You are here

3 Groups censor the rest on population numbers at Planning Backlash Rally 8 June 2017

The Minister for Planning has publicly insisted [1] that Victoria has to fit 10 million people in Victoria with four more million in Melbourne and that that is the reason for the planning dictatorship he is trying to force on Victorians. If we did not 'have' to fit in millions more, no new plan would be 'needed'. Population numbers as a topic dominate the mainstream press,[2] but three residents' action groups in Planning Backlash - possibly trading on their marginal electorate status - reportedly held the rest to ransom for their presence at the Planning Backlash rally on the steps of parliament 8 June 2017. Their ransom was censorship of their fellow groups in a promise that no rally speakers would mention the role that population growth has in driving Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 and all the destruction it promises. Even though the Victorian Government has openly published several written policies for massive population growth, [3] the Yarra Residents' Coalition, Brunswick and Moreland groups of Planning Backlash have been identified as censoring debate about this on the very steps of Victoria's parliament.

In light of this censorship and division, Brad Marsh's statement at the end of his speech, as President of Yarra Residents' Coalition, was ironic, "We have 18 months. Lets work together and see if we can restore democracy to the political decision-making and restore residents' rights."

I protested to Mr Marsh about the censorship and his reply to me was that population was 'complicated' and that the real drivers were money and foreign buyers. My informed response was that the money is to be made through population growth-caused demand and that property is marketed to foreign buyers with the guarantee of population growth pushing prices up. It is extremely difficult for me to believe that Mr Marsh is unaware of this.

Apparently Professor Buxton, together with Mr Marsh, saw it advisable to remove the subject of population growth from those covered by this public meeting.

Well, now that the rally is over and the aim of getting population-discussion-shy groups to come has been achieved, it is important for people to know why population was not mentioned at the rally. It is important because the public are truly mystified by the suppression of real population numbers debate and they don't need more confusion. They suspect that something is going on in the background but rarely does an actual incident of discussion-suppression get reported. People go home with the false idea that they are alone in strongly questioning the state population juggernaut and this makes them less sure of their ground - which is what the growth lobby want.

Several politicians spoke at this meeting, including the Shadow Minister for Planning. One of the strategies in the meeting was the idea of ousting the Labor government for a Liberal Government, in hopes of more friendly planning. There seems to be some substance in the idea that the last Liberal Government, whilst pursuing a similar program of population growth, overdevelopment and deregulation to that of the previous Labor Government, did allow some protections in the form of residential zones, now predictably overturned by Planning Minister Wynne, using the excuse of population growth. Alternating Liberal/Labor governments are like a good cop/bad cop scenario. Mr David Davis, Shadow Minister for Planning (Liberal) made many promises of more friendly planning in his speech at the rally, but the subject of the population driver was not mentioned, of course. A man who identified himself as a member of one of the three groups mentioned above was later heard saying to David Davis (Shadow Minister for Planning) that he was in favour of immigration-fed population growth and David Davis reportedly replied that he was in favour of it too.

The groups that apparently (were they really representative?) wanted population growth left out of the speeches and banners are mostly in Labor and Green electorates, heavily networked by the Socialist Alliance. These north of the Yarra suburbs are already densely packed. Why would people in such overpopulated suburbs apparently be in favour of mass immigration? One explanation is that the Greens and Socialist Alliance activists tend to push open-borders views and to confound multiculturalism with open-ended immigration. Because they lack valid arguments for their positions, they tend to unfairly attack people as 'racist' who don't want mass immigration-fed population growth. This is intimidating and probably stops many people in these suburbs from speaking openly.

Whilst the open-borders ideology is an obvious influence in the inner suburbs north of the Yarra, we should be aware that these views have been covertly nurtured by the property development lobby, which has a record of infiltrating, manipulating and financing people in groups using political activism as a front. See a discussion of this kind of tactic in a Property Council of Australia forum here: Transcript of Growth Lobby video-shocker, "Straightening out B.A.N.A.N.A.S". Unsurprisingly, the Labor Party, which is truly little more than a property speculating corporation, doesn't seem bothered by this activity. (See "Australian Labor Governments or Commercial Corporations?" Many government departments (whether under Liberal and Labor governments) are members of the Property Council of Australia and fail to criticise its overt aims of influencing government to its financial advantage in matters of property and development tax, media influence, and mass immigration.

