Comments

I agree with the post above from ‘anonymouse’ almost posted similar myself. To stop roadkill is impossible and clearly impractical. The “Wildlife overpasses” in the link supplied by Menkit above seem a practical relatively low cost Alternative for Tree Dwellers. Gets my approval and should be encouraged Newer sections of the Calder freeway in Vic have a high Chainwire fences which I assume are to exclude wildlife (probably to protect People) though I am not aware of any provision to allow Wildlife to cross the freeway safely. I reckon wildlife crossings should be essential components on all Major Roadways and considered everwhere. Quark I consider you are drawing an extremely long bow to even suggest that a dead magpie in a 45Km zone was run down deliberately. Unless you were an eyewitness to the event I suggest such wild accusations be kept to yourself. Posting such unsubstantiated notions on an internet forum does nothing for your credibility and merely displays your ignorance.

The dictionary definition of MEEK is: forbearing; yielding; unassuming; pacific, calm, soft, It is not about being placid to the point of allowing injustices and wrong-doing to continue. It is about inheriting the Earth - those who will belong to God's kingdom! Downtrodden, maybe, but ultimately victorious. Christianity has for too long created a plethora of obedience, conservatism, and middle-class correctness. What we need is a radical church, not a silent one. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, they loved their laws and the greetings in the market places, but strained out the gnats and swallowed the camels! They discerned the trivialities of wrong and right-doings, and legalities, and neglected weightier matters, the importance, big picture concerns. These big picture concerns should be more than polite service to the community, good as it is, but about speaking out about the liquidation of God's Creation, about the mass injustices happening today on our planet's ecosystems, and violating Earth's life-supporting ecosystems and fauna so next generations will be denied of a future, a safe and intact planet. The church's MAKE POVERTY HISTORY campaign was lofty in ideals, but is doomed to failure simply because they forgot to factor in population growth. Not one of these organisations mentioned contraception or family planning. There are pious attitudes that "Human beings are the greatest resource on the planet. We are the apex of God's creation"! Until everyone of us stands up to religious interference in culture and demand contraception and sex ed for all there can be no solution to poverty. Poverty is after all promoted by religious corporate interests and results in overpopulation.

'Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said the judgment meant extra precautions needed to be taken before the ban on logging the four Brown Mountain zones could be lifted. ''The decision does not mean that logging cannot occur in these areas in the future,'' he said.' http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greens-hail-win-on-logging-20100811-11zsy.html This statement shows no appreciation of democracy or fairness towards the environment. With ministers like these, who needs enemies?

Yes, and I do not understand why, when most of our cities are on low-lying vulnerable sea-boards, that some climate-change activists seem to think that those cities will not be innundated just like the ones in Bangladesh. Where will the Australians go? The Greens seem to be upper middle class people with a belief that everyone lives like them. They seem to have no feeling at all for what is happening to the suburban bush and human rights among ordinary people here. I sometimes wonder if they are just a front for the big parties.

Once again John Marlowe prones somewhat intemperately. I was put off by the title, and made queasy by the first paragraphs, which seemed one dimensional, tub-thumping and probably racist. Then the article changed to allay my fears and I really couldn't see anything morally wrong with it. Does Marlowe have to be so confrontational, though, to make his points? And must they be so blunt and rather simplistic? A bit more work and detail and perhaps fewer articles would make for some real winners.

good article , we must keep this island clean

Gee, John, I thought they were small 'g' for green. In fact I suspect that they are only B for Brand-name Green. I think they are misleading, basically. They need a new name, maybe something like, Labor Rear-guard, or Friends of the Socialist Alliance. What we need is a Real Green Party. In the mean time I'll take the Animal Rights Party, the Radical Independents and Sustainable Population Party of Australia. There are some 'Greens' politicians that I will vote for, but the parties as a whole are a big disappointment, a kind of institutionalised political road-block - a bit like the ACF and Environment Victoria. While we have these 'official' greens, the real on the ground greens, the people who are responding democratically, cannot get heard. I hate to see how the Greens and the S.A. pick off real activists, flatter them into thinking they will take them somewhere, then lead them down the garden path to political dead ends - corporate sponsored all the way.

