas that actually want to cap their population growth.

"That is very alarming, because basically what they're saying is they're going to … attempt to further limit supply, and for most of us who have even a basic understanding of economics, you limit supply and your costs go up.

Of course, the abovementioned efforts made by the Federal and State governments on behalf of the Property Council of Australia and the REIQ to increase demand are not to be even considered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do the politicians and the CBC define prosperity?

It is time we ask ourselves: Has this ”progress“ called ”Economic Growth“ (of which population growth is the main factor) really made our lives better? Politicians say it improves our lives. The CBC's host of ”The Sunday Edition“ Michael Enright said on his June 7, 2008 radio show that we need immigration-driven population growth in order to ”prosper“.

I would like to know what his definition of ”prosper“ is. Does Enright think that prospering means converting hundreds of thousands of hectares of Canadian land from biodiverse ecosystems into new roads, subdivisions, clearcuts, malls, parking lots, and open-pit mines to accommodate about 250,000 additional immigrants every year? Does that make life better for the average Canadian? Has real wealth per Canadian increased?

When I was born in 1980 there were only 24 million people in Canada. 28 years later, would a middle class person be able to afford more quality and quantity of real resources now than in 1980? I don't think so. In 1980, a middle class person could easily afford a 40 hectare hobby farm where the climate is mild such as Southern Ontario. Today, you'd have to be upper class to have that.

In 1980 a middle class person could afford more seafood with more varieties to choose from, thicker fillets and less chemical contamination in those fillets. In 1980 the furniture that the average person bought was made from solid wood, not particle board with a glued-on veneer that peels off when wet. In 1980 grocery stores in Canada gave patrons paper bags that could be used as tinder in your woodstove, used as mulch in your garden, or composted. Now we get non-biodegradable plastic bags, which are overflowing landfills, littering the countryside, and we are made to feel guilty for using them.

The lesson: ”Economic Growth“, or increasing the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) does so by increasing the population, which explains why it results in less real wealth per person. More people means less space and resources per person. No wonder ”progress“ has made life worse for the average Canadian

.

Brishen Hoff, President of Biodiversity First
(biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/index.htm)

See also: Living standards and our material prosperity 6 Sep 08 concerning the quality of life in Australia

(illustration by Sheila Newman)
In “Population grows at record rate", an article by Tim Colebatch, The Age, June 6, 2008, an Australian journalist has once again been given license by the Fairfax Press to frame Australia’s overpopulation problem as some kind of triumph.

In an article akin to the spin used to sell large bags of potato crisps and sugar, caffeine and phenelalanine-laden soft drinks to adolescents, Tim Colebatch sells overpopulation to Age readers.

Whilst relating the latest ABS statistics, the journalist chooses resoundingly positive terms for this undemocratic and frightening complex phenomenon:

Australia “turned the corner” into 2007 by having ‘almost 21.2 million people'.
In Victoria, the state’s population grew by a “record” 82,430 people. Tasmania “reached a milestone” and is ‘now “on track” to reach 500,000 residents’

Portraying this bizarre engineered growth as some kind of race for supremacy, Colbatch comments that Victoria “lost slightly” ‘in net migration flows to other states.’ ‘Queensland (+25,647) was the “big winner” from interstate migration, as usual, while NSW (-24,028) was again the “big loser”.’

The article concludes with some of the costs of population growth in Australia, but without portraying them as costs. In contrast to the hyped up descriptors for the growing numbers, journalist Colbatch leaves right for the end a peculiarly unemotional account of some of the suffering involved:

“The rapid population growth is driven by business recruiting ready-trained skilled workers from poorer countries rather than training Australians. In the six months to April, almost 100,000 temporary workers arrived, while the Government has just increased the quota for permanent skilled migration from 102,500 to 133,500. Critics point out that there has been no increase in housing supply, so the arrivals are intensifying the housing shortage and helping to drive up rents.”

There is no warning of how the extra people will affect the chances of Australians to weather oil, soil and water depletion.

The statistical news is actually unrelievedly awful, especially as related with ghastly flourishes like these for Victoria:

‘VICTORIA's population has “soared” to more than 5.2 million, with the Brumby Government "claiming the biggest growth in 35 years”' and ‘Treasurer John Lenders said the figures were "an endorsement of our Government's record investment in making Victoria the best place to live, work and raise a family"’.

No mention at all of the growth in groups all over Victoria and the rest of the country protesting at the loss of democracy and control over their environments. This is not reporting. This is propaganda, pure and simple.

Please circulate this article to help to counteract mainstream-media propaganda for population growth.

(Original much larger photo by Ray Drew)

These healthy kangaroos, relaxed, uncrowded, in lush surroundings are all dead - order of ACT Australian government.

Housing estates due to go up around the area. (Does anyone know which developers?) The human species here is simply blind, absurd, and ridiculous to pretend that kangaroos are overpopulating when they are trapped and surrounded by expanding human populations, brought in to fill housing estates. Developers and government should be put on trial for causing enormous and needless suffering. They make Australians ashamed.

[Photograph by Marcus Fillinger, marcus[at]emulsion[dot]com[au].]

Some animals saved, after being ear-tagged, for fertility experiments and sterilisation.This animal is ‘darted’ with anaesthetic, then collared, and blindfolded to minimise stimulation, prior to contraceptive implant or sterilisation. Wildlife experts say it was all unnecessary.

Read on:

Much of the detail in the next nine paragraphs below comes from www.kangaroolives.com
In May 2007 the media exposed a covert plan by the Department of Defence and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government to shoot to kill up to 3,200 Kangaroos at two Defence sites in the ACT.

The reasons given at the time: to ‘save’ the kangaroos from starving and to prevent them from competing with certain endangered grassland species reported to be on these sites: the golden sun moth, a legless lizard, and the earless dragon.

Around 500 of these kangaroos are trapped by a 2.5 metre high fence on a 116 hectare parcel of land at the former Belconnen Naval Transmission Station (BNTS). Of these, the plan was for 400 to be killed and have the remaining kangaroos forcefully sterilised. Somewhat extreme and barbaric measures to protect a moth, and unlikely to be the real reason why the ACT Government is so keen to clear this site, as the area around it is earmarked for housing development.

Following an immediate public outcry and subsequent consultations between Defence and a range of interest groups, Defence agreed to consult more widely. Members of Wildcare, a local volunteer wildlife rescue organisation with over 15 years of hands-on experience rescuing and rehabilitating kangaroos, submitted a proposal to Defence recommending a whole-of-ecosystem approach to the kangaroo issue. This preliminary proposal also detailed a workable strategy for the translocation of kangaroos.

Finally in September 2007, after consultations with Wildcare and a panel of experts, Defence announced that it would implement a kangaroo management plan in the ACT designed to promote sound ecological management and a responsible approach to animal welfare. The plan was to use a mix of translocation, fertility control and – “only where necessary" – euthanasia to bring the kangaroo population into balance with the ecosystem at the BNTS site. The contract to the successful to implement this strategy was awarded in early 2008.

Suddenly on 29 February, the ACT Government announced that it would block any application for a permit to allow the ‘export’ of kangaroos from the BNTS site. Not coincidentally, the ACT’s official kangaroo ‘culling season’ (killing season) recommenced the very next day.

Defence went back on their word, and the slaughter of these kangaroos on the site began on 19 May 2008. It was to continue over the next few days, with a target of over 400 animals.

These kangaroos were healthy and there was currently ample grass on the site following good rains over summer, and higher than average rain predicted over the coming months. There was no need for this slaughter to proceed.

Viable alternatives were available, including translocation, but Defence has ruled this out as being too expensive. A number of suitable properties in NSW were proposed. The ACT Government chose instead to order the killing of the kangaroos. Kangaroos are Australia’s most important native species.

Photos of the cull can be viewed at www.kangaroolives.comand a video news report can be viewed here.

Although many animals have been killed, there is still a petition to sign. There are many signatures but more may help, even after the fact.

According to the writer at www.canberraroos.com/p8.html, there was a promise "that there would be an official count of kangaroo numbers at the BNTS site before any animal was harmed," but that this did not happen.

