Victorian Government

Media Release by Australian Society for Kangaroos:

Wildlife groups are calling for an inquiry into the slaughter of half a million kangaroos in Victoria by farmers since 1999.

According to the 1975 Wildlife Act, Eastern Grey Kangaroos are a "protected" species!

Landholders in Victoria are being given permits to kill tens of thousands of protected kangaroos every year, even in good seasons and in areas not affected by drought. This is despite research showing that kangaroos do not compete with stock for pasture.

Kangaroos are also being shot without proper assessment of population numbers, locally or regionally, putting them at risk of local and regional extinction.

In recent cases, local residents were devastated to discover that permits has been given to kill the equivalent of the total population of kangaroos in Colac, Gippsland, and Bendigo, causing a public outcry for the unjustified and brutal killing of protected native wildlife.

Colac resident Carola Anstis and East Gippsland resident Valerie Hickey, recently had to stand by and watch as their local kangaroos were shot by local farmers.

“Why permits to kill kangaroos in the Marlo area (East Gippsland) are being given, is beyond comprehension. The land here where sheep and cattle graze is in excellent condition, and unaffected by drought.  Kangaroos are not abundant in this area, and pose no threat to stock pasture.

The DSE and farmers have a long association, and I believe the DSE feels obliged to comply with farmers wishes. This issue could be addressed if DSE provided farmers with accurate facts about our wildlife and the current research about their positive co existence”, said Valerie Hickey.

Carola Anstis is equally disturbed by the current situation and the destruction of kangaroos that live at her wildlife sanctuary.

"With regard to my particular case, and recent permits to kill kangaroos on my neighbours property, no assessment was made of the property with regard to pasture improvement and carrying capacity to determine whether in fact there is direct competition for food. No assessment was made as to whether the kangaroos are on the property all day, part of the day or just passing through, and no means of control other than the limited suggestions for gates in fences were examined before the permit to cull was issued.  

I refer to Wildlife Act 1975 and remind DSE that Eastern Grey Kangaroos are a protected species", stated Mrs Anstis.

“The research is very clear, that kangaroos do not compete with sheep and cattle for food, yet state and federal governments continue to allow the slaughter of millions of kangaroos every year across Australia based on this myth. In fact research is showing that kangaroos are beneficial to the environment and can enhance farm production if allowed to graze with stock”, said Nikki Sutterby,
Australian Society for Kangaroos.

The RSPCA has also expressed concern for the slaughter of kangaroos by private landholders and reported the following in its “Survey of the Extent of Compliance with the Requirements of the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos”. (Prepared for Environment Australia by RSPCA Australia July 2002).

RSPCA Report 2002 Kangaroo Shooting Code compliance

“The cruelty associated with non-commercial kangaroo killing is neglected by the authorities and control over the number of kangaroos killed and the methods used is ineffective”.

“The consensus of opinion given by those associated with kangaroo management is that there is a far higher degree of inhumane killing of kangaroos in non-commercial killing.”

“There is no requirement for the license/permit holder to undertake any training in humane shooting or in firearms competency. In no state is there any system in place for monitoring the extent of cruelty associated with non-commercial shooting of kangaroos and it seems unlikely that any could be organised under the present method of damage mitigation”.  

If this government has it's way, "protected" indigenous animals will no longer be living in our State, except in parks, zoos and sanctuaries.   Victoria is already the most damaged and cleared State of Australia.  Native animals are being made the scapegoats for Victoria's demise when they are actually a part of our ecology, not environmental threats.

“In summary, the Code requires that when a female has been killed her pouch young must also be killed immediately by decapitation, a heavy blow to the skull, or shooting.” Is this how we treat our wildlife?

AWPC - Government sanctioned cruelty

PLEASE CONTACT VALERIE HICKEY FOR PHOTOS THAT EXPOSE THE HEALTHY PASTURE COVER ON HER NEIGHBOUR'S PROPERTY, WHERE KANGAROOS WERE AUTHORISED TO BE KILLED TO PROTECT PASTURE.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT

VALERIE HICKEY
03 51548581/0427548581/41079007

CAROLA AND RON ANSTIS
CARLISLE RIVER WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
PH; 52350202

NIKKI SUTTERBY
CO-ORDINATOR
AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY FOR KANGAROOS
PO BOX 524 CASTLEMAINE VIC 3450
PH; 0417354408

More action needed on the DACs. The dreaded Development Assessment Committees.

This article is about the dangers of passing a law to create these DACs, which have been fought off twice but keep coming back because the developers and their friends in government want them - not because they are good for the rest of us.


Mary Drost of Planning Backlash writes:

"The matter has not yet been debated or voted on in the Upper House. It will come back to Parliament on Tuesday the 10th November.

People who have read through the Bill say that it is even worse than they had thought.

"It really puts the power into the hands of the Minister to do whatever he wants in all Activity Centres. He appoints 3 out of the 5 committee members. The other 2 can be council officers or councillors who will in effect have no control. For example, is there street level parking in your shopping centre? They could take it over and build on it and there is nothing you or your council can do.

Put that together with the changes in the Planning Act that are coming through which will give any one, including developers, the right to put amendments to the Minister to changes protective overlays, such as tree protection or heritage overlays, so they can build whatever they want wherever they want.

Plus giving the minister increased powers of compulsory acquisition.

Think what real trouble we are in.

Then please take action again and send off emails to the opposition parties in the Upperhouse Libs, Nationals, Greens, DLP.
Names and addresses are on the #10;<p>We need to put the pressure on.">

What's going on?

In 2002 I completed a 100,000 word plus thesis called the Growth Lobby [in Australia] and Its Absence [in France], about the Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France. In this work I asked why Australia had such rampant population growth and France did not.

Why did I do this?

Because I was greatly perturbed by the amount of damage that was already being done in the name of population growth. To me it was obvious that, as well as costing the environment, this growth had a social cost - it was a threat to democracy. It was obviously destructive to democracy because it was going ahead by stealth and without consultation or approval by Australians. As the process has become more obvious and overt, the subtle bypassing of democracy has now turned to flagrant attempts to suppress democracy, through new laws.

I used a political science method for explaining why undemocratic, unpopular processes persisted without arousing public protest. The method predicted that, where you have focused [financial]beneficiaries of an unpopular process, those beneficiaries recognise the source of their benefits and organise to keep them coming. However, where you have 'diffuse costs' (as in the costs the public pay for population growth and overdevelopment) most people cannot identify the source of those costs, nor that others are also bearing them, and therefore they cannot organise against them. This is exactly what has been happening in Australia with the Growth Lobby, where a small group of people recognise that they are receiving concentrated financial benefits from population growth and infrastructure expansion, and lobby to preserve and enhance that advantage. (The opposite situation prevailed in France, with population growth and housing counted as a public cost and few opportunities for the private sector to benefit financially from population growth in the French system, which is quite different from Australia's.)

But the situation in Australia where the majority of the population are kept in the dark about why they are all paying more and more and losing everything to growth, can be preserved only as long as the ignorance can be preserved, generally by selective information dissemination in the mainstream press and government.

Whilst the internet made it possible to have an international global real-estate bubble of grotesque proportions never seen before, with private migration agents, conveyancers, solicitors and universities touting for overseas immigrant customers, and newspapers expanding into international real estate dot coms, all financed to the hilt by banks that charged us interest for financing this extravaganza, the internet has also made in possible for some of us to work to educate the public about what is being done to them in the name of Growth. And, gradually, groups have adapted to this knowledge and they are fighting back, saying in effect, "We are not going to pay with our lives and freedom for beneficiaries of the Growth Lobby to get rich and walk all over us. It may have taken us some time to figure out what was happening, but that doesn't mean we are stupid."

Who defends the DACs?