Joe's website link doesn't seem to be working. I was wondering what his position is on population and immigration. I thought most anarchists were opposed to any sort of border control such as immigration/population policy? Candidate's position on population growth from immigration is central to how I will be casting my vote at this election. I like the sound of this independent group and their preference flows is pretty close to my politics so that will save me numbering 1-60. http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/gtv.htm#gtv_vic I identify with everything these candidates stand for but the population issue is where I want send a clear message to whoever has power. Reading through most of the party's and candidate's policies it was obvious that many were obfuscating and avoiding taking a clear stance on this issue. For a key issue they are decidedly shy.

Maybe the gay marriage is a symptom of an evolutionary course to limit population growth and land inheritance, naturally. There have always been people oriented to the same sex, but their recognition has become more universally recognised. There should be some sort of recognition of life partnerships and inheritance. However, once you give the right to "Marriage" then gays could claim the "right" to IVF to have children! Overpopulation is causing a new generation of dis-inherited people, without opportunities to own land or a property. Children will be born without hope of land ownership and a physical connection to our nation. Family traditions are expectations are being eroded, and society is evolving accordingly?

Wonderful policies from Jenny Warfe, Joe Toscano and Andrew Sadauskas based on the interests of Australians. However, why add the liberal-progressive: "Same sex marriage to be recognised in Federal law"? Marriage is an ancient and well recognised institution that has been the basis of the traditional family for millennium. Why change something so basic to our society? Not everything is about total "equality"! Once we have a completely level society and "rights" for all, we end up without values. Gay people should be recognised as being equal citizens without discrimination. However, we should accept the Marriage is something that is not their destiny. There should be recognition of partnerships, but as a civil status, not "marriage". No one has the right to marry whoever they want. Everyone is equally barred from marrying another person who is under a certain age, or too closely related, or of the same gender, or already married to another. Sound reasons underlie all these requirements, which apply equally to everyone, male and female. Traditional marriage is based on the words "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, to love and to cherish, till death do us part." Gay partnerships do not usually last as long as marriages with provision for outside relationships. Those who are determined to destroy the traditional family structure have argued out any number of reasons why the minority number of homosexuals (being anywhere from 3 percent to 10 percent of the population), should be allowed to enter into the Holy state of matrimony. It is not "discrimination" but about protecting traditional family values, the "glue" of a cohesive society. The “gay marriage” lobby is well financed, influential and determined, just as were those who succeeded in obtaining abortion on demand as a fait accompli. Since reproduction requires a male and a female, society will always depend upon heterosexual marriage to provide future generations.

Bandicoot is right on the money.

Some interesting info at australianconservative.com/2010/04/let-us-hear-from-the-defenders-of-federalism/ which shows results of surveys undertaken by the Australian newspaper in 2008 / 2010 Shows a clear trend toward a desire to reform. Some interesting stats.

I support the concept of a two tier system, doubtless there are various models that might be proposed toward that end. In addition to a two tier system I would like to see a regular system of plebiscite introduced to keep our Governments in touch with the wishes of the people, a true democracy. Currently we go to the polls every three years and vote for the house of reps according to what appears to us to be the foremost issue from a range of issues at the given time. I would like to see Questions put to the people on major issues at EVERY election so that we not only choose our government but provide a clear indication of the direction we want our country to go and the way the government should perform For example on the issue of population growth both our major parties are currently pro growth it does not matter who gets into power but what do the grass root citizens really want? I believe our grass root patriotic citizens desire and deserve a far greater slice of democratic, transparency and accountability in our governance.

Does anyone have insight into the views and policies of the various parties and both the party aligned and independent candidates on this subject. From time to time one hears whispers, for example the other day I learned that Senator Nick Minchin holds federalist ideals. I supported Howard’s attempts to assume management of the Murray Darling Basin and K Rudd’s desire to assume Federal governance of the Nation’s health system as steps in the right direction. With an election looming it would be nice to know the position of our various pollies on this subject particularly in the Senate. As John Marlowe says the two major parties are more concerned with seeking re election than necessarily providing the best direction for the country. I never vote above the line in the Senate and I have had a gutful of waste, duplication and eternal bitching. I would consider designing my senate vote in the forthcoming election on a preferential system designed on this issue regardless of party persuasion but the research to determine the leanings of the individual candidates is a massive task.