Some unofficial observers think that the full ‘quota’ may not have been met and wonder if the total number or roos in the Belconnen area had been exaggerated, since there don’t seem to be many left. IF the numbers were exaggerated then this would COMPLETELY undermine the rationale for killing them. It would show severely inaccurate counting, destroy the argument of overcrowding based on estimated numbers, and bolster the argument that these animals could not be overcrowded since they were in beautiful condition and appeared relaxed and comfortable.

www.canberraroos.com write: “Forget the attempts by Jon Stanhope, Maxine Cooper and their heavily funded experts to convince you this is the only humane option. Forget the words they use like ‘culling’ and ‘euthanasia’, these are only an attempt to trick the public into thinking that this whole operation is ‘humane’. These kangaroos will be herded into a pen and slaughtered, then tossed into a pit and buried.”

Background information and more about the kangaroos

“Australia: a culture of violence toward its native animals.” (written by Ray Drew and published with photographs.) “The government has claimed that moving the animals is too expensive. It has also claimed (reasons vary from month to month) they overcrowd the site, that they are endangering vulnerable species, or they are starving and they must be killed for ‘humane’ reasons! The protesters say all these accusations are false, and the real reason is that the animals must be got rid of to make way for urban development. It is a fact that the local government intends to build housing on the grasslands outside the base fence, and probably inside as well when they take possession of the base within 18 months. No mention has been made of danger to rare species in the grasslands that extend outside the base fence. Do vulnerable species cease to exist a metre from the boundary wire? Astoundingly, the government allows cattle to graze there. The truth is that the ACT government has a policy of never translocating kangaroos ― killing is its traditional solution to animals that get in the way of development or sheep or cattle farmers. Within Australia, kangaroo lives are almost valueless, other than as a source of meat or hide. Comparatively few Australians admire their beauty and sensitivity - those that do love them do so with great passion. Otherwise, the gentle animals appear to arouse an unreasoning hatred among sectors of the population. Whenever the government announces a ‘cull’ (kill) thousands do NOT flock to protest the slaughter. In contrast, visitors to the country adore them and cannot understand the mass slaughter, which amounts to 3.6 million or more a year. That amounts to 10,000 killed every night.”

If you are disgusted by the way these animals are being treated, please contact those below to make your feelings known. Australia is not a real democracy, but we might get it back if we all react strongly enough and keep exposing this kind of behaviour.

See also: Australian Political Hypocrites Order "Final Solution" on Kangaroos on 20 May 08 by Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Kangaroo cull: necessary evil and the greater good of 27 May 08 by Adam Henry on Online Opinion with comments.

The Hon Kevin Rudd
Tel: 6277 7700
Fax: 6273 4100
Queensland numbers (His office is at Morningside):
Tel: 07 3899 4031
Fax: 07 3899 5755

The Hon Joel Fitzgibbon
Tel: 02 6277 7800
Fax: 6273 4118

The Hon Peter Garrett
Tel: 02 6277 7640
Fax: 02 6273 6101

The Hon Julia Gillard – as Minister for Education – what message are we giving our children about values and ethics?
Tel: 02 6277 7320
Fax: 02 6273 4115

The Hon Dr Michael Kelly AM - Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support
Tel: 02 6277 4840
Fax: 02 6277 8556

Jon Stanhope Chief Minister ACT
Tel: 02 6205 0104
Fax: 02 6205 0433

RSPCA ACT
Cruelty complaints: 1(300)477722
Injured wildlife 02 6287 8113
Fax: 02 6288 3184

Sources: The material above was based on information exchanged between activists, but most was adapted or taken directly from:
Brett Clifton’s petition preamble at www.canberraroos.com
and Ray Drew’s work at www.kangaroolives.com
The photographs were by Ray Drew. The video was from www.canberraroos.com.

It looks like a corporate-agribusiness group called the "Foodbowl Group" have tapped a short-circuit in local, regional and state democracy in an attempt to take over land and water in the Murray Darling Basin. (See #FoodbowlGroup">end this article for who the Foodbowl Group are).

Plans are for a $600 million pipeline to be paid for by Melbourne Water users who've been told to expect their bills to double over the next five years. They'll also pay nearly a third of the billion dollars allocated to carry 75 billion litres of water a year from the Goulburn Murray River system over the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne.

What is going on?

The Foodbowl group describes its aims as "To support the transition of small farming enterprises to world-competitive, sustainable agribusiness enterprises with a variety of models that maintain and enhance community cohesion." (More 'aims' lower down in article).

But were they invited? Were they asked?

Apparently not.

The impacted community, seems to be appalled and powerless. In the cities, in the rest of Australia, we all need to be paying attention to this. The Murray Darling Basin is Australia's only major inland food production area, and our richest. Despite horrendous farming practices, beginning with returned soldiers' plots, it still produces. Taking over this area with faceless big-business is not the answer to our environmental problems because big agribusiness answers to no-one and beats the life out of land and water before moving on. It is solely profit motivated, seeking to compete on the world market in a zero-sum game that takes no prisoners. The people who work in corporations may have good motives, but they are part of a machine which prioritises profit over anything else in a world where competition has taken over commonsense and sensitivity.

With fuel, food and water prices, cost of land and housing going up, Australians cannot rely on government to protect them. We have to avoid being split up and disempowered by so-called planning initiatives and top-down redesign of the way we live and produce food. When the chips are down it is only by ensuring that we have local production that we can negotiate for food and water, work and housing.

In the end, no government should tell people that they may not farm simply because they do not compete on the world market. Only two generations ago it was quite reasonable to aim for self-sufficiency, and not too much more was required to make a small income. These days, unless we ruin the land to make a dollar, we are priced off the land by taxes and regulations.

The world market is antithetical to sustainable agriculture - notably permaculture. Permaculture is the only sustainable way for Australian agriculture to survive. I don't pretend that you can have mixed farming everywhere; desert and rangeland comprise 75% of Australia. You cannot grow crops on rangeland; you can only run livestock, or live by hunting and gathering. The Victorian Government, like the other state governments and the Federal Government, have unreasonable commercial expectations, display little empathy for citizens, contempt for democracy, and a kind of worship for big business and development, called fascism elsewhere.

Barry Jones in his Sleepers Wake said it would come to this: governments overwhelmed by technology, taking advice from big business.

At the end of this article the investors in the Foodbowl group are listed. Here are the Foodbowl Group's objectives, as mentioned on their website

#Objectives" id="Objectives">[Foodbowl Unlimited] Regional Development Objectives

"While funding for Stage 1 of the Irrigation Modernization Project has been provided under the State Water Plan, the Foodbowl Group believes a range of regional development initiatives must be taken in parallel with the project.

Strategies need to be developed on a whole of region basis to:

• Ensure local government and planning authorities are working together to co-ordinate land-use and planning policies to encourage development of the most suitable land for appropriate agriculture;
• Develop a continuing and informed dialogue with the agribusiness community regarding likely demand for crops and foodstuffs in the context of changing world demographics and climate change;
• To work with state and federal governments to attract large water-use industry to the region;
• To work with educational institutions to develop expertise in irrigation and water-use research and support appropriate skills development to meet the region’s emerging needs;
• To promote and encourage appropriate non-water infrastructure to support the region’s development as an increasingly important centre for food and processed food exporting;
• To support the transition of small farming enterprises to world-competitive, sustainable agribusiness enterprises with a variety of models that maintain and enhance community cohesion."

#FoodbowlGroup" id="FoodbowlGroup">Who are the Foodbowl Group?

The Victorian Government is sponsoring this project in company with:

- Telstra
- Tyco Water Pty Ltd, Tyco Water Pty Ltd
37 Silica St, Carole Park 4300, Queensland, Australia.
Main business activities: Steel water pipes & fittings, steel pilings for wharfs & offshore structures.
Do they have anything to do with Mr Pratt and his Visy pvc piping projects in which the Victorian and Federal government became so involved? We don't know. Do you?

- GHD is an international engineering company: www.ghd.com.au/aptrixpublishing.nsf/Content/Directors_about
www.ghd.com.au/aptrixpublishing.nsf/Content/Offices_about

- Rubicon Systems Australia is a telecommunications, information technology and water technology company. Their Chairman, Stan Wallis, has long associations with multinational corporation management, and was formerly Chair of Amcor, AMP and Coles Myer, and author of the Wallis Report (Federal Government commissioned 1997). He is the President of the Business Council of Australia, which has been a major driver for the undemocratic push for a huge population in Australia. It is this push for population growth which has made recent droughts so much more severe and caused such great hardship. The Victorian Government, beginning with Jeff Kennett, spear-headed population growthism, at the behest of the Housing Industry and its upstream and downstream beneficiaries - mining, big-engineering, big-finance, newspaper-realty, and chipboard manufacture, among others.