Below I make a belated response to an article by Jennifer Cunich,
"Opposition to planning reform will halt development", Thursday, 11 June 2009

Jennifer Cunich is a Property Lobby Australia spokesperson and blogger, as you will see if you visit the site-link above. Quotes from her article appear here in bold italics. My responses appear in ordinary font.

MS CUNICH: The government is under attack from community groups, councillors and NIMBY’s rallying in Melbourne against proposed planning reform.

I think that the people Ms Cunich calls NIMBY's are actually citizens with a democratic right to object to planning 'reforms' that they don't want. Ms Cunich does not seem to understand that citizenship carries rights to democracy. She seems to think that governments are there to tell people what to do, rather than the other way round. Her attitude mirrors the government's, but the government is a dictatorship and the attitude is a bad one.

MS CUNICH: Around 300 local activists staged an anti-development rally against on the steps of Parliament House on Wednesday 10th June.

Just on the numbers: Planning Backlash estimates somewhere around 600 people because there were three hundred balloons involved, one per person, and many people demonstrated without balloons - perhaps as many again as the 300 that had balloons.

MS CUNICH: Campaigning on a range of planning issues, from the introduction of Development Assessment Committees through to green wedge politics, local community groups are trying to polarise the community.

MS CUNICH: The Property Council has been a vocal supporter of the government when it comes to making tough decisions that speed up our planning system.

I have often wondered what happens to the Government when it tries to resist the Property Council. I would like to know the identiy of all the members of the Property Council to see how they are placed to pressure the government. For instance, is there a relationship, formal or informal, between the mainstream media corporations and the Property Council? Because sometimes it looks to me as if, whenever property developers fear they will be contraried by the government, the newspapers and other media, start badmouthing the government.

MS CUNICH: While DACs do not go far enough, they are a step in the right direction and will go a long way to easing the planning bottlenecks our Victorians face daily.

This strikes me as a hidebound statement. We are having bottlenecks because the Property Council and similar growth lobbyists have prevailed upon successive governments to deliver more and more population growth. So our numbers are overwhelming the current infrastructure. DACs seem to be just a way to force development through despite objections. What is the point in having a vote if your government and big business can do that to you?

MS CUNICH: The debate has been skewed toward a vocal minority, arguing all proposed planning reforms will take away residents democratic rights.

How does the writer establish that the people arguing against planning 'reforms' are a minority? I would argue that I established some time ago that the people arguing for the 'reforms' are in the minority - the minority that benefits financially from population growth and infrastucture expansion, because they own land banks, engineering plant, housing finance institutions, shares in banks, building materials etc.

I would argue that calling the protesters a 'minority' doesn't make them one. And what, pray, is wrong with defending residents' democratic rights? The alert reader will ask, "Who derives the greater financial benefit? People rallying for democracy in the cold? Or developers lobbying the government for growth and fewer taxes? And from that, whose word would you trust on democracy?

MS CUNICH: We do not understand why the DACs are being met with heavy opposition. DACs are independent panels, with representation from both levels of government, state and local, making decisions in line with local policy, how much more democratic can that be?

Well, Robert Clark put it quite well in Parliament the other day. Here is a quote:

"Once created, the new DACs will act in lieu of the responsible authority for all developments within their deemed operational areas, as determined by the ministerial order. The order will specify the class of development to which it applies and the areas it covers.

Each DAC will consist of five members. Three, including the chair, will be appointed by the Minister for Planning, and two will be nominated by the relevant municipal council from a group of five persons who are councillors or members of staff of that council.

The even greater half of the problem is the extraordinary price at which it comes in terms of intrusion on local communities, the diminution of the capacity of local communities to have a say in their own destiny, and the undermining of the role of local government councillors. The government appears to be treating local government councillors with disdain and disregard.

The government has the nerve to call this bill a partnership with local government, whereas in fact it will take away the existing responsibilities of local government to make decisions on planning permits and offers councils only two places out of five at the table of development assessment committees. The government is doing that on an extraordinarily limited and constrained basis.

To start off with, because councillors will have only two places out of five they will always be at risk of being outvoted. The second-reading speech claims that there is going to be an independent chair, but when members look at the bill they will see there is nothing of the sort — the chair is to be appointed by the minister as are the two other non-council nominees.

The local community representatives can be either councillors or members of staff. I think it will be highly likely that councillors will find it virtually impossible to become involved with a DAC. If they do, they are certainly going to be under extraordinary constraints.

There are confidentiality provisions governing members of DACs. The councillors who take part in them are almost certainly frequently, if not always, going to find themselves outvoted. They are then likely going to come under attack from the local community."
Source: Robert Clark, Member for Box Hill inVic Planning Legislative Bill enslaves Victorians to Growth Lobby

MS CUNICH: More and more councils are influenced by groups, such as Planning Backlash, that advocate the BANANA approach – building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.

Well, gee. We can all indulge in name-calling:
And more and more growth lobby groups advocate the BEDD approach - Build Everywhere and Damn Democracy.
Of course, BBOUPUDs - Big Beneficiaries of undemocratic processes undermining democracy - would see people who fight for democracy as bananas, wouldn't they?

Thank heavens Planning Backlash, Concerned Councillors, Protectors of Public Land and others are having some effect. If they were not then we would all be at the mercy of the Property Council of Australia, which the government is a member of. Ms Cunich might think that this is a good idea, but she is in the minority - the one that benefits from growth.

MS CUNICH: Developers and the community seek certainty in the planning process. Councillors should work with their local communities to develop sound policy, ensuring everyone knows what the rules are from day one.

Hmm, let's see: "If they cannot have democracy, let them have certainty", said Marie-Antoinette, referring to the angry peasants.

MS CUNICH: The rally also attacked the governments plan to expand the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

MS CUNICH: The Property Council has consistently argued the UGB needs to be flexible to ensure Victoria continues to deliver an affordable housing product and maintains its competitive advantage.

MS CUNICH: The Property Council has however expressed concern about the new Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) and its implementation. The GAIC appears to be intrinsically linked to the expansion of the UGB. The Property Council gave in principle support for the levy in 2005 and whilst the amount is not in question, the implementation is.

MS CUNICH: The development community and the community at large are sick of waiting for major infrastructure projects to be delivered.

MS CUNICH: As stated, we have growing concerns around the implementation of the new Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution and are eager to make sure that the infrastructure delivery meets the needs of local communities but does not cripple the residential development sector.

Surely it is up to the local communities, rather than a distant body of commercial speculators, to decide what they need and what they don't need. How could the Property Council, apparently with so little interest in the rights of citizens, presume to direct them like children?

MS CUNICH: The Property Council is urging the government and the Growth Areas Authority to work closely with the the Property Council in determining how the funds from this charge will be delivered directly to those communities in the Growth Areas.

MS CUNICH: Growth is not a dirty word. Growth means more employment opportunities, more revenue to provide much needed community infrastructure, and more choices for Victorians. However, growth must be managed in a sustainable manner and be shared by all Victorians. It is time the community supported the government in its attempts to keep Victoria moving and encouraged

Growth IS a dirty word when growth costs most people a heck of a lot more pain than it delivers benefits. Growth, particularly in property development and housing, is the process that has led to the global depression, loss of jobs, homelessness, constant disruption and destruction of democratic processes. Growth has driven up land for housing and agriculture costs and water costs. Because these have gone up the costs of everything else have gone up. Wages - if you have a job - cannot keep up with these rising costs. Business cannot keep up with them either, because, as well as wages and dividends, businesses must also pay for rent, fuel, power, water and all the things that require land. In the growthist economy advocated so constantly by the Property Council of Australia and similar powerful entities, basic costs render manufacture uncompetitive. In the end even the corporations - the financial institutions and the developers have to go under as all of their customers do. That is what is happening to Australia and the English speaking countries particularly. Furthermore, why should people settle just for jobs? They should be entitled to as of right to land for food to supplement their incomes. But now, even as every price is set to rise inexorably and we are told, furthermore, that this is only what we deserve, the possibilities of growing food are daily diminishing with land-inflation and planning ideology outlawing back yards.