The ADI Site at St Marys is a 1500 hectare bushland oasis within western Sydney's suburbia. For 60 years it has been protected by a high security fence. The site's clay and alluvial soils support plants and woodland are very different from Sydney's better known sandstone bushland. There are remains of buildings that used to stand on the old munitions site. When the Australian Heritage Commission, in 1999, listed over 800ha of the site on the Register of the National Estate, it pointed to its Aboriginal archaeological and social significance, its rare, endangered or uncommon flora and fauna and the presence of the rare Cumberland Plain Woodland. The site shelters the last free-roaming mobs of emus and eastern grey kangaroos in the Sydney basin. However the Government has plans to place multi-unit housing on the site! Construction work is due to start on the new suburb of Jordan Springs next month. The development would see hundreds of hectares of the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland bulldozed. Jordan Springs project director Arthur Ilias told the Press the issues raised by Geoff Brown had already been adequately addressed. “Delfin Lend Lease has worked with federal, state and local governments, along with other local stakeholders, for more than a decade to achieve a balanced outcome for the Jordan Springs project,” he said. The "balanced outcome" will be achieved with bulldozers! If such a sensitive woodland habitat, "green lungs" and archaeologically significant site cannot be protected form the iron grip of developers and investors, it says little of the integrity of our Federal Environment leader, Peter Garrett, and the interests of the Council in profits over patriotism and public interests. Australia's "green" fertile remnant bushland areas will concreted over and only a shell left of our biodiversity, our arable land, our wildlife and our natural heritage - destroyed by greed and wanton destruction. Humans are becoming a plague species, worshipping the god of "economic growth"!

Utopian and business ideals are imposed on populations without considering the nature and willingness of the human species, and by considering them a simply a resource, like livestock, to manipulate, impose upon, and expect them to comply.

We have business pro-growth groups, with bipartisan support from political parties, who want continual population growth, without considering our fragile and limited environment, without considering that the great majority do not want higher density living and larger cities, and without considering the social and financial impacts.
There are mega cities in the world, with sprawling tentacles across their landscape, however, those that are successful have highly monolithic cultures and homogeneous populations. Cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore and in Japan are monocultures.

Our leaders, supported by these pro-growth businesses, want high density populations as well as multi-culturalism.

The ideals imposed on populations by the UN (non discrimination and human rights) look Utopian, but they hide wider agendas and ignore the limitations and the psychology of humans groups.

We read of increasing violence and crimes in our cities, and "racist" attacks. The stresses of coping with a divided society, and ramped population growth, show that our society is stressed to the core.

Human groups are far more complex, and have many more needs and dimensions than the simple requirements of livestock that can simply added to paddocks. However, overstocking paddocks will have negative impacts too, and negative returns.

Thanks for your support R.Raveindran,Sydney I really thought this article may have attracted more comment and debate than it has since it was posted. Perhaps people are happy with the current system Maybe apathy is deeply entrenched Come on folks let us know what you think.

Julia Gillard's poor rating in the polls means that she cannot ignore the Christian vote. Despite being an "atheist", this should not be an impediment to good negotiation skills and addressing some support for family values. Kevin Rudd professed to be a Christian but he totally failed to uphold Christian values and show integrity. By boosting our immigration rate, many Australian people are now dispossessed and displaced from home ownership. The housing crisis is the making of Kevin Rudd in his selfish whim for a "big Australia". Homelessness is on the rise and mortgage stress means having a family is prohibitive. Where are his Christian values, his family values? They are contrary to any meaning of compassion and social justice. Promises were broken and ignored, and as for our planet, Creation, he was quite happy to see the destructive forces of climate change quietly be deliberately overlooked with his impotent ETS scheme. Julia Gillard has professed to being an atheist, but at least she isn't hiding behind hypocrisy. Tony Abbott's faith is little better, and both major parties are obsessed by growth at all costs, even if it means eroding our lifestyles and swelling our cities with further population growth - to please the business elite!