See also, Who's who in AMCOR"

- The Hugh Williamson Foundation.
Under 'Governance', the Foundation lists Members of its 'Council' in 2007 as:

Richard Bluck AM, RFD, Executive Director, Leadership Victoria
John Allen, Principal, John Allen & Associates
Rhonda Barro (WCLP '99), Executive Director, Barro Group
Stella Clark, Stella Clark (WCLP '97), CEO, Bio 21 Aust. Ltd.
Geoff Cosgriff (WCLP '90), Executive Director, LogicaCMG P/L
Graham Evans AO, Consultant & former senior executive, BHP Billiton
Suzanne Jessup (WCLP '00). General Manager, Mahlab Recruitment
Charles Macek, Chairman, Sustainable Investment Research Institute
Andrea Polmear, Managing Director, Launching Pad
Garry Ringwood, Exec. Director, Executive Interim Management
Jane Tongs (WCLP '93), Chairman, Australian Alpine Enterprises
Jill Hollingworth (WCLP '97), Director, Tango Public Relations

What you can do: visit plugthepipe.com and join their mailing list.

#CWA" id="CWA">Country Womens Association (CWA) Reject the North South Pipeline

2 June 2008

The CWA passed unanimously a motion at their annual conference over the weekend requesting that the Brumby government to stop the pipeline. Over 1000 women present.

Wording was as follows:

"that the CWA urge the Victorian Government not to proceed with the North-South pipeline which transfers water to Melbourne."

Contact: Doreen Napier, Agriculture and Environment Convenor, CWA - Phone 03 58522597

Hans Brunner, internationally respected Victorian wildlife ecologist and forensic hair identification expert, author of Hair ID, says that information provided in the Victorian Government's Land and Biodiversity at a Time of Climate Change Green Paper highlights the rapid decline in the quality of our environment. The blame is mainly put on global warming and, thankfully, also on the government’s persistent push for economic and human population growth.

This “growth" will exacerbate the present decline not only in the environment but also in the future welfare of the people.

It is the government’s first duty to make sure that we can survive. This will obviously not happen if it does not change its policies. Those who make peaceful changes impossible, make violent changes inevitable!

Unfortunately, no politicians have the guts to treat the population and growth issue with the seriousness it deserves. This seems to be due to political cowardice and blind obsession.

Sadly, the green paper offers mainly band-aid solutions.

Whatever the conscientious little man achieves is more than undone by the present policies of the government. Hence, we keep on losing thousands of species of plants and animals resulting in local and national extinctions.

The admits that “This level of growth ( of human population) will necessitate the release of significant areas of new land for urban development and the building of more than 600,000 new households, as well as increasing the demand for the food, fibre and other services our ecosystems provide.” And, “ as the population increases and economic growth continues, the demand for land and housing as well as for energy, transport and water infrastructure also grows. This inevitably places pressure on native vegetation.”

Because of the way our activities are endangering so much life on earth, we need to have a serious and honest look at ourselves and realise that, objectively speaking, we are in fact the greatest pest species on earth. In this light, it should not be difficult to see that all our environmental and social problems are directly and proportionally linked to the obsessionally driven population and economic growth rate.

Democratic views ignored

Community recommendations to submissions like this are mostly ignored, in violation of the democratic process.

Page 8 shows the bioregions of Victoria but does not show urban bioregions of urban cities and towns.

Pages 13 and 14 do not show when country towns ran out of water and when water restriction were implemented.

Page 17: Why is there no text for fig, 7, “Summary of threatened animals in Victoria, 2007?”

Page 40: 6.6, Building ecological connections is continuously ignored in outer urban areas where existing wildlife corridors are wantonly destroyed.

Page 46: The desperate water issue has not been sufficiently linked with population growth!
The blame has been manly put on global warming and an uncertain future. Why then gamble with increasing the human population?

Page 52: “ While some adopt modern approaches and consider principles of sustainability and biodiversity, others are outdated and do not consider recent knowledge and threats.” An example is the proposed Frankston Bypass where road easements were reserved in 1960, a totally outdated decision.

There is also a constant “nibbling” at the Green Wedges, resulting in environmental groups suffering burnouts through constantly fighting VCAT’S etc.

Page 89: Consultation paper submission raised concerns about the continuing population growth, increased resource use, urbanisation, pollution and the sea change/tree change phenomenon, which means I am not alone in highlighting the absurd and obsessed push for population and economic growth. The 2030 plan expects over one million more people in the Melbourne growth areas and another 50’000 on the Mornington Peninsula. On top of that we have an artificially created baby boom by giving $ 5’000.00 for every new borne baby, and added to this we allow 170,000 more migrants to come here each year.

My major concern is that the GREEN PAPER will give people false hope. We have to realise that it is us, and rapidly more of us, that are destroying this earth by pollution and over use of resources such as fuel and water as well as destroying the environment. And , importantly, we must not blame global warming and climate change for the rapid decline in biodiversity etc., since it is also all of us who have caused it and keep on increasing it.

Finally, we must still go on and do what we can to protect the species we still have but also strongly and openly protest against the “ poles apart “ policies of the government.

Hans Brunner, Wildlife Ecologist, Frankston, Melbourne
(Hans Brunner is an animal hair specialist who is famous for his forensic work in showing that hairs in the Azaria Chamberlain case were dog hairs (Dingos are dogs!), thereby overturning Lindy Chamberlain's conviction, and who made the world news in 2002 through his identification of hair from a previously undocumented primate in Indonesia, which locals thought could be the "Orang Pendek".
This article was based on his submission to the Victorian Government re the Green Paper.

(Published by Sheila N on behalf of Ilan Goldman.) From The Age (Victoria): http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/24/1211183189540.html This is an article about the East-West tunnel proposed by Eddington and mentions that there is debate within the ALP about its merits. The interesting parts for us are quoted below. quote: "Heat, not light, at the end of the tunnel" ... The state ALP president and member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, said critics of the plan wanted to tackle congestion by "praying and hoping" population growth went down. ... Funny how population growth is presented as inevitable and unstoppable, when it is the same political party that is in power in the state and nationally that is potentially in control of all the levers of population policy.

Labor Senator-elect Doug Cameron is the only Federal politician, so far, to have summoned up the courage to raise a critical voice against the Government's recently announced plans to raise the annual immigration level to 300,000. For this, he has earned the wrath of The Australian newspaper.

An editorial Closing the shop of 21 May 08 did not even attempt to dispute Cameron's warning that immigration will depress the wages of Australian workers, rather, it welcomed the prospect:

Mr Cameron's worries about migration most likely stem from fears that accepting unskilled workers from the Pacific islands and elsewhere will put downward pressure on wages for union members.

His comments reflect the fact that unskilled migration may be used to offset the inflationary impact of scrapping the Howard government's Work Choices legislation.

Those who have followed The Australian's pushing of the immigration barrow in recent days will know that, in the moral Universe inhabited by News Limited, the only right and proper end, towards which any responsible Labor government can work, is not towards controlling housing hyper-inflation, rising water and electricity charges, council rates and—all driven by population growth—but rather towards controlling 'wages inflation'. Because the Rudd government has been so enormously generous to unionists in having scrapped aspects of Howard's "Work Choices" legislation, they are now beholden to unquestioningly accept whatever other means the Rudd government decides to use in its place to erode their standard of living, including the raising of immigration levels.

The editorial raises the familiar spectres of xenophobia and the White Australia policy in order to place itself indisputably on the high moral ground:

… the immigration debate has already pricked the raw nerves of xenophobia and self interest that lie just below the surface of many within the labour movement. …

It is a rerun of the views that underpinned the ALP's support for the discredited White Australia policy, which grew out of a deal between labour and capital to protect Australian jobs from Chinese immigration.

Of course The Australian's editorial writers, who clamoured to have this country join the war to seize Iraq's oil assets, is, in contrast to ‘self interested’ Australian workers, fearful of their living standards being destroyed by the further crowding of this country, are acting only out of pure altruism and love for for their fellow human beings.

Mr Cameron's comments are held to be “proof that the extreme Left and extreme Right arms of politics join hands around the back.”