Nothing about benefiting the public here:

"http://www.youtube.com/propertyoz
Our Vision
The Property Council's vision is to become an integral business ally of members.

Our Mission
The Property Council's mission is to champion the interests of the property sector."
And to think that Mr Brumby joined the government up last year! See "Living in a destruction zone".

Rumours of early election if Opposition don't pass Planning Amendment bill

It is rumoured that the Government is suggesting that it will call an early election if the Opposition doesn't pass its loathed bill and that the Opposition may feel that it is not ready to govern yet.

Ms Pruneau, of MRRA, wrote to MPs today, saying, "In our view, if the government uses this flimsy excuse to call an election, it will be exposed for the short-sighted, minority-driven, undemocratic body it has become. Any compromise on your part will serve to endorse that behaviour. Please, let the government lose credibility, keep yours intact."

Indeed, let us remind the opposition that there is honour in standing firm and debating honestly, and that they have a duty to represent the electorate and to make the government do the same where it forgets its role and works, instead, on behalf of big business finance, materials, engineering, land speculation and property development.

In the excerpts of speeches published under the heading DACs 2, there are some notable examples of fudging on the government's responsibility in the whole overpopulation disaster which is Victoria. The opposition is also afraid to comment on this because they are under similar pressures and inducements to support developers over The People.

What more proof do we need to see that population increase leads to decrease in democracy in Australia?

Upper House rejects Planning Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) motion today on standing order grounds

[1]

Introduction Received from Assembly.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I wish to remind the house that a bill of this nature was introduced, debated and the second reading negatived in this chamber in June this year. A standing order of this house in effect states that we cannot within six months of the same session debate two bills of similar content. Standing order 7.06 states:

No question will be proposed in the Council which is the same in substance as any question which has been resolved during the previous six months in the same session.

I note that this bill has been slightly amended, but in substance in my view it is still the same. I therefore indicate that I cannot accept a motion for the first reading of this bill at this stage. I do note, however, that earlier today the government gave notice of a motion for the suspension of standing order 7.06 in relation to this bill. Until that motion is moved and decided on by the house, this bill cannot proceed any further.

[1] http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/pdf/Council/Jul-Dec%202009/Council%20Jul-Dec%202009%20Daily%2016%20September%202009.pdf

See alsoDACs 2: Highlights: Macedon Member Duncan makes bizarre statements about population growth in Victoria and DACs 2 Highlights: "The Bill is a very blunt instrument" (Mr Morris, Mornington, Victoria)

Editor's introduction. We were amused to read of this report in the Age and it seems a fitting introduction to the analysis below by A.H. of the infamous 'New Residential Zones for Victoria.

"NIMBY mentality holding us back:
JASON Dowling (Comment & Debate, The Age, 20/2/09) outlined some prime examples of how Victoria's "not-in-my-back-yard" mentality is damaging the modernisation of our state. The disruption to development timetables caused by frivolous complaints often delays essential community projects for months. Master Builders Association surveys show planning delays average over 20 weeks and push up the cost of new homes significantly. More than $1 billion in community projects are held up in the planning system now.

We do not support open-slather development. Municipalities have the right/obligation to set the strategic planning framework. Thereafter, the interpretation should be left to people who can dispassionately interpret whether projects fit within the framework.

The State Government's plans to fast-track some of these projects will help provide essential community infrastructure, underpin 194,000 building jobs, and provide greater certainty for Victoria's building industry. Brian Welch, executive director, Master Builders Association of Victoria"

The DEVIL is in the detail. What every residential property owner should be aware of:

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE ZONE

• The name says it all, open slather, free range for development, Substantial Change. Money for jam for all developers. NSW style development. Anything goes. Let it rip!! You bewdy!! Towers, Towers, Towers etc. You know what it means. This is where we stuff the 1000 new residents who come to Victoria each week to live, if we can, and some in the other zones too. In 5-10 years this Zone won't be the same. Substantial means just that, Substantial Change. No further explanation needed or required.

INCREMENTAL CHANGE ZONE

• The information sheet (bottom of cover page) dated February 2009 states “The Incremental Change Zone allows for a variety of housing types including medium density. housing provided that it respects the character of the neighbourhood”

• However, upon reading the description of the Incremental Change Zone it states: “Purpose. To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households”.

• NOTE: Information sheet says Zone is to provide “medium density”, yet in the Zone description the word medium density suddenly becomes “range of densities”. Medium density is not mentioned in the description of the Incremental Change Zone at all.

• Question: What is a range of densities? Is that like free-range eggs, big ones and small ones?

Subdivision of Land
Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application to subdivide land is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any Subdivision). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

Construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot
Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application for construction and extension is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any construction and extension). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT).

LIMITED CHANGE ZONE

Purpose: To ensure residential development protects the neighbourhood character of the area.

Subdivision of Land
Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application to subdivide land is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any Subdivision). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

Construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot
Exemption from Notice and Review(Appeal to VCAT)

• An application for construction and extension is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any construction and extension). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

BOTTOM LINE:

• The Brumby Government is attempting to take away property rights in all three proposed Zone changes, which home owners have had for many years. These rights include, the right to be notified of an Application, the right to object to a development, and where necessary, seek a review of the decision made by the Council at VCAT. In these three Zone proposals, each homeowner is being done over by the politicians. There is no Government mandate for this style of change which was never mentioned at the last state election by the Bracks now Brumby Government.

• We employ the politicians. We are their masters not the other way round. Kick butt!! Do you know who is your State member of the Legislative Assembly and the other lot in the Legislative Council. (Look under Parliament in the Business White Pages) or Google: Victorian Parliament.

• It’s your property. Don’t leave it up to someone else. Express your concern to your employee the politician! Do something now. Defend your property rights whilst you still have them .

• Soon it may be too late other than to say “there goes the neighbourhood!”. Now is the time for all Good Men and Women to lay siege to their State Member of Parliament whatever their political persuasion maybe and defend the home-owner’s piece of paradise. The game is not over yet. We must all stand shoulder to shoulder like any Victorians and fight this proposal which will change our lives forever. Bad public policy is just that, Bad. These proposed changes are designed to appease the usual suspects, the Property Council of Australia, the Master Builders of Victoria, the Housing industry Association and the Institute of Public Affairs. Will you willingly relegate your property rights to these vested interests? Will you sit by whilst the above-named culprits receive a leg-up and financial windfall at your cost. It's time to attack the Brumby Government with all our fortitude and get rid of these new Zones.

A.H.

Greater glider, illustration by John Gould

Media Release

We have received this information from a media release dated today, Wed 28th January 2009, on the occasion of a media conference with Senator Bob Brown on the Environment, East Gippsland, held at Treasury Gardens, outside 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne.

Call for immediate halt to logging

Environment East Gippsland has called for an immediate halt to logging at Brown Mountain, following the discovery of endangered species in the controversial area on the Australia Day weekend. They have obtained legal advice that the area should be set aside from logging.

The discovery of threatened species in the controversial area of Brown Mountain in East Gippsland will now have to be confirmed by Government biologists this week. Under threat of arrest, volunteers carried out wildlife surveys in the old growth forests.

Both professional and amateur surveyors discovered the presence of the threatened Orbost Spiny Crayfish, the endangered Sooty and Powerful owls and a large population of Greater Gliders.

“The place is literally teaming with endangered species.” said Jill Redwood from Environment East Gippsland.

