New website for Residents without Rights. Also Docklands, Stonington Mansions, heritage land in St Kilda road. How long will the War Memorial be safe?

Here are a variety of things to read and turn your mind to during this long weekend. Don't you love this first one about the new website, "Residents Without Rights". Dont we all often feel like that! This is the link for the residents of the CBD, Southbank, Docklands, Carlton, North and West Melbourne to contribute news items, comments or articles with particular interest in violations of residents rights.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/baillieu-mate-the-only-candidate-for-key-job-20120301-1u60b.html

Would love to know what the CBD groups also Docklands etc think of Peter Clark in this job. You know him as he was a councillor. Just think of planning and developing Fishermans Bend. And here was me suggesting to the Minister that they should run a world wide competition for Fishermans Bend and get it done well instead of another developer grab for land to put up the maximum they can get away with.

#q=Slice+of+heritage+site+up+for+sale+again&hl=en&rlz=1W1TSAU_enAU379&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=dNRST9DaBIvumAXmhqi5Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b88c5d5e498c37ad&biw=779&bih=407">http://www.google.com.au/#q=Slice+of+heritage+site+up+for+sale+again&hl=en&rlz=1W1TSAU_enAU379&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=dNRST9DaBIvumAXmhqi5Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b88c5d5e498c37ad&biw=779&bih=407

Now Stonnington Mansions land, or what is left of it, or what is left of it, is being sold off by the overseas developers who were able to get it in the first case. One of the tragedies that we see so much of as MarvellousMelbourne is ruined slice by slice.

If you read more of this article, you will also detect another grab for heritage land in St Kilda Road. I wonder how long before they start 'educating us' that the Shrine does not need all that land, what a waste of great development land?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/docklands-kennett-was-almost-giving-the-land-away-20120302-1u8l6.htm

This article is about the past - and shows how desperate Kennett was to get Docklands going. Bargain Basement prices. What a massive killing those developers made.

And what a mess they made of it.

Will they ever put it right?? And will they do the same in Fishermens Bend? Why do they get it so wrong?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/can-docklands-be-put-back-together-again-20120302-1u82a.html

And now a review of VCAT -

http://stonnington-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/1m-to-cut-vcat-wait-on-planning-cases/

"As part of the reform moves, Mr Guy said he would establish a working group comprising members of VCAT and departmental officers to review long-term funding options and other possible reforms to VCAT. "

Planning Backlash should have seats on this review committee. Citizens need representatives of their own since DPCD and VCAT seem to be in the hands of developers.

The Mythical Housing shortage and the overseas trade in new home buyers

A few weeks ago I saw an ad from Kuala Lumpur re selling property in Whittlesea. The Doreen Residents Action Group are fighting a 5 story development in what was supposed to be open space adjoining their lake - and what do you think? There was a bus being taken around filled with Asians inspecting it all - no doubt as a result of the promotion in KL.

This mythical housing shortage - it is time to build for Australians instead of keeping prices sky high by selling to foreigners and keeping young Aussies out of the housing market.

In 1987, I attended Duntroon as an Australian Army Officer Cadet.

Despite being a career goal, the experience quickly proved to be a total let down - expectations, standards, training, trust, propriety. I resigned in disgust five months in after being betrayed by my assigned mentor, a serving Captain, for some off the cuff criticism I had made.

After the five months I was more qualified to starch and iron greens and to polish boots than to fire a bloody SLR. I could iron a shirt faster than my mum - enemy look out!

I questioned field tactical decisions in training led by another captain in charge - (who was Duntroon qualified plus with a few years Infantry Corps experience - so he should have been a shining example). I recall after a training 'engagement' personally walking up to the mock enemy 'Majura Force' and asking their opinion of the engagement. They told me that their machine gunners would have easily mown most of us down even as soon as the captain's tactics had commenced. Great! School cadets had been more co-ordinated than this.

I recall a simulated combat wound training where we were demonstrated CPR. The Army trainers were crap. I had previously completed 8 years in Surf Life Saving to Advanced Resuscitation certification and had to show the trainers how CPR was done. Class theory training was rushed and superficial and many cadets fell asleep because they were only getting 5 hours sleep a night due to ironing and polishing their kit ready to shine for next morning parade. But ask most of them about the effective range of an SLR - no friggen idea!

What was the bloody point? I felt that if I had continued I would be eventually be a dead duck in combat. I resigned in disgust. I dismissed it as a 5 month camp and moved on. That was twenty five years ago.

I had an aviation cadetship on entry to Duntroon so I was in a rare training stream of 1 in 300 of the intake of January 1987 to enter the Army's Aviation Corp and to fly Blackhawks. I did not think this was special since I had previously invested $30,000 on helicopter training, so obviously my so-called 'aptitude' for flying was going to be half reasonable. If others had done similar, then they would have been too. But the crap at Duntroon was not worth it. I lost respect for the training, the NCO's, the officers, the commanders, the Army.

It was not the noble army that my father had served in as a NASHO.

One of the cadets in Kakoda Company that was assigned to my section was Julian Knight.

While I was slightly older (23) than the mean age and so slightly more mature, Julian was slightly younger (18) than the mean age and so slightly less mature, naturally. We were assigned into the same section - luck of the draw. There were just three of us in the section. I don't recall the third cadet's name (Chris?) but he was slightly older than me and married. Julian and I shared bush navigation exercises and on one particular field exercise the two of us shared a 'hoochie' (Army issue tent fly). As a team we were becoming quite proficient on exercise in our First Term. On 'Move Out', he would pack our sleeping bags, while I packed the hoochie and from being asleep to being mobile took us under 2 minutes. Julian was an excellent shot on the rifle range. I think I was barely adequate. In fact I recall two illegal discharges one involving a blank, and another when I fired a last round on the target range after not hearing the 'cease firing' command.

Back at Duntroon, we respectively had a score of boots and greens presentation 'show parade' penalties stacked against us - basically as punishment for not being up to scratch on substandard uniform presentation - for unrelated reasons. At the time I left, he and I shared the highest number of these 'show parades' for all Duntroon - I recall I had 21, he had amassed 26. It seemed par for the course.

Julian was a keen soldier, coming in with a background in the Reserves as a trooper. He displayed no fear when an assault was on. He was up the front. Perhaps he was an Albert Jacka VC in the making. Albert Jacka VC became a legend from Gallipoli and the Somme with a record of killing over 200 enemy - doing what he was trained for. [Read about Albert Jacka]

But Julian was abused from his early training. I believe because his immaturity and them misreading his keeness made him a target of the bullying culture at Duntroon. More than most cadets, he was ridiculed, harassed, persecuted, tormented and ostracised by the more senior cadets, and especially by the big and bulky Kakoda Company head cadet sergeant. This man took a personal dislike to Julian. One 2am occasion Julian had his room burst into and hosed down completely with a fire hose, then was inspected at 5am as part of drill. Kakoda Company had a reputation then as particularly more parochial and uncouth. It was ignored as being part of the training 'in this man's army'. Julian Knight probably copped more abuse than anyone else in that intake. In my book he was a victim of Defence Force abuse and bastardisation.

After I left in May 1987 and ultimately resigned from the Army in disgust in July 1987, I recall the next month in the national newspapers, Julian Knight was on the front page.
He had become the Hoddle Street mass murderer. The shootings resulted in the deaths of seven people, and serious injury to 19 others.

What had happened in the months May, June, July 1987 had obviously got worse for Julian, but I was not there. In some ways I had been his only true support but I should have done more. I had once spoken up in front of the entire complement of Kakoda Company after the CO had tokenly asked if any staff cadet had any concerns. It was dead silent, with everyone playing the obedient wall flower. But I spoke up. I complained to the CO in front of them all that in daytime theory classes many cadets were falling asleep because of the late night spit polishing and I asked what is the point? I got ostracised after that one. But it was the sought of standing up against the bastards that Julian and I celebrated.

Media reports tell of how he was expelled after a bar brawl in which he stabbed his key tormentor - the third term head cadet sergeant of Kakoda Company.

At the time I expected the media to be pursuing me for a story, since I automatically connected the massacre with his Duntroon persecution. But no-one ever contacted me. No-one ever connected his actions with his Duntroon torment.

It has taken me 25 years to be public about this.

I make no judgment about Julian. Each of us is capable of killing, killing animals, killing another human being. Rifles are very efficient at killing, that is what they are made for, to make the task easy. Armies exist to train those interested to kill. Duntroon is one such training establishment. The psychological tests to gain entry ask if one is prepared to kill and if one says no, then one is rejected as unsuitable. Controlled, just killing is sanctioned by governments in their armies and governments represent the will of their societies. What happens when a keen, capable soldier is abused by the Army, when this abuse involves repeatedly consistent ridicule, torment, intimidation and psychological torture? Well, like the reinforced intense training of a soldier to kill makes for a good solider, the reinforced intense abuse of a soldier to kill makes for a bad soldier. When frustration boils over into extreme anger mixed with depression and presented with an opportunity to get pay back (easy access to weapons), do you get 9th August 1987?

I do make a judgment about Duntroon. Incessant bullying of Julian was a key contributing factor that led to the Hoddle Street massacre.
I regret not having come forward before. What happened on Hoddle Street in August 1987 could have been avoided if Duntroon had not been a cultural incubator of bully boys in its officer training. I hold Duntroon culpable for the psychological state that it created in Julian. I only know Julian from my time with him doing basic training. He was someone you could trust in battle when the shit hit the fan. That attribute was never respected by the Duntroon establishment. They just kept picking on him and putting him down.

The place is a depraved throw back to the 19th Century. Duntroon breeds old school bully boys not deserving of officer status. It would be an excellent outsourced training ground for the Syrian Army. Is that what standard Australians expect of its Army leadership?

I read about ADFA today and I see that Australian Defence Force training culture has not changed.
Pity anyone not a bully boy enrolling, women especially.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith was right to take a moral stance against the injustice of the Army establishment, and haven't the old boys come out in closed ranks fighting!

Useful Reading:

Hoddle Street Massacre, 9th August 1987

ABC Radio National - Life Matters Programme: 'Lethality in Combat'> aired 5th March 2012.

'Lethality in Combat' by Military historian and formal naval officer Tom Lewis.

A billionaire legally pays no personal income tax despite being heavily involved in the biggest resources boom ever seen in Australia. Poverty, unemployment, homelessness and inadequate public housing, public healthcare and public hospitals continue to be a pressing concern for an increasing number of Australians living on a continent inhabited by 22 and a half million people who are in the midst of an unprecedented resources boom. The Victorian state government, needing 250 million dollars to tackle the crisis in the child welfare sector, can find 55 million dollars for a four day Grand Prix but can only find 12.5 million dollars to tackle the pressing issue of child welfare.

Disillusioned?

Billionaires publicly squabbling over football teams bring the game into disrepute. Another billionaire tries to squeeze every last cent out of the Australian Grand Prize concession despite successive Victorian State government’s having wasted half a billion dollars of public money trying to keep alive a private sporting event that should have been euthanised years ago. A billionaire legally pays no personal income tax despite being heavily involved in the biggest resources boom ever seen in Australia. Another billionaire uses he enormous wealth built by exploiting public resources which she pays a peppercorn rent for to buy up 16% of Fairfax corporation because she’s not happy with the coverage of her activities. Billionaire corporations invest 22million dollars in a publicity campaign to unseat a Prime Minister who had the audacity to try to introduce a mining resources super profits tax which would have resulted in them pushing a few more crumbs off the corporate table into public coffers. Billionaire banks make record profits and increase their interest rates despite the Reserve Bank not increasing interest rates.

Poverty, unemployment, homelessness and inadequate public housing, public healthcare and public hospitals continue to be a pressing concern for an increasing number of Australians living on a continent inhabited by 22 and a half million people who are in the midst of an unprecedented resources boom. The Victorian state government, needing 250 million dollars to tackle the crisis in the child welfare sector, can find 55 million dollars for a four day Grand Prix but can only find 12.5 million dollars to tackle the pressing issue of child welfare. Every day we see a handful of oligarchs use the monopoly they exercise over parliament because of their enormous wealth dictating parliamentary policies to political parties that are more interested in extracting every last dollar from pay as you earn taxpayers and small business than taxing billionaires and corporations in a county where the corporate owned media and the government gelded ABC are too frightened to report the facts. No wonder I'm disillusioned.

The only comfort I draw from my disillusionment with the political processes and institutions in Australia is, as despair, not hope becomes the prevailing public emotion in this country people will follow the example set by the Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement and tip over the apple cart to ensure everybody living in Australia can enjoy the bountiful fruits of this land.

Source: Joe Toscano,Anarchist Age Weekly Review, Number 968, 5th March – 12th March 2012

5 March 2012/Geneva: The announcement that North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) will halt its enrichment of uranium, stop long-range missile and nuclear weapons testing, and allow international IAEA inspectors back into the Yongbyon nuclear facility is a major step forward to renewing progress in denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Candobetter.net received this press release from Green Cross International. It is a welcome announcement but we don't know much about Green Cross International. It seems to be into corporate charity spin, such as "smart water" and "development" in "poor countries", which we have come to associate with disaster capitalism. That's just going by its internet site at http://www.gci.ch/

Green Cross International welcomes North Korean suspension of uranium enrichment, calls for restart of Six-Party talks on Korean denuclearization

5 March 2012/Geneva: The announcement that North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) will halt its enrichment of uranium, stop long-range missile and nuclear weapons testing, and allow international IAEA inspectors back into the Yongbyon nuclear facility is a major step forward to renewing progress in denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, according to Green Cross International.

"This is a most welcome initiative by North Korea, especially in light of the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul in late March," says Green Cross International (GCI) President Alexander Likhotal. “By reducing the nuclear threat, lasting peace can be achieved on the Korean Peninsula and wider region.”

GCI, which has advocated and promoted economic development and demilitarization globally since its founding by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1993, believes this initiative was welcome not only from an arms control and nonproliferation perspective, but also a humanitarian perspective.

Dr. Paul Walker, head of the GCI's Environmental Security and Sustainability Program, says: "240 thousand metric tons of food aid, as promised by the United States, will improve security and peacemaking on the Korean Peninsula, while nuclear bombs would have dramatically undermined it. The world is well aware of the dire economic and food situation in North Korea, and helping to save lives anywhere is a very worthy goal."

"North Korea, should it continue to follow through on nuclear disarmament, and join the nuclear, chemical, and biological arms control regimes, will establish a much more peaceful and prosperous northeast Asia for all,” Dr. Walker adds. “We urge the other parties in the six-party talks - China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States - to respond positively to this North Korea initiative and push for reopening long stalled negotiations."

Green Cross points out that South Korea had taken a major step forward several years ago when it unilaterally destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile under the watchful eyes of inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Green Cross International, founded in 1993 by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mikhail Gorbachev, is an independent non-profit and nongovernmental organization working to address the inter-connected global challenges of security, poverty eradication and environmental degradation through a combination of advocacy and on-the-ground projects. GCI is headquartered in Geneva and is present in over 30 countries.

Save the tiger and save man's self-respect. I mean, if we can't save the tiger we aren't much good for anything are we? Cronulla Beach to Barrenjoey Lighthouse Tiger Trek starts Saturday 10th March. The Trekking Tiger is a man in a tiger mask - his identity is unimportant. His main purpose is to draw attention to this vital campaign which recognizes the tiger, a flagship species in the biodiversity crisis. The trekker will be barefoot or wearing thongs in sympathy with the poverty that accompanies human populations that encroach on tiger territory.

Trek itinerary

Early on Saturday 10 March 2012 The Trekking Tiger (also known as T3) will leave Cronulla Beach on the coastal south of Sydney, Australia on a trek of close to 90 kilometres finishing at the Barrenjoey Lighthouse, the coastal northern tip of the city.

The trek will be attempted in one long push (with some possible beach power naps!) to draw attention to the BAN TIGER TRADE petition which is part of the global TigerTime campaign run by the UK based David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation.

“TigerTime, the global campaign from the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation is currently gaining thousands of signatures on its petition to put an end to the tiger trade www.bantigertrade.com. 100,000 signatures are needed for the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in United Kingdom to accept it on the 13th March. Please help us by signing the petition and spreading the word. For more information, please see our website #10;<h3>About The Trekking Tiger (T3): </h3>&#10;<p>The Trekking Tiger is a man in a tiger mask - his identity is unimportant. His main purpose is to draw attention to this vital campaign which recognizes the tiger, a flagship species in the biodiversity crisis. The Trekking Tiger is also known as T3, a reference to the three extinct sub-species of tiger; the Caspian Tiger, the Java Tiger and the Bali Tiger.</p>&#10;<p>T3 is an experienced mountain and jungle endurance trekker. And this challenge will hurt! The T3 concept has been brought forward several months (there will be another trek announcement soon) to link in the petition to be presented to the Chinese Embassy in London in March to ban the tiger trade. Despite the reduced preparation time, T3 will undergo the trek in bare feet on beach sections and thongs (flip flops) on rock and road sections. This is in dedication to the porters of Nepal and other Himalayan areas where very basic footwear is often used while carrying huge loads. This is a poverty driven situation and poverty is a big factor in people turning to poaching, threatening the tiger and much other wildlife. </p>&#10;<p>With this in mind T3 requests that so as not to dilute the purpose of the trek, the emphasis in any media contact remains on the campaign and not on the man behind the mask.<br />&#10;<img src=" vspace="3" hspace="3" align="left">
T3 is an entity of WildTiger. More information can be found at www.wildtiger.org and www.facebook.com/TheTrekkingTiger

Contact: [email protected]

About TigerTime:

See www.tigertime.info for full details of the campaign.

The Premier of China, Wen Jiabao has publicly stated that he is committed to saving the wild tiger. However, his government is allowing trade in tiger skins from tiger farms and skins taken before poaching was outlawed. This trade is acting as a smokescreen for skins taken by killing wild tigers. If China does not stop this trade, the wild tiger is doomed. See how they obtain the tigers and more tiger farm images. You can add your signature here.

Does Wen Jiabao have the balls to stand up for the last tigers? We sure hope so and support him in his endeavours.

Tiger Farms

Tigers are currently starved to death on 'tiger farms' in China because, if a tiger dies of 'natural causes', the taking of its body parts is legal.

Half way through last century, when I was born, tigers were already known to be in danger of extinction. The predictions of that time have been steadily confirmed. There are currently (2012) estimated to be only 3,200 tigers left in the wild.

If you want to read about people who are kind to tigers, there is also some good news about tigers from Panna, a protected area, but poachers still manage to kill the tigers there. See "Great News from Panna."

The Tiger by William Blake

Tiger Tiger. burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye.
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat.
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp.
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile His work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?