It is not known whether Doug Cameron, himself, would accept The Australian's labelling of him as ‘extreme Left’. In any case, this ignores the fact that most of the Australian far left are in agreement with The Australian's support for high immigration. For decades, anyone on the on the Australian far left who would have dared question immigration in the way that Doug Cameron is now doing would have found themselves very quickly ostracised. Members of the wider community opposed to population growth also encounter irrational opposition. #harrassment" id="harrassment">For instance, the Victorian branch of Sustainable Population Australia encountered a demonstration outside Prosper Australia and members were publicly defamed and threatened with violence by members of the Socialist Alliance and others in 2004 until they ceased to associate there.

It is to be hoped that Doug Cameron will stand up to the Murdoch newsmedia and resist the pressure to become corralled with all of his fellow Labor Parliamentarians into supporting Chris Evans' high immigration program.

See also Doug Cameron: guest workers threaten Australian wages and conditions of 20 May 08, Is it reactionary to oppose Immigration? of 16 Dec 07 (also on Web Diary)

The Weekly Times promoted the so-called ‘commercial culling’ of kangaroos in Victoria, where it is currently banned, in an opinion piece by John Kelly, Executive Officer of the Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia. (“It’s time to say hoor-roo,” May 14, 2008, p.17.)

John Kelly correctly writes that in Victoria there are no reliable estimates of the size of the kangaroo population.

“Virtually nothing goes into ensuring the animal is protected or managed in any way. The state has no clear idea how many kangaroos it supports, where they live, what’s happening to their populations in response to seasonal conditions or, most disturbingly, how healthy they are."

He is right. Unfortunately the Victorian Government either doesn’t care, or it may actually want to get rid of wildlife because preserving it means restraints on development and human population growth.

But, with a kind of shoot first and ask questions later logic, Kelly argues that, “Establishing a commercial harvest and the data collection mechanisms required to implement it instantly changes all this.” He means that the Kangaroo industry should be given a license to kill kangaroos in exchange for doing the government’s job of collecting statistics.

We do need good data collection mechanisms because the data available on the structure of kangaroo populations and the size and health of individuals gives reason for anxiety. To authorize commercial kills in return for data, however, is to put the cart before the horse and then shoot the horse as a good business deal and good for horses.

Kelly cites the RACV as having recently reported an increase in animal collisions in 2005 of 43 per cent over the previous two years.

Kelly then proceeds to create an impression that
(a) kangaroos are the cause of increasing road collisions; and that
(b) they therefore must be more numerous.

Shamelessly he concludes that “It is also reasonable to expect a well managed kangaroo harvest to reduce this [imagined kangaroo proliferation].”

Let us look at the first claim, that animal collisions are increasing. Kelly implies that collisions (with all kinds of animals) are increasing because the number of animals is increasing. According to the AWPC, however, this does not make sense:

“Likely reasons for more animal collisions are more toll-ways, roads and suburban expansion. More cars and human activities are coming into conflict with animals who were previously in safe habitats in Victoria."

“Humans are the only species in Australia that is rapidly increasing and our numbers and expansion coincide with a decrease in other species.”

Indeed, uprooted dying trees and devastated grasslands are a familiar sight in Australia, a country where extinctions are proceeding at a greater pace than almost any other country on earth (refs: 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 1990 and 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008

The overall trend is a decrease in other species and a higher death rate. Commercial kangaroo killing will only accelerate the death rate.

If a farmer built a housing estate in his front paddock and chased all his stock out onto the road, would he count the pile of corpses and conclude that there were more cows in his front paddock as a result? This is what the Kangaroo Industries Association of Victoria seems to be doing.

Maryland Wilson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) agrees that more accurate counting, assessment, protection and better treatment is necessary, but cannot agree that there is any evidence that the numbers could warrant kangaroo killing commercialisation. The AWPC came to the opposite conclusion through scientifically based and accurate counting of kangaroos and other wildlife in local areas, starting with the Mornington Peninsula. The AWPC warns that the population structures and the trends in numbers long-term point to high extinction risks unless we protect the animals from road and suburb encroachment by providing connecting corridors and protecting and extending habitats.

But Kelly writes, “Put it altogether and a commercial kangaroo harvest would be worth well over $15 million a year to Victoria. It turns a shameful waste into a valuable resource and delivers better kangaroo damage mitigation to embattled farmers and better animal welfare outcomes than current practices.” In a final flourish, he adds, “It is [also] likely to improve public safety on roads, helps to protect plant bio-diversity from overgrazing, and creates jobs in the bush. Why not do it?"

But Maryland Wilson of the AWPC, said that Mr Kelly’s conclusions are simply astounding.

“Mr Kelly is completely out of date, even citing the industry’s own authorities. Gordon Grigg, the author of the industry ‘bible’, 'Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia', upon whose research the industry developed, recently repudiated his original conclusions. He stated that, 'The damage done on grazing lands by kangaroos has been overestimated by up to 500%.' His conclusion was that, 'This would mean that kangaroos are a much smaller component of the total grazing pressure than is generally accepted'. And he concluded that, 'The hope of getting a significant improvement in wool production by pest-control of kangaroos is probably doomed to failure'".
(Grigg citation by Juliet Gellatley, UK zoologist, in, "Slaughter of the innocents", Viva Life, UK, Spring, 2002.)

In the article "Bring in the Chinese", of 14 May in The Australian newspaper Robert Leeson proposed what would effectively be an apartheid system involving imported chinese labourers. These workers are said to be needed to build necessary additional infrastructure. This infrastructure would enable Australia to help China further pollute its environment and fuel global warming with our mineral exports.

This article is yet another addition to the almost deafening crescendo preaching the necessity of yet more immigrant labour.

Chinese companies are expected to soon be awarded contracts to build some of the planned infrastructure, but to do this, Leeson argues, they will need to import Chinese labor as happened with the Tanzania-Zambia Railway, which was built by Chinese capital and labour.

If this is not done, he implies, an economic opportunity for Australia will be lost.

Leeson proposes a number of conditions to be met which he would have us believe answer all possible objections to the scheme:

1. the projects must be subject to rigorous cost-benefit analyses;
2. the contract winners might have to provide their own infrastructure (temporary accommodation etc);
3. the winning tenders would have to abide by Australian health and safety standards;
4. the tenders would have to include an incentive mechanism that would minimise the chances of imported workers overstaying their contract (for example, partial payment in the country of origin);
5. the trade union movement would have to be persuaded that these arrangements were temporary responses to full employment, rather than a permanent source of competition to their members. Former ACTU president, Simon Crean is ideally placed to "perform an ... educational role with respect to infrastructure".

What Leeson is proposing effectively amounts to an apartheid system in the same way that 'immigrant' black workers from bantustans within South Africa once provided cheap labour for South Africa's mines and factories. However, if Leeson's plan fails, then it is not hard to imagine how this could lead to an effective invasion of parts of Australia. In the event of any future conflict with China, having such large numbers of foreign citizens on our own soil, would well pose a serious threat to our national security. An alarming statistic provided by this article, is that there are currently 150 million internal migrants in China, enough to overwhelm the current Australian population many times over. (Of course, because we are mostly Europeans and not Tibetans, drawing attention to this fact practically guarantees that this country's opinion-moulders will dismiss objections to Leeson's scheme as coming from an old troglodyte "yellow peril" school of thought.)

Solutions to the claimed labour shortage problem, other than that proposed by Leeson, could include:

• simply leave the raw materials in the ground, at least until such time as the necessary labour from within Australia can be found, or
• if we must dig up all of our minerals now then cut back on immigration and use the labour freed up from building the necessary houses to instead build the additional infrastructure. Another area of the economy which could be wound back is tourism.

However we eventually solve Australia's supposed economic difficulties, a calm discussion, in which all possible options are rationally considered taking into account all the environmental, social, economic and geo-political factors, will first be necessary.

See "Bring in the Chinese" 14 May 08 by Robert Leeson.