The foundation for global governance is the belief that the world is now ready to accept a "global civic ethic" based on "a set of core values that can unite people of all cultural, political, religious, or philosophical backgrounds." The sole reason to have mass immigration is to have other nations mingled in with white people is to cause disunity. Immigration is forced upon Australia by the United Nations. The UN is sowing the seeds into all the white nations to bring in the one world government. This will restrict the white people from rising up as there cannot be unity within the different nations populating Australia. Iron and clay cannot mix. Multiculturalism is about all the foreigners hold fast to their language and also refusing to learn English. Democracy will be limited as the larger number of foreigners who will have the greater say. It's all about control and the white nations will inevitability lose it. America is militarizing the police for what is coming. Australia is trying but don't have the resources, We have to be politically correct don't we. We have already been assaulted by many population myths, to manipulate us into silence. Where does patriotism end and tolerance to invasion by stealth begin? The subtle language in many UN documents hides the assault on national sovereignty. While sounding affirmative, it undermines any "sovereign" action that might oppose UN policies. But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, its promise of "human rights" does not apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Nor does it apply to Christians who cling to God's "offensive" truths -- or refuse to follow UNESCO. The migration issue shifts national sovereignty onto the same slippery ground. Clearly, the New World Order is a business and economic order. But it is a business order that fleeced the American people in the ponzi loan scheme. On the surface, the NWO looks benign, just bringing countries together in free trade. However, one world government is not benign, and has proven itself to be far from benign. After all, the ponzi housing scheme and the subsequent credit crisis caused a huge transfer of wealth to be shifted from the middle classes to the world's wealthiest people.

A Perth Muslim woman wants a judge to decide whether she can wear a burka while giving evidence. Tasneem, who did not want her last name published, said she had worn the burka for about 20 years and it would be uncomfortable to take it off in front of men she did not know while in the witness box. This absurd case confronts us today and is the result of non-conforming immigrants. Before coming to Australia, they should be willing to bend and accept Australian law and customs, and while we are a tolerant society, our tolerance should not be abused. We tolerate diversity and multiculturalism, but she is trying to push the boundaries even further. Under sharia law, how would this woman fare? She would have few rights and draconian justice! Women have fought hard for equality in the West, for the right to vote, to be educated, to wear comfortable clothing rather than tight girdles and long gowns, and to be equal in society. These cultures are backward and repressive, and confronting. People coming to live in Australia need to accept our laws and customs and adapt. They should adapt to Australia, not US to THEM! She should be treated like anyone else and bare her face in court!

Thanks Valerie. I too am very concerned about roadkill and just today wrote to the biodiversity officer at the local council suggesting what council might do to alleviate roadkill and biodiversity loss. 1. It's not physically possible to put underpasses on existing roads but overpasses should be possible especially where there is a great deal of roadworks going on with bush on either side that wildlife would inhabit. Simple animal crossings could be constructed of roap configured as a ladder as possums, bandicoots and koalas would traverse that. This is something that would not cost very much money and could be implemented widely without too much disruption to traffic. See *http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0011/article_02.asp* 2. More road signs urging people to slow down at dawn and dusk in order to avoid hitting wildlife. As I mentioned, many people are unaware of the possible presence of joeys in marsupials' pouches and if they were better educated more people might stop to check. Could there be an ongoing education of the community via local papers? 3. Supplement wildlife carers for any costs incurred in rehabilitating injured animals (food, veterinary fees, medications, petrol, equipment). I realise this has never been done before but since many carers are on a pension they often sacrifice their own food requirements to look after the animals or buy a cheap type of food that is not good for the animal instead of buying the best food for them. Alternately, carers work full-time which limits their ability to care for wildlife. I have come across injured wildlife at midnight only to find that no carers wanted to help as they had to get up early to go to work. 4. Council could purchase a building to be used as a wildlife hospital and pay specialist wildlife vets and staff to work there 24/7. At present carers have to drive to Currumbin hospital over the boarder which is costing a lot in petrol and stressing out the injured animal unnecessarily. It appears most of the council funding is being used on bush regen and control of Indian Myna birds. Council is spending millions of dollars on other programs, why not wildlife? It is worth a lot to the shire due to our ecotourism industry which is growing, but not if we lose them all due to roadkill! I hope they do more than they are at present as we have huge biodiversity loss in Tweed shire.