There are two parts to the attack on our democracy that a rogue Melbourne Planning System carries. One is the way the government 'streamlines' or steamrolls developers' interests over the civil rights and democratic interests of the people living here, citizens and residents. Another is the mass economic immigration that fuels the developers' interests and which the state government invites via its website Since both phenomena are interwined and mutually dependent, one unable to exist without the other, neither should be left out in a public protest. This is particularly so when you have the opportunity of instructing the passing public about the role of government-pushed mass immigration in overturning our democracy and property rights in the planning system.

Note that the Victorian Government, in its population literature, has totally misled Victorians about its major role in causing population growth and driving overdevelopment, assigning sole responsibility for immigration to the federal government. The chief way that the Victorian government misleads the public is by denying its own role in economic immigration, although its role has been major and structural since the time of Kennett. See "Sheila Newman: Kennett population policy, numbers and flow-ons: Regional migration and industrial law under Kennett". [4]


[1] Wynne expressed this imperative to 774 Drive Program host, Raphael Epstein on Friday 26 May 2017. See the following comments:,, and
The Victorian Government has published its population engineering policies for rapid population growth in multiple planning and other documents. See "Towards "Melbourne at 8 million" and beyond", which gives a history of the Victorian Governments' constantly increasing population targets. The Government's population growth policy is a moving target, ever climing upwards and the public have never been consulted, although they have many times expressed their rejection of what is happening.

[2] Although population growth is a constant topic on the mainstream media, expression of opposition to it is suppressed. True discussion of the pros and cons constantly suppressed in the mainstream media. See, for instance, "Yet again, ABC refuses to discuss population ponzi - by Leith van Onselen".
The gambit of mainstream media and politicians, is to pretend that the only issue in mass immigration is race. They thus racialise the 'debate' and excise the true costs of their ponzi scheme to the general public. When parliamentarians attempt to raise the population numbers issue among their fellows, they are frequently attacked.

[3] Victorian population growth policy document:
, "Beyond Five Million, The Victorian Government's Population Policy," December 2004.
Repeated here for regional Australia in a government funded 'independent' think-tank:
[4] Victoria in Future 2016, VIF Frequently asked questions: This Victorian Government 'population research' document pretends to educate the public about trends in Victoria's population, but obfuscates the fact that the government's population policy has greatly impacted these 'trends' in the past and plans to in the future - upwards. The chief way that the Victorian government misleads the public is by denying its role in planned immigration, although its role has been major and structural since the time of Kennett. See "Sheila Newman: Kennett population policy, numbers and flow-ons: Regional migration and industrial law under Kennett". Here is a statement by the Victorian Government which crucially misleads the public:

"Net overseas migration
Net overseas migration (NOM) is the difference between people coming to live in Australia and residents leaving to settle overseas.
In the past, natural increase has generally contributed more to Australia's annual population growth than has overseas migration. However, since 2004-05, overseas migration has overtaken natural increase as the major contributor to population growth. In 2014-15, NOM accounted for 54% of the annual population growth of Victoria (ABS cat. no. 3101.0).
[...] In discussing net overseas migration, it needs to be borne in mind that governments have much less control over migration than may be expected. State Governments have no control and can only influence Commonwealth Government through advocacy. In turn, Commonwealth Governments have chosen not to practice rigorous controls over the number of people moving in or out of the country. Numbers of permanent humanitarian and skilled migrants are capped by Commonwealth Government policy. On the other hand, Australian residents, and New Zealanders, come and go without restrictions. The numbers of long term but temporary migrants, such as students, working holiday makers and category 457 migrants, are not capped, nor are those coming under family reunion schemes."