“The government and logging industry knows it is one of the most diverse and wildlife rich sites remaining unprotected, but refused to identify these animals before they started cutting down their habitat. We had to prove it.”

Legal advice

“Our legal advice is that the Minister has the power to halt logging while confirmation surveys are carried out. However, we have had no assurances from government that logging will cease meanwhile - destroying giant old owl and glider nesting trees every day that it continues.”

“The great tragedy with the crayfish is that VicForests have already bulldozed very close to its rainforest creek edge destroying much of the buffer zone needed to protect it’s habitat.”

Government should cease arresting environmentalists and halt logging

“Before more threatened forest wildlife is destroyed the government must cease logging and cease arresting people for trying to protect these critical habitats.”

For comment: Jill Redwood – 5154 0145

See also: "Bob Brown: Threatened animal find must stop Brown Mountain logging, "Sue Pennicuik: Heartbreak at Brown Mountain", "Sue Pennicuik: Logging on Brown Mountain is state sanctioned vandalism", "Brown Mountain Rape".

(Photo of Mary Drost) The Brumby Government tried to undermine this crucial Melbourne Rally and to avoid criticism by announcing they were modifying their offensive Bill, so the mainstream journalists stayed away. But the alternative press is growing and we will not fall for such simple ploys.

"VCAT unelected, unaccountable and system has lost all respect from community." VCAT is Victoria's Civil and Administrative Tribunal. (Australia)

There was an impressive turn-out of Victorian community groups at the VCAT Community Forum between 4.30 and 6.00 pm on 13 October at Room 2.1, Level 2, 55 King Street, Melbourne from 4.30pm to 6.00pm. The forum had been advertised as "a series of consultative forums with stakeholder groups during 2008."

The seriously undemocratic nature of Melbourne's planning and environment policies and laws is reflected in the rise of so many suburban protest groups, no longer able to rely on the system and the government to oversee moderate fairness.

Groups came from Broadmeadows, Darebin, Carlton, Southbank, Maribyrnong, Seddon, Hobsons Bay, Bayside, Stonnington, Malvern East, Carnegie, Boroondara, Whitehorse, Doncaster, Kingston, Mt Eliza, Camperdown, Daylesford and several other suburbs. More registered but were unable to be there for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, a wide spread of Melbourne was directly represented.

Some groups probably stayed away because because they feel so disillusioned with VCAT.

The chairs of the "Community Consultation" meeting were the VCAT President, Justice Kevin Bell, and Deputy President Helen Gibson. Gibson was reported to have initially seemed reluctant to allow community group representatives to speak.

Eventually Gibson seemed to respond to pressure and spokespersons from most of the groups present spoke -- often eloquently -- of the problems that the State development policy and the VCAT system were inflicting on the people of Melbourne.

Complaints that VCAT-Justice is only for the Rich

Issues raised included the unfairness of professional developers being able to afford top barristers and expert witnesses when many councils are no longer able fund the community right to oppose unwanted developments.

Two suggestions for solutions to this problem came forward. One was that a blind bank of experts be set up and applicants would take whichever was available. The second suggestion was that the barristers and experts be cut out of the VCAT hearings completely, with a return to a level playing field. In this case the developers, residents and councilors would represent themselves.

Brookland Greens, Casey Methane gas scandal

An attempt was made to raise the case of how VCAT had overturned Council objections to developers going ahead with building a new suburb, Brookland Greens, on a landfill. Justice Bell, however, arbitrarily ruled out discussion of individual cases, causing resentment among resident group members present.

This scandal concerns hundreds of residents of the new estate who have been told they may have to leave their homes for at least a year because of explosive levels of methane gas in a nearby landfill. Casey Council subsequently froze rates for Brookland Greens, costing that city $1m. The council fears massive compensation claims. A Herald Sun article said that,

"The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal must accept responsibility for approving the housing development so close to the landfill.

Casey Council and the Environment Protection Authority rejected the developer's original plans, but still the controversial housing estate went ahead. "

Community consult no real dialogue

The Malvern East group told of how they had written in advance about a number of issues to be raised and had been told they were not suitable items. They said that they had then written to Justice Bell asking what would be suitable, but had received no reply before the meeting.

Justice Bell admitted that he had not replied.

The subjects that the Malvern East group had been discouraged from raising were, nonetheless, all raised by other groups at the hearing.

The Seddon group claimed that VCAT only uses the policies from M2030 (Melbourne 2030, Victoria’s State development policy) that support development and ignores the policies that protect neighbourhood character.

Change the role of VCAT to serve electorate better

The argument was put, in a variety of ways, that VCAT should no longer have the role of a planning authority. It should instead become a review board with the task of ensuring that councils follow their own policies.

VCAT rewards developers for bypassing councils

The community groups felt that developer should not take their amended plans for review by VCAT. They should bring them back to the councils concerned. And, if they did bring amended plans to VCAT they should be told to take them back to council to be looked at again.

VCAT spokespersons response was that they were trying to save councils time and money.

But many see the role of VCAT as a rubber stamp for State policy which is no longer democratic and prioritises steamroller developments over Victorians’ human rights to self-government and control over their environments.

Developers abuse 60 day periods for review and VCAT approves

A sixty day review period is being abused by developers, in the view of numerous community groups. They say that developers delay getting information to councils and then rush off the VCAT because they know they have a better chance of getting it approved by VCAT.

"VCAT unelected, unaccountable and system has lost all respect from community"

VCAT President, Justice Kevin Bell, and Deputy President Helen Gibson were told that VCAT was unelected and unaccountable and the community has lost all respect for the system.

The issue was raised that councils often pass an inappropriate development because they say VCAT will approve it so residents are wasting time and money to oppose it. Many bad development proposals don’t even get to VCAT, because councils have no confidence in VCAT.

It is a cause of resentment that the local people and local councils usually know better about their area than VCAT, yet they are overruled by VCAT the majority of times.

The significance/outcome of this VCAT community consultation

Members of the community groups that attended this VCAT meeting wondered if President Bell or Deputy President Gibson either listened or heard the residents’ views on this occasion. One activist wrote, “As an optimist I hope so, as a realist, I doubt it. They have heard from the community [before] and as usual they will ignore it.”

Despite this many remained prepared to go on fighting.
Mary Drost said that she felt proud to be there with “so many really great people who are trying to keep the Marvellous in Melbourne, as well as coast and country.”

It is important to document these reactions to the VCAT Planning ‘Consultative’ forums. These are historical civil steps in an increasingly serious battle by Victorians to regain democracy for their city and State.

In 1845 the Mornington Peninsula was thick with wildlife: herds of kangaroos, wombats, wallabies, many echidnas and koalas and glorious birds, all unused to man and quite tame and inquisitive. ...wonderful trees, abundance of silver wattles, when in blossom, gilded the country and filled the air deliciously with their sweetness. Now population growth is turning the Peninsula into a desert. Research and graphs by Malcolm Legg and Hans Brunner.

Original fauna

Howitt in 1845 wrote:

“ The Peninsula was thick with wildlife, with herds of kangaroos, wombats, wallabies, many echidnas and koalas and glorious birds, all unused to man and quite tame and inquisitive. He described the wonderful trees and abundance of silver wattles which, when in blossom, made the whole country golden and the whole atmosphere filled deliciously with their sweetness.”

Henry Tuck and others also stated that Kangaroos were like herds of sheep and could never be shot out, and bandicoots and possums were in hundreds and that the native cat was one of the commonest animals.

Ms. Cavill, who lives next to the Moorooduc Quarry Reserve commented in her Masters Thesis:

“In the 1930’s we found bush around us, a whole wonderland of animals, wild flowers, birds, hollow trees, gullies and ground water ways.