There are a lot of "racist" accusations going around, targeting Australians! Ironically, we are one of the most tolerant nations in the world. There are some bigots here, but when we are accused of racism, which "race" or ethnic group are they talking about? We are so multicultural that we almost have no real authentic identity any more. Many people coming here point the finger, and inspect and criticize our attitudes and policies with a fine-tooth comb, but they should first look at where they come from themselves. After years of multiculturalism, mass immigration and globalisation, people seem to think they have a right to come here and criticise our society and laws while in their own countries there are exclusion to other nations, ethnic wars, mono-cultures, dictatorships, theocracies, overpopulation and degrading conditions. We need to appreciate our wide open spaces, our vast and empty (but mainly uninhabitable) lands, our many wonderful coastlines, our unique history and heritage, and Jewelled seas. How many people have actually considered our indigenous peoples and what they think of our neo-colonialism? Why do people always assume that "vacant" land without housing estates and roads is wasted and should be filled with developments? Clearly our government has touted Australia as a safe and egalitarian, tolerant society. The attacks on Indian students have embarrassed our governments and revealed the rising violence and crime in our cities. That Australia is "racist" accusation is another population myth, or method of manipulating the public into silence regarding mass immigration and population growth.

You write much better than you interpret meaning Mr Marlowe. Your assumption that a contributor to this forum is not only ignorant, but a lemming who "needs" to follow your advice (with your footnoted explanation of lemming) is disrespectful. I appreciate your views, mostly thinking along similar lines to yourself. Try to be courteous. There's no need to drive harmless people away from Mr Sinnamon's forum with unnecessary personal attack. Thank you.

Have you noticed how the cultural elites who promote "Big Australia" are often the same people who attach themselves to indigenous rights?

How is it that Aborigines who tried to defend their land are seen as heroes (rightfully in my mind) but Australians today who fight the "Big Australia" vision of corporate interests and cultural elites are declared "racist" and "economically illiterate" (without ever justifying or articulating their own arguments for economic immigration)?

How do we translate majority opinion into political power? (besides boycotting the Lib/Lab pantomime for a start!)

There are many privileges in becoming an Australian citizens. The following are the only obligations:

• Pledge loyalty to Australia and its people;
• Share in Australia’s democratic beliefs;
• Respect other Australian citizens’ rights and liberties; and
• Uphold and obey the laws of Australia.

New citizens should be under probation. Car drivers must be under probation for 3 years, so Citizenship also should be, and the impacts of not complying with these few obligations could be more wide and perverse than breaking those of a probationary driver. Any abuse of our generous welfare system should immediately mean a revoking of citizenship.

People accepting Australian citizenship should deny citizenship to any other country when their probationary is over. Any indications that immigrants commit crimes, try an impose another type of government (such as sharia law) or who directly challenge our ideals should be deported.
Citizenship to Australia should not come cheap and easy!

I believe public anger about the asylum seeker boats has much to do with pay-to-enter persons aided by people smuggling personnel who will inevitably grow their businesses into an unstoppable industry - if the Australian government does not stop it as a matter of national interest. All businesses expand at some stage. In the case of people smuggling, we are going to see bigger, more efficient boats that remove the "leaky boat" argument from the equation. Visa over-stayers plan to disappear into their ethnic communities and are consequently very difficult to find. Although they are not paying people smugglers, I don't believe Australians are any less concerned about their illegality. This is the shared conclusion of an Asian student living in Sydney :- "Australians mad giving country away. Australia Asian country now. We take." Think about it. If any of you have been to Strathfield lately, you will understand what the student smugly told us. I don't hear anyone bagging Japan for refusing "asylum seekers". They are unapologetic about protecting their culture, race and country from outside influences.

It is time to accept that Melbourne has already grown past its optimum size. All three promulgated options to increase housing stock for a growing population threaten to harm both the quality of life and the resilience of our city. This is especially true with the added stressors of Peak Oil and Climate Change. 1) Expansion of the urban growth boundary increases our car dependence. It also destroys valuable farm land and market gardens on the city fringe, thus increasing the monetary and environmental costs of food. 2) In-fill of green-wedges destroys the "lungs" of our city, worsens the urban heat-island effect and worsens flooding from storm-water run-off. Large, open, vegetated spaces are necessary for both mental and physical health. 3) Densification along public transport routes has some merit but there should be a height-limit of five storeys, not the 22 floors plus promoted by the government. Outside of the CBD all buildings should be on a human scale. People should readily be able to climb to the top floor by stairs. Any footprint that these buildings cover should be compensated by extensive roof gardens.