Tiger Tiger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

Surprise surprise. It is official. Overpopulation has overstretched Melbourne infrastructure. This week, areas of Hawthorn had no water because of the pipes being so old and overloaded. At Camberwell Junction after heavy rain you can smell sewer because the sewer lines are overloaded. Well we know about the hospitals and the schools not to mention the roads and the public transport.

Mainstream reporting catches up with old alternative news

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/public-transport-needs-billions-20120229-1u3ji.html

Surprise surprise. It is official. What we have been saying for years. The Bracks/Brumby government brought in a million people and kept telling us to pack in close together as there was plenty of infrastructure when we shouted to deaf ears that all infrastructure was overstretched. The new government has hardly done anything with it, and I hear it is because they have no money and now they say they will have to ask the Feds. Wonder if the Feds have any money either. Meanwhile keep bringing in more people and making things worse all the time. This week, areas of Hawthorn had no water because of the pipes being so old and overloaded. At Camberwell Junction after heavy rain you can smell sewer because the sewer lines are overloaded. Well we know about the hospitals and the schools not to mention the roads and the public transport.

The Age article above needs letter to the editor and comments online and on candobetter.net

Campbell Newman

On the news ABC 24 March 1, 2012, there is talk of Campbell Newman, ex Lord Mayor of Brisbane, now running against the Queensland State Premier, Anna Bligh, having strange communications from developers. This is a subject that Anna probably knows a lot about.

"Ms Bligh says Mr Newman is still avoiding legitimate questions about some dealings with developers while he was Brisbane's mayor.
"I think there's a very simple question here," she said.
"Why did this developer seek to use seven different names and companies to make seven different donations in a period of a matter of a days.
"If this is all above board, why not just make one donation in one company name of more than $70,000."" (Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-01/more-allegations-raised-about-newmans-campaign-fund/3861442/?site=brisbane&section=news

Not relevant to Melbourne perhaps, but it does sound like it might be true.
Of course something like that could never happen here - well could it???

Immigration shortage!

Shucks, we need to increase immigration significantly and move everyone in Australia to Melbourne so we can take our rightful place as number 1 in the world!

Now that is a great idea ... what a great city we would have ... mind you we would not then be the most liveable - but we would be the biggest.

Uglification of Melbourne

And so our city is being ruined building by building ...
Everything goes

"THE proposed development in Wills Street in the city (''Residents' balconies would be enclosed in '100m hole''', The Age, 28/2) is an alarming example of just how far the current spate of runaway development has gone. The proposed 32-storey tower in a narrow CBD street will dwarf surrounding buildings, block out natural light and air from balconies of an adjoining building, enclosing them effectively in a 20-storey shaft. Such are the rules for development in the CBD, it appears almost anything goes. Our environment and amenity, not to mention our heritage, are being plundered. How long will we continue to allow developers to dictate planning policy?"

cheers all for now

Di Cachinnans

Responding to a press release about global problems of illegal logging, Australian forest activist, Jill Redwood says, "This illegal logging is not just limited to developing countries or where there are corrupt regimes - it is happening right now in Australia and has been for the past 50 years." The press release came from a volunteering organisation, Projects Abroad, better known for foreign aid projects which young people pay to participate in. It seems to be advertising for volunteers to join a project in Taricaya in South America where it claims to own 476 hectares of Amazon rainforest, where it is running, among other activities, a 'pilot farm', which doesn't sound too good. Projects abroad press release also seems to indicate faith in forest preservation policies marketed by the World Bank and Interpol. Environmentalists tend to see the World Bank as a driver of deforestation. And then there is the question of 'volunteering'...

What comes across the candobetter.net editorial desk

It is interesting to see what comes across the candobetter editorial desk - which is a very informal virtual piece of furniture with multiple occupants. Like any newspaper, we get press releases from all over the world. They are targeted according to the way that candobetter is perceived by the agencies that redistribute press releases. This one, about Projects Abroad, took a while to unravel. Projects Abroad does not sound like your typical conservation activist organisation. It looks more like a business organisation out to make money from peoples' interests and concerns about poverty and their desire for adventure. It wasn't conveying any real news, since it was only restating information that has already been carried in the mass media. This information, however, relates to forest conservation, which is of interest to candobetter.net. On the other hand, candobetter.net tends to cast a jaundiced eye on foreign aid organisations, because of their reputation of being Fagins. (Fagin was the Dickens character who trained destitute little boys to thieve for him.) So we also had a look at Projects Abroad. Hence the rather long title of this article.

The facts below came in the press release from Projects Abroad. They originated at ‘Chainsaw’ [.pdf file], a joint World Bank and Interpol project of interest which probably won't get much support from the World Bank, we dare say:

What is happening to the world's forests

Between 20% and 50% of all timber sold worldwide has been illegally sourced
For many years the volume of timber taken from rainforests by far out-strips the rate of planting
When this is allied to illegal logging, worldwide deforestation will reach crisis point – beyond which restoration will be extremely difficult – at some time this year.
The average rotation of planting timber is only between 30 and 40 years which is not long enough for the trees to produce the volume of wood necessary to satisfy worldwide requirements. This inevitably leads to continuing illegal ingress into the primary forest.
‘Chainsaw’ [.pdf file] – a joint project between the World Bank and Interpol – reported last year that an area of the world’s rainforest the size of Austria was illegally felled every twelve months. (See below, "The Chainsaw project," for an informative extract commenting on possibilities and difficulties policing illegal logging and trafficking of logs.)
The only way forward [according to the World Bank] is through much stiffer timber security and for affluent western countries to pay emerging nations to preserve their forests - probably under a scheme called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD).

[So what do we do about a country like Australia, when, although it is not deemed 'an emerging nation', it is illegally felling or unwisely felling its remaining forests, both public and private?]

Deforestation accounts for very nearly a quarter of all the greenhouse gasses created by human activity each year.

Jill Redwood: "Shocking but not at all surprising!"

Responding to the statements above, Australian forest activist, Jill Redwood of Environment East Gippsland, wrote,

"My response would be to say that this illegal logging is not just limited to developing countries or where there are corrupt regimes - it is happening right now in Australia and has been for the past 50 years. Our forest agencies and the government protection they receive is simply more sophisticated, with public relations firms, spin doctors and compliant regulatory schemes that overlook and excuse the illegal nature of forest destruction in Australia. Court cases from Tasmania and Gippsland, launched by environment groups and individuals have shown that logging is being carried out against the laws we have to protect endangered wildlife. Audits have shown for years that rainforest is logged illegally, environmental codes are breached on a daily basis and nothing is done besides government media stating how logging management is improving every year.

We are converting old growth primary forests into industrial pulpwood tree crops over public land at great public expense and losing our rare wildlife as well. Not much difference to Indonesia or Borneo really. Our governments are just better at hiding that fact."

Not only is Australia devastating its own forests, but you can also import illegally taken logs through the holes in our importing regulations. Professor William Laurance is trying to alert Australians to the risk of buying wood furniture made in China because of the high risk that it is made from wood harvested illegally in Africa, South America, Asia or Papua New Guinea. Source: "Call for tighter laws to halt illegal timber imports," Canberra Times, February 6, 2012

Who are Projects Abroad?

The press release sent to candobetter.net quoting Dr Peter Slowe quoting the Chainsaw Report also informs us that "Volunteers visiting Project Abroad’s Taricaya project are given the opportunity to take part in important research work and biodiversity studies into all types of flora and fauna. Taricaya has South America’s highest canopy walkway, a freshwater turtle project, and a pilot farm." What sort of a farm, one wonders, in the middle of the rainforest? Don't the indigenous people already know how to preserve the rainforest? Reports from any Projects Abroad volunteers on this farm and the situation surrounding it would be interesting, but we have none to hand.

Projects Abroad also tells us that "Projects Abroad has sent more than 41,000 volunteers to 27 different countries since its inception in 1992. Last year, they sent around 8,000 volunteers on projects and are predicting an increase of at least 10% this year."

Volunteering

Whilst appreciating the news-feed on this vital issue, we wonder why this organisation relies so much on volunteers and what it spends its funds on. It is hard to trust an organisation which markets itself through its founder's early connections with the UK Blair Government.

For these reasons we tried to check out Projects Abroad. We discovered that Projects Abroad fits the 'foreign aid' category that is so abused by entrepreneurs, governments, outsourcers and exporters. We found a Projects Abroad website which had a page responding to accusations that Projects Abroad was a volunteering scam.

We also found this very interesting page, which contained the following reports from past Projects Abroad volunteers.

Projects Abroad Complaints and Reviews - Abusing poverty to gain income

Comment:

After visiting Arusha in Tanzania to visit local projects, such as schools and orphanages, I visited one specific orphanage where it became clear to me that Projects Abroad, an UK based organization (say Company), sends volunteers there to help at the home and school and stay with local host families. Great I would think first, but when I started talking to the 'volunteers' who came from the USA and the UK it became clear they pay 1500 USD per month to work in an orphanage and NONE of this money goes to the project. A host family with food will not cost more then 250 USD and sure some money needs to go the the organizing party, but so much money and NOTHING goes to those in need; orphans, children who need education and have no food...I am shocked but also appalled that this 'organization' is nothing more then making money over the backs of poor people. Shame on you...the name of Herman was mentioned several times as it seems this character works for these greedy people in Arusha. BE AWARE for these companies, look around on the web, there are plenty of smaller organizations that charge much less and that support the projects they work with!

Comment:

I also agree Projects Abroad is not a well run organization, that likely is not spending money where it is most needed. I also don't agree with having so many different types of projects at a location that they are unable to focus on the needs of any. It's possible they do better work in certain projects, such as care (working in orphanages) but my experience with a medical project was poor and I wouldn't recommend this organization for medical work.

I am a physical therapist from the US and I went to Bolivia to work in a pediatric burn unit through Projects Abroad. The staff was friendly, but otherwise very unorganized and gave me no guidance whatsoever as to prior volunteer experiences in the burn unit, so I was thrown into my job with very minimal information about the needs at the burn unit. I would have been ok with this if it was a new 'project', except, after returning to the office frequently with questions about any information from prior volunteers, I was finally handed a binder that had some brief essays prior volunteers had written about their work in the burn unit. Only a handful of physios had been there before and I found some notes their supervisor had written, but no essays. I only found essays from the med students and nurses who had been there before. Maybe they hadn't written an essay? It's possibly, but after my experience I have to wonder if they accidently 'lost' them. Regardless of my lack of information, and no prior experience myself working in a burn unit, I threw myself into my work and made a place for myself at the burn unit. I worked very hard at talking to various supervising people at the hospital to learn the politics there- who to know to really get things done...etc... My Spanish significantly improved, and I learned a lot about what they need there. Unfortunately, four months was a good amount of time to get enough information to start developing a real 'project' at the burn unit. But with my continued visits to the office to try to discuss my need to communicate with a future volunteer so we can continue a project I was told I was not allowed to get their email (I was told a nurse was coming the month after I was leaving). I did write a very long essay before I left describing what I learned, and pleaded with them to send me the email of any new volunteers that come to the burn unit. It's been 7 months since I left, and have not heard a single word from the staff.

There is also no transparency as to where the money goes. I don't want to blame the office staff though, they all seem to have no clue either- the money management all happens in the UK they say. I was told if could get maybe 25-50 US dollars worth of materials for the burn unit per month within their budget, but wasn't told this until my second month in, and only because I was incessant in my questioning of the staff about where the money goes. I was told if we wanted to spend any more money than that, we had to fill out a form, and request it from the UK and that could take months (I would be gone by that time and had no faith in trusting the staff to spend that money appropriately and no ability to communicate with a future volunteer) Again I really had to poke around just to get that bit of information. I believe only 150US went to my host family, from what I learned from the family, so I am in agreement that very little goes to the actual 'project', considering I spent over 1000US per month to be there.

But my biggest frustration with projects abroad is that there is no way they can sustain a 'project' if they don't allow volunteers to communicate with one another. I did enjoy the work I did in Bolivia, lived with a fabulous host family, and intend to return to Bolivia this year to maintain my contacts with the staff in the burn unit, and PT students that I worked with. BUT there is not way I would give one more penny to Projects Abroad- I will be able to get there on my own and don't need any 'help' from a volunteer organization that gave me much more frustration than assistance.

Comment:

I agree! I just spent $2, 400 to volunteer in an orphanage in Jamaica. When I got there we were told by the orphange staff members that there was no need for more volunteers. Of course Projects Abroad said there was still a need because I was realized this is a company out for a profit. Jamaica can not handle many volunteers, yet they are still priding themselves on how many volunteers arrive as opposed to the actual impact they have at the volunteer sites. I feel that I was taken advantage of by this program!

Comment:

I don't understand these complains. Projects-abroad is a pure profit company: they sell poverty and solidarity. Their customers paid for that: they want to be volunteer, to live an adventure but "all-included" and something well organized...

Their job is to make money, don't complain that they don't give enough to hospital or the hosting families, they are not a charity organization ...

If you really want to be volunteer, join a non profit volunteer organization. Maybe their web site will be not so nice, but at least they know what a volunteer project is... and it will cost you more or less nothing...

check for ex: www.servicevolontaire.org, www.vap.uk, www.afs.org, www.sjvietnam.org, www.javva.org, ...

Comment:

Thanks for the tip, I wish I had known everything you just said before I went though. That's why I'm upset, the website makes it look like it IS a charity organization (call me stupid but I thought it was a non profit before I went), and takes advantage of people like me (there are many others I met while I was there who thought the same) who are naive. We felt cheated and used- but yes, it was because we were uninformed going into it. Also the 'well organized' part is totally false, at least for the program I went on. For a for-profit company, and the money we pay, they could do a much better job at organizing the projects themselves. They have so many projects going, they don't know which way is up or down with most of them. Half of my frustration in Bolivia was that I was trying to help Projects Abroad Bolivia itself (not just the burn unit) become more organized and get some basic communication going between subsequent volunteers, and wasn't getting support or interest by the local staff in my efforts.

I went on this website, not to just whine about the program- I understand the mistake I made when choosing a program, and I want to help others make better decisions. Thanks also for posting the links.

FYI I did go back to Bolivia for a month on my own, did the same work I had done before, and had a much more satisfying experience! It's just heartbreaking to see that they really need help there, and I know Projects Abroad is not going to start anything sustainable there- it would be up to me or someone else to work on that...

Comment:

Absolutely have to agree with above comments. Went to Nepal last year as a fully qualified physician with some physician colleagues - at the time of application the website suggested we would be working with the poor and would be provided with translators (so we could be somewhat effective). In the end our complaints are too numerous to count but we met with many of the heads of Projects Abroad in Nepal who were all very wealthy and connected. We were never able to provide any useful medical treatment because no one was able to translate for us except for the local doctors who frankly couldn't understand why we were there. (Side note: volunteer surgeons have gone to Nepal to help train local surgeons in modern techniques but these skills get abused as surgeons find any excuse to take gallbladders out of patients who are simply constipated.)

Our greatest beef with this company was that we thought the hefty sums we paid went towards a decent needs-assessment. We were given the impression that they sent trained volunteers to areas that have expressed a need for help. And we were told we would have translation on the field with the possibility of outreach programs, none of which actually happened.

Total fraud. We gave the organizers very thorough feedback and they assured us they were going to pull the PRO portion of the Nepal wing of Projects Abroad. Just checked today and it's definitely not the case.

[End of comments]

The Chainsaw project

1.16 Problems regarding the legality of illegal timber trafficking In order for any law enforcement officer to undertake investigations they must first be satisfied a crime has occurred. When considering crimes of violence, and other crimes against the person, or drug or weapon trafficking, the answer as to whether a crime has occurred would appear to be obvious. The same cannot be said when considering international trade in primary products; fish, animals, and plants, including illegal timber.
The legality of unlawfully logged timber at any given time in its journey from the forests to the end user will be largely determined by time and space. The question; what is the national law that relates to the product, can often depend on where it currently geographically is, and at what time it is there?

The reasons for this and the difficulty faced by law enforcement agencies in investigating this crime type are:

- Timber is not an illegal product per se. Its possession, trade, or transportation may not constitute a crime as such, unlike drugs or child pornography. At border controls or customs check points, the law enforcement authorities must be able to prove the timber’s illegality to take any further action. It can, in many cases, become difficult or impossible to state whether the origin of the timber is legal or illegal. The illegality is all the more difficult to assess when the timber has been processed into finished manufactured products, which is often the form in which illegal timbe arrives at the country of importation.

- In itself, illegal logging constitutes a local crime that falls under national legislations. It is then a crime which is very difficult to prosecute “up to destination” since it does not imply the infringement of the laws or regulations of the countries that import and consume the timber or the countries in which the timber is in transit.

Illegal logging becomes relevant to international law enforcement only once the timber has left, or is in the process of leaving, the country in which it was cut.

Consequently, illegal logging must not become dissociated from the problem of illegal timber trafficking which is not as difficult to prove and prosecute.

- Timber traders can be subject to sanctions or prosecution for illegal timbe trafficking only on the condition that the timber traded is a species protected unde national laws or under CITES. This trade is regulated with a system of certificates and needs to fulfil specific conditions to be declared legal. It is often only in countries where the mechanisms of control and certification are codified in national legislations, such as in the EU, that the possibility of prosecuting the timber traders exists.

- The legality or illegality of the timber depends on the legislation of the country where the goods are located, not on the legality or illegality of the upstream process.

A piece of wood can originate from illegally logged timber and yet be sold with complete legality in another country. Therefore, the international characteristics of illegal logging raises two questions: Determining the country where the prosecution should take place, and determining the legislation under which the crime falls. In general, criminals are prosecuted in the country where the crime was committed and the legislation of that country is applied.

If we are to survive, we must give up two core beliefs. One is the belief that we are qualified to be wise planetary stewards, and the other is that there will always be technological solutions to the problems that were created by previous technological solutions.

Technology Embraced With Religious Fervor

Technophilia is described in various sources as a strong enthusiasm for technology.
But what many members of our species display goes far beyond enthusiasm.

Starry-eyed technophiles go on animatedly, in what appears to be quasi-religious rapture and hyperbole, about a banquet of opportunities apparently afforded us by our technologies. All the while, they blindly ignore the fact that the horrendous problems we face were created and enabled by technologies in the first place – dead zones and enormous “islands” of plastic in the oceans, soil depletion and exhaustion, massive consumption and overconsumption of resources, emissions and air pollution, hundreds of sites on the planet and specifically in North America contaminated by radioactive waste, and the list just goes on and on.

Persistent Love For Nuclear Power A Prime Example

The last item above is a typical illustration. Nuclear power, originally hyped as being safe and "too cheap to meter," is still heavily subsidized by taxpayers, and is still creating problems for present and future generations to deal with. Recent disasters aside, there are tonnes of “legacy” waste we have yet to deal with properly, as well as the increasing contamination of the North American Great Lakes and other bodies of water by radionuclides from mining and power generating activities.