Koalas grunted all night, wombats, kangaroos, wallabies, possums, echidnas, bush- and water rats, flying foxes and bandicoots were abundant and tame. At night the frogs roared in the darkness . In the evening, swarms of birds arrived in v-shaped formations and landed on the swamp. Black – and tiger snakes were common around the huge Moorooduc swamp that lay below our property and brown snakes and copperhead were a nuisance around the house.
Our delight in exploring the swamp with its sheets of water, covered with swans and ducks, and its spongy islands of moss and tee-tree was always tempered by fear of these snakes.
On our horse rides their was a never failing source of interest in the discovering new wild flowers, gullies of maiden ferns, orchids, minute wild strawberries, egg and bacon bushes and swathes pink and white heath.

There were several other similar reports made by Wheelwright, Kenyon and Hobson, mentioning also many other species and all describing the Mornington Peninsula as teeming with wild life.

Based on historical and recent records there were at least 37 species of mammals on the Peninsula in those early days.

Much the same could have also been said about the many species of birds, reptiles and amphibians. Hobson in 1837 observed the gigantic crane or brolga and the native turkey ( Australian Bustard ). They are now listed as threatened fauna in Victoria.

The loss of native fauna

With the arrival of pioneers and settlers, timber cutters removed nearly all the mature trees on the Peninsula and shipped them to Melbourne or used them to build railway lines or as fuel to drive stone crushers etc. or to clear land for grazing.

Kangaroos were slaughtered in their thousands on single drives and some of the meat, together with koalas and possums was sent to Melbourne for food. Animals were also destroyed because of competition with sheep and cattle grazing.

Much of the land was then used for farming and for fruit orchards. The clearing of land caused subsequently massive soil erosion and mega-tons of good soil was washed into the sea especially along Balcomb Creek.

With the ever increasing number of people arriving on the Peninsula, the remaining natural bush was gradually destroyed and fragmented.

Chris Tzaros recently worked out that for every 100 hectares of woodland cleared, between 1000-2000 woodland dependent birds are lost. These figures could be even higher for mammals, reptiles and amphibians.

With this drastic decrease of suitable habitat for most native birds and mammals, many species have now become locally extinct. (See graph below).

Doug Robinson has estimated that about 50% of birds which originally existed on the Peninsula are now either locally extinct or are threatened. Ground nesting birds have suffered most, especially because of predation by foxes and cats.

A Mr. Woolley and others also used to shoot ducks in the 1880’s for a living until they were almost shot out.

Later, larrikins delighted in the shooting of wild life when the pubs were closed after 6 O’clock.
In the quarry area bandicoots and kangaroos lasted till about 1940 and wombats and the eastern quoll till about 1960. By 1970 koalas, sugar gliders and antechinuses were still present but have since declined drastically and have become extremely rare and the antechinuses are now extinct in the Frankston area.

There is also a growing concern over a serious decline of invertebrates. Subsequently, there are concerns for the future of many species of bird, mammals and amphibians that feed on them. Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation as well as the over use of pesticides has to be the main reason.

In summary, we have taken over all the prime land on the Mornington Peninsula . The rest of nature is forced to make do with what is left which amounts to less than 5 % of a much- reduced quality of habitat. Plainly, this is the major factor resulting in the ongoing, local species extinction and in an increase in ecosystem stress.

Loss of mammalian species on the Peninsula:

From 37 original species = locally extinct and endangered 25 species = 66%

Loss of mammalian species in the Frankston area:

From 37 original species = locally extinct and endangered 28 species = 76 %

To cap it all, we now have, in a large number of reserves, more introduced mammalian species such as the fox, cat, dog, rabbit, black rat, brown rat and house mouse, than native species. (This does not include all the farm animals such as horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and deer etc. that take up land originally used by native animals.)

The graph (data from Malcolm Legg ) shows the loss of mammals on the Mornington Peninsula. Since then, two more species had to be shifted to the “extinct” section, namely, the Wombat and the Southern Brown Bandicoot.

The recent, local loss of the Southern Brown Bandicoot is one of the latest examples. In spite of all the lobbying and by-partisan political support, no sufficient efforts have been made to safe this species. This Bandicoot has been in great numbers all over the Peninsula and its disappearance during the last thirty years has been well recognised and documented. This is yet another frustrating, shameful, local extinction story of an iconic Australian species.

Hans Brunner

(Hans Brunner is a Peninsula Wildife Biologist and internationally recognised as a Forensic hair identification expert, through his work identifying dingo hairs in the Azaria Chamberlain appeal and later in identifying a possible new hominid species in Indonesia.)

Office of the Premier of Victoria

1 Treasury Place
GPO Box 4912VV
Melbourne Victoria 3002
DX210753
Telephone: (03) 96515000
Facsimile: (03) 96515298
Email: premier [AT] dpc.vic.gov.au
Internet: www.premier.vic.gov.au

22 September 2008

Our Ref D08/321239

Dr Alistair Harkness MP
Member for Frankston
140 Young Street
FRANKSTON VIC 3199

Dear Dr Harkness

VICTORIA'S POPULATION

Thank you for your representation to the Premier on behalf of your constituent, Mr Hans Brunner, regarding Victoria's population. I am responding on behalf of the Premier.

Victoria's population continues to grow strongly, with growth driven primarily by high levels of net overseas migration.

The Government continues to emphasise the importance of migration, multiculturalism and population growth in Victoria. This contributes to our diversity and flexible skills base, giving us an economy that is more innovative and competitive.

In this context, the Victorian Government is comfortable with the current population growth rate of 1.6 per cent per annum and is not intending to review its population or immigration policies.

Thank you again for your letter to the Premier. I hope that this information is of use.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Reece
Acting Chief of Staff

Your details will be dealt with in accordance with the Public Records Act 1973 and the Information Privacy Act 2000. Should you have any queries or wish to gain access to your personal information held by this Department please contact our Privacy Officer at the above address.

On 28 July Premier John Brumby came out and said that he thought that Victoria had reached its population limit. A couple of days later he said that he didn't plan to increase immigration. He didn't say that he intended to decrease it though. Australia’s net rate of immigration is higher than it has ever been. Victoria has its own internet site which invites immigrants from all over the world, promising to facilitate entry and settlement. If Brumby doesn't decrease immigration, this means that the population will continue to grow at a very rapid rate in Victoria.

The sector which has goaded Victoria into overshoot typically shirks responsibility.

You might think that the people who run the country - the property developers, the mainstream press, and the banks - would be satisfied with this, but you would be suffering from the same kind of illusion that so many partners of addicts have lived under. Our unofficial rulers, the big end of town - are no more likely to accept limits than a heroine addict or a two year old child. It doesn't matter that their dose is still being constantly augmented; the very idea that it will not be continuously compounded, will send them into spasms. They will seek to place pressure on their supplier, the Victorian government.

Will other Premiers stand on their hind legs too?

Other state premiers, under the same orders, must be watching Victoria avidly, wondering why Brumby has stuck his head up over the parapet. This could put them on the spot too. After all, there isn't a State government in Australia that isn't pushing a very fragile envelope with population, resources, water, petroleum, shaky banks, and infrastructure. The whole lot of them must spend much of their time with their hands in their mouths, fingers stifling nervous screams. And what about the Federal government? No sooner did he hit the Lodge, the Prime Minister practically promised to increase Australia's population to 30 million by 2030.

Is Brumby very brave, or is he surrounded by such cowards that he simply seems brave? Has he recently actually tuned his ear to public discontent?

In our July 1, 2008, "Open letter to John Brumby on his admission that Victoria has an overpopulation problem," we predicted that

"(...) the corporate drivers of [the Victorian] government's program - such as the banks and the engineers in the Academy of Technological and Scientific Engineering (ATSE), and the developers and their allies in the Property Council of Australia, who have dug themselves very deeply into the housing and infrastructure economy, which is costing the rest of us so much - will continue to try to push the government into more unsustainable growth."