Mr Abbott was asked about his views about Howard's immigration policies of late 2008 when he said one of the Howard government's "greatest but least recognised achievements" was to rehabilitate the immigration program to record levels, because asylum seekers boats had been stopped. "One of the reasons for that was the Howard government stopped the boats." Public support for immigration was falling away now because the government had not been able to control Australia's borders. Tony Abbott cannot be trusted to adhere to his promises to cut immigration. He is deliberately confusing our economic immigration with "border security" and asylum seekers. Howard's "protection" of Australia's borders was a smoke screen to distract the public from debating our immigration numbers. At the time of Howard's border protection issues, Abbott said that "as many people as possible" should be able to enjoy the freedoms and benefits of living in Australia. This is despite the fact that higher populations are reducing the "freedoms and benefits of living in Australia"! Tony Abbott admits he is an "immigration man" and wants a stronger (ie "bigger") Australia. Our refugee intake - that is, people who are processed offshore and come through the system - is anywhere between 12,000 and 14,000 [a year], with another 1000 to 5000 in any given year coming by boat. Many also arrive by air, but these numbers do not get the media frenzy of the boats! These numbers pale into insignificance with those of economic immigration, including students and New Zealanders making their homes here. Tony Abbott cannot be trusted to limit immigration, and is willing to use public fear of asylum seekers, and border protection issues, as smoke-screens to hide the real source of our population growth.

"Dawkins was asked if belief in evolutionary theory was enough to "get us through the night". Irrelevant. Whether a belief gets us through the night or not has no bearing upon its truth. " The only relevant question is, "Did you get through the night?" Breathing, sleeping, etc. are still there, whether you believe in them or not. The fact that you get through the night without believing anything is enough reason alone to ignore those who don't think they will make it through the night without belief. Nonbelief hasn't killed anybody (the tiger might, if you don't believe he's there, though). Belief has killed a lot of people: "Hold my beer and watch THIS!"

RSPCA Watch Dog The RSPCA are supposed to be there for the animals, "all creatures great and small". How native kangaroos don't fit into this category, and justifying the lethal "management" of thousands of kangaroos in Canberra, is simply inexcusable and totally contrary to their stated aims. They have their Million Paws Walk but then they serve another animals in their menus? What about the RSPCA approved eggs, yet the same company holds thousands of other chickens in tiny cages? There are too many conflicts of interests within the RSPCA, and clearly too many funds are going towards their own comforts and overhead costs.