Technopoly

Yet we delude ourselves, as Neil Postman says in “Technopoly,” with “the catastrophic idea that in peace as well as in war technology will be our saviour.” Postman goes on to say that technophiles “gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future.”

Our Sorry Record Is Proof That We Cannot Predict Consequences

And, when it comes to the future, we have already demonstrated clearly that, while we are a clever little species when it comes to inventing things, we have a very poor record in predicting the long term consequences, let alone the unintended consequences. We, in Einstein’s words, “thoughtlessly make use of the miracles of science and technology, without understanding more about them than a cow eating plants understands about botany.”
In a lovely little act of anthropocentric circular reasoning, we claim that human cleverness and intelligence are the main criteria for the job of planetary stewards, and that our technology is evidence of our suitability for that job. Then we claim that, by gosh, we’re the only species which exhibits those qualities (apparently) so we must be the natural stewards of this planet. We fake the qualifications for the job in our favour. And our performance on that job is so dismal that we should have been fired long ago. We are, after all, the only species to bring the planet to the brink of nuclear winter, runaway climate change, and collapse of ecosystem supports necessary for our own life. We are the only species to spread toxic and persistent poisons around the entire planet. We are the only species that has caused one of the “great extinctions” of other species on this planet.

We Must Move Beyond Our Infatuation With Technology And Self-Image As Planetary Stewards

Technophiles might argue that it is not technology, but the inappropriate use which is the real problem. That is a facile and denial-ridden response, as the evidence clearly demonstrates that the problem runs much, much deeper.

And all we hear about in glowing color is that more technology is the solution to our problems – the sort of thinking from the past that has created our problems in the first place. Solar panels will be our saviour. Wind power will be our saviour. Better fuel efficiency in transportation will be our saviour. Recycling will save the planet. And so on. Another quotation often attributed to Einstein sums it up nicely: “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” We must move beyond our obsession and infatuation with our own technologies, and beyond the idea that our role on this planet is one of stewardship and control. We must, in Lovelock’s words, “realize more than other green thinkers the magnitude of the change of mind needed to bring us back to peace within Gaia, the living Earth.” We must plan and execute a “sustainable retreat” from where we are.

Overcoming our own smugness and arrogance about our cleverness and about our place on this planet – overcoming our narcissistic technophilia - would be good first steps.

Rick Shea
February 22, 2012

Originally posted at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/9600/2012-02-21/narcissistic-technophilia and re-posted here with the Rick Shea’s permission

Australia is the world's second largest arms importer, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Yet there are no armed wars in Australia and our local crime industry could not possibly use $1,677,000,000 worth of military weapons as estimated to be our imported value in 2010. Are we on-selling and who is involved?

Okay, we're involved in a number of international 'peace-keeping' exercises, but how do we manage to make second in the world imports with India the first? What is going on? Are we on-selling and disguising the world traffic of these arms? Are we a middle-man for international war-mongerers? Makes little old John Howard's amazing popularity coup when he banned gun ownership for Australians look just a tad hollow.

Socialist Hamish Chitts writes,

"Australia’s rich want a greater share of this global industry. Particularly the governments of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory are vying with each other to be the most arms industry-friendly place in the Asia Pacific. Promoting the Asia Pacific Defence and Security Exhibition (since cancelled due to planned protests), organisers of this arms fair proudly announced in a press release in September 2007, that between 1994 and 2006 the Asia Pacific was the only region with increased defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP. It has been forecast that the Asia Pacific will overtake Europe and the Middle East, becoming the world’s largest arms market with US$104 billion of military projects scheduled in the next 10 years, of which US$25 billion is projected from Australia. Threats of instability and future conflict, real or imagined, caused primarily by the US “war on terror”, are driving this arms race." Source, "Dollars from Death, The Arms Industry in Australia, on the Direct Action site. (Direct Action sprang from what is referred to as Green Left which is the website of the party known as the Democratic Socialist Party (itself renamed from the Socialist Workers Party as it was known in the 1970s and 1980s, during which time it labelled itself Trotskyist. More on candobetter and socialism here.)

In 2003-07 Australia was [only] the eighth largest arms importer, accounting for 3.08% of world deliveries. Hamish Chitts writes "Most of this spending in was a result of Australia’s involvement in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, but there has also been lavish spending securing Australia from the threat of mythical terrorists, and the big players in the arms industry have been quick to exploit this market."

Australian arms imports

Trading Economics reports:

"Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia

The Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia was last reported at 1,677,000,000.00 in 2010, according to a World Bank report released in 2011. The Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia was 684,000,000.00 in 2009, according to a World Bank report, published in 2010. The Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia was reported at 384,000,000.00 in 2008, according to the World Bank. Arms transfers cover the supply of military weapons through sales, aid, gifts, and those made through manufacturing licenses. Data cover major conventional weapons such as aircraft, armored vehicles, artillery, radar systems, missiles, and ships designed for military use. Excluded are transfers of other military equipment such as small arms and light weapons, trucks, small artillery, ammunition, support equipment, technology transfers, and other services.This page includes a historical data chart, news and forecasts for Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia."

Below is a record of the value of Australia's arms imports since 1960. The source of these figures was Indexmundi

Australian arms exports

The The Medical Association for the Prevention of war (Australia) ascribes a rise in Australia's arms exports to the privatisation of our arms manufacturing industry. State-owned enterprises such as Australian Defence Industries (ADI), used to serve and supply the Australian armed forces. "Because of the program of liberalisation, the sector is now dominated by private, often multinational, corporations. The former ADI is now owned by Thales Australia, the local branch of the French-based Thales Group."

"After a protracted process ADI Ltd was privatised in 1999 passing from government ownership into the hands 50:50 partners Transfield of Australia and French defence company Thompson-CSF, later to become Thales." (Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/C89E4250-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9

The Medical Association for the Prevention of war (Australia) states, "A privatised military sector cannot be counted on to place national security, peace or human rights interests above the pursuit of profit. Ironically, a sales-driven arms industry is best served by the undermining of these very concerns." According to the same source, this Australian export arms industry had an estimated worth of $US45.6 billion in 2006."

Your views and knowledge sought to increase ours. Please comment.

70 per cent of Syrians voted in referendum to end one party rule and to have elections but have been hit by EU sanctions anyway. Aljazeera reported that no-one would vote, but it seems that a lot did. Basically the world is dividing into an Eastern and Western bloc over this, with Russia and China supporting Syria's right to settle its own affairs and the US and other Anglophone western nations and the EU are looking for a pretext to intervene and threatening crippling sanctions. Further down we might expect EU imposition of a no-fly zone to give them an excuse to invade, as has already happened in Libya. Is the end-objective to isolate Iran for its oil reserves? What's up? Here are some views. (Incidentally, a shock inside for Australians - we are 2nd highest ranking weapons importers. What are we doing with them? Are we on-selling? And who's making money out of this?)

Western leaders ignore majority of Syrians

Republished from "West Regards Majority of Syrians as "Non-People"by grtv"

"Syria has successfully held a referendum on a constitution, but been hit with new sanctions by the EU anyway.

Neil Clark, a journalist and contributor to The Guardian, believes Western leaders are being highly hypocritical when they criticize the Syrian regime for being undemocratic, and yet fail to respect the views of the majority of Syrians.

“Fifty-seven per cent of Syrians have voted and an overwhelming majority of them have said yes to it,” he told RT “It’s a great day for democracy in Syria. And yet what’s the reaction been by the Western leaders? Well, Hillary Clinton denounced it as a cynical ploy. Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, said that it was a sham, but in fact what is a sham is the West’s approach because the reaction to this referendum shows us that they’re not really keen on democracy in Syria.”

Clark said the West tends to cast a blind eye on huge pro-Assad demonstrations and the fact that 55 per cent of Syrians want President Assad to stay.

“The reality is that the majority of Syrians support Assad, but for the West these are non-people, their views don’t count”.

He noted the symbolism of the announcement of new sanctions against Syria by the EU.

“On the very day that Syria, after five decades of one-party rule, votes for democracy, what does the EU do? It announces tough new sanctions on Syria. It’s highly symbolic.”

Clark expressed his opinion that the EU was hardly a democratic body itself.

“I think that it’s quite ironic on this very day we also have the French President Nicolas Sarkozy explaining why we, the European people, are not going to be allowed to vote ourselves on the EU fiscal treaty. He says it’s too hard for us to understand. So the EU, which is claiming to be in favor of democracy, is actually working against it.”

He concluded by saying that the majority of Syrians do not want their country to disintegrate like Iraq or Libya and see President Assad and the Ba’ath party as the preferred solution to hold the country together."

The Manila Times on Friday 17 February gave details of the referendum before it was voted on and treated the matter with less optimism:

A day after rejecting United Nations (UN) allegations of crimes against humanity, the Syrian leader set the referendum for February 26, in a move aimed at placating growing global outrage over the bloodshed.

The proposed charter drops Article 8, which declared the ruling Baath Party as the “leader of the state and society,” allowing for a multi-party system, state television said.

The president must be a Muslim man and may serve a maximum of two seven-year terms, although it is unclear if this would apply to Assad, who is already on his second term.

In April, Assad scrapped emergency rule—in force since 1963—when the Baathists took power in a coup d’etat. But he has repeatedly promised reforms that have failed to materialize since the uprising erupted in March.

The embattled 46-year-old president, who succeeded his late father Hafez in 2000, said that the Constitution would usher in a “new era” for Syria, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency reported.

Meanwhile, the Anarchist Weekly gives this opinion:

"Syria Bleeding"

"The butcher Assad, the so called President of Syria, has made his name by butchering his own people, not by invading Israel. Assad and the reactionary Israel government are two peas in the same pod. Violence is their stock in trade. Murder and destruction is their legacy. Human beings are mere objects to be prodded, gutted, slaughtered for the glory of the state.

These modern day Aztec Priests don’t even use the fig leaf of religious belief to justify their atrocities. Syria is a classical example of what happens when rulers who are faced with peaceful protest use their monopoly on the use of force to derail that protest. The world looks on while the autocrats in China and Russia block United Nations intervention in Syria and the United States uses the Arab League to try to unseat an autocrat they don’t control to insert one they do control.

The people of Syria in 2012, like the people of Spain in 1936, need the help of ordinary people to halt these atrocities. More so than ever before they need to see the very soldiers who are involved in the slaughter turn their guns against their officers. These Syrian soldiers, as many before them have done, need to use the arms they have brought to the struggle to protect Syrians who have used their bare hands to dismantle a regime that has a track record of brutality that is only matched by the Israeli states’ treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank."

Candobetter Peak Oil Politics author view:

Our resident Peak Oil Politics writer, Sheila Newman, said:

"Since the establishment of the Anglo-Persian oil company in Iran, and the dismantlement of the Ottoman empire during the First World War, Western industrial interests have used governments and warfare to colonise and destabilise the tribes and nation-formation and government of countries in the Middle East (and South America, Asia and Africa) that could possibly have an association with oil. These machinations include the control of countries bordering the oil producers, like Syria (although it does have some oil, important to its economy), Somalia and the Sudan. In 1970, the United States - which had built its modern industrial, military and political strength on its own oil production - became a net oil importer. With the oil shocks of the early 1970s, Arab and other third world oil-producing colonies[1] organised through OPEC (0rganisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries - started by Gadaffi) to become independent and better represent their own interests on the global oil market instead of those of foreign national oil companies and public and private corporations. Australia, under Prime Minister Whitlam almost took this route, when Whitlam's Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, nearly made Australia energy-self-sufficient. The Khemlani loan was mostly for that purpose with the ancillary purpose of supporting full employment of Australians during the 1970s oil shock period.

The Eastern bloc took a different route from the capitalist-industrialist bloc, seeking to bring a communist outlook to the oil-producing countries of the world, which would then align them to its philosophy and to its membership countries. Historically communism is a reaction to capitalism.

The Western and Eastern blocs each supplied arms to oil producing countries and those countries became global 'hot-spots'.

Western counter-shocks sought to weaken this alliance by reducing oil-demand, with the intended effect of drastically reducing the incomes of the OPEC members. These actions brought about new negotiated prices in a newly formed global petroleum market. OPEC has continued to hold its own on this market, with the stated purpose of keeping prices relatively smooth and looking after the interests of its members. This approach has probably maintained fairly benign oil-pricing, but the stakes are rising, both for oil exporters and oil importers, who are mutually dependent - one for income and the other for fuel.

The reason that the stakes are rising is because world population and industrial activity is continually breaking its own records and is now completely hooked on the economic growth model, which relies utterly on petroleum supply to survive in current proportions. Obviously both sides of the global oil market - the exporters and the importers - would like to increase the certainty of their positions. For the oil-exporters the way forward must seem to be to diversify their national economies and produce and consume locally whilst conserving their fuel for their own welfare. This may not mean that they would withhold all their petroleum, but it would throw a spanner in world economic growth and cause poverty in previously wealthy countries that have used up much or all of their local fossil fuel supplies. For the oil-importers the way forward must seem to be to get control (as in colonial times) of Middle Eastern oil and use it to prop up their own economies and manufacturing. Quite a few of the oil-producing members of OPEC want to conserve world oil supplies and this flies in the face of many of the oil importing economies' desire to continuously increase population, production of goods, and consumption. These opposite interests can have only two outcomes - warlike competition as the world separates into blocs or world cooperation. World cooperation would require the world to abandon both growth economics, world economic development and the current division of world population into poor commodity-producing economies and wealthy consuming countries. It would also, in my view, require empowering people at a local level in all countries who would then delegate power upwards, instead of the top-down corporate politics that have evolved since the 18th century.

There are other notable sub-interests affected. One of these is weapons production - in which the US and most governments invest heavily. Astonishingly, little Australia is second in world ranking for importing arms! (Candobetter must look into this.)

Another is industries profiting from increasing world immigration as an economic stimulator of development and redevelopment in established industrial economies which would otherwise slow down as their populations stabilised and demand for housing, roads etc diminished. This drive to import people to stimulate growth economies only applies strongly in the Anglophone powers - Western Continental Europe does not have the same reliance on immigration as an economic stimulant. (Australia, Canada, the US, and Britain are well-known for unsustainable population growth in the service of speculative industries known as the Growth Lobby.)

Modern Oil politics and Resource Wars

Greg Muttitt, in his brilliant book, Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq, Bodley Head, UK, 2011, p.xxv, writes:
"One of the lessons of this book is that we must revise our notion of a resource war. We have tended to think of the conquistador loading up his ship with stolen New World gold, but a single shipload of any commodity is worth relatively little to a world power, or even to a corporation. A far more valuable prize can be carried in a briefcase or on a laptop computer: contracts, laws and policies that ensure the flow of resources over decades.

It would be wrong to simply equate US and UK energy security with the interests of their corporations. But they do overlap. After all, if those corporations were to gain contracts entitling them to extract more oil, that would help provide the secure, increased supplies their governments seek.

Enforceable rights to extract resources confer not just wealth but power. Less visible than tanks in the streets, the more abstract forms of power asserted through documents and institutions last far longer. The outcome of the oil struggles recounted in these pages will in large part determine the nature of the West's relationship with Iraq and the wider Middle East for decades to come. This book is a warning of the fate that may befall other parts of the world as the competition for resources becomes more intense, if we do not learn form this experience."

What do you think? Please send us your comments.

See also: comment Are we being lied to any less than in 1991, 2003, 2011, ... ? of 5 March - Ed.

[1] "OPEC is an intergovernmental organization of 12 oil-producing countries made up of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. OPEC has maintained its headquarters in Vienna since 1965,[2] and hosts regular meetings among the oil ministers of its Member Countries. Indonesia withdrew in 2008 after it became a net importer of oil, but stated it would likely return if it became a net exporter again." (Wikipedia)

Joe Toscano comments on education in Australia and the Gonski Report. "It’s no accident Australian education outcomes continue to fall behind comparable countries, we need to import specialised skilled labour and many Australian families are burdened with the problems associated with intergenerational social security dependency. The growing private public education chasm has become the single most important barrier to social cohesion in the country."

Public Private Chasm

No society can afford to put the interests of some of its children before the interests of all its children. In Australia today we have succeeded in creating an education system that is both unwilling and incapable of developing the talents of all of its children. The private, public chasm that has developed as private schools siphon public funds into private education has had a significant impact on generations of Australian children and the country as a whole.

It’s no accident Australian education outcomes continue to fall behind comparable countries, we need to import specialised skilled labour and many Australian families are burdened with the problems associated with intergenerational social security dependency. The growing private public education chasm has become the single most important barrier to social cohesion in the country.

States that refuse to treat all their children equally and make special provisions for those with major physical, intellectual and psychological issues do not do themselves or their citizens justice.

Industry skilled immigration reliance creating social tensions

The continuing reliance on immigration to fill the growing gaps created by an education system that is not geared to develop the talents of all of this country’s children is unsustainable and creates long lasting social tensions within the community. The Gonski Reportoffers a glimmer of hope some Australians are beginning to realise we will continue to short change many of our children and will never reach our full potential as a nation unless we address this critical issue.

Source of article: #10;">Anarchist Weekly Review No.967

In this video on February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presents what he sees as evidence of an illegal scheme begun in 2009. His documents include originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner. They show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland. Lord James claims this has been censored or ignored by the mainstream press. There is little in the alternative media either. The same Lord James attracted headlines about a mysterious Foundation X in 2010.On February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presents what he sees as evidence of an illegal scheme which began in 2009. His documents include originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner. They show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland. Lord James claims that he has been censored or ignored by the mainstream press. There is little in the alternative media either. The same Lord James attracted headlines about a mysterious Foundation X in 2010.

Click on the larger picture to see video of lord's speech in British parliament. Video originally promoted by US Veterans Today military and foreign affairs journal.

In 2010 the same Lord announced that he had been contacted by a mysterious "Foundation X" which offered to bail out the British Government. Wikipedia:"On Saturday November 6, 2010; the UK Treasury issued a statement which contradicted James' earlier claims; denying that any meeting took place between Lords James & Sassoon and a representative of the group which had being referred to as 'Foundation-X'." So what's up? We publish this article out of curiosity to see if we get any more information. Please write in and comment.