And we said that,

"We know that the mainstream press will not be your friend if you start to represent the public democratically in this matter."

We said that because we know that the mainstream press is the mouthpiece of the corporate world which, in Australia, is preponderantly interested in the expansion of mining, primary industry, housing and infrastructure, and that it attempts to manipulate the drivers of this kind of expansion by getting governments in Australia to increase Australia's population through immigration and pronatalism.

Right on cue, came The Herald Sun's really appalling editorial of July 29th 2008, "Premier goes off the message." This Murdoch-gem of pollie-heckling, needs to be acknowledged as an archetypal hysterical response, completely irrational, not even acknowledging the reality that Brumby is talking about, which is that Victoria is in overshoot and we should not be placing more pressure on the State's resources and capacity.

Let us examine the hyperbole:

Firstly, the Herald-Sun puts words in Victorians' mouths, saying that the Victorian people, "(...) expect the Premier to come up with answers, not run up a white flag of surrender."

"The message that Victoria is struggling to cope with the increasing numbers of people who want to live here is not the one John Brumby should be sending out."

Pardon? The writer seems to be saying that they know what lines the Premier was given to recite and that he has read from the wrong cue-board, or, zounds! he has ad-libbed.

Then the Herald-Sun editorialist seems almost to whine:

"If we take his words at face value Victoria is not "The Place To Be"."

This reminded us of a quip by Mr Thompson, the Liberal Member for Sandringham, "

"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," he said, "it should be retitled 'a great place to live, work, raise a family and speak in clichés'"

But, back to the Herald Sun editorial. The writer goes even further over the top, calling it, "an admission of failure" that "Twelve months after his elevation to the premiership, Mr Brumby has surprised us by saying in a Herald Sun interview: "I think we are probably at the limits (of growth)."

Hearteningly, the Herald-Sun also finds Mr Brumby's assessment of the situation, "curious".

"It is also curious, given Mr Brumby has been a vigorous and sometimes brave leader in his first year. "

One might almost hope that Brumby was actually sincere and that his remarks were independent.

Of course, in the end, we may find that Brumby was just holding out for more rewards from the infrastructure moguls.
We hope not.

Even though Brumby has taken his foot off the accelerator pedal, he hasn't put it on the brakes and the country is still running downhill.

Perhaps the most unreal part of this very unreal article was the insistence that the newspaper was representing what the people wanted. In fact, the Herald-Sun had just conducted a poll, "Is Melbourne's population growing too fast?" (In our opinion the poll should have asked, "Is Melbourne's population too big?" and the actual wording of the poll was yet another example of marketing a biased initial assumption, that growth was not in question; just the rate of growth. Nonetheless, the results of the Herald Sun poll at 5.30pm on 31st of July were:

Herald Sun Poll: Is Melbourne's population growing too fast?

Yes
82% (760 votes)
No
17% (163 votes)
Total votes
Total of 923 votes

Furthermore, the first Brumby article, "Premier John Brumby warns of dangers in growing too fast," elicited 62 comments of which approximately 60 were resoundingly negative about population growth. So it all adds to the unreality when the Herald Sun editorial presents the view that Victorians would be impatient at the idea that Mr Brumby might reneg on continuously racheted growth.

"Ultimately Mr Brumby must recognise that while Victorians will tolerate difficulties in fixing the state's problems, there is a limit to their patience. They expect the Premier to come up with answers, not run up a white flag of surrender."

What did The Age have to say about Brumby's views on limits to growth?

We were also interested to see which of half a dozen familiar ways the Fairfax press might choose to punish Mr Brumby.

It did seem a bit desperate of them to bring Ted Baillieu into the discussion right away, and have him apparently trot out the slur in "Brumby 'blaming' migrants," by David Rood, on August 2, 2008.

The slur was disappointingly predictable, and appears to have come from a deplorable press release from the Victorian Liberals the day before, "Brumby's panicked population backflip". In it Ted Baillieu correctly observed that the ALP Government had failed to cater for its population push for Melbourne. He then, however, took the low ground, referring to 'Fortress Victoria' and accusing Brumby of "slamming on the brakes and slamming the door on migrants, who contribute so much to our economy and society."

Although in Parliament the opposition have been continuously deploring the impact of high immigration in Victoria, their leader, Ted Baillieu, without actually saying how many Victorians he wants, came out and said, according to the Age, in ("Brumby 'blaming' migrants") that the Premier was making migrants into scapegoats in an "appalling" attempt to cover for his failure to deliver basic services such as public transport, hospitals and water."

Ted did not sink as low as he might have, however, since, "when asked [by the Age] if the Premier was "playing the race-card", Ted said he was not.

Why did the Age ask whether Brumby's comments could put Victoria's social cohesion at risk?

"Asked whether Mr Brumby's comments could put Victoria's social cohesion at risk, Mr Baillieu said some pretty ordinary messages were being sent overseas at the moment. He said some international students from India and Asia had been the victims of violent attacks," quoth The Age.

What has this got to do with the Premier's recognising that Victoria's population is in overshoot of its resources and infrastructure? Is Mr Brumby expected to continue to ramp up immigration until the city is completely overwhelmed, traffic at a standstill, with shanty towns in the parks and people sleeping in the subways and streets?

Why doesn't the Age admit that the social cohesion of Victoria has been damaged by the ramming through of intensification measures such as in Melbourne 2030. The Age could not have remained unaware of the plethora of negative submissions to the government on Channel Deepening, the Melbourne 2030 audit, and the Land and Biodiversity White Paper, to name a few issues arising from artificially stimulated population growth plans.

A case could be made that the Age is threatening Victoria's social cohesion by quoting Ted Baillieu's words in what seems like an irrelevantly racist beat-up. Why didn't the Age ask the Premier for the real reasons for his apparent epiphany of caution? What about some thoughtful interviewing for a change? Why pretend that this is anti-immigrant? What about pro-stability? It looks from their slant like The Age would like to shut the public up on the subject of population numbers by making it seem a dangerous and unsavoury topic, and to put Brumby off any independent thinking by dragging Ted Baillieu ostentiously across the path like a bait. In other words, it seems like The Age is using unfair tactics to influence or silence political debate.

"We have to send the right message. Scapegoating migrants for a failure to plan and a failure to deliver basic services is wrong, it's appalling, it's pretty low," Mr Baillieu said.

Why did Baillieu suggest that the Premier was 'scapegoating migrants'? What evidence did he give for that statement? Why did the Age print it without strong supporting evidence?

When asked if the Premier was playing "the race card", Mr Baillieu said "I'm not suggesting that.

It shows how over the top the attacks on Brumby are when even an immigration spokesperson, the Chairwoman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, Voula Messimeri, finds that there is nothing wrong in what he said, noting, unfortunately, that immigration is at a very high rate still.

""I don't think slowing the rate of growth is blaming immigration or ethnic communities," she said. "Victoria has absorbed a large number of migrants and done a pretty good job in making sure that cultural diversity and migrants are seen as valued," she is reported to have said, by The Age.

The Age article continued with their strange beat-up:

"Despite his attack on the Premier, Mr Baillieu would not nominate a figure for which he thought Victoria's population growth rate should be set. "You have growth rate you can accommodate," he said. "I'm not going to lay a figure on the table and say 'that's it and then you shut the door'."

Of course Mr Baillieu isn't going to nominate a figure; presumably he knows that whatever figure he cites it will not be enough for the Age or the Herald Sun, but it will be too much for the voters.

The journalist observed,

"Nor would the Opposition Leader say whether he thought national migration levels should increase."