When you take a public asset without permission and give it to private individuals, that is not 'reform' it is theft. Taking something without the owners' permission is stealing. In Chile in 1973, in Argentina in 1976, people were jailed and military coups were required, for state-owned industries, services and land to be sold off to private enterprise without permission. It was called 'reform' then and it is called 'reform' today. It is still carried out by governments at the behest of shonky economists who have trained in the Milton Friedman or similar schools of economics, which Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, has shown up to be, at their worst, torturers and apologists for torturers. Today in Australia, in every state, we have elected dictatorships, with government conceived as 'elected delegates' rather than representatives of the people. How did this happen? Our press was corporatised, which means that the mainstream press now consists of a few global networks of intersecting industries of which only the public face is the media. Our mainstream media have so many vested interests that it is hard to imagine a subject they could report on which could not enhance their earnings somewhere. This problem can be analysed on many levels, but one is the creation and marketing of political and economic viewpoints via the creation and marketing of public figures. The mainstream media picks up on various elected public figures and makes or breaks them in images useful to its corporate interests. In the mean-time our government processes are attacked by the vested interests at another level, making it virtually impossible for people to organise effectively to have their voices heard. Our education, particularly in history, has been watered down into small modules to prepare us to be little cogs in giant conglomerations and teachers no longer educate children in the art of clear-thinking or in critical history. History has become, more than ever, an ideological view for widely marketed perceptions. Local governments are now ruled by State employed CEOs whose job it is to reinterpret local opinion until it satisfies the objectives of the state governments, which are involved in facilitating land and asset speculation, in the guise of 'reform'. Any of us who have tried to protest against massive, undemocratic and unwise projects, like the Channel Deepening, the injection of over a million more people into cities already straining at the seams, and short of water, will have run into some of the myriad of tricks now used to occupy public time and resources so as to deflect real public opinion and objections. See, for instance: Jack-boot planning coming to Victoria - Time to Protest is NOW I object to the application of the term 'energy reform' to a process whereby the public are being deprived of assets and control over energy and services without which most of us will die in this complex society. Even economists are admitting now that we have hit a petroleum wall. That is, that we are unable to increase petroleum production and that we must accustom ourselves to a continuous decline in the oil energy upon which the planes and cars, upon which we all rely on so much, run. As energy supply in all its forms, including coal, becomes increasingly straightened, you cannot tell me that the rich men and their stooges who currently run the NSW caucus, or any other Australian government body, are going to stand up to their mates in the corporations and tell them to give Australians their due. No, what will happen is that this already divided society, will increasingly define the poor as unworthy of basic services. Already they are justifying the deprivation of the NSW public their ownership of NSW electricity by defining the public servants who currently deliver electricity as some kind of bad guys who cannot be trusted to do a solid day's work and deliver a service. I mean, really! We are talking about rich people who pursue their interests in power-broking in between professional manicures, massages, ski-jaunts and hobnobbing with the idle rich. It is a good thing for the public to have substantial representation at every level in the public service in the delivery of fuels and the running of essential services. Without this pressure governments can use our dependence on these services against us. They can allow the services to run down. They can allow their rich mates to price the services out of reach of all but the elites. It is not just a good thing; it is an essential thing, when energy-supplies are on a downward curve, to keep public control of them. Why would I or any other Australian with their head screwed on trust Iemma and his peers to safeguard Australians' access to vital fuels and services if we cannot trust him and his peers to base their decisions on democratic consultation? The arcane Milton Friedman pseudo-science of privatising for efficiency, whilst blinding young students, credulous journalistic hacks, and naive foreign-aid personnel, has been discredited everywhere it has been tried. The current situation of reasonable comfort and complacency is set to change very quickly and our country is on the verge of descending into severe and worsening poverty. What will happen then? The upper middle classes, which had their silence bought by being involved in the profits at the shareholder level, won't be silent when their shares fall through the floor. Large industries, like nursing and the police, are kept in line through judicious application of carrots and sticks, but they won't be silent when the banks close down and try to call in their mortgages. Then will those who encouraged Iemma to sell off NSW Electricity encourage him to privatise the police and Rudd to privatise the army?

ABC Breakfast Show host, Ross Solly, gives Property Council of Australia 20 minutes-plus free advertising at tax-payer expense to market industry hobby-horse.

Since when did our taxes go to fund the ABC as a national real-estate agent or an arm of the PCA?

ABC Radio 666 Breakfast Show host, Ross Solly, gave Catherine Carter, the A.C.T. Executive Director of the peak lobby group for developers, financiers, builders and engineers, more than 20 minutes between 8.30 and 9am, April 28 to beat the drum for growing Canberra's population by 500,000 over the next 20 years.

Why was there no counter-argument?

These publicly privileged views come from a professional lobby-group which markets population growth on behalf of commercial property developers, yet they were put without any counter argument, as if they emanated from a disinterested scientific or analytic body, like the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

"Ms Carter says the Territory's sluggish population growth is also a threat to economic well being." "A good size for a medium size city, we think that kind of population target is one to aim for," she said.

Ms Carter opined, on behalf of the PCA, that Canberra's economic fortunes should be pinned on population growth at "1.75 per cent" or "5,200 people per annum."

For Canberra, 500,000 people over the next 20 years would average at something like an increase of 7,500 people a year, and on a divider of four, about 2,000 new dwellings a year, or 40,000 over the Council's defined period.

In fact there are many reasons, not just to question such a promotion of population growth for Canberra, but to severely filter it out of the national public medium, because Canberra's land, water, housing, schools, hospitals, roads and transport are not coping with the current population and neither are similar services all over Australia.

To advocate artificially increasing population growth anywhere, when the world faces a petroleum supply and price wall, and widespread famine related to the unwise diversion of agriculture for biofuels seems like arrogant and dangerous folly.

The percentile growth rate of 1.75% per annum is the same one promoted by the Scanlon Report (written by the populationist Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE), which is part of Australia's development lobby). [See also Scanlon Report on this site.]

The figures originally came from work the ATSE and the Scanlon Foundation contracted from Peter McDonald and Rebecca Kippen, of the Australian National University's demography department, and was paid for by the Scanlon Foundation

Rebecca Kippen

.

The rationale for this figure was to prolong and expand the population of working age as if our economy will continue forever in the mass production factory mode of last century, for the benefit of big business. If you read between the lines of the Property Council's press release, you will realise that their concern is labour for construction sites. Their agenda is to get the local, state and federal governments to grow populations through immigration and higher birth rates. Thus it is hoped to continue to stimulate the already over-stimulated demand for building materials, new houses, roads, water technology, and raise, not only interest rates, but the price of land-holdings, agricultural produce and water itself.

Among other methods, Ms Carter is pushing for the integration of "programs like the ‘Live in Canberra’ campaign and the Skilled and Business Migration Program." Growthist lobby groups seem undeterred by the fact that,according to Dr Bob Birrell of the Monash Centre for Population Research, less than one third of skilled immigrants are working in their field; most are merely cogs in the engineering of population pressure and housing demand.

Of little or no concern to big-population-lobbyists, apparently, is the increase in the cost of living which results from this aggressive promotion of land-speculation, the rising numbers of homeless and indebted, and the short-term nature of this kind of employment and industrial activity. The risk for Australians of starvation and disease from population pressure on food supply and water, present already in many parts of the world, is never mentioned.

For those of you who may resent the spending of public funds to promote commercial ventures which will rely on increasing Australia's population and who fear the resultant social and environmental stresses, you may make your complaint to the ABC

What organisation has only 24 members of which the first ten comprise the current Prime Minister and nine past and present Australian Prime Ministers or Prime Ministerial contenders? And why would they be so dedicated to an organisation with a focus so antithetical to democracy and Australians? Read on.
See also: "Nuclear power, totalitarian spin and overpopulation in Australia", "Bernard Salt on the Population 'debate'> and "Ziggy Switkowski, Population Numbers and Nuclear in the Australian" and "Normalising endless immigration and coupling it to nuclear power in Oz"

The document below probably furnished the blueprint for the Australian government to plan to transform Australian society in a manner which will displace and disenfranchise the bulk of its current population.

The Scanlon Report 30/50 - The Technological Implications of an Australian Population of 30 million by 2050

Note - this link no longer functions - see "Notes" [1]

Here is a new link: https://www.atse.org.au/Documents/reports/30-50-technological-implications-australia-population-2050-report.pdf. (Date last visited was 8 June 2018).

In the 150 pages the word 'democracy' is not mentioned once, although every aspect of Australians' lives and governance is dealt with here.

This is a 'peak oil' document, but it advocates a route whereby any choice Australians might have of reorganizing, locally, to adapt to declining availability of cheap energy, is being abrogated by the Scanlon Foundation’s grand plan to increase Australia’s immigration intake by 1.5% per annum to achieve a population of 30 million by 2050.

Australian politicians have apparently accepted the Scanlon prescription for continued economic growth through social and infrastructure engineering, and social indoctrination at the expense of democracy.