Official inquiry sought by Lord in British Upper House

On February 16, 2012, industrialist Lord James of Blackheath, in the House of Lords sought support for an official inquiry into financial mischief around a mysterious $15 trillion dollars (US) which began in April/May 2009 with alleged transfer to UK of HSBC Private Bank of 5 trillion dollars, then 7 days later another, then another in another 3 weeks - a total of 15 trillion dollars for onward transfer to the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Three possible conclusions

Lord James begins his speech by outlining what he believes would be "three possible conclusions" about the purpose and effect of these transfers:

1. A massive piece of money laundering committed by a government which ought to know better and that this has effectively undermined the integrity of the royal bank of Scotland
2. A major US department has an agency that has gone broke and wound up and has created a structure out of which they are seeking to get at least 50 billion euros as a pay off
3. That this is an extraordinarily elaborate fraud which has not been carried out but which has been prepared in order to provide a threat to one government or more if they don't pay them off

"Two decades of crimes involving dozens of governments"

"The Bank of Scotland, under royal charter but restricted from involvement in any such transactions, simply “gave” the money to 20 European banks to use in a highly profitable scheme of co-trading “fresh cut” MTN’s (mid-term notes), generating trillions of dollars in profits over 3 years, none of which is shown on books, none has been taxed or has benefited shareholders in those banks.

As Blackheath outlines, the “deception and cover” for this transfer is the imaginary seizure of 750,000 tons of gold by agents of an unspoken entity (confirmed by the highest official sources as the Bush family and CIA), the listed “source” of the money.

The government of Indonesia confirms this to be an utter fabrication and that the individual named had 700 tons of gold (about half of what Gaddafi was holding), not 750,000. It is noted that only 1,500 tons of gold have ever been traded in world history, as stated in the House of Lords." US Veterans Today military and foreign affairs journal

Cold War currency trading that destroyed Soviet Union

"These funds are the mysterious “Wanta” funds, monies earned through years of currency trading aimed at collapsing the Soviet Union, a plan originated by President Ronald Reagan, then White House Intelligence Coordinator Lee Wanta and CIA Director William Casey. I have been told that, while this operation went forward under President Reagan, he had ordered that his successor, George H. W. Bush not be “briefed” out of “mistrust” for Bush.

The funds themselves were earned through a scheme of trading Soviet roubles at enormous profit, a practice that eventually collapsed their government. A portion of the profits are subject to current litigation in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Lee presiding. I have over 2,000 pages of documents on this case which shows a remainder of the original funds had been transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by the Bank of China, a party to the rouble trading practice, in 2006 and is claimed as totally owned by Ameritrust Corporation. That amount was $4.5 trillion of which we hold the SWIFT transfer documents."

$15 Trillion Bond Fraud to Prop up the U.S. Dollar?

The article below is from http://www.goldstockbull.com/articles/15-trillion-bond-fraud-to-prop-up-the-u-s-dollar/

I have no idea the truth behind this $15 trillion scandal, but it will be interesting to follow where it goes. Even if the portion about Mr. Riyadi is untrue, that still does not explain where such a large sum of money came from or why senior executives at two different banks accepted the money. Something seems fishy here, although hopefully we will learn more in the coming days.
•At no time has the Federal Reserve Bank of New York been authorized to hold the funds indicated

•However, documents held by Lord Blackheath prove, conclusively that they did hold such funds and transfer them in a manner as to obscure their origin by using HSBC and the Bank of Scotland. This process, seemingly involving Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner and others would appear to be “money laundering” until some other explanation were found. None has been offered.

•The “collateralization” of these funds, being 750,000 tons of gold, is proven to be fantasy. These funds then, in no way or manner, are related to Brunei. The presentation of this false transaction has been conclusively proven to be a “cover and deception” project such as an intelligence organization would use.

•The transfer of these funds, all done without any authorizations, governmental or otherwise, particularly without agreements, payment of interest to the United States and without knowledge and approval of congress makes every aspect of this criminal in nature, a violation of innumerable statues.

•The receipt and use of these funds by the 20 banks, two of which are Wall Street’s largest, and the use of these funds to generate profits while the funds themselves are held “off the books” and the profits hidden and laundered, themselves the earnings of funds received through criminal acts makes any and all involved part of a criminal enterprise.

This potential fraud highlights the vast amounts of paper fiat that can be printed out of thin air and that are floating around the financial system. This story comes just days after Italian authorities found $6 Trillion worth of fake U.S. bonds. It is not clear if these two stories are somehow related, but the timing is certainly peculiar.

No matter the truth regarding these TRILLIONS in US Treasury bonds, stories like this only serve to reinforce my view that only gold and silver, which cannot be printed out of thin air and carry zero risk of default, should be used as money or trusted to hold their value. This story should also give pause to anyone with the bulk of their wealth tied up in fiat dollars, U.S. bonds or anywhere else within the toxic banking system. "

Read more here.

Free Software Melbourne is hosting Brett Smith from the Free Software Foundation on 5 March 2012 at 6pm at Melbourne University.
Public lecture: Free Software and the Law

Free Software Melbourne

Brett Smith from the Free Software Foundation

Public lecture: Free Software and the Law

University of Melbourne, Theatre 1, ICT Building, Barry Street, Carlton (view map).

This talk will introduce free software, explain why it's important, and explore the many places where free software interacts with the law. Brett Smith will illustrate how copyright, licenses, patents, trade agreements, and other laws all play a role in deciding whether and how we can create, use, and share free software — and by extension, who controls our computers. Members of the public are welcome. No technical knowledge is required.

Brett Smith is visiting Melbourne to speak with government negotiators about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the impact on free software.

About Brett Smith

Brett is a GPL Ninja. He works in the Free Software Foundation's Licensing Compliance Lab, as license compliance engineer. Brett answers complex licensing questions from the public, writes widely read and timely posts for the FSF's blogs, codes up Python programs, and dashes across the country to give input to policy makers. Brett also ran the GPL version 3 drafting process.

Proprietary software companies love to talk about how they hire "ninjas." Well, free software has ninjas too!

This event is organised by Free Software Melbourne and generously hosted by the University of Melbourne's Department of Computing and Information Systems. For details, email Ben Sturmfels or phone (03) 9024 2467.

Register for this event

Please register by 10am on 5 March. We'll confirm your registration by email.

Azaria Chamberlain was just nine weeks old when she disappeared on Aug. 17, 1980, from a camping ground near Ayer's Rock, (now known as Uluru), in Australia's outback.

Lindy Chamberlain said soon after that she saw a dingo leaving the family's tent with the baby in its mouth. Azaria's body has never been found.

The 32-year-old case of whether a dingo killed baby Azaria Chamberlain may finally be closed as an inquest in Australia hears new evidence.

When Lindy Chamberlain cried out that a dingo's got my baby, it reverberated round Australia, bringing reactions of incredulity and skepticism, fueled by the seemingly calm appearance of Michael and Lindy Chamberlain.

Two campers, Bill and Judith West, heard a dingo growl near the tent. There were dingo paw prints at the entrance. There were drag marks in the sand and an indentation consistent with a baby's jumpsuit and people actually followed dingo tracks for a time away from the campsite.   The Chamberlains gave the tent to the police who allegedly cleaned the tent floor, erasing evidence.

The Chamberlains went on trial, Lindy convicted of murder in October 1982 and sentenced to life imprisonment - a mandatory sentence for murder in the Territory.   Michael given a suspended sentence for being an accessory after the fact.

The coronial inquest into the death in the Australian outback of baby Azaria, the fourth since the infant disappeared, began in Darwin Magistrates Court in the Northern Territory in response to new information provided by the baby's parents.

The evidence concerns several dingo attacks on infants and young children since Azaria's death.

(The inquest) is the only way I know to let Australians know once and for all that dingoes are dangerous, a statement from Mrs Chamberlain-Creighton read in court said.   

Fraser Island’s dingo population is facing extinction within the next ten to 20 years and continue to be labeled as “dangerous” and aggressive animals.

National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program - Media Release

National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program ( Inc. A0051763G)spokesperson, Dr Ernest Healy, stated in a Media Release February 21, 2012, that:

DERM has applied a ridiculously loose standard in labeling contact between dingoes and humans on Fraser Island as ‘attacks’ or as ‘dangerous’.

The Department has applied a no-tolerance approach to dingo-human contact, whereby virtually any contact at all has been labeled as ‘aggression’ on the part of the dingo. DERM has persisted with categorizing the most trivial forms of contact as aggressive, for which large numbers of high-conservation-value dingoes have been put down.

Dr Healy added:

That these flawed records, a product of the mismanagement of the Fraser Island dingo population, should now be used to further vilify the reputation of the dingo in the Azaria Chamberlain case appears self-serving on DERM’s part. One has to wonder if DERM is now using the Azaria Chamberlain inquest to attempt to legitimize its track record of dingo mismanagement on Fraser Island. If so, this situation is one that all Queenslanders should be outraged about.

That records compiled as a part of the mismanagement of the Fraser Island dingo population should now be used to vilify the dingo in another context highlights the need for a judicial enquiry into Fraser Island dingo management by DERM. A change of government in Queensland in the near future may provide the catalyst for such an enquiry.

Further, it is of concern that Chamberlain attorney may rely on DERM assertions which can be shown to be incorrect. In particular, the claim that habituation = aggression is misleading and may distort the inquiry’s findings. Although DERM maintains that its categorisation of dingo behaviour on Fraser Island is objective, in practice its use of the term ‘aggression’ remains largely subjective.

A member of our group spent 7 years in the field on Fraser Island observing dingoes at close quarters – photographing them and recording their behaviour. She was never harmed, threatened or attacked.

Likewise with long-term residents of the Island. DERM’s incident reports, which number in the hundreds, show that behaviour leading up to alleged ‘attacks’ primarily consisted of curious or playful juvenile dingo behaviour. Many incident reports show that the ‘attacks’ were not aggressive by commonly accepted standards.

Dingo behaviour is coded as follows:

• A Avoidance or wary
• B Habituated
• C nuisance or problem
• D aggressive
• E Dangerous

The random sample of DERM incident reports are do not necessarily match the set of reports selected for submission to the Chamberlain inquiry – which may only include ‘dangerous’ incidents) show that 68.5% were code C incidents; 17% were code D, and only 11% were code E.

Of the code E incidents described in the reports, only 4% record biting, or attempted biting. In three cases dingoes were destroyed for ‘attempted biting’; t There were two cases of the dingo ‘circling’ a person, and one record where the dingo ‘did not bare its teeth or attempt to bite’.

In many cases of D category incidents, the dingoes were easily scared away, which implies no serious intent to attack. In 23% of C & D incidents, the dingo was noted as ‘non-aggressive’. We submit that, in many cases, the behaviour was merely juvenile play behaviour. This is because, in 100% of reports we studied, the dingoes were under 12 months old.

This is supported by an early Department report which states: ‘nuisance behaviour is usually associated with a juvenile animal’s playful character.’ (Price 1994)

It is disturbing that a large percentage of ‘incidents’ (22%) were instigated by DERM rangers.
To the extent that incidents of dingo aggression on Fraser Island may be treated seriously, it is our view that such aggression reflects the mismanagement and mistreatment of the dingo population, rather than any inherent behavioural tendency in the animal itself.

Forty per cent of the ‘incident’ reports were principally cases of dingo ‘sightings’, recorded as ‘loitering’. The response in 30% of these circumstances was to haze the dingo, or in other cases the dingoes had already previously undergone intense hazing programs. Hazing is shooting a dingo with a clay marble from a sling shot or firing pellets from a 22 rifle. In some cases, the dingoes had undergone aversive therapy using electric shock collars, a practice condemned by the RSPCA.

It is instructive to note what people were doing prior to an alleged attack. For example, people giving food to dingoes to lure them for a photo and then chasing them with sticks when they were sick of them.

DERM’s preferred dingo expert, Dr Laurie Corbett, who is currently cited by DERM in defence of the ‘habituation = aggression’ hypothesis, is quoted in Lionel Hudson’s 1974 publication, Dingoes Don’t Bark, as saying there had been no unprovoked attack on a person by a dingo.

Notwithstanding the dubious characterisation of dingo in alleged attacks on Fraser Island, the degree of responsibility exercised by parents and adults with children in such circumstances has been questionable.

One such incident involved an alleged attack by a dingo on a child on Fraser Island in 2007, where it is claimed that a young girl was attacked near a car loading point on the beach. An affidavit from a barge skipper (who did not witness the incident, but spoke to the people involved) describes his warning to persons at the loading point to stay close to their children. The skipper also described the situation as one where the parents and the child did not seem overly distressed after the incident.

The parents subsequently admitted that they took their eyes of the child for a moment. However, according to witnesses, the child was at least 200 metres away from the parents at the time of the alleged attack.

Hybrids are more aggressive

Dingo expert Laurie Corbett has written that apart from the contamination of the gene pool, hybrids pose more of a threat to the pastoral industry than pure Dingoes do. Female hybrids come into oestrous twice each year, and are capable of killing many more calves than pure dingoes can. Paradoxically they do not eat them. Also, in urban areas, hybrids are probably more dangerous to humans than most pure domestic dog breeds.... At the time of writing, 1995, there had been eight human fatalities caused by “pet” wolf hybrids.

Could it be that the “dingo” that killed Azaria Chamberlain was more likely to have been a hybrid or a wild dog?

Corbett recommended education is the best way to help people understand the Dingos' plight and push for policies to retain the species as part of Australia's national heritage. There should be more "education" on managing human behaviour with regards to dingo interaction on Fraser Island!!

(Corbett, Laurie, Australia Nature, Summer 1995-96, “Dingoes: Expatriate Wolves of Native Dogs?”)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contacts: Radio: Ernest Healy, President NDPRP, [email protected]
Newspaper: Jennifer Parkhurst, Fraser Island Representative NDPRP, [email protected]

The National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program is a non-profit organisation that brings together environmental scientists, conservation organisations and concerned individuals to ensure the protection of the dingo as an integral part of Australian ecosystems. The organisation aims to:
* encourage legislative and government policy change to ensure the protection and survival of the dingo in the wild, and
*inform and educate the public and government as to the cultural, ecological and historical significance of the dingo.

In his book, Ethical Oil, Canadian author and high profile media commentator Ezra Levant took aim at the hypocrisy of Greenpeace and other environmental groups in training their guns on Alberta oil sands oil, while leaving oil producers such as Saudi Arabia off the hook. Better that America buy its oil from Canada---a country that respects human rights and applies stronger environmental controls----than from offshore dictatorships. With oil sands and the Enbridge pipeline proposal under attack, and billions of profits and tax revenues on the line, Levant has stepped up his attack on the environmental movement. He charges that their agenda is driven by a prejudice against technology and civilization, a discredited attitude with a long pedigree. The ideology of Deep Ecology is a toxic, anti-human death cult. But is not the ideology of endless growth a death cult of the most profound kind?

Ezra Levant is a Canadian media personality and author of increasing prominence. In my view, he is a composite of the very best and very worst of 'conservativism' as it is known in Canada. He has been a fearless crusader against censorship, corruption in the CBC, Islamopandering and political correctness. Good on him. But coupled with these virtues is a profound ignorance of ecological issues. Unfortunately, he is quite gifted in showcasing this ignorance in an entertaining and persuasive manner. The following two short videos are a sample of his invaluable work on behalf of Big Oil and the ideology of endless growth.

In these diatribes he describes a good part of the environmental movement as a 'death cult' with a 'toxic', 'anti-human', 'anti-progress, 'anti-technology' message. He directs particular scorn at "luddites" and "transition" crazies, who want to "de-energize and de-industrialize" our society and destroy our quality of life. Whereas the early luddites smashed machinery, modern luddites are killing pipelines with their petitions. The reason we enjoy comfort is because of the triumph of technology, human ingenuity and freedom, freedom which is threatened by those who want the nanny state to tell us to recycle, use low flush toilets and regulate our lives. The bottom line is that these anti-industry, anti-progress environmentalists HATE oil, and some of them hate it so much they are telling us lies about it running out. That is what drives them. That is the world according to Levant. And that is the world that, if you believe the polls, most Albertans and western Canadians live in too, including many who do not vote for Harper's Conservatives.

What frustrates me about Levant's rant is that there is a kernel of truth mixed in with his ignorance and sophistry. There ARE people in the green movement (he calls them Deep Ecologists, I call them anarcho-primitivists) who do believe that a pre-industrial existence would be lovely. They believe that life would be so much better 'off the grid'. I am not one of them. I know what it is like to live without electricity. It is an effing pain in the ass, if you want to know the truth. And I know a lot of people like me, who having 'roughed it', never want to go back to that life again. I like civilization. I like the amenities I enjoy, and am grateful for what modern medicine and medical technology has done for me. But that is not the point. The point is that according to what I read, this civilization, the civilization that I enjoy, is not sustainable. It is not a conclusion I want to reach, but there it is.

So the choice then, is either to let it continue with BAU and crash with horrendous consequences-----a very 'anti-human' option surely---- or try to de-industrialize and de-populate incrementally so as to lessen the pain and shorten the casualty list. That, according to Levant, is a toxic, anti-human proposal. And it would be----- if you believe, like Levant, that non-renewable natural resources and human ingenuity are inexhaustible. But I don't. So count me as a luddite.

Tim Murray

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/anti-industry-anger/1468563171001

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/green-apocalypse/1469781746001

What a film! Five people in a small boat come across a young humpback whale that has become inextricably caught up in many lengths of fishing net - so much so that its tail hangs 15 feet below water, under the weight, whilst it tries to keep on the surface to breath. The five people only have one small knife and it takes them hours to liberate the whale. During this the whale cooperates...

Click on the large picture to see the video. It lasts a bit over 8 minutes - all of them riveting. At the end the whale stays with them for some time and does a bunch of amazing stuff.

The producers of this film are contactable here: www.eii.org/gwc at the Great Whale Conservancy.

The release of Canada's latest Census report should have given the environmental establishment the opportunity to blow the whistle on the government's immigration policy. It would be the ideal "teachable moment" to restore "population" to the position it once held in the environmental discussion, and to resurrect the call for the development of a Population Plan for this nation. But once again, as happened in 2007, they have nothing to say. Not a word. Not a peep. Just what their corporate benefactors want to hear.

“The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct. To say, as many do, that the difficulties of nations are not due to people but to poor ideology or land-use management is sophistic.” E.O. Wilson

February 22, 2012. It’s been 14 days and counting.

The results of the 2011 Census Report were released on February 8th of 2012, but the silence from official environmental quarters continues. How could that be?

If there had been a major oil spill on the BC coast that day, do you think the Green NGOs would have said something? If the federal government announced that it was going ahead with the Enbridge pipeline regardless of what came out of public hearings, do you think the Green NGOs would have said something? If the government announced that it would approve mining, logging or drilling at Banff National Park do you think the Green NGOs would have mentioned it, at least in passing?

Damn rights they would! In fact, they would be screaming to the heavens about it. And they would be right in doing so.