Could not agree with you more James. I am utterly against the privitization policies of Anna Bligh. My attempts to draw attention to my concerns about her asset sale policies failed, but I will persist. I remain seriously concerned and believe that this particular Head of Government should be urgently replaced within the Labour Party. The Council of Australian Governments needs to have a different Queensland representative on it. I have concerns about energy policy in several States including Victoria, Queensland, NSW, ACT and South Australia. These concerns are closely associated with policies for disaggregation and sale of assets, property development and asset management practices that are common practice but not necessarily consistent with a range of laws already in place and those proposed, including generic laws, tenancy laws, owners’ corporations provisions; trade measurement provisions (proposed and pending lifting of remaining utility exemptions). In the case of Queensland certain warranties and assurances were made to purchasers of both contestable and uncontestable assets. See Energy (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 2006 reported in Hansard 11 and 12 October 2006, and the warranties and guarantees made during the sale and disaggregation of energy assets. See the Queensland Auditor-General's 2007 Report with emphasis on energy asset sales and policies. Today I had occasion to write to the Prime Minister drawing attention in the first place to dissatisfaction with the governance and accountability of Anna Bligh as Premier of Queensland, copying that correspondence to other including the Queensland Auditor General. Though the Queensland matters are in some ways unique there are similarities with regard to the adoption and application of certain policies that also apply to other States including Victoria. I will elaborate further at a future stage. There seems to be nationwide dissatisfaction with the governance and accountability of Anna Bligh as Queensland Premier and a member of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). Dissatisfaction with Anna’ Bligh’s governance and accountability appears to be reaching feverish levels despite some supporters. Something needs to be done to stem the ebbing confidence in the current Government. Last night I read an article online published by Inside Story.com authored by Jane Goodall, an independent writer and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Arts, University of Southern Queensland. The article pictures Julia Gillard as Prime Minister beside the Queensland Premier Anna Bligh. I endorse the succinct views expressed by Stephen Le Page as follows: Hate campaign”?…”Media vilification”? Because Bligh is a female politician? Hardly. Most -if not all – the criticism is being leveled at someone unable to come up with realistic policies. The Labor government in Queensland is tired and Bligh seems unable to cope with the challenges. It has nothing to do with gender and it is a pity Goodall discloses her own bias right at the end of an otherwise balanced article. http://inside.org.au/the-bligh-factor/ My attempt to respond to the article awaits moderation. Perhaps it was censored. I am keen to provide some public feedback and also to alert the Prime Minister and Jane Goodall personally as to my concerns. I share the view that the otherwise worthy article was compromised when the author revealed her biases. In addition I am copying this for the attention of the Queensland Auditor-General who will undoubtedly recall his 2007 report and reservations expressed therein. There has been long-standing unrest about Anna Bligh and her policies, especially with regard to her privitization schemes and accountability. Many would like to see a different leader in Queensland. When can the public expect that? On November 2009 in an article entitled “Anna Bligh admits failure to communicate” Andrew Fraser had reported in The Australian that Ms Bligh has been under strong attack from unions as well as the Liberal National Party (LNP) over the asset sale program. Fraser reported on Bligh’s concession that that “she could have better explained her government’s decision to sell $15 billion worth of state assets. I am not of the view that there is room to place any confidence in Anna Bligh's decision-making processes. Perhaps the new Prime Minister will see fit to address widespread and long-standing concerns about governance and decision-making in Queensland. I would be extremely sorry to see Anna Bligh remain in politics - anywhere. It is more than time for someone else to take her place within the Labour Party. I cannot possibly support her decisions, especially the manner in which she has handled the sale and disaggregation of energy and other assets. There is nothing new in concerns about accountability under Anna Bligh's governance. Her policies regarding disaggregation of public assets without any due regard for minimal levels of accountability have been topics of heated discussion since she took the charge and well before that during her time as Treasurer and Minister for Mines and Energy. See for example decisions associated with the inappropriate sale and disaggregation of energy assets under the Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 2006, which was rushed through the Queensland Parliament on 11 and 12 October in the face of considerable opposition. As to the inappropriate “bulk hot water policies” adopted in Queensland and in other states, apparently violating the fundamental principles of government and non-government owned monopolies – that is another story – see my widely published material within the public consultation arena. Otherwise contact me directly to ascertain what the concerns are about. At a larger scale, these policies as adopted are contributing significantly towards detriments and alleged flaunting of existing legislative provisions including under s47 (exclusive dealings) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which will be renamed Consumer and Competition Policy 2010 when all amendments are complete. I have uncovered rorts and inappropriate market conduct, specially within the energy arena, associated with policies perceived to be grossly flawed and am in the midst of exposing some of these practices with particular reference to Victoria’s “bulk hot water policies” as impacting adversely on large sectors of the community. I have already extensively published on this issue in the course of my public consultation participation. Many issues that have repeatedly been raised with the AER, ACCC, AEMC, MCE, AEMO, and other arenas, and though much of that material is re-submitted in the context of further material that has come to light, I make yet another attempt to call attention to my concerns, not only from the perspectives of residential tenants, but also that of many Owners’ Corporation entities (Bodies Corporate) who either occupy as owner occupiers or lease out their property to tenants; as well as those of shop-owners and many others who are apparently frequently exploited by practices and policies adopted by market participants, either licenced or unlicenced, including “metering data service providers” (MDS), property developers and others who see room in the marketplace for practices that should not be condoned. The national energy laws and rules have failed to appropriately clarify matters that will continue to facilitate rorts and misinterpretations as well as unacceptable conduct. The AER is on the brink of further facilitating the granting of exemption licences in the on-selling associated with alleged sale and supply of gas and electricity. Water meters are effectively posing as gas and electricity meters, whilst licenced and unlicenced providers normally known as “Metering Data Providers” are purporting to sell energy in caloric value, where for sale of goods , generic and energy laws the term energy means either gas or electricity. Many States mimicked Victoria’s inappropriate ‘bulk hot water policies” policies adopted in 2007, with Queensland adopting these discrepantly to most others, but in all cases the practices are unacceptable in terms of policy, consumer and business protection and compliance with various laws. Refer to Arrow Asset Management Case reported by Gary Bugden, Barrister I repeat: Queensland needs a new Leader for the Labour Party. When can the public expect at least that - and beyond that more responsible public policies generally? Madeleine Kinston Concerned Australian Voter [email protected]