And nor did the Age journalist apparently canvass the opposition leader's opinion as to whether he thought national migration levels should decrease. Why not?

National migration levels have increased above any previous levels already, and the Prime Minister is obviously under instructions to pump them up even further. It is well known that ATSE and the Multicultural Foundation of Australia and the Scanlon Foundation, would like our immigration rate to increase annually.

The Age subsequently ran a poll about Victorians' attitudes to Australia's population growth, with this result:

Is Victoria's population growing too fast?
Yes - 77%

No - 23%

Total Votes: 934 (on 2 August 2008 at 11.20pm)

Once again the public are only given a choice about 'rate' of growth, not 'growth' per se.
Their answer is pretty unequivocal though.

We can probably expect more articles soon which will suggest that Victorians are becoming racist because they think the population is growing too fast, and there will be some familiar faces from the growth lobby talking about how Victorians need to be educated [again] about the benefits of immigration.

Hopefully Mr Brumby will withstand the pressure. Let us dare to hope against hope that this is just a prelude to a much lower population growth rate in Victoria. Staying at the current very high growth rate is courting disaster. Wouldn't it be wonderful to STOP growing? And, wouldn't it be fabulous if Mr Brumby were to actually govern for the people instead of for the media and the rest of the big end of town? That would make him a truly unusual 21st century western politician.

See also: Open letter to John Brumby on his admission that Victoria has an overpopulation problem of 31 Jul 08.

Planning Activist, Christine Pruneau, of the Macedon Ranges Residents’ Association Inc, said, of the reasons for the public meeting in Melbourne yesterday, that the meeting was about the imminent New State Residential Zones and State Government removal of Council planning powers.

Ms Pruneau stated that the meeting was of interest to, "All Victorians who are concerned about what’s happening with planning in Victoria."

Although the meeting was to focus in particular on the impending new residential zones that "remove residents’ rights to object to or even know about planning applications," and removal of Councils’ planning powers by the Victorian government, Ms Pruneau said,

“This is as much about civil rights as it is about planning. It cuts to the question of whether the principles of consultation, transparency and accountability will survive in Victoria’s democracy."

"In Victoria, planning is being taken over by (handed to) development interests. Even the Department of Planning and Community Development is a member of the Property Council of Australia," she explained.

She added that, "The Department says this doesn't mean it has a conflict of interest," but, "MRRA says it does."

Just because you live in regional Victoria, does not mean that your rights and your environment are safe:

"Not only do these new residential zones wipe out residents' rights, but they’ve been written for Melbourne, and as usual, rural areas like Macedon Ranges and Bendigo will be forced to take them. It’s the same old story, same ghastly deficiencies, same ghastly outcomes. The difference is, this time residents won't be allowed to know or have a say when that ghastly (suburban) development happens," Pruneau stated.

Candobetter says that this is an Australia-wide stalking of our rights.

Ms Pruneau told of changes which had already happened in New South Wales.

"The NSW government has just changed its planning Act to remove, by law, residents’ rights in planning matters. This meeting is an opportunity to say we don’t want that to happen in Victoria."

Summing up, she said,

"There comes a point where if people don't stand up against injustice, they are condemned not only to live with it, but more and more of it."

She invited Victorians to take a stand.

For more information on the meeting and public transport, go to MRRA’s website (www.mrra.asn.au) or Planning Backlash (www.marvellousmelbourne.org), or call Christine Pruneau on 03 5427 1481.

NB Macedon Ranges Residents’ Association Inc [MRRA] is an affiliate member of Planning Backlash and of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian Branch.

See also: Melbourne protests mass pop growth.

For his political courage in speaking out against undemocratic, but mainstream media and government endorsed, growth, actor, Geoffrey Rush deserves particular historic recognition from Australians. He launched a new website: Marvellous Melbourne at https://marvellousmelbourne.org. Candobetter.net editor 12 January 2017: Unfortunately, eight years later it is no longer maintained, so we have removed the link. Candobetter.net remains one of its memorials. However the problem those optimistic protesters set out to solve has grown every year into a behemoth that threatens many of our institutions and certainly our way of life, all over Australia.

On Sunday July 6, 2008, Planning Backlash held an impressive public meeting in Mooney Valley.
Speakers included Blue Wedges activist, Jenny Warfe, and Actor Geoffrey Rush.
The meeting focused on the imminent threat of two key changes to government powers:

- New residential zones that remove residents’ rights to object to or even know about planning applications, and
- Removal of Councils’ planning powers by the Victorian government.

Jill Quirk, of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian Branch, described the meeting as "Amazing".

Jenny Warfe evoked the ultimate pointlessness and crudeness of dredging operations in OUR Port Phillip Bay.
Geoffrey Rush launched a new website for Planning Backlash, called Marvellous Melbourne at marvellousmelbourne.org.
He spoke movingly of how utterly Melbourne will be transformed over the coming years. He also intelligently and courageously questioned the necessity for the population growth currently being imposed on Victorians, and raised the question of the optimum size for Melbourne.

For his courage, Geoffrey Rush deserves particular historic recognition from Australians. Although it is common for people at candobetter.org to challenge the grotesque premises and impacts of endless growth, a professional actor depends upon the mainstream media to a great degree. He therefore takes enormous risks in speaking out against politics which profit the mainstream media and which it heavily endorses. Indeed, it is largely because the mainstream media endorses undemocratic growth and the governments which provide it, that we have had this growth and its frightening and demoralising effects imposed upon us.

The Marvellous Melbourne site, marvellousmelbourne.org, asks:

"Is development the same as progress ? What makes the difference ? Is growth sustainable ? Is there any such thing as 'big enough'? What do we want to sustain ?"
And,
"Are elected governments just dictatorships between elections ?"
It states that,
"Planning is off the rails in Melbourne", and asks, "What is happening in the country and on the coast ?"
It concludes, "This site is for you. It is an attempt to celebrate the best of Melbourne - and to encourage you to explore what was, what is, and what could be."

Details to hand are sketchy, but other speakers were a Leongatha area resident who told of how the imposition by the Victorian government of a desalination plant has forced hitherto non-political residents to come out in organised protest to protect their environment and way of life. A woman from Kilmore, where high density living is being imposed, described how antithetical this was to the community's wishes, since Kilmore is a town which people deliberately chose to live in for a relaxed lifestyle and open space. A Stonnington councillor spoke about the massive and unwelcome changes which are looming for that area.

I believe that that other indefatigable campaigner against bad treatment of native wildlife, horrible planning decisions, and undemocratic population growth, actor Rod Quantok, was also there, but I have no actual report.

SPA(Vic) President, Jill Quirk, said, after the meeting, "The over all feeling I got from the afternoon and all the speakers was expressed pain and anxiety over losses continually suffered because of "development" and the consequent erosion of our environment as well as the loss of democracy entailed in the pace and magnitude of what is happening now in Victoria."

Let's hope that Marvellous Melbourne will extend to represent the rest of Victoria, and that similar sites will rise to represent every state in the country, since almost every settlement on this continent is at the mercy of corporatised growth and related forms of exploitation, which our corporatised governments have completely failed to protect us from. Candobetter will try to promote all such democratic initiatives.

We will try to include details of other speakers and speeches as they come in. Please post comments on this article, supplying details of speakers and speeches, if you are able.

Word is that Melbourne is getting its 1 million more ten years early and that the Vic Government is in a panic because it has no idea how many permanent new guests have taken up its foolhardy invitations to come and stay. Who the hell is responsible?

Melbourne 2008: Living in a destruction zone

Once Melbourne number plates bore the motto, "The Garden State."
Then we got Kennett's formula, "Victoria on the Move." It sounded like some kind of unnecessary laxative, prescribed by a mad surgeon. Kennett tried to beat population up and, unfortunately for us, stopped the Victorian diaspora to Queensland. I guess he prepared the way for what Bracks did to Melbourne. Him and the editors and senior writers of the Fairfax and Murdoch press, who nagged shamelessly for population growth.