Yet two weeks have passed since the 2011 Census Report was released they still have nothing to say about the biggest ecological disaster to afflict this nation since the last ice age, Canada’s silent killer, the cancer of rapid exponential population growth, 70% of which is driven by hyper-immigration, a policy that has been responsible for the addition of 7 million people to this country since 1990, when it began. Its environmental impact has been enormous. It has generated four times as much GHG emissions as oil sands project and despoiled three times as much land. Not boreal forest, but precious prime farmland for the most part, which has been converted to housing. In Ontario alone, according to Ontario Farmland Trust, some 600,000 acres of very good farmland was developed between 1996-2006, a period of very high immigration rates, which incidentally match Australia’s as the highest in the world. The province’s then Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller, warned that if this intake was not curbed, the “Golden Horseshoe”, site of some of the best farmland in Canada, would have to accommodate another 6 million people in the next two decades.

The future looks bad. How bad is it? Check out the numbers.

Between 2001 and 2006, Canada’s population grew by 5.4% or 1.08% per year. The fastest population growth rate in the G8.

Between 2006 and 2011, however, that growth rate picked up steam. It was 5.9% or 1.18% per year.

Once again, Canada had the fastest population growth rate in the G8-----for ten years running.

In 2006, Canada’s official population was 31,612,897. By 2011, however, it was officially 33,476,688. In other words, Canada added 1,863,791 more people to its numbers over 5 years, or 372, 758 per year. Put another way, since 2006 when Halifax had almost 373,000 people, Canada has added a Halifax to its numbers each and every year. In total, Canada has added the equivalent of Hamilton and Edmonton to its population level since 2006. And this doesn’t include the hundreds of thousands of residents with temporary visas. The verdict is in. We are growing at a torrid place.

Had Canada retained its relatively high population growth rate of 1.08%, experienced between 2001-2006, our population would double in 65 years. But now, with an even faster population growth rate of 5.9%, we are on target to double our population in 59 years. This means that by 2071, Canada would consist of 66 million people---and this assumes that we will not be called upon to accept tens of millions of refugees fleeing the impact of climate change and crippling resource shortages and the conflict which will ensue from it.

What are the Talking Heads of Green Inc. telling us?

We cannot allow this to happen. Someone must speak out. Someone who commands attention. Someone like David Suzuki or the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. What is holding these people back? Why won’t they break the silence? Are they telling us that adding 1,863,791 more consumers to our society in 5 years is of negligible ecological impact? Are they saying that pipelines cannot be built before they are vetted by ecologists and biologists and subjected to public hearings, but there should be no environmental impact assessment of population growth as a deliberate government objective?

The hypocrisy of Canada's Green Pharisees is breathtaking. While the house is burning they vigorously polish the wood furniture. Our cities are bursting at the seams and sprawling over arable greenbelts and they are missing in action. I cannot find words adequate to vent my rage at these pretentious fakes, so I will invoke the scorn expressed by Jesus in Matthew 23:23:24 when spoke of the hypocritical high priests of his time:

"You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel"

Tim Murray
February 22, 2012

Here is the transcript of the notorious growth-lobby video “Straightening out B.A.N.A.N.A.S” with Bernard Salt, Rob Lang (CEO Parramatta City Council) and Guy Gibson, which we wrote about at "Salty follies and the Naked Property and Growth Lobby."Here the participants, notably KPMG partner and Murdoch journalist, Bernard Salt, discuss how to influence public opinion by posing as the 'public' in a variety of informal forums. Ironically, these wrinkled old men show disrespect for Australian citizens who object to their bulldozer development tactics, generalising them as old has-beens - Gibson describes them as "wrinklies" - and suggesting that they have nothing better to do than to participate in democracy - only they don't acknowledge that it is democracy - they call it 'populism'. More and more, growth lobby queens sound like the Mary Antoinettes of Australian society.

The transcript below is from the Property Council of Australia's inhouse production of a how to mislead the public video entitled “Straightening out B.A.N.A.N.A.S,” starring professionals of spin, Bernard Salt, Rob Lang (CEO Parramatta City Council) and Guy Gibson. We wrote about this film at "Salty follies and the Naked Property and Growth Lobby."

Editorial

The participants discuss how to influence public opinion by posing as the 'public' in a variety of informal forums in what is known as 'astroturfing'. Apparently featuring frequently on television and radio, ABC and commercial, and in major newspapers isn't enough. They need still more media influence. They bare their bottoms metaphorically towards Australian citizens who object to their bulldozer development tactics, generalising them as old has-beens - Gibson describes them as "wrinklies" - and suggesting that they have nothing better to do than to participate in democracy - only they don't acknowledge that it is democracy - they call it 'populism'.

What does this say about Murdoch journalists in Australia, if not that some of them have similar ethical codes to Murdoch journos in Britain? Salt had a column in the Herald Sun and now he has one in The Australian. All the Australian mainstream media, including the ABC, now broadcast Salt and similar lobbyists as if they were 'experts'. Andrew MacLeod of the Melbourne Committee was recently given free range by The Herald Sun to insult Melbourne's real representatives - Citizens Mary Drost, Geoffrey Rush, and Barry Humphries - for standing their ground in the face of top down engineered overpopulation and development expansion. Mary, Barry and Geoffrey have shown the courage of Davids to Goliath in the face of of this Augean stable of property-development spin artists maintained constantly in the public eye by Australia's commercial/public totalitarian press. In fact the reflection on the Australian press is not just its journalistic ethics, but the fact that it is an integral part of the growth lobby and has major and multiple vested interests in it which are antithetical to democracy. (Examples are www.realestate.com.au and www.domain.com.au as well as lifestyle shows that push real estate and lifestyle retail daily down our throats.)

Bernard Salt on the difficulty in pushing a big population on Australians:

"The reason why this is important is that public policy is now determined by focus group. And this was proven by the ‘big Australia’ debate. Kevin Rudd said “I believed in a big Australia” on the 22nd of October, 2009 on the 7:30 Report. He did not repeat that claim for three months. He would’ve got off that set, and his minders would’ve said 'don’t ever use that term again.' They polled it, no doubt, and it would’ve come back 80/20 against. At 80/20 against, modern politicians, regardless if you are advocating, regardless if you are lobbying, regardless of whatever cosy relationships you have with whatever minister, if it’s 80/20 against, drop it! And that is exactly what happened over the following nine months. It’s hearts and minds. If you can get that 80/20 sentiment down to 55/45, then you have a case. Then you have a prospect of influencing policy in the 2010s. That’s how it works, I think." Bernard Salt

The Transcript

Transcribed under the supervision of a member of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA).

Transcript of The Australian Property Forum, “Straightening out B.A.N.A.N.A.S” with Bernard Salt, Rob Lang (CEO Parramatta City Council) and Guy Gibson (General Manager for Lend Lease’s community business in Queensland), 25 July 2011, uploaded to You Tube by Propertyoz, 14 August 2011. See Accessed 22/01/12 and transcribed. The time from the start of the video is given in minutes and seconds throughout the transcript.

*During parts of this session Mr Salt was addressing the audience with aid of power point slides. The text of these slides, together with the times for which they are visible, is given just before the relevant section of the transcript of his talk. It is presented here as boxed text.

B. Salt – 00.04: Uh, my presentation today is Straightening Out B.A.N.A.N.A.S – power over populism.
B. Salt – 00.08: I’ll uh, explain exactly what I mean uh a little later on, but the essence is that I have a very simple proposition, and that proposition is that there has been an ideological shift in the Australian continent, community and people that is having a direct bearing on the performance of the property industry and the broader business community in Australia.
B. Salt – 00.28: I call it the rise of negativism over positivism.
B. Salt – 00.32: And there is no point lobbying, advocating, doing anything in Canberra, with a minister, whatever, unless you get in there and grab, make change at the grass roots level.
B. Salt – 00.45: It is now about how the average Australian thinks.
B. Salt – 00.49: And the mistake that the property industry and that the business community has been making, I think, over the last decade is that you need to actually engage with the people.
B. Salt – 01.01: It is no longer an option to sit back and do nothing.
B. Salt – 01.06: Don’t give the issue oxygen.
B. Salt – 01.09: We have tried that, and it ain’t workin’.
B. Salt – 01.13: That’s my proposition.

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody 01.14-01.53
or
The Negativism versus Positivism Debate

B. Salt – 01.14: BANANAs, of course, is an acronym for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.
B. Salt – 01.20: Um, and it is a mindset.
B. Salt – 01.24: And my argument is that if the property industry, if the business community does not fight back, then you create a vacuum.
B. Salt – 01.31: And in the PR world, um views um extend into a vacuum.
B. Salt – 01.36: And mum and dads now have a negative view of growth, of development, of property, of big business, big banks.
B. Salt – 01.44: Big, whatever it is, is seen as negative.
B. Salt – 01.47: And that’s because no one is prepared to actually stand up and put the positive side of growth.

01.53-02.03 What are the issues
The action/behaviour of councils, councillors, council officers, action groups, local media ... are common themes
Pedantic regulation ... decisions rescinded ... craven populism by local councillors ... labelling all as ‘grubby developers’
Objections from people beyond the local area ... professional agitators looking to make a point ... compliant local media
And these same people complain about housing affordability!

02.03-06.23 Development site on the edge of Sydney
Local meetings staged for local media
Council staff ‘scared to make a call’ ... ‘don’t want bad press’
Intimidation and hysteria are the preferred MO of action groups
Local councillors fearful of vocal groups as they have to live among them
We are living in the era of the professional objector ... if business doesn’t defend itself then negative sentiment expands into a PR vacuum ... mum & dad believe the sentiment
Public policy now determined by focus groups – Minerals Council proved this last year

B. Salt – 01.53: No wonder, mum and dad out in the ‘burbs believe big banks, big business, big profits, big developer, because no one is articulating the case.
B. Salt – 02.03: We are now living in the era of the professional objector.
B. Salt – 02.07: There has been a paradigm shift.
B. Salt – 02.09: What we have done in the past is no longer good enough to navigate the next ten years.
B. Salt – 02.16: If business doesn’t defend itself, uh then negative sentiment expands into a vacuum, and that is my point.
B. Salt – 02.24: Every time you do not say something, every time you do not speak out, then negative sentiment expands, and it’s not just the property industry.
B. Salt – 02.34: I can’t believe it.
B. Salt – 02.35: Every year when the banks announce their profit, you know, CBA announces 1.5 billion dollars profit.
B. Salt – 02.42: Big banks, big greedy whatever it is.
B. Salt – 02.45: No one from the property industry [has and says] hang on, that’s unfair.
B. Salt – 02.50: 1.5 billion dollars profit on, on equity invested is this percentage return.
B. Salt – 02.58: No shh, shutdown, don’t say anything, not my problem.
B. Salt – 03.03: I say it is your problem.
B. Salt – 03.05: I think this is a whole of business approach.
B. Salt – 03.08: I would like to see the PCA.
B. Salt – 03.10: I would like to see the BCA.
B. Salt – 03.12: I’d like to see the IAG.
B. Salt – 03.14: I’d like to see the Minerals Council.
B. Salt – 03.15: I’d like to see the Australian Banker’s Association actually get together and start fighting back, but fairly, in a measured, responsible, planned, articulate way, presenting the case for growth and development.
B. Salt – 03.30: About four years ago, 2007, early in the year, um I was writing for the Herald Sun in the, in the opinion pages in Melbourne.
B. Salt – 03.38: Very high profile opinion page uh and um I led off.
B. Salt – 03.43: Was asked to do it by um the editor at the time, now I led off with something I thought was going to grab Melbournians’ attention, uh it was a complete whinge about John Howard uh moving the Prime Ministerial residence to Kirribilli, uh and I thought this is gonna be very popular, and of course it was.
B. Salt – 03.58: Whipped Melbournians’ up into a frenzy of anti–Sydney sentiment.
B. Salt – 04.03: Uh which is what I do.
B. Salt – 04.06: Um.
B. Salt – 04.07: The next day, in the letters to the editor, there was a very measured response from some guy at Beaumaris.
B. Salt – 04.14: “Mr. Salt is mistaken, [the] constitution does not disallow this modern transport.”
B. Salt – 04.20: “Mr. Howard is able to conduct his business in both Sydney and Canberra.”
B. Salt – 04.23: “There is no issue here.”
B. Salt – 04.25: There was something about that letter.
B. Salt – 04.28: Uh I think it was a fine, I think they made a great point.
B. Salt – 04.31: I think that was a letter from a hack.
B. Salt – 04.33: From a political hack.
B. Salt – 04.35: I think the politic–political parties have someone monitoring the opinion pages of the Herald Sun, and anytime there is negative sentiment, bang!
B. Salt – 04.45: In comes the counter argument.
B. Salt – 04.48: Now, if my argument had swayed, say, a hundred people across to my side, without a counter argument, they remain on my side.
B. Salt – 04.58: But just putting a counter argument, fair, measured, reasonable, polite, might just claw back 10 or 15, 10 or 15 per cent.
B. Salt – 05.09: And that’s my point.
B. Salt – 05.10: If you don’t fight back, then all of that negative sentiment goes to uh, to one side.
B. Salt – 05. 17: The reason why this is important is that public policy is now determined by focus group.
B. Salt – 05.22: And this was proven by the ‘big Australia’ debate.
B. Salt – 05.25: Kevin Rudd said “I believed in a big Australia” on the 22nd of October, 2009 on the 7:30 Report.
B. Salt – 05.32: He did not repeat that claim for three months.
B. Salt – 05.35: He would’ve got off that set, and his minders would’ve said “don’t ever use that term again.”
B. Salt – 05.41: They polled it, no doubt, and it would’ve come back 80/20 against.
B. Salt – 05.46: At 80/20 against, modern politicians, regardless if you are advocating, regardless if you are lobbying, regardless of whatever cosy relationships you have with whatever minister, if it’s 80/20 against, drop it!
B. Salt – 06.02: And that is exactly what happened over the following nine months.
B. Salt – 06.06: It’s hearts and minds.
B. Salt – 06.08: If you can get that 80/20 sentiment down to 55/45, then you have a case.
B. Salt – 06.16: Then you have a prospect of influencing policy in the 2010s.
B. Salt – 06.21: That’s how it works, I think.

06.23-06.37
‘The reason why someone like me doesn’t complain is I know it will affect my next project dealing with council ... and it may affect financing as bankers don’t want to hear there was a problem with my last project’ – Brisbane developer

B. Salt – 06.24: The reason why someone like me does not complain is I know it will affect my next project dealing with council.
B. Salt – 06.31: And it may affect financing as bankers don’t want to hear there was a problem with my last project.

06.38-10.53
The way forward?
Industry bodies need to be players not observers of the debate ... ‘doing nothing’ is no longer an option
Set up a think-tank in concert with other industry bodies:
Articulate participants in the debate
Counter negativism in all theatres – press, blogs, meetings
Active in the ‘hate blogosphere’
Can be called to ‘balance debate’ in specific areas
Intellectual and participatory
Commission ‘Pulse Survey’ of attitudes to development every 6 months in major markets
Cost? $2-3 million p.a.