Nearly all (90%) of the water used for agriculture in 2007-08 was used for irrigation. Pastures and crops used for grazing continued to be the largest users of irrigated water (26%). Other high irrigation users were cereal crops for grain and seed, excluding rice which used 15% of irrigation water and sugar cane which used nearly 14%. Rice was the most heavily irrigated crop in 2007-08, in terms of the volume of water applied per unit area. in 2004 -5, dairy farming used (2276 gigalitres or 19%), cotton (1822 gigalitres or 15%) and sugar (1269 gigalitres or 10%). In terms of food production, it's true that rice requires "many thousands" of litres of water to grow, but this amount shrink to microscopic proportions in comparison with the water needed to produce animal-derived foods, notably meat - the production of which might be described as "sheer, wasteful madness". Modern dairy farming is one of the most water intensive food industries. A dairy cow expected to produce an average of 35 litres of milk per day may need 4,700 kilos of forage and 1,600 kilos of concentrated feed in a year. This translates into a requirement of 13,000 litres of water per year to produce two cups of milk each week, or 1000 litres of water to grow pasture to feed a cow to produce 1 litre of milk.

No community or nation is free from discrimination, some division or racism. People naturally like to be with their own kind. However, Australia must be one of the most well integrated multicultural counties in the world, with so many national groups represented in our society. We are a very tolerant country and have a history of welcoming strangers and giving opportunities to settle here. There are some bigots, but on the whole, we have successful immigration. The problem now is massive and swelling population numbers, and our ongoing immigration is clearly not due to an inherent need for more "diversity", but a symptom of population growth from immigration (about 2/3) being greater than our natural growth. This means that our mainstream Aussies, our heritage, our history, is becoming fragmented and immigrants are no more a minority group but a majority! Our large numbers of overseas born people is a symptom of mass immigration. The "racism" accusation is one being used to manipulate us emotionally to feel guilt, and allow ongoing population growth for right-wing politics to continue. If mass migration and multiculturalism is good for the economy, then how is it that we are not longer the Lucky Country, decreasing per capita GDP, with an increasing crime rate? Nations with homogeneous populations, such as Hong Kong, can support high density living, but Australia as a multicultural nation will find increasing tensions as high populations are forced onto us. Thus, mainstream Aussies and our media will be further suppressed and emotionally manipulated with the "racist" card to keep them silent and to conform with the population agenda.

South Australia's oldest commercial vineyard is set to be bulldozed for housing. Stony Hill, at Old Reynella - named after its first settler and wine pioneer John Reynell - was part of the original 32ha planted with cabernet sauvignon vines in 1839. Devine Homes group is understood to be planning to subdivide the 2.13ha into 41 homes. Many neighbours were dismayed at the loss of the "historic value of the vineyard". The vineyard's State Heritage listing had been removed by the Department of Environment and Heritage. Very conveniently, the State Government simply deemed the site "did not warrant retention as part of the broader site listing". Any historical links, community opinion, or agricultural land, can simply be wiped away with a signature, leaving the way open for parasitic developers to bulldoze their way through! Wine is the area's biggest export. However, the site of the first commercial vineyard in SA will be "being flogged for houses" and will not alleviate any housing "shortages" while the "tap" of population growth, immigration, is still running! Like the word "racist" is a label to silence use on immigration issues, "nimby" is another emotional manipulator to silence those who object to developers having access to our suburbs, our heritage, our land for their own self-serving ends. Only 6% of Australia's land is arable, and covering food (or wine) producing food bowls with housing estates is simply reckless and madness.