Immigration to increase by 1.5% of total population per year

To cater for our 'aging population' and 'economic growth', with immigration to increase by 1.5% of population every year, based on a recipe worked out by ANU demography, with demographer Peter McDonald, we are to have imposed upon us an unwanted and unsought massive population increase to accompany, service and pay for massive engineering works. Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, the report is the result of a study carried out by The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering with money from the Scanlon Foundation. The Scanlon Foundation was, until 2001, the Brencorp Foundation, and the child of Peter Scanlon, of IXL and Patrick/Corrigan fame, currently marketing credit cards to Asia.

The Australian Multicultural Foundation and the Institute for Global Movements

In 2006, the Scanlon Foundation recently made “one of the biggest private sector donations for social sciences” to the Monash University Institute for Global Movements and the Australian Multicultural Foundation,[1] in the words of Professor Nieuwenhuysen (formerly Director of the Bureau of Immigration Research), now director of the Australian Multicultural Foundation and of the Institute for Global Movements.

The study in question seems to have been a project investigating ways to get Australians to accept a massive immigration program, draconian changes to their way of life, and loss of the natural amenities and space they grew up with, in the context of huge engineering works and infrastructure expansion proposed by the abovementioned Scanlon Report. Nieuwenhuysen commented in 2006, when the Monash University study began, that "The results of these studies are destined to generate much interest from government, academia and the wider community, both in Australia and internationally."

Membership list of this exclusive club

Indeed, if you look at the 24 person strong membership list of the Australian Multicultural Foundation, you might consider this a foregone conclusion. Here are the first 10 members:

The Hon Kevin Rudd MP (Prime Minister of Australia), Mr John Howard, The Hon Mr Simon Crean MP, The Hon. Mr Alexander Downer MP, Mr Robert Hawke AC, Dr J. R. Hewson, Mr Paul Keating, Mr Mark Latham, Mr Kim Beazley, andMr Andrew Peacock AC.

This must be the most exclusive club in Australia. I cannot help but wonder, what's in it for the members? Maybe this is how you get a crack at being the titular head of the country, by selling out your constituents to big business.

At any rate, any illusion some naive people may have been clinging to, that the Australia 2020 conference really meant to consult with Australians, rather than get them to do the bidding of engineers and industries which benefit from rapid population growth, should now be dispelled, along with the illusion that we are still living in some kind of democracy, or that the future is safe in the hands of our politicians.

[1] "Monash University > News and Events > Monash Memo
$600K for study on social cohesion

22 February 2006

The Monash Institute for the Study of Global Movements has received $600,000 from the Scanlon Research Foundation to study social cohesion in Australian and international societies.

The research program for the Social Cohesion Project will be undertaken in partnership with the Australian Multicultural Foundation.

The grant will fund major interrelated studies on social cohesion: analysing and measuring the components of social cohesion; how to constructively attain social cohesion in Australia; and a study on minorities in Australian and international society.

The research will be led by academics from Monash's Faculty of Arts, including School of Political and Social Inquiry senior lecturers Dr Nick Economou and Dr David Wright-Neville, lecturer in sociology Dr Michael Ure, and Professor Andrew Markus, Director of the Jewish Civilisation department within the School of Historical Studies.

The research will be undertaken in cooperation with scholars at Chatham House in London, the Australian National University and Macquarie University.

The institute's Director, Professor John Nieuwenhuysen, is managing the project in association with Multicultural Foundation Director Mr Hass Dellal.

"This is one of the biggest private sector donations for social sciences," Professor Nieuwenhuysen said. "The Scanlon Foundation is genuinely interested in research and public policy issues and is greatly impressed by the calibre of research staff at Monash.

"The Social Cohesion Project is of central importance to the future of Australia and the international community and is a significant event for the institute.

"The results of these studies are destined to generate much interest from government, academia and the wider community, both in Australia and internationally."

The findings from each study will be presented at the 12th International Metropolis Conference to be held in Melbourne in October 2007. The conference, to be co-hosted by Monash, is the world's largest annual conference on international migration and settlement issues. It is the first time it will be held outside North America and Europe.

The Scanlon (formerly Brencorp) Foundation was established by the Brencorp Group in Victoria in 2001. The foundation's current focus is population and cultural diversity in Australia."

NOTES

(Added to article on 2 April 2010.)

[1] The URL for "The technological implications of Australia at 30 million in 2030" was a href="http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=128 but the file is no longer listed there. I have copied and pasted the Address by Peter Scanlon below, to document the launching of the document. This address 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.

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.org and I will send one to you.

"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"

Towards the end of the 20th Century economists and demographers were promoted to ranks of public importance previously held by the church, as long as they fulfilled the church’s role, which is to prop up governments. All that demographers and economists did was crunch numbers and facilitate the passage of money by encouraging population growth, but, because of the prominence they were afforded by the corporate press, the public came to the misunderstanding that these were wise men.

Demographer Bernard Salt was an Australia 2020 Summit delegate in the Population, Water, Climate Change and Cities stream in 18-29 April 2008. (1)

This is what he calls a ‘big idea’:

He wants to ‘alter Australians’ concept of beauty from a verdant back yard to a desert rockery, so as to enable a population twice Australia’s current size.

Of course he doesn’t mention that this is the way he and his colleagues became rich and could become richer, and the reason that so many of the rest of us pay more for food, water, goods and housing already. Nor that more of the same will mean worsening conditions for the rest of us.

He presents this idea as one involving changing Australians’ perception of beauty. Although the sheer effrontery of engineering our perception, as if we were so many children and Mr Salt were an adult towering over us, is appalling in itself, it is what it conceals and removes from debate that is important.

Changing the national taste in what surrounds a house, would be a strange ambition if there were no reason for it. In fact there is a reason, but it won't benefit the average Australian. Mr Salt is working for people who want to fit another 20 or so million people into Australia in the next 50 years, and, for that, he must change the way we perceive value – or change the way that we are told we will perceive value, whether we like it or not.

He achieves this by simply downgrading the value of fertile soil to a flimsy aesthetic fashion statement, which he relegates to a symbol of the past with a questionable statement.

"Our values were forged in Surrey 220 years go and they have not changed."

He does not acknowledge the obvious, which is that verdant green will grow food and support livestock, hence ensuring at least a degree of independence for a family, as the cost of food and fuel spiral. Because he makes his statements from a position marketed as authorative, it becomes very hard for anyone on the receiving end to contradict them, silly as they are.

Reducing population growth and conserving such values would probably save Australians’ lives in the next 20 years.

But, to a politician looking for an idea to market to the electorate which will also please big business, swapping a vegetable garden and some fruit trees and a place for children and pets to play, for a couple of rocks and a cactus, seems smart. We know that the newspapers will support such an idea, because they are also in the land-speculation business.

Consider this ‘wisdom’:

[Salt writes:] “Two years ago, while driving through the suburbs of the desert city of Phoenix in the US, I immediately understood why it was possible for this city to have evolved from 250,000 residents to 4 million over 60 years.
The concept of suburban beauty is different in Phoenix.”

"They see an earth-toned adobe dwelling surrounded by a rock, scoria and cactus garden as beautiful, whereas we define suburban beauty as a separate house surrounded by a green lawn and verdant foliage. The Phoenicians have adopted values that reflect their environment; we haven't."

"If we could alter Australians' concept of suburban beauty, we could radically reduce our use of water …”(1), he writes. He might have added, but didn't, "...and bankers and developers could make a lot more money out of land whilst packing the rest of you in like chickens into batteries and charging the earth for rent and water."

Worse, in 2006, before the cost of oil went up so much, there was probably a big car parked outside those phonecian desert residences, indicating a little wealth besides their infertile plots, and a job to go to. Picture this in Australia in ten years, but without the car or the job.

I thought we elected government to protect us from this sort of predation.

In the words of King Crimson, “The fate of all mankind I see is in the hands of fools."
(1)Bernard Salt, “Nurturing big, better ideas for 2020”, the Australian, April 17, 2008

"Who owns Port Phillip Bay?"

Martin Pakula (martin.pakula @ parliament vic gov au) is a lawyer and a member of the Victorian Parliament. He works for Roads and Ports Minister, Tim Pallas (tim.pallas @ parliament vic gov au). Tim Pallas has been the Victorian Minister for Roads and Ports since December 2006. These elected persons have responsibility for the Channel Deepening project and are theoretically answerable to the public.