B. Salt – 06.39: Industry bodies, like the PCA, like the BCA, like the Minerals Council showed us how it was done.
B. Salt – 06.46: Brilliant.
B. Salt – 06.48: 20 mill. Done. Fixed.
B. Salt – 06.51: Not lobbying any prime minister, not lobbying any minister.
B. Salt – 06.55: Going to hearts and minds.
B. Salt – 06.58: We will sway the people that you survey in order to determine your policies.
B. Salt – 07.04: It’s not right.
B. Salt – 07.06: It’s not the way I want my country to be managed.
B. Salt – 07.08: I want my country to be managed by real leaders, who have a vision of where this country should be and who are prepared to lead and sway opinion.
B. Salt – 07.20: That is not what we’ve got.
B. Salt – 07.22: What we’ve got, is people too scared to make this decision or that decision without polling.
B. Salt – 07.28: Well fine.
B. Salt – 07.29: You need to get in there and change the mindset.
B. Salt – 07.33: Doing nothing is– I want to set up a think tank in concert, perhaps, with other industry bodies.
B. Salt – 07.39: I want active, articulate participants in the debate.
B. Salt – 07.44: About 18 months ago, um someone– I was in the centre of inter– uh, independent studies, is a right wing think tank in Sydney, wrote an article in the Sydney Morning Herald opinion pages on the benefits of growth.
B. Salt – 07.57: They wanted to balance the argument at that time.
B. Salt – 07.59: I read the blog responses to that.
B. Salt – 08.03: If you ever want to see the hate blogosphere, the extreme thinking that you are up against, just jump onto any of those websites.
B. Salt – 08.14: Not one person, not one, in 230 put a reasoned, balanced, measured counter response.
B. Salt – 08.22: I want to see someone actually in there and every time you do not respond, negative sentiment extends just that bit further across middle Australia.
B. Salt – 08.32: I want to see someone, somebody, some group of people, counter the negativism in all theatres; social media, Twitter, blogosphere.
B. Salt – 08.44: Seek out, and not destroy, seek out and balance every extreme view.
B. Salt – 08.52: Take the fight to them.
B. Salt – 08.55: Sitting back is not an option.
B. Salt – 08.56: I do understand that individuals cannot do this.
B. Salt – 09.00: But surely there is a way you can actually fund a group to do it on your behalf.
B. Salt – 09.07: This is not a pitch for me, at all, but I would certainly be advi– I would love to advise, say this is what you need to do, this is how you need to set it up.
B. Salt – 09.16: Um, this is, these are the groups that you need to go after.
B. Salt – 09.20: And the other thing I would do is actually run a pulse survey.
B. Salt – 09.25: What is the sentiment towards business in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane?
B. Salt – 09.30: Is it 80/20 against?
B. Salt – 09.32: Odd surveys, every six months
B. Salt – 09.34: I dunno what that costs, whatever that costs, I’d run it every six months.
B. Salt – 09.38: What’s your attitude to growth and development? Hate it, don’t like it.
B. Salt – 09.42: 80 percent against, 20 percent for.
B. Salt – 09.45: Then I’d run it six months later. And then six months later, and six months later.
B. Salt – 09.50: And I would see whether this taking of the fight to the blogosphere, to the meetings, to every possible theatre you can imagine.
B. Salt – 10.00: To the opinion pages of the Herald Sun; see whether it works.
B. Salt – 10.05: You can actually measure it.
B. Salt – 10.08: Um, cost, look I don’t know what this sort of thing costs, I’m just basing it on, you know, a small consulting group, I suppose, two–three mil a year.
B. Salt – 10.16: What is the cost?
B. Salt – 10.17: What is the cost of doing nothing at the moment?
B. Salt – 10.21: And my argument is, doing nothing is not an option.
B. Salt – 10.25: I think this goes beyond the BCA, the PCA.
B. Salt – 10.27: I would like to see this done in concert with a whole range of uh, of industry and business groups, to actually balance the argument that, for strategic reasons, that industry players are not able to uh, uh pursue at the moment.
B. Salt – 10.48: Um, in order to uh, perhaps um discuss this uh, uh this, this idea I’ve uh asked a number of um, or two people to uh, to come up to the stage so we can have a discussion uh, around the um, the findings and in that regard I’ve asked uh Guy Gibson from uh, Lend Lease.
B. Salt – 11.06: Could Guy come up to the stage please?
B. Salt – 11.08: Uh, and also Rob Lang, uh GM from the Parramatta City Council, could you uh, come up to the stage.
B. Salt – 11.14: I’d start off by asking perhaps uh, Guy, for your overall reactions to uh, to what I’m suggesting.
G. Gibson – 11.21: Uh, well I guess um, not surprisingly, I very largely agree with your sort of prognosis of the situation we find ourselves in.
G. Gibson – 11.28: Um um, and I’m pleased to see the property councillors got rebranding the industry’s image as, as one of its priorities, but I think uh, it’s priority number eight in the uh, in the power house update and it’s not mentioned anywhere else in the document, other than being identified as priority number eight, so there’s no sort of set of actions that’s been identified to, to prosecute the cause.
G. Gibson – 11.48: Um, a-and I think, really, you know, many of the other initiatives that we were attempting to pursue as an industry, are not likely to find favour with uh, with government or the community generally unless we attack this issue of industry image head on.
G. Gibson – 12.01: And I-I think, you know, the mining industry have done a fantastic job, was at the cinema recently, sitting and watching an ad that went for about a minute and you really don’t know what the ad’s even for for a whole minute, it’s just sort of pictures of people being helped out of flood water, and care flight helicopters, and, you know, food parcels arriving, and thriving local economies, and you get right to the end and it’s an ad for the mining industry, and just, it’s a minute of feel good, brought to you by the mining industry, but, you know, the property council used to do quite a lot, particularly in the shopping centre space to remind um, you know, MP’s just how important shopping centres are to local economies, generating uh, wealth and, and employment and so forth, and we’ve sort of um, largely vacated that space over the last few years.
G. Gibson – 12.43: I-I think we need a big, broad um, community campaign uh, at a PR level.
G. Gibson – 12.50: I think we certainly need to continue the political engagement uh, on all sides of politics.
G. Gibson – 12.55: I think we need to fight the-the-the-the hand to hand battles, project by project, and in fact that’s-that’s where I think the industry is-has gotten very much better at over the last few years, and our community engagement techniques, project by project, are much more effective than they used to be, but it-it’s against this, this rising tide, as you pointed out of, of uh, sentiment which is very much anti-growth, uh, anti-development.
B. Salt – 13.17: My thinking was that a think tank, and I think it needs to be some-a body that is um, that is separate to the, uh, the PCA, and is why also want to buy in from the BCA, I can’t imagine that the Australian Banker’s Association would not also be interested in something that is shifting sentiment.
B. Salt –13.34: Now this idea that, you know, banks should not be able to get a fair return on their investment is, is bizarre.
B. Salt –13.42: We have this disconnect in Australia between the way we want to live our superannuation and our objection to every development, to anyone making a profit.
G. Gibson –13.51: Hm I think that’s right, there is an anti-business sentiment um, abroad as well as quite specific, sort of sentiment that’s um, antagonistic towards growth and development.
G. Gibson –13.59: I mean you’ve mentioned the Centre for Independent Studies, they came out with a report last week where they, they’ve actually um, polled, uh, all the mayors and CEO’s of liable governments across the country and uh, in just about all the cases, uh, increasing growth and development is associated with pressure on local government revenue, because they rely on rates revenue and developer contributions, and, you know, so they’re really they’re- they’re- they’re really being uh, uh sandwiched at the moment between, you know, demand for more development and their ability to-to finance infrastructure for new development, and they’ve really got nowhere to go so, I mean, one of the conclusions the Centre for Independent Studies came to is we really need to revisit the-the structure of financing for local government, to actually give them access to a growth tax, whether that’s, you know, a-a-a increasing the GST and hypothecate a proportion of liable government based on population size or whether it’s just a, a clearer grants process that delivers more federal grants to uh, um, to growing local authorities, but we-we need to, we need to address that issue as an industry as well, so we need to engage with local government, we need to engage with the planning profession uh, as well as sort of political and a, and a community PR level, in my view.
B. Salt –15.09: Thanks, uh, thanks Guy. Rob, your thoughts from the Parramatta City Council perspective, do you see what I see?
R. Lang –15.15: Well Bernard, first of all thank you for the, uh, craven populism tag, I think I’ll, I’ll enjoy that going forward.
R. Lang –15.20: Uh, look I don’t think it’s true uh, that-that um, and I think Guy’s right, councils do have a-an interesting challenge, an interesting opportunity, uh our council Parramatta absolutely pro-uh development, pro growth, uh, in fact we’re-we’re growing a city.
R. Lang –15.33: Parramatta is the uh, thir-the sixth biggest city in Australia, we’re the third largest economic zone after Sydney and Brisbane uh, Gulf Coast.
R. Lang –15.42: Uh, we see enormous need to build hundreds of thousands of square metres of office space and residential in density in Parramatta over the next decade.
R. Lang –15.49: Uh, and unless the um-
B. Salt –15.51: How are you gonna do that with-with the sentiment of objections?
R. Lang –15.54: That’s it, unless we embrace growth we’re not gonna be the city that we aspire to be.
R. Lang –15.58: So, um, I agree however that the uh, the um, negativism that you talked about is absolutely out there, in fact it’s happening already, uh and the challenge is not to silence the baby boomers, but in fact to balance them, and I think you’re right.
R. Lang –16.10: We need to hear from the, from what has been the silent majority, uh, there are a lot of developments where people are, you know, um, either positive or maybe at worst, indifferent.
R. Lang –16.18: But we never hear from them.
R. Lang –16.19: We hear from the one percent or two percent of people who have this enormous objection uh, and uh, we’ve gotta make sure that our politicians, whether they are state or local, are not swayed by a very, very small voice.

16.30-17.54
Do State Governments still deserve a piece of the policy pie? Would problems around politicisation of development be simplified though greater consistency in approach that could be delivered with Federal Government policy formulation and Local Government execution?
‘Tall Poppy Syndrome’ is endemic in mainstream Australian culture and runs deep to our convict and European roots. Australia is increasingly reliant on the Asia region, which proudly celebrates success. If Australia doesn’t move from negativism to positivism how will Australia look in 20-30 years?

G. Gibson – 16.30: Um, I mean I-the-the difficulty of the Federal Government getting involved in-in planning issues is that they do it at such a-a scale um, that um it-it really is sort of um, you know, parenthood and lamingtons stuff, I mean the-what we want from the Federal Government is-is funding for infrastructure, I think, and they’ve really got little capacity to-to add value in uh, in town planning regulation in my view.
G. Gibson – 16.55: I mean it’d be-it’d be helpful if all the states would move towards more harmonious um, planning legislation and planning and environmental uh, regulation and policy um, but I really can’t see any process driven by COAG getting us there.
B. Salt –17.09: I actually don’t see that as the immediate issue, I see it as an intermediate issue.
B. Salt –17.13: This is not an issue to think about, I think this needs to be done right now, this whole changing the sentiment and attitudes towards business.
B. Salt –17.21: And I’m not sure whether in fact this has heightened since the GFC, the collapse of Wall Street, evil bankers, evil business, whatever it is, but it seems to be certainly gathering momentum.
B. Salt –17.30: And you can see it crystallised in any number of projects.
B. Salt –17.33: What about your response uh, Rob, to uh is this Tall Poppy Syndrome?
Do you think that’s uh, pretty much what this is?
B. Salt –17.40: Big business is really just um, a way of cutting down tall poppies.
R. Lang –17.44: Look, I think Australians have always had a-a healthy uh, um, disregard for tall poppies uh, and I don’t think that’s actually changed much.
R. Lang –17.51: I think what is different is that you’re absolutely right in saying earlier we have a very articulate uh, very well educated uh-uh set of people who have a lot of time on their hands who are able to respond uh, to anything.
R. Lang –18.03: And it really wouldn’t matter whether it’s a, you know, this issue or another one, they-if they can’t-if-if we took away their issue they’d find another one.
B. Salt –18.09: Exactly.
R. Lang –18.09: So I-I think we need to be conscious of that and to uh-uh, engage better, and this is a-where-I-I actually liked what Peter [Berger??] was saying earlier about a-a new approach to advocacy, I think we need to take a new approach to consultation, advocacy, call it what you like, but it’s more about changing the hearts and minds of the population than it is about changing the hearts and minds of politicians, because they won’t.
B. Salt –18.29: Exactly. It’s-It’s beyond advocacy, I think.
B. Salt –18.31: There’s a no ordino-another level of advocac-advocacy uh, and that is hearts and minds.
B. Salt –18.36: I wanna go in there and change the way middle Australia thinks.
B. Salt –18.40: And the rea-I don’t think it’s hard because we haven’t been fighting back at all.
B. Salt –18.45: You will never get the extremist, but it’s the-it’s that balanced 25 percent of the population, between the sort of 40 percent, 65-70 percent that I think is swayable, simply by putting forward a reasonable counter argument.
B. Salt –19.00: Exactly the way I think that party hack achieved his goal by balancing my um, whipping up of a frenzy of anti-Sydney sentiment uh, in the uh, in-in the Herald Sun.
B. Salt –19.12: Fair, reasonable, measured, balanced, just providing reasonable people with a way to actually think differently.
B. Salt –19.21: Are there any classic examples you could think of uh, Guy, that in your recent career that um, uh, that exemplify this uh, this culture of negativism?
G. Gibson – 19.31: Well you know, in my experience it’s very largely a sort of a generational um, phenomenon as well mmm, say this Queensland’s been going through a regional planning uh, growth management processes for the last uh, 10 years or so and at almost any public forum about regional plan, you’ll find like a busload of wrinklies will arrive from sort of Buderim on the Sunshine Coast or, you know, somewhere up the back of Esk or something, and they’ll arrive and the, you know, they’ll-they’ll uh, speak in very kind of uh, emotional language about how terrible it is that uh, that-that Queensland’s growing and how, you know, the Premier ought to stop making statements that encourage people to move to Queensland from interstate, and they really, they’ve got a complete disconnect between the way in which development works and the, and the sort of uh, the imperatives which drive development, so they think uh, basically if we stop building houses in South East Queensland people would stop moving there from, you know, Victoria.
G. Gibson – 20.24: They’ve got the exactly the kind of reverse causality to—to the way in which, the way in which, you know—
B. Salt –20.30: But-but no one explains to them—
G. Gibson – 20.31: Well no, and the funny thing is—
B. Salt –20.32: No one, no one if—in the absence of real information they form these distorted ...
G. Gibson – 20.36: In my-in my experience, like people, younger people in South East Queensland are very positive about the future, very, you know, young people are very optimistic about the future and it’s the, it’s the older people who seem to have forgotten that uh, South East Queensland a very much better place to live than it was sort of 30 or 40 years ago.
G. Gibson – 20.50: All the changes that have occurred in Queensland, say these Queensland last 30 years have been overwhelmingly positive in terms of employment opportunities, you know, lifestyle opportunities-
B. Salt –20.58: But-but there’s also an issue, I think, in retirement of taking up a cause, you know, you have nothing else to do, so you take up those causes, and there’s no greater cause than the environment uh, and taking on big business or a big developer, and-and-and achieving, achieving some sort of s-power kick or status amongst your social group.
B. Salt –21.20: It ticks all the boxes, it’s very hard to negate.
G. Gibson – 21.23: Yeah I-well I think there’s a, sort of a-a-a-a-a-a mood, a positive mood amongst younger people that we can definitely tap into it, if we-if we got positive messages out as an industry to um, uh, to sort of younger population, I’m sure they would resonate with a younger population.
G. Gibson – 21.40: They are looking forward to the future with confidence if they weren’t getting all these kind of anxious messages from, you know, their parents and grandparents about how everything’s going to hell in a hand basket.
R. Lang –21.49: And-and I think we can pick up on that too by using some of those techniques that are more popular with the younger generation, let’s get into the Facebooks and the Twitters and all those things because if we—if the only way to object to a planning proposal is by writing a written submission by a due date and uh, have it considered by, you know, that process, that’s a process that is ideally suited for baby boomers, and yet it-a-a person of 35 wouldn’t even uh, in their broadest dreams would even bother to do that, so we’ve gotta make sure that the other mechanisms that we’re hearing that voice, that silent majority voice uh, by making it easy for them to submit and to provide a-a-a voice, an idea, and then we’re gonna get a more balanced view.
B. Salt –22.25: What about my idea of a pulse survey? Uh, every six months, running a survey on sentiment.
B. Salt –22.31: Just asking average Joes in the suburbs of Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, what their attitude is to specific development propositions and then tracking that, seeing whether it rises, whether it falls, whether there’s some places that need better and more attention than others.
B. Salt –22.48: I have no idea what the cost of that is but, to my knowledge, I’ve never seen that sort of publicly available information previously.
G. Gibson – 22.56: Hm, well I think uh, to-to a certain extent the anti-development uh, anti-growth sentiment is really just a surrogate for, you know, o-other concerns anyway, so I think it’d be very useful to-to do that uh, pulse check every six months or so.
G. Gibson – 23.07: If you did a pulse check in the population now, what they think of the mining industry you can, you can bet it’s overwhelmingly more positive than it would’ve been before the mining industry started their campaign.
B. Salt –23.15: Yep.
G. Gibson – 23.16: So, um-
B. Salt –23.16: Well in fact um, you know the-the carbon tax, what is it, is it 12 million dollars worth of uh, advertisements over the last week or so, and Julia Gillard has pulled back six percentage points.
B. Salt –23.26: 12 million dollars of advertising campaign buys you you six percentage points in sentiment.
B. Salt –23.32: That’s the equation that I took out of that.
B. Salt –23.34: Cynically, rightly, wrongly, that’s the way the game is played today.
G. Gibson – 23.37: Yeah, alright, well I-I-I agree, it is a hearts and minds issue, it’s not, not so much even the information we put forward, ’cause you can rationally—you can attempt to rationally engage with a lot of the—the uh, this anti-growth uh, sentiment or objectors to individual projects and it’s-it’s-it’s not an, it’s not an argument around facts, this is an argument around values, very largely, so we-we need to engage with them at that level, rather than attempting to convince them that-that doing something is gonna have this impact on-on uh, on GDP, or, you know, local job creation in terms of raw numbers, it’s-it’s actually, it’s a-it’s a mood we’ve gotta create.
R. Lang –24.10: I think you need both though, you need to have the facts because knowledge is power-
B. Salt –24.13: Of course.
R. Lang –24.10: And if you can, if you can put across a-a vision, that gets the hearts uh, and the, and the facts that gets the minds, then you’re going to have—you’re going to get the right, you know, balance of people responding to your-to your perhaps more positive uh, view of the world than the negative view that you hear.

The ABC is to screen a documentary about kangaroos. It is scheduled for television on ABC1 channel will this coming Tuesday evening 21st February 2012 at 8:30pm
It is set in Canberra, Australian Capital Territroy, alias the 'Taijin' of kangaroo slaughter.

The programme is entitled #10;">'Kangaroo Mob'

But the prior promotional trailer includes snippets of interviews with those seeking to sell their sick desire for mass slaughter of Australia's native kangaroos.
Is this documentary really disguised propaganda by a locally struggling trade in Australian wildlife?

The ABC is to screen a documentary about kangaroos. It is scheduled for television on ABC1 channel will this coming Tuesday evening 21st February 2012 at 8:30pm
It is set in Canberra, Australian Capital Territroy, alias the 'Taijin' of kangaroo slaughter.

The programme is entitled #10;">Kangaroo Mob'

The ABC promotional trailer reads:
'In the second of our new strand of Wild Ones natural history documentaries, we meet the mob of 'street smart' kangaroos moving into Australia's capital city and the ecologists following their every move.

Over the course of one drought-stricken year we follow mob leader Black Spot and kangaroo mum Madge with her two young joeys - mischievous Sonny and tiny pouch-bound Alice.
Learning to be an urban 'roo is tough for little Sonny, who must negotiate busy roads, and avoid cars and dogs in order to find food. When the city announces a kangaroo cull, his life is in serious danger.
Thanks to the latest scientific technology we uncover surprising new animal behaviour whilst delving into the controversial issues that arise when sharing your backyard with a large wild creature

Kangaroo Mob is a warm and entertaining look at what happens when human development encroaches on wildlife habitat and two very different species are forced to co-exist.'

The ABC promotional trailer also disturbingly includes snippets of an interview with those seeking to sell their sick desire for mass slaughter of Australia's native kangaroos.

Is this documentary really disguised propaganda by a locally struggling trade in Australian wildlife?
We shall be watching the programme with animal rights scrutiny.

This programme is recommended viewing for anyone concerned about the plight of wildlife everywhere.

Background reading:

1. 2011...Another Very Bad Year for Canberra's Kangaroos!

2. Canberra Kangaroos

VicForests are spending a lot of time in court and they still owe outstanding court costs to Environment East Gippsland. The environmental Davids who have been fighting these outstanding battles on our behalf are in need of our financial and political support.

The case began two weeks ago and will be summed up early next week in front of Justice Osborne (who also heard our case). So far it seems to have gone fairly well, with expert witnesses able to present flawless arguments for the protection of the Leadbeaters Possum habitat in the Central Highland’s. Professor David Lindenmayer and Dr Judith Ajani presented the case for the forests and the insane economics of logging. VicForests seemed to have a huge gaggle of barristers and lawyers to argue that if they can’t log the three coupes in contention, then they wouldn’t be able to log 167 other stands of the endangered Leadbeaters habitat. Logging might then be unviable in the Central Highlands.

The Brown Mountain ruling was cited throughout and clearly laid the path for much of this case.

My Environment has taken this very bold legal step, despite not having had much money to pay the bills to begin with, and like our case, have seen it balloon out to two weeks rather than one. They now desperately need some help to cover their legal costs.
http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/update/17-Feb-2012/img/result-creek2.jpg

DSE suing its old friend, VicForests!

VicForests are again facing the court again on 30th March at Orbost. This one sees the DSE (yes!) prosecute VicForests for illegally logging protected rainforest at Murrungowar just east of Orbost.

EEG sues VicForests again on the 10th April

On the 10th April, Environment East Gippsland is back in the Supreme Court suing VicForests for planning to destroy sites of Rainforest with National Significance. We’ll let you know more details of the trial as we get closer to the date.

VicForests owes EEG outstanding court costs

This month we go into mediation with VicForests in order to retrieve the legal costs back that the court ordered VicForests pay us after the Brown Mountain case almost 18 months ago! If it doesn’t work, we’ll be back in court in March to force the issue.

If you would like to read full details of the Sylvia Creek case, full transcripts will be placed on the My Environment website as they become available. You can read the transcripts of the first three days, in which the case for the plaintiff and VicForests' defence were outlined here.