Since the Bracks Population Summit (2002) the Victorian government have ranted continuously and illogically about how we 'have' to have 1 million more Victorians. For local councils, population Projections exist in two forms:

Council data only go to 2011
ABS "Victoria in the Future" (VIF) series go to 2031.
But ...
The ABS has just discontinued VIF figures in circumstances which could mean that Victoria's actual growth has overshot both target and projections and has shot into the stratosphere. The word is that we are getting our 1 million more ten years early and that the Victorian government is in a panic because it has no idea how many permanent new guests have taken up its foolhardy invitations to come and live here.

This is almost certainly the reason for the hasty attempts to introduce draconian new "no-go", "slow-go" and "go-go" residential areas (now described as "areas of 'limited change', 'incremental change' and 'substantial change'.

“What I tell you three times is true.”
(Lewis Carrol, The Hunting of the Snark)

One of my most difficult tasks in writing about these matters is to overcome the propaganda which says that we must have economic growth and that for economic growth we must have population growth.

The Federal and State governments and the news-media repeat this all the time, despite much contrary evidence, and most people believe it because they have no other source of information.

On the one hand the State Government actively seeks to attract more and more immigrants to Melbourne.

On the other, it pretends that population growth is some irresistible force over which it has no control and for which we must all make way no matter what the demands.

Verify this by going to the Victorian Government’s immigration pages at http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au
Here's a sample of www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au:

and there is a special page to assist private immigration agents.

Yes, your government is really working overtime to overpopulate this country.

Alice in Victoria

Asking the public to accept massive intensification of infrastructure, huge cost increases, and loss of rights and space, and nature, on the grounds of a responsibility to reduce greenhouse emissions whilst bearing government imposed, unnecessary population growth is an Alice in Wonderland task.

Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (Alice in Wonderland.)

But the Government is asking of the public to believe impossible things through the Melbourne 2030 program. Even the so-called independent auditors of Melbourne 2030 keep up the ridiculous charade:

Whilst recognising that almost everyone except developers hates Melbourne 2030, the ‘auditors’ of it write in their ‘independent report’:

“At the same time, local communities must be prepared to take a broad metropolitan view that recognises the necessity of urban consolidation,” they write, giving the reason as:

“(…)the urgent housing need resulting from unprecedented population increase and the need to reduce travel and greenhouse emissions to meet our responsibilities towards climate change.”

But even the Auditing Committee shows some unease, although not enough to save Melbourne or to question all the growth. They wrote:

“The recently released report of the Ministerial Working Group Making Local Policy Stronger (June 2007) and the subsequent State Government Five Point Priority Action Plan recognised community concerns in relation to existing residential zones. It proposed a way forward by enabling the identification of ‘no-go’, ‘slow-go’ and ‘go-go’ residential areas (now described as areas of ‘limited change’, ‘incremental change’ and ‘substantial change’) (...)”

“We would caution strongly, however, that the implementation of the five point action plan will not ease community tension unless local communities play a significant role in the application of new zones.”

Is conning the public going to make up for oil depletion and water scarcity?

Analyse the problem:

• Growing the population and expanding infrastructure will increase the number of car trips and the distance travelled.
• Modern high-rises are power-hungry.
• Building upwards increases the electrical power requirements for air conditioning, heating, drying clothing, moving things and people up and down in lifts and pumping water upwards.
• It is harder to cool and heat high-rises and it is harder to cool large, dense cities.
• Reducing vegetation reduces rainfall and cooling.
• Reducing access to land deprives people of access to vital resources when governments fail (as they invariably do.)
• Our Victorian government has already failed us by overshooting our water supply. It has attempted to supplement that supply by costly, power-hungry technologies, notably desalination. It has undertaken in ignorance an impossible promise to deliver these with alternative technologies.

Analyse the propaganda

We are running out of water, fuel, and affordable food; native flora and fauna are threatened, and democracy has been sacrificed to growth.

Driving these problems is Melbourne 2030 in its role as a vehicle for imposing massive population growth.

But what is driving Melbourne 2030?

Population growth via immigration is not, as we are led to believe, a kind response to the starving millions of the world.

And it is not to create a better world for the rest of us.

• Apart from a small number of refugees, the immigration program is actually all profit-driven by big business in Australia. The profit goes to a corporate and investor caste well out of the reach of the middle and the working classes.

• The number one profiteers in population growth in Australia are international property developers, which include Finance, construction, real-estate, engineering.

The 2002 Bracks Population Summit …

…was largely auspiced by Property Developers, in APop (The Australian Population Institute) and mortgage financiers. As well as Australia’s mainstream Press – Fairfax and Murdoch - which own www.realestate.com and www.domain.com.au, Mr Richard Pratt and Mr Steve Vizard, both involved in criminal activities for financial gain, were very prominent in this event.

Perhaps the two biggest peak bodies currently coordinating government lobbying on population growth to advantage the industries they represent are:
• The Property Council of Australia
• The Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (working with the Scanlon Foundation and the Australian Multicultural Foundation.

Here are the main aims of the Property Council of Australia, from their own document, "Powerhouse 2010 Update" downloadable as a powerpoint file here

Don't you love it! Melbourne - and the rest of Australia - under permanent construction.
Ah, the excitement of choking traffic in the mornings; the challenge of breathing in that dust.
The joy of watching your favourite piece of nature paved over.
The engagement of foregoing sleep to write useless submissions to your local member and state government.

Gee, our taxes at work! 33% of my wages. And then, on top of that, there are those rising council rates, that burgeoning homelessness, those skyrocketing rents, those outrageous property prices, that choking traffic...

And, here is their latest 'branch' member - the Victorian Government.

The Problem: Organising against population growth, dispossession and life-threatening hardship as oil and water deplete.

The mainstream media and government are corporatised and represent the interests of the corporate world. We cannot rely on them for information, guidance or to organise. We need to communicate outside of them: Internet, word of mouth, books, films, meetings and markets.

Organising requires comunication between neighbours and kin and power at a local level.

Default human social structure is along kinship lines of family and clan.

• Local Communities with a history together and especially with intact or strong kinship structures have the best chance of organising to survive well.

• Current land-use planning and population programs structurally split- up communities and prevent them from organising.

We need to challenge local laws that stop us having livestock and water for growing food.

• We need to re-design our communities so that we can grow food and keep domestic animals.

• It is vital to get back and conserve full use of suburban land and water. So look out for ways to do this.

The government is public-private corporatising rural land and giving more and cheaper water to their agribusiness program. Agribusiness does not care about you and me; agribusiness quotidienly watches people starve. That is why we have to fight government attempts to retain our water for other uses. We need it.

Laws should be primarily for benefit of local communities, then integrated into region and continent

Inheritance and Land-tenure systems need reform along Roman-law lines, like Western Continental Europe.

Roman-style laws
• Preserve land within families
• Share land equally between men and women
• Minimise land fragmentation and speculation

Basically this means that our inheritance system and land-use allocation and planning system need reform towards:

• male and female equal inheritance,

• prohibition against disinheritance of children (legitmate or illegitimate), and

• leasing to substitute for land-sales

Remember:

Cheap goods are the baubles to seduce and distract today’s indigenous populations.
Today’s indigenous populations are us.
We who were born here.
Let us not be distracted by beads and baubles.

• Land with water and a stable population and society are what counts.
• Land speculation is a mug’s and a con-man’s game.
• High profits in any field are not sustainable in the long term.
• No society that encourages one class to profit at the expense of all the other citizens is sustainable.