On Friday, 18 April, 2008, in the Australian Newspaper, journalist Rick Wallace, reported comments Mr Pakula had made to Parliament about the dredging of Port Phillip Bay, which seemed to show that Mr Pakula has a poor understanding of the ideals and responsibility of democracy - at least in this instance.

"The views of absolutely minor participants have been portrayed and elevated, so long as they oppose the project,"' Mr Pakula is reported by Wallace to have said.

Apparently Mr Pakula gave as an example of what had irritated him, an Age story which described the mother of a person in a level-crossing accident as having inaccurately accused the Victorian State Government of spending $1 billion on channel dredging, when the government claims to be supplementing the port users’ costs by ‘only’ $150 million. The road-crossing victim’s mother had reportedly gone on to compare the port expenditure with $32 million spent on railway crossings.

I would like to know why Mr Paluka would view such a citizen as a ‘minor participant’, especially when, to my knowledge, her views are typical of those of many Victorian citizens, indeed, of citizens all around the country. It also seems inappropriate to me that the Victorian Government should spend ANY money propping up this project of which I heartily disapprove myself for environmental and democratic reasons. The democratic reasons are that the Bay is ours; it is our precious natural asset. It does not belong to a few men who will be in parliament for a few years before they join other mortals as pieces of dust, to modify in a manner which could destroy it forever. And it seems entirely appropriate to me that the mother in question complained about Roads and Ports spending any money at all on a widely despised engineering project, when apparently she perceived a failure to adequately maintain safety on Victoria’s level crossings, which Mr Pakula also has responsibility for.

Mr Pakula had previously described the Age’s reporting of Channel Deepening matters as a campaign of “unrelenting negative headlines and stories”.

Journalist Wallace recorded that The Age and its Chief Editor, Andrew Jaspan, had received “complaints from the Premier, corporate chiefs and top bureaucrats, including Prime Minister and Cabinet chief Terry Moran…about the paper's stance on the project.”

Wallace also referred to “unrest among reporters” in this matter.

I usually can the Fairfax press and all the other mainstream media. I would be amazed if the Age or the Australian or the Courier Mail, or any other property dot com associated media were to give sustained fair and democratic coverage of any matter which would encourage population growth and property speculation. The owners and directors of The Age would presumably be in favour of the Channel Deepening project simply because it is a tool of a corporate body that embraces population growth and widget multiplication. That the Channel Deepening project is being pushed through by government in a manner that is antithetical to democracy would presumably not trouble mass media moguls.

I have, however, not been following Channel Deepening comment in the mainstream press - the Age or elsewhere. For all I know, there may be some reason that The Age is actually against what seems to strike many as the raping of Port Phillip Bay for alleged profit. Or maybe the journalists at The Age are so alarmed by the dredging themselves that they are insisting on persistently reporting the widespread opposition to it.

What I can say with some confidence is that the message that Murdoch media journalist, Rick Wallace, carries from the Victorian Parliament, would scare Age journalists. It would scare any journalist. It scares me. It would scare Age journalists because it could be used as a lever by The Age Editors or The Age directors, to pressurize Age journalists to lay off reporting the deep and important public dismay at the dredging of Port Phillip Bay. I can see that it must be very hard to be a professional mainstream media journalist who is really concerned with representing public opinion, rather than marketing corporate projects to change laws and landscapes for corporate profit. I can also say that I think this message should scare other Australians, particularly those in Victoria.

Why should we all be scared? We should be scared because our representatives in Government who are responsible for the imposition of Channel Deepening are either unaware of the extent to which the public is dismayed by the high-handed and grossly disrespectful manner in which their Bay is being treated by those elected to care for it, or they do not care. Or it may be that Paluka et al are true believers in economic growthism and simply believe that the dredge-dissenting public lacks faith and must be led into the heaven of endless growth by its high priest parliamentarians. Or it may be that they are experiencing irresistable pressure from financial and other interests in the Port of Melbourne dredging project.

In fact, I do not know what motivates Mr Pallas, Mr Paluka, Mr Brumby, or what motivated Mr Bracks, Mr Thwaites, and Mr Kennett, to inflict raw capitalism, metal tooth and iron claw, on Victoria and its inhabitants. All I know is that, from the professional divers of Port Phillip Bay to the millions of other Australians who love it, from Catani Gardens’ possums, to Mornington Peninsula’s and Somerton's Kangaroos, from Malvern East’s proudly gentrified wooden houses, to Frankston’s sprawling backyards, and from the dead gardens of Bendigo and Ballarat and similar country towns targeted by the New Army of developers and water barons, to the farmers round Culgoa who formed PipeRight Incorporated to stop the government giving their water to big business in the riverina, people and other animals are hurting badly. Ruled over by a mad government, we are in despair.

We need proper representation from our government and journalists need absolute freedom to report. Time to turn off the Corporate Machine. Time to stop Mr Brumby's New Army of developers. Time to slow the monster down, Mr Brumby, Mr Paluka, Mr Pallas. Time to listen, not dictate.

Article below is based on a report by Australia’s Olympic Poet, Mark O'Connor :

Demographer, Peter McDonald, is famous for presenting extreme projections of population implosion. His contributions to a debate at ANU on April 1 were predictable and are now on line. (The PPT versions are the easier ones to read). Peter's ideas suit big business and corporatised government and have thus become very influential. The criticisms and analysis below are therefore very important, since the Murdoch and Fairfax media, and sadly, even the ABC, market these attitudes uncritically and approvingly. Sheila Newman

Peter McDonald's piece, "Australia’s future population: planning for reality," is unlikely to impress environmentalists, according to Mark O'Connor.

In case you haven't time to scan it on line, here are some exerpts, organised and analysed by Mark O'Connor around 5 keywords that McDonald uses:

McDonald's Five Keywords:

Environment
Growth
Labour
Fatalism
"Realism"
"Social cohesion"

Those last two concepts probably really do need to be in inverted commas. The first 3 concepts are mixed together as follows:

The first sheet of his presentation summarises his line on environment:

"Environment and economy

• Australia will achieve a better result in relation to its own
environment and its contribution to the reduction of global
greenhouse gas emissions if it has a strong economy.
• A strong economy will provide the capital that is necessary
to invest in improvement of environmental infrastructure,
repair of degraded environments, and a shift to alternative
sources of energy that are not fossil-fuel based."

The next sheet proclaims:

"Capacity constraints are Australia’s biggest economic problem

• Much of the infrastructure required to support a strong and
productive economy is in short supply in Australia at
present.
• This includes water, transport for people, transport for
goods, ports, energy supply, housing and office space, and
state-of-the-art communications.
• These shortages may be artificially reduced in the short
term by increasing interest rates to slow demand.
• However, we do not want to live in a continued forced
recession. So, higher interest rates are not a long-term
solution. In the long term, the capacity constraints must be."

Notice that this, like most of PMD's talk, is not demography, but growth economics.

Next sheet:

"The requirements for new infrastructure

• New infrastructure involves technology, capital, good
planning and commitment, and labour.
• The technology is available now in most instances and
more will come on line.
• Capital also is in relatively good supply.
• Planning is improving, commitment is stronger.
• Shortage of labour is the problem."

"Why we need labour

• Conservation is highly desirable as far as it goes, but we
shall only solve our water, energy and environmental
problems in the long run through construction of new
infrastructure.
• If we want solar or wind energy, then the solar panels and
windmills have to be made and constructed.
• If we want secure urban water supplies then whatever
policy mix we use to do this involves construction.
• If we want to ease the housing crisis, we need more
houses.
• If we want the economy to run productively and
competitively, we need better transportation of goods and
people, better ports, and better communications
infrastructure."

Which leads, as you've guessed to:

"Why we need labour (continued)

• Conservation is highly desirable as far as it goes, but we
shall only solve our water, energy and environmental
problems in the long run through construction of new
infrastructure.
• If we want solar or wind energy, then the solar panels and
windmills have to be made and constructed.
• If we want secure urban water supplies then whatever
policy mix we use to do this involves construction."

In short, according to Peter McDonald, we need vast population growth in order to provide more labor, so we can have more energy efficiency. Oh, and more mining (presumably solar powered mining).

Well it was April Fool's Day, but Peter didn't seem to be joking:

"Labour demand

• Almost right across the Australian economy, workers are
short supply.
• This is especially the case in the construction industries
(15,000 builders from the USA?).
• The mining industry is desperately seeking workers to
commence new projects (Chinese work gangs?). Note,
revenue from mining is the source of much of our public
capital for environmental and social development."