VicForests argued on Tues – day 2, that the economic case for continuing the logging of endangered species’ habitat outweighs the precautionary principle. In effect, they are saying, jobs are more important than species and ecosystems. The anticipated costs of the case have ballooned due to the necessity to respond to VicForests’ economics argument and other unexpected costs including increased transcript costs because VicForests have requested real time electronic recording of witnesses. Of course, they have access to government funding.

New environmental case could save 162 coupes

On Monday, 6th February, one of the most significant court case ever undertaken on the conservation of Victoria’s threatened fauna commenced in the Supreme Court. The case is testing whether the logging operations of VicForests are in compliance with state laws, focusing on three coupes in Toolangi State Forest, around 80 kms. north-east of Melbourne.

However, VicForests argued on Tues – day 2, that the economic case for continuing the logging of endangered species’ habitat outweighs the precautionary principle. In effect, they are saying, jobs are more important than species and ecosystems.

VicForests have stated that if they can't log these three coupes, then they can't log 162 coupes in the Central Highlands Ash forests - And thousands of jobs will be lost, 150 fire fighters gone and millions of dollars lost to the state. They have threatened that if the precautionary principle is to be applied that it will shut down the industry.

These forests and their animals survived Black Saturday

After Black Saturday and decades of industrial logging, the unburned remnant Ash forests now contain what is left of Melbourne’s water supply and the last viable population of the endangered Leadbeater’s Possum (along with a host of other threatened flora and fauna). MyEnvironment has engaged two expert witnesses of unimpeachable authority, Dr Judith Ajani on the economics and Professor David Lindenmayer on the ecological values of our forests.

VicForests balloon court costs with gov funding - environmentalists seek equity

The anticipated costs of the case have ballooned due to the necessity to respond to VicForests’ economics argument and other unexpected costs including increased transcript costs because VicForests have requested real time electronic recording of witnesses. Of course, they have access to government funding.

The Federal Minister for the Environment Tony Burke is engaged (on some level). MyEnvironment Inc. has requested federal assistance as the case fits squarely in its portfolio of responsibility.

The following information may help you understand the case and why it is so significant:

Specific Biodiversity

Leadbeater’s Possums are Victoria's faunal emblem and considered 'canary in the coal mine' species for biodiversity in Victoria’s forest water catchments. If they are tipped into extinction, it means other forest species are also tipping. This case seeks to prevent this.

The forest age class that supports hollow dependant wildlife, is the same forest that provides, and releases, massive amounts of clean drinking and irrigation water for urban and rural users. Replacing this forest with young, rapidly growing plantations would greatly reduce water production and provide no habitat for hollow-dependent species.

Protecting Melbourne's water catchment

Melbourne’s water was the subject of a 2003 World Bank and WWF report advising against further logging yet logging in water catchments continues. The government’s own studies recommended ending catchment logging by 2009 to improve water supply to Melbourne’s growing population.

Science has recognised that the world’s greatest trees are being lost to disease, climate and drought. In Victoria, we will not have any old growth Ash forests left by 2065 due to industrial logging and fires (Victorian images here). Only around 1% of the old-growth Mountain Ash forest remains in these mountains today.

VicForests already demonstrated lack of respect for law

FSC certification was removed from products coming from these forests because VicForests failed to demonstrate compliance with the principles of biodiversity management.

VicForests industry relies on funding from your taxes

The primary recipient of wood from the Central Highlands is Japanese multi-national paper producer Nippon Paper Ltd. According to the 2010 URS Treasury report, Nippon does not pay full costs of production so tax-payers are subsidising the wood stream.

Victoria has legislated to guarantee wood to Nippon so the state government, in a bid to access new resources, are now planning to log parks, water catchments and special protection zones to fulfill the contract.

Breech of Federal laws and United Nations agreements

The message being sent to other countries is that it's acceptable to log reserves. In effect, Victoria is in breach of both Federal laws and United Nations agreements.

The end of native forest logging in Victoria would also hasten the collapse of Gunns’ Tasmanian Pulp mill. The Heyfield Mill sale by Gunns will supply funds to support the Pulp Mill proposal. If Victorian Ash forests cannot be logged, Heyfield will not be commercial and Gunns will be forced to liquidate it. (we have heard that the Mill sale has fallen through and Gunns may have suspended trading because of this)

Economics is a subset of Environment, not the other way round

Vicforests argue that they should be allowed to log habitat to keep the industry alive while Scott Gentle ex-CEO Victorian Forestry Contractors Association says the industry is a basket case. The haulers say "it could be better run by a kindergarten" and contractors like Mick McKinnell say that the transition to plantations is inevitable. 7.30 ABC Report

Baylieu Government proposes increased support for archaic and destructive industry

Whilst resource mapping shows that little is left outside special protection zones and buffer strips containing endangered species, the Baillieu/Ryan government is proposing 20 year contracts to guarantee industry stability and underwrite VicForests when commitments can no longer be met. These contracts will need to be paid out when the resource is exhausted so it's a quick return for opportunistic investors.

In contravention of our own national competition economics policies

This is total mismanagement in contravention of national competition policy under which a government business enterprise must not be given any commercial advantage. A story from The Age on the state of the industry can be seen at the link.

Unfair

David and Goliath: VicForests have access to millions of taxpayer dollars and a team of 7 lawyers in court - we have 3.

We are just a small group of volunteers with a first-hand understanding of the issues, dedication and determination to save what remains after the Black Saturday bushfires. Over the last decade we have witnessed massive destruction of critical ecosystems and we need to tell our story.

A chance to end native forest logging in Victoria!

VicForests are saying that if the judge awards in our favour, this case will end native forest logging in Victoria. Please push this out to your friends and members. We have to raise three times more than we have. Donate here Please. The flow on effect of this case is already being measured in Gunns' business and will affect East Gippsland's forest too.

A very serious threat has emerged since Valentine's Day! And Fed Parliament is voting on the motion today! If Oakeshott's proposal gets up, the forest furnaces poised for building in several states would become a driving force for decades more destruction of Australian forests, woodlands and wildlife. It would be the same type of unstoppable destruction that the export woodchip industry has caused since the 1970s. There will be no let up in demand for electricity once this insanity is allowed.

Independent, Rob Oakeshott is planning to revisit his agreement last year to prevent the burning of native forests ('waste' or not) to be classed as 'renewable energy' and so making it eligible for financial help via Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).

Tony Windsor, independent MP, has indicated that he has not yet taken a position on Oakeshott's forest furnace motion. Please ask he carefully considers his position, as his one vote could cause an avalanche of forest destruction for years to come.

These below are worth contacting with a polite short email - especially if you happen to be in their electorate, or maybe pass this on if you know friends who are.

[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]

The Carbon Package Agreement went through last year thanks to the Greens insistence - and it has been a major spanner in the plans of the logging industry to build forest furnaces for electricity (to take over where the export woodchip markets are failing). Without RECs they are less financially viable.

If Oakeshott's proposal gets up, the forest furnaces poised for building in several states would become a driving force for decades more destruction of Australian forests, woodlands and wildlife. It would be the same type of unstoppable destruction that the export woodchip industry has caused since the 1970s. There will be no let up in demand for electricity once this insanity is allowed.

Jill Redwood
Environment East Gippsland
Locked Bag 3
ORBOST 3888
ph (03) 5154 0145

As was the case in 2007 when the previous Census Report revealed that Canada led all G8 countries in population growth, the results of this latest Census Report for 2006-2011 were greeted by media commentators and politicians alike with glee. It is as if we had won a trophy for achievement. But growth is not a solution, it is the root of our problems, and Canada's rapid population growth rate is cause for shame, not pride.

Whoopee! Canada Wins The Trophy For Reckless Growth

So, according to the latest Stats Can news, Canada had the highest population growth in the G8 since 2006. If we are to believe the tone in which that news is being reported, Canada has just won a contest and all Canadians should be cheering. By that reasoning, China and India should get a lifetime achievement trophy for population growth. While the Chinese have realized that unending population growth is a dangerous goal and have made concerted attempts to rein their numbers in, India has not. And Canada seems to think increasing its population is something we can't do fast enough.

Immigration Not A Cure For Rural De-population

I was interested to read the research provided by population expert Peter Goodchild. He compared the 15 Ontario cities that had the lowest unemployment with the 20 Ontario cities that have the lowest house prices. The two lists appear mutually exclusive.

Through the prism of my own personal experience and in the light of the Stats Can Census Report, I conclude the following.

There are advantages to living in economically “depressed” localities. One of them is that the cost of housing is lower. Since housing costs for the typical Canadian can eat up anywhere from 40% to 70% of disposable income, if those costs (in the form of mortgage payments, rents and/or property taxes) are lower, then so is the cost of living. Of course, if you are unemployed and living in a depressed area, these lower housing costs do not suffice to offset your lack of income. This is the reason that so many young people have left smaller rural or hinterland communities in Canada, communities like mine, which were once buttressed by a strong resource industry (forestry, mining or fishing). The latest census report, which takes a snapshot of the country’s demographic profile for 2011 is therefore somewhat deceptive. Yes, Canada has the fastest growing population in the G8 group, having grown 6% between 2006-2011, but the rampant growth in some major urban centres conceals the rapid de-population of outlying areas, which have lost their economic foundation. As demographer Ryan Berlin of “Urban Futures” put it, people are caught either in an upward spiral or a downward spiral. So what is the answer?

Well, it is certainly not to continue promoting rapid population growth through mass immigration--- for several reasons. We may be able to encourage and entice immigrants to depopulated regions, but it is doubtful that we can ‘direct’ them there permanently, given the mobility rights that are guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After all, there is a reason why Canadians are leaving those areas.

The Green Contradiction----Disperse People and Concentrate Them

This is something that Green Party leader Elizabeth May seems not to understand. On the one hand, in responding to complaints that Canadian cities are straining under the pressure of government-induced population growth, she has proposed that immigrants be sent to small town regions crying out for people. On the other hand, like other ‘green’ and ‘progressive’ politicians in Canada, she argues that bigger and denser cities can grow and be ‘green’ at the same time. Allegedly, according to the official environmentalist party line, urbanites of such cities have lower per-capita carbon footprints. Therefore, to save the planet we need to “urbanize” all of it and restructure our cities. That is a polite way of saying that we must herd outlying rural people into growing cities and squeeze them in as tightly as we can. While most folks would describe this fate as bleak and claustrophobic, Greens describe it as 'vibrant', ‘walkable’ , 'efficient', ‘eco-dense’ and ‘green’.

Does Herding and Cramming People Into Big Dense Cities Make Them Greener?

Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not care about ‘per capita’ emissions, but TOTAL emissions, TOTAL energy consumption and TOTAL waste. Reducing per capita waste and consumption by half while doubling the population level is absurd and illogical. Moreover, it is not certain that the Green contention about lower per capita emissions is true. If urbanites in Vancouver, Calgary or Toronto or London, England for that matter, emit less ‘carbon’, what of the carbon emissions and waste that is expended by the offshore factories that export the products that these affluent, green and progressive urbanites consume? Who should be ‘credited’ with the ecological damage----the producers or the consumers? And what about the End of Oil? Since 1976, when the Science Council of Canada warned us that our population level will be constrained by resource limits, scientists like Dr. Michael Healey have argued for a Population Plan for this country that would take those limits into account. Many analysts like Canada’s Richard Embleton and Rick Belfour would argue that viable post-carbon Canadian cities of the future cannot exceed 20,000 citizens---or thereabouts. That would make Vancouver, which aspires to be the “Greenest City in The World”---and Metro Vancouver, greatly overpopulated.

Higher Productivity, Not High Immigration Will Support Our Social Safety Net

But what about that old chestnut, that we need population growth to support our social safety net, and that continued mass immigration will preserve our age structure? Simply put, that argument is dead wrong, and has been demonstrated to be wrong by at least two studies, one done by the C.D. Howe Institute only a few years ago. What will support our aging population is not more people, or more immigrants or even “more young people”, but higher productivity from the people who work, along with perhaps, an upward adjustment in retirement ages. The problem is, population growth demands infrastructure expenditures that otherwise could have been made in improving productivity.

Imported Skilled Labour Sought While Aboriginal Youth Neglected

And speaking of better training, let’s deal with another old chestnut, that Canada has a shortage of ‘skilled” workers. The truth is, we have never taken a proper inventory of our needs. It is just taken as a ‘given’ that we will be favoured with robust economic growth and that its labour appetites must be satisfied by immigration. But what of the Canadians who have wanted the opportunity to be trained but have been passed over for the quick fix of air-lifting skilled staff from overseas? What also of First Nations youth---a vast untapped, neglected and growing demographic? Have they been offered the education, the trade skills that this future economy will demand? National Chief of the Assembly of Nations Shawn Alteo would answer an emphatic “No!”.

How ironic it is that the politicians of all four major parties and the apologists for the Immigration Industry typically invoke the “We-are-all immigrants. Only-the-First-Nations-people-are-true-Canadians” argument to justify their maniacal determination to pursue 1% compounding annual population growth for Canada? It is obvious that the welfare of these “true Canadians” is not among their top priorities. Instead of locating training and educational facilities and opportunities close to native reserves, which for the most part suffer 70-85% unemployment rates and third world conditions, Ottawa hands out temporary visas by the fist-full to workers that foreign corporations find convenient to import.

Big City Mayors Should Follow Rob Ford's Lead

Meanwhile, big-city Mayors like Vancouver’s quintessentially “green and progressive” Gregor Robertson speak with a forked tongue. On the one hand, they brandish census statistics about their cities’ impressive growth as proof that they are livable and attractive, and boast about their efforts to paint this growth ‘green’ with conservation measures and benign transportation decisions which will be quickly erased by that same growth. On the other hand, they whine about the lack of federal funding for immigrant services, infrastructure and traffic congestion to offset the costs of growth. But never once does Robertson, or any Mayor in the land----save Toronto’s Rob Ford­---dare to address the source of these problems----immigration-driven growth. Undoubtedly, anyone with that kind of courage would be damned by the media, with the CBC leading the charge.

Still, politicians should note that Ford didn’t suffer any harm at the polls for questioning unlimited growth, did he? Canada's politicians and the media who have been cheering population growth in the last two days should learn something from that.

Tim Murray
February 12, 2012

Mark O'Connor (famous co-author of Overloading Australia) asks, should environmentalists resist Big Australia - and the densification of Melbourne? "In the long run, unless we can stop the endless growth of population and consumption, all environmental battles will be lost. Yet powerful vested interests distort our news and media to make us think growth is inevitable, and that we should live in ever more crowded cities. Mark O'Connor discusses how environmentalists can identify and defeat these forces." Look for the Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian Branch) stall there as well - all weekend and Friday.

Time:
Feb 17th 2012 Sustainable Living Festival, 4 pm

Place:
At one of the Talks Tents that has been re-named The SHED, Yarra Bank/Birrarung Marr near Flinders St Station

Title: Sustainability versus Australia's growth lobby.

Mark O'Connor asks Should environmentalists resist Big Australia -- and the densification of Melbourne?

In the long run, unless we can stop the endless growth of population and consumption, all environmental battles will be lost. Yet powerful vested interests distort our news and media to make us think growth is inevitable, and that we should live in ever more crowded cities. Mark O'Connor discusses how environmentalists can identify and defeat these forces. Mark, a widely-published poet, is also co-author of Overloading Australia, a book that re-ignited the population debate, and which Dick Smith sent to every Australian State and Federal politician. He blogs at http://markoconnor-australianpoet.blogspot.com/

Overloading Australia

How Governments and the media dither and deny on population
(Click book image for purchase details.)

Author: Mark O'Connor and William Lines

ISBN: 978-0-85881-224-6

Greenhouse gases going up. Oil and gas depleting. House prices exploding. Overloading Australia explains why – and how to stop it.

The press of numbers on this continent affects us all – those living, as well as those yet to be born. To talk of saving the environment or of climate change is meaningless if we won’t address population – a subject some think too hot for public debate. In a score of punchy chapters, authors Mark O’Connor and William Lines challenge the myths, expose the facts, and dent the denial industry.

They blow the whistle on population-foolish policies that lead to clogged roads, water shortages, scarce food, and no place for refugees; then provide new and fair ways to think about the issues and to limit Australia’s future population-size.

This is a book that will revolutionize the green debate, and the political debate, on population.

Price: AUD$19.95 (incl. GST), 248pp

It is logically contradictory for pro-immigrationists to argue that immigrants should be afforded all the rights that people in their adopted country enjoy, then to argue that they do not have the same right to insist on a sustainable population. Do people in a theatre forfeit the right to complain that the theatre or restaurant manager has allowed it to become too crowded, that the number of patrons has obviously exceeded safety?

A great many immigrants have come to understand that mass immigration is bad for Canada, but feel constrained in making their feelings known in deference to a common refrain: “So now that you’re here, you want to pull up the ladder.” One long-time middle-aged friend, whose mild mid-Atlantic accent betrays the fact that he moved to Canada with his parents as a twelve year old, is particularly sensitive to that charge. I don’t think he should be. And I don’t think anyone is right to reproach him for having what they believe to be an “I’m-alright-Jack” attitude.

Club Canada - No second class members

I don’t think an immigrant with or without a foreign accent should be disqualified as a credible critic of immigration policy. Arguments of that nature are the inverse of Groucho Marx's famous remark that he would not belong to any club that would accept him as a member. They don’t make sense. If you were admitted to the club, you are a club member and should have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of other club members. There should be no second-class club members. And all club members should have the right---and the responsibility---to shape and revise club policies including who should or should not be able to join in the future. Maybe club facilities are already over-used. Maybe the club can no longer pay for them. Maybe the club should raise its admission standards. Those are decisions which all club members should have the right to participate in.

Rights and Responsibilities

It is logically contradictory for pro-immigrationists to argue, on the one hand, that immigrants should be afforded all the rights that other Canadians enjoy, but on the other hand, to argue that they do not have the same right to criticize immigration policy as other Canadians have. Do people who enter a theatre or a restaurant forfeit the right to complain at some point later that the theatre or restaurant manager has allowed it to become too crowded, that is, that the number of patrons has obviously exceeded the number the fire marshal has determined as safe? And do not people who feel sorry for those left standing outside in the rain have the option of giving up their seat and leaving the premises so that one of those outsiders may come in and take their place? Who is being hypocritical here?

Beware of overloading

There have been times when I found myself in an elevator that was packed with so many people that my face was almost pressed against the wall. On some of those occassions, when I was within reach of the panel, I pressed the "close door" button in an attempt to prevent more people from trying to enter. Was I being a hypocrite? After all, I too was once standing in the lobby, wanting to get into the elevator, and aspiring to reach a higher floor. How could I have something against aspiring elevator passengers? As I said, I was one myself. Or my father or grandfather once aspired to be passengers of the elevator too, and the door was open for them. All of us, we are told, are from "the lobby" or are descended from people who came from the lobby. We---Canada---- are an elevator of former lobby occupants, as we are reminded over and over again. So we don’t have a moral right to close our doors to people who wish to follow us. Or so goes the reasoning.