Foreign investors obviously would not be getting into Australian property markets if it were not for high population growth. The same goes for any investor, using negative gearing. Those in positions of influence who get quoted in the mainstream media and who blame these factors in isolation from investor-friendly high population growth are being disingenuous. Those who repeat these arguments as though they alone hold the solution to planning woes and unaffordable housing are falling to analyse the situation. Investment is supposed to hold some risk but there is no risk in today's big city Australian property market.

Community planning backlash groups who refuse to recognise the pressure of high population growth on what's now called "planning" are being deliberately ignorant, and contradictory. They are nothing more than NIMBYs, who would like to protect their own backyards, heritage and quality of life, and would rather the unwanted "growth" goes elsewhere! They are being rather exclusive and elitist.
The Committee of Melbourne is now in their own backlash and suggest one big Council for greater Melbourne. This would stifle community groups, with David and Goliath scenario. The more of us there are, the less power and significance each of us has.
A “greater Melbourne council” covering the entire city, or a handful of super councils, could be created to deliver rates savings to residents and help the city thrive, Committee for Melbourne boss Martine Letts said.

“We believe a new system of local government that creates economy of scale through collaboration is essential for service delivery and sustainability,’’ Ms Letts told the Herald Sun.'
This committee of property developers would not suggest anything that was not directly in their interests.

Yes, VivKay when I read that proposal for Mega Councils - I thought the same - a further dilution of democracy. And I am not at all convinced that costs would reduce, it would over time just become another impenetrable bureaucracy. Certainly it would be more efficient at developing the few remaining open spaces that we have left. That seemed to be the main intention of the whole proposal. Personally I think there should be a complete ban on the further sale of public lands - nay -that is not enough - we should be seeking to increase open public spaces every year - particularly if they are going to be forcing more people into communities.

Anyway, the whole system is completely unsustainable and when the final collapse comes, our urban populations will realise they cannot feed themselves, that their homes are unliveable without air-conditioning and electric heating, and there will be mass migrations away from the cities, no doubt across farmland, damaging food supplies even further. Future generations will avoid the dangerous collapsing structures of our cities which they will not the have the resources to dismantle, and thousands of years from now they will be sad reminders of mankind's worst period of greed, selfishness and folly.


The "Age" has an article that attempts to railroad population debate to the decentralisation 'option' that government and opposition currently push as a pretend alternative to urban densification. There are very few comments, but this would be a good forum, since they don't seem to be censoring comments and I was able to get some useful URLs in. You do have to register to comment, but you don't have to pay.

I sent this. I thought it would not be published, but it has been:

"There is a great deal of objection to the issue of the engineering of Australia's population upwards by the state, on sites which include and macrobusiness. (Note that despite state pretence that it is the federal government that organises immigration, all states continually advertise for economic immigrants at sites like When 'population debate' is presented as only about 'decentralisation' as in the above article, well, it pre-empts any serious discussion on a problem that will ultimately threaten survival. It is hardly worth reading the Age on the matter, because the Age functions as a growth-propaganda organ, historically in like with its global property dot com interests as well as its corporate mouthpiece role. Ordinary people are terribly worried about what is being imposed on them undemocratically, at growing financial, environmental and self-determination cost in guise as 'smart cities' or 'decentralisation'. (Whose city is it?) A proactive Bill of Residents' Rights has been devised by members of Planning Backlash and it asks that our population growth be scaled back to the OECD average, which is far less than our current rate, as well as demanding a raft of essential property rights. Wildlife carers are dismayed at the uselessness of Victoria's wildlife protection legislation and the carnage created by expanding road system - yet blamed on the wildlife themselves. Our leaders seem to identify with other 'elites' and against the rest of us. And the ultimate hypocrisy are the obscene wars we pursue in the Middle East then pretend that the flight of refugees and economic migrants from these destroyed economies has nothing to do with US-NATO policy or the history of intervention in this region, in a continuation of brutal trade-wars."