Next we get a dubious graph showing labor falling:

"NOM = Net Overseas Migration
Note: Assumes fertility constant at 1.8 births per woman and labour force"

participation constant at July 2007 levels

Except that labor, in McDonald's own projection, is actually rising. It is only the rate of increase of labor ("Labour force annual growth rate") that is falling. (If you can't say a figure is falling, you can always go to its first or even its second differential to find a function that is falling.)

What about automation, computerisation, machines? Why do we need so very much labor?

Well, you see, there is a multiplier effect:

• If we had all of these [mining and construction] workers, they will demand more
services and hence more workers in retail, hospitality and
personal services. There is a multiplier effect (foreign
students and working holiday makers?).

The nations of the world will soon be competing fiercely for labor, and hence for immigrants.

Hence we must be fatalistic:

"Inevitable population growth for Australia

• We can improve our productivity and we can raise labour
force participation rates somewhat, but it is inevitable that
overseas migration to Australia will remain high and the
population will grow by 2050 to something in excess of 30
million people.
• In comparative terms, this will be much lower than the
population of California and the population of the USA will
be around 440 million. Canada’s population will be over 50
million."

Apart from economic growthism and a strong streak of fatalism, Peter McDonald now shows a new emphasis on "realism", cf. his paper's subtitle:

"Australia’s future population: planning for reality"

The subtitle seems borrowed from business lobbies like APOP, The Australian Property Council, and the Scanlon Foundation (the latter which funded his recent paper with Glenn Withers). Such groups emphasise "realistic" (= fatalistic) planning on population. i.e. accept that huge growth is coming, and plan for it. (In debate Mark O'Connor called this a bully's argument: "Since we're going to put you in the stocks anyway, why don't you co-operate and then we'll do it more nicely.")

Hence Peter's line: what we have to fear is not population growth but our failure to plan for it.

Hence Peter McDonald's concluding "overhead" runs:

"Conclusion

• Australia will be a better country in its economic,
environmental and social dimensions if we accept the
inevitable and plan for it.

• Not planning properly for future population growth is part
the Australian way of mucking things up."

• The present Australian Government seems to have accepted this message. It has set up an infrastructure council and my educated bet is that it will increase the official migrant intake in the May budget."

cf. APOP's "opinions" page: http://www.apop.com.au/opinions.html

• A recent expert study concluded that there are no insurmountable engineering, scientific or environmental barriers to reaching an Australian population of 30 million in 2050, assuming that thorough analysis and planning occur and that leadership is exercised, especially by governments.
• Long-term planning is imperative to ensure timely and orderly provision of needed infrastructure, and leadership from governments is essential in setting clear policy directions.

--

One other element in Peter McDonald's thinking is worth noting.

Both APOP and Scanlon may be worried that lack of social cohesion might force a halt to such rapid immigration, because they are promoting the need for certain kinds of social cohesion. (Hence the conference that Scanlon Foundation funded recently, with Jupp, Nieuwenhysen, and frequent flyers at such immigration-growth-promoting events.)

As APOP puts it:

"The future prosperity of Australia, underpinned by 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."

"Since overpopulation tends to destroy social cohesion (e.g. food riots, water riots, road rage) this line is probably what is known in marketing circles as "advertising against the perceived weakness of the product" --i.e. trying to present your weakness as your strength."

Mark O'Connor

Peter McDonald now styles himself:
"Peter McDonald, Director, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, ANU"

and remarked at one point "Mark presents me as an economist, but I think of myself more as a sociologist." Wishful thinking, perhaps. Peter seems like someone who would offer little resistance to the APOP line on social "reality".

Murdoch's Queensland Courier Mail has long been in the business of marketing unacceptable development, but the April 9 2008 editorial read more like a medieval sermon on the benefits of floggings.

“Full story needed on big projects” began with some newspeak and then descended into arguments so crude that one suspected that lack of internal conviction was snarling up logical expression.

The editorialist started off by conflating ‘growth’ with ‘progress’, thus giving the concrete entombment of Brisbane a positive spin. Towards the end, in a kind of third-word medical metaphor for torture, s/he crudely compared undemocratic development with medicine and going to the doctor for an abdominal operation. We were not expected to like what we are told is going to happen, but it is clear that we must accept it. To object to being slashed open in order to …what?... would be unreasonable, apparently.

“Progress will sometimes hurt, but like an unpleasant visit to the doctor, it will hurt less if you are warned in advance of what to expect, rather than having a line drawn through your torso and told this is where the operation will happen.”

Shock treatment without a muscle relaxant would seem a little more congruent to the situation than abdominal surgery. Unless this is some kind of medieval operation to remove our persistent ‘bile’.

The writer (or the mad doctor) tells us that ‘We’ all want progress. It isn’t too clear what progress is, from the editorial, and the doctor seems to be hedging about the outcome of the operation, or its reason. Nonetheless, we must suffer for this abstract thing.

If, like most of us, you don’t want to suffer, and you aren’t sure what progress is anymore, you might feel that you are the only person in Brisbane who feels this way and you probably won’t dare raise your voice to protest.

The journalist-social psychiatrist hits potential protesters against the operation for progress with, not just NIMBYism, which isolates with the charge of selfish the person fighting to defend their territory, but with the dreaded “BANANA” acronym. (See 'Damn 'em all', 23 May Courier Mail, Brisbane, Australia.)

BANANA is even worse than ‘selfish’; it means Totally Unreasonable, maybe even certifyably insane; certainly indefensible. BANANA stands for, “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.”

The charge is that Queenslanders are objecting to nearly every development that goes up.

Well, Mr Editor-doctor, the fact is that Queensland is very densely populated and developed, so it is pretty difficult to find a place to develop which isn’t close to something else. And, with all this development, why should ‘we’ need, let alone ‘want’ more? We don’t like it, so we are protesting.

Brisbane has far less green space left than Sydney and Melbourne. It is obviously overdeveloped and overpopulated:

“ o•ver•pop•u•la•tion (vr-ppy-lshn) n.
Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.”

We are suffering all three of these symptoms in Brisbane. Why can't we admit we have a problem and stop the cause rather than just trying to manage the effects! (Jennie Epstein in Victoria, slightly paraphrased.)

The editorialist-doctor sympathetically admits: “No one wants a freeway, chemical plant or a new power station at their back door …“but,” (s/he concludes harshly informing us that we cannot escape the symptoms of the progressive disease, or curse) “… these things are a fact of life if we are to cater for the needs of a rapidly growing state.”

The dishonest implication, from the main newspaper, the Murdoch voice of authority in Brisbane, is that Queensland’s extreme population growth is some kind of irresistible Brisbanite fate, like Sysiphus’s was to push a stone up a hill every day, except that, in Queensland, that stone gets bigger every day, and so does the propaganda we have to swallow.

What must Queenslanders have done to the Gods to provoke such punishment as

“freeways, chemical plants and new powerstations at their back door; transport corridors and dams which endanger the environment and destroy local communities ...”

... which the editorialist identifies as our inescapable fate?

The editorialist tells us moreover that many of us may be economically inconvenienced or have airports expanded on our “comfortable backyards.” (This was only to be expected, apparently, and we should have moved somewhere else if we didn’t want our surroundings to degenerate into overpopulated slums. Quite a few of us should perhaps have enquired more carefully before being born here.)

Incredibly, the editorialist equates these sufferings with “our very comfortable 21st century lifestyle.”

And that is not the end of our sufferings: No, we must endure dispossession if we are to avoid dying of thirst in the short term. Nevermind the long term.

Our water security is threatened by population growth, which for some reason we cannot question. That population growth was brought upon us by the developer-serving Queensland Government, which advertised far and wide for it, interstate and overseas. Now we have to put up with the ‘solutions’ for water security which the government that made our water insecure tells us it must foist on us.

For stealing fire from the Gods and giving it to men, Prometheus was chained to a rock. Every day an eagle came and tore his liver out and ate it. During the night it would grow back, only to be torn out again.

Was that the operation?

How bad must it get? It could get a lot worse if our progress takes on the shape of India’s or Africa’s or Chile’s. But, as that dear old man, Augustus Pinochet once said, “Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood.”

We can be sure that we will be told that it is good for us when that happens.