Solidarity among passengers

But the point is that once on board, I have a right to safety, and if more people were allowed on the elevator, it would not serve their interests or mine to have the cable snap. And for the record, I am not against passengers who just got on board. I am against any policy that would keep the elevator door open to allow more passengers than the elevator can handle. How many people an elevator can carry is a question that should be informed by scientific analysis. In Canada, 25 of Canada's top scientists---the Science Council of Canada---determined in their Report No. 25 that future resource constraints would make it unwise to go much beyond 30 million people, that we should slow our population growth rate so that there were not diminishing economic returns with each increment of population growth. And in 1997, another group of scientists, led by UBC's Dr. Michael Healey, concluded that Canada needed a "Population Plan" so that our growing urban centres did not inflict the same kind of ecological damage that his team of researchers found in the Fraser Basin. But alas, those warnings have been ignored, and Canada, according to the last two Census reports, has for the last decade, been packing its elevator at a rate higher than any other country in the G8 group.

Priorities

I am for closing the elevator door. But what if I closed the door because I noticed that most of the people in the lobby were non-white? What if I closed it because I am a bigot? That may be a bad reason, but it wouldn't discredit the most relevant one----that the elevator has a limited carrying capacity. Bad character does not preclude correct judgment. The right decision can be made for the wrong reasons by wrong-headed people.

Some bad reasons for overloading Canada

Imagine though, if someone had a vested interest in cramming as many passengers as they could into that elevator. Imagine if some were able to charge elevator entrants a fee. Imagine if some on board were salesmen who thought that they would have more opportunities to sell more of their products if more potential customers were allowed to come in. Imagine if some were temporally blind and thought that the elevator had more space than was safely available or that they couldn't understand that the law of gravity and other biophyical laws trumped all other considerations . Imagine if some believed that there might be a technological advance that may increase the capacity of the elevator. ("Some one will think of something, after all, they always have..). Imagine if some were Greens who told us that the elevator could take on more people if only we weren’t so greedy and went on a crash diet and lost weight. ("Move over, squeeze tighter, and keep on squeezing so that more and more people can share our bounty") And imagine further if these people with a vested interest in packing the elevator with more people noticed that most of the people in the lobby were non-white and that the best way to get them in was to accuse me and those like me who would close the door of being right wing looneys, racists , xenophobes or bigots.

Your right and duty to speak up

You really wouldn't have to imagine that scenario, would you, because as a resident of Canada with a ring-side seat to political correctness, censorship, blacklisting, character-assassination, guilt-by-association, and the social ostracism of those who challenge orthodoxy, you would realize that you are seeing it unfold before your eyes. Our political culture is inimical to reasonable discussion and education in the fundamentals of math and logic.

The truth is, in Canada it is socially outrageous to state that, like elevators, theatres or restaurants, Canada has a limited carrying capacity. There is a limit to growth. And somehow, when immigrants say that, it seem s even more outrageous. It shouldn’t be. Speaking the truth never should.

Tim Murray

February 11, 2012

Living smaller can’t offset an unsustainable population that’s growing bigger.

Distractions and Half-Solutions

There are many problems such as climate change, famine, ethnic strife, women’s rights, inaccessible health care and education, which command more attention than the underlying forces which drive them. However, if those underlying forces are not addressed, then any solutions to those problems can only be seen as half-solutions, and any focus on them as distractions. If jumping half-way across a chasm doesn’t get you to the other side, it is better to abort the launch and plot another course.

It must be understood that in an economy such as ours, which is so heavily dependent on non-renewable resources, zero-sum game conditions apply, and the decisive factor in determining scarcity is the number of people who are making a claim on that diminishing supply. It is much like a teeter-totter. As the number of people goes up, the amount of resources per person goes down--- except for one thing. Even if the number of people remained the same, the per capita supply on of non-renewable natural resources would continue to diminish---a ‘negative’ sum game condition which would eventually undermine even the most equitable distribution of resources and erupt in lethal conflict. Clearly then, standing pat with a human population level that is already unsustainable is not a solution. Mere population stabilization will not get us to our desired destination. Not by a country mile. The reality is, the scale of overshoot is such that we may have passed several tipping points already, and the planet will not wait for us to conduct modest population reductions at the leisurely pace some would prescribe.

Living Smaller Is Not A Significant Offset To Overshoot

One answer---currently fashionable in affluent societies----is “green living” or living smaller. It is a message that has gained currency even in commercial circles. As Al Gore advised us in his documentary, “The Inconvenient Truth”, if we all resolved to reduce our personal impacts and made more responsible consumer choices, the sum total of our sacrifices would add up to a sustainable society.

Thus many of us, in the developed world, heeding this call for personal responsibility, resolved to conserve and recycle, change to more efficient light bulbs, and drive more fuel-efficient cars, to reduce our personal footprint. Little attention was given, unfortunately, to the number of “feet” that have erased the gains made by this behaviour. As Kate Galbraith reported in the New York Times, if a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models has two kids, “her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.” (“Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact”, August 7, 2009) She cited a study conducted by Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax of Oregon State University that was published in a peer-reviewed journal called “Global Environmental Change19 in 2009 (pp 14-20). Murtaugh, a statistics professor, and Schlax, an oceanic and atmospheric science professor, both at OSU, found that having children greatly swells the acreage of one’s footprint.

“Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle. A woman who adopted the six non-reproductive changes in Table 3(as summarized by Galbraith above) would save about 486 tons of C02 emissions during her lifetime, but if she were to have two children, this would eventually add 40 times that amount of C02 (18,882 tons) to the earth’s atmosphere.” (p. 18)

In other words, not having a child dwarfs all other green “lifeway” shifts. They added that using the “constant” emissions scenario between more pessimistic and more optimistic projections of future C02 emissions,

“...an extra child born to a woman in the United States ultimately increases her carbon legacy by an amount (9,441 metric tons) that is nearly seven times the analogous quantity for a woman in China (1,384 tons), but because of China’s enormous population size, its total carbon emissions currently exceed those of the United States.”

While acknowledging that “lifestyle changes” are essential, they emphasize that they “must propagate through future generations to be effective and...enormous benefits can be gained by immediate changes in reproductive behaviour. They conclude that “ignoring the consequences of reproduction can lead to serious under-estimation of an individual’s long-term impact on the global environment.”

“P” is the decisive variable in IPAT

In the so-called “IPAT” equation, the foundational formula of the environmental movement, where “I” (environmental impact) equals “P” (the population level) times “A” (or per capita consumption) times “T” ( for technological inputs), the conventional wisdom is that the “P” factor carries equal weight with the “A” factor. The Murtaugh/Schlax study, however, demonstrates that “P”, our population level, is by far the decisive variable. Murtaugh even noted that their calculations are “relevant to other environmental impacts beside carbon emissions-for example, the consumption of fresh water, which many feel is already in short supply." The fact is, climate change is not the only metric of overshoot, nor necessarily the most urgent. Our crushing population level drives and magnifies every one of the multitude of synergistic disasters that are building into “the perfect storm”. This is the real “inconvenient truth” that the environmental establishment is wilfully ignorant of. More than that, some so-called environmentalists like the “Hartmannites” and the “Eco-socialists” have not only downplayed the role of population in environmental degradation but denied it. This is a sin of omission and denial of even greater scale than that of the climate sceptics they revile. And it is a sin that cannot be expiated simply by acts of self-righteous self-abnegation, frugality or “green living.”

And as population expert Dr. Jack Alpert remarked,

“...we do not know if these ‘responsible’, ‘green’ behaviors, when combined with all our other behaviors, actually reduce our footprint.  3000 miles of airplane travel per seat consumes the petrol an efficient car consumes in 4 months. Take three or four family members on the plane and your family’s footprint is the same as if you drove an extra car.  Take three family trips a year and your family burns enough petrol to run four cars. If we do not increase the size of our homes or take more energy intensive vacations, and we take aggressive conservation measures, we can indeed reduce our personal footprint---by a few percent. However, if we eat a more healthful diet and exercise, and it extends our life by that same percentage – how then would we reduce our footprint at all? If we capped the consumption of all individuals; if each person in the world, accepted ‘middle American’ limits to his or her consumptive practices; if we limited the number of children so global population stopped growing; if we changed to a coal economy and sequestered all the carbon dioxide, total human footprint would still increase by a factor of four to allow the "have-nots’" consumption to catch up with that of middle class "haves".   We would empty our reservoirs, diminish our forests and fisheries, and poison and destroy our environment 4 times faster than we are today.”

It should become apparent that curbing personal consumption will not prevent rapidly expanding scarcity, dislocation and, conflict and an ensuing dark age. We must reduce the human population as quickly and radically as we can to preserve the human experiment by allowing human ingenuity the time it needs to buy the time we need to achieve a more graceful transition to our ultimate destination. To believe that we can jump across the chasm to a sustainable existence without rapid population decline is more than a leap of faith. It is suicidal.

Tim Murray
July 19/2011

Just 2.7% of the billions made from poker machines reaches community organizations and charities although Australia has more than 200,000 pokies — 21% of all gambling machines on the planet! The largest Australian operator of pokies is Woolworths, which owns about 13,500 machines. Here is a way that pokies might be used to make Australia more self-sufficient and bring the banks back under local control.

All this money from poker machines, taken from the people of Australia! Well, why not let all the income from pokies, at present going to owners and government, go instead into a fund from which banks can borrow, in order to reduce their reliance on overseas money? Then banks can have less need to say they must charge highly in order to pay foreign lenders.

Only the winners and the administrative costs need be taken from this fund.

Australian money spent on pokies is staggering. It is money that should be used.

Australia has more than 200,000 pokies — 21% of all gambling machines on the planet, according to www.greenleft.org.au/node/49849

A glance at the 2010 annual report of one of Australia’s largest clubs, the Panthers Group, shows how hollow the argument about community benefits really is. Panthers raked in $91.7 million from gaming in 2010, Rooty Hill RSL, also in Sydney’s western suburbs. Its 2010 annual report features a prominent drop quote from none other than Donald Trump: “As long as you’re going to be thinking anyway, think big.” The club is certainly thinking big when it comes to poker machines: it enjoys “Australia’s largest non-casino installation of electronic gaming machines” with an amazing 726 gaming machine licences. Poker machines raked in $43.2 million www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/27/clubs-australia-campaignand-pokies-revenue/?wpmp_switcher=mobile The largest Australian operator of pokies is Woolworths, which owns about 13,500 machines.

Add in what governments take from pokies.

“Pokies or Poker Machines are an Australian pastime that is getting more popular as time goes by. Pokies are everywhere you turn here in Australia, whether you’re in a local pub, sports club or casino, you can’t get away from them. Pokies are very similar to their online cousins, in that they use electronic, virtual reels instead of real mechanical reels. Pokies are the biggest form of gambling in Australia – for every Aussie dollar that is spent betting on the horses there are five pumped into the pokies. Pokies also generate a huge amount of revenue for the Australian government, so while pokies are sometimes the cause of gambling problems amongst Aussie citizens, the revenue they generate is put back into worthwhile community and federal projects.” http://onlinepokies4u.com/

Over 70% of Australian casino revenue is generated from slots play www.onlinepokiesaustralia.org/. Pokie revenues in Victoria more than $600 per person www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/27/clubs-australia-campaignand-pokies-revenue/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

Clubs Australia waged a $20 million advertising drive that called the proposed reforms “un-Australian” and harmful to community organizations it supports.

Yet Clubs Australia admits that just 2.7% of the billions made from poker machines reaches community organizations and charities.

Ask, how do sports and clubs in the rest of the world, including Western Australia survive without pokies income?

Author:
Dr Valerie Yule, M.A., Ph.D, Dip.Ed., M.B.Ps.S. Teacher at all levels, from preschool to adult and migrant literacy and PhD supervision. Academic positions at Melbourne, Monash and Aberdeen Universities in departments of Psychology and Education; clinical child psychologist at the Royal Children’s Hospitals, Melbourne and Aberdeen; schools psychologist chiefly but not only in disadvantaged schools

This audit assessed whether State Trustees is effectively managing the financial and legal interests of represented persons. It examined the extent to which State Trustees is meeting its legislative and administrative responsibilities, the systems and processes that enable State Trustees to measure quality, timeliness and cost effectiveness, and the adequacy of State Trustees' communication and accountability processes to represented persons. The audit found that State Trustees is not able to clearly demonstrate that it is fulfilling its obligations to represented persons. State Trustees’ direct engagement with represented persons is not sufficient for it to be assured that their needs and wishes are properly understood.

State Trustees Limited: Management of represented persons

(Long report follows this summary).

Tabled: 8 FEBRUARY 2012

Represented persons are those deemed incapable of managing their own affairs due to disability, mental illness, injury or other incapacitating circumstances. They are considered to be among the most vulnerable members of the community. Under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (the Act) represented persons are appointed administrators who must manage their legal and financial affairs while acting in their best interest. State Trustees Limited is the administrator for over 10 000 represented persons in Victoria.

This audit assessed whether State Trustees is managing the financial and legal affairs of represented persons in their best interests.

The audit found that State Trustees is not able to clearly demonstrate that it is fulfilling its obligations to represented persons. Its focus is on measuring its commercial success and it relies predominantly on compliance with its service contract with the state as a proxy for compliance with the Act. However, this does not demonstrate the quality or effectiveness of the management of represented persons' affairs and it does not have the robust governance, monitoring and reporting mechanisms needed to do so. There is also inadequate quality assurance and review of the services provided to represented persons.

State Trustees’ direct engagement with represented persons is not sufficient for it to be assured that their needs and wishes are properly understood. In addition, poor information management and high case manager turnover means that decisions about their affairs are not always based on complete or accurate information.

Victoria's Auditor-General, Des Pearson, this morning tabled the following report in the Victorian Parliament:

State Trustees Limited: Management of represented persons

Ordered to be printed

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER February 2012

PP No 102, Session 2010–12

1. Background

1.1 Represented persons

Many Victorians are unable to manage
their own financial and legal affairs due to disability, mental illness, injury
or other circumstances. They are among society’s most vulnerable citizens.

Under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986

(the Act), the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) may order the
financial and legal affairs of these ‘represented persons’ to be managed on
their behalf by an administrator.

Under the Act, an administrator:

• is responsible for the general care and
  management of the represented person’s estate
• takes possession and care of, recovers,
  collects, preserves and administers the property and estate of the represented
  person, and generally manages their affairs
• exercises all rights which the represented
  person might exercise if that person had legal capacity.

Section 49 of the Act requires an administrator to act in the
best interests of a represented person. This includes:

• encouraging and
  assisting the represented person to become capable ofadministering their estate
• consulting with them and taking their wishes
  into account as far as possible.

VCAT
determines an appropriate administrator for each represented person. Where
feasible and appropriate this is often a family member; in other circumstances
it may appoint a trustee. In many cases, this is State Trustees. Overall, State Trustees
acts as administrator for around 50 per cent of represented persons in
Victoria.

1.2 State Trustees Limited

The Public Trust Office of Victoria was established in
1939, to protect the interests of Victorians, particularly those with
disabilities. It became administratively independent from government in 1987,
when it became the State Trust Corporation of Victoria.

In 1994, The State Trust Corporation of
Victoria became a company (State Trustees Limited). This was part of the
government’s objective to make state-owned businesses more efficient by
exposing them to competition from the private sector. The business activities
of State Trustees expanded to include providing financial and related services
to a wider market.

However, a substantial
part of State Trustees’ core business is administration of represented persons’
financial affairs and estates. In 2010–11, State Trustees acted as
administrator for over 10 000 represented persons. Its total client base was
over 18 000.

At 30 June 2010,
represented persons’ funds represented 53 per cent of the $796 million
total funds invested and managed by State Trustees.

1.2.1 Community Services Agreement

State Trustees, like any
trustee acting as an administrator for represented persons, may charge for the
services provided.

In recognition that some
represented persons may lack the resources to obtain services, the State
Trustees (State Owned Company) Act 1994 makes the Minister for
Community Services responsible for ensuring that members of the public who do
not have the resources to manage and administer estates and property can
receive such services.

The minister may enter into
an agreement with a trustee company, person or body to provide these services.
For represented persons who are unable to pay for these services the agreement
provides for some or all of the costs to be met. A Community Services Agreement
(CSA) has been in place with State Trustees since 1994 and is renegotiated
every five years.

The CSA is not limited to
represented persons administration, but also includes community service
obligations in relation to other trustee services, deceased estate
administration, and attorneyships. However, services to represented persons
make up the large majority of services provided under the CSA.

The CSA requires State
Trustees to achieve specific minimum service or performance standards, to
report to the Department of Human Services (DHS) on the cost of services, to
maintain appropriate and relevant records for DHS, and to effectively manage
services for clients referred by VCAT.

DHS reimburses State
Trustees for the net costs of the services provided. State Trustees charges
those who can pay. Of the 10 000 represented persons for whom State Trustees
acts as administrator, around 8 500 are covered by the CSA.

In 2009–10, all
services provided to represented persons contributed $26.4 million (45 per
cent) towards State Trustees’ total revenue. Payments made under the CSA were
around $16 million.

The CSA obligations are separate and
additional to the obligation to act in the best interests of each represented
person, which is established in the Act and applies to all represented persons.
The CSA obligations do not displace this duty, and are not intended to
necessarily reflect what might be satisfactory performance in relation to
the Act.

1.2.2 Governance and business structure

State Trustees’ sole shareholder is the state of Victoria. Under the State
Trustees (State Owned Company) Act 1994, State Trustees reports through its
board of directors to the Treasurer.

Various committees oversee the organisation
and advise the board of directors on corporate risks. Figure
1A shows State Trustees’ corporate and business structure.

Figure 1A

State Trustees corporate and business structure

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.

The board delegates operations and
administration to the managing director who is supported by a corporate
leadership team and senior management group.

In total, State Trustees has seven
divisions, 26 business units and over 550 staff.

The Personal Financial Solutions
division is primarily responsible for the day-to-day administration of
represented persons’ estates.

1.3 Conduct of the audit

1.3.1 Audit objective and scope

The audit
objective was to assess whether State Trustees is effectively managing the
financial and legal interests of represented persons by assessing the:

• extent to which State Trustees is meeting its
  legislative and administrative responsibilities for represented persons

• performance measurement, monitoring and
  reporting framework, systems and processes that enable State Trustees to
  measure the quality, timeliness and cost effectiveness of services provided to
  represented persons
• adequacy of State Trustees' communication and
  accountability processes to represented persons.

1.3.2 Method and cost

The audit was conducted in accordance
with the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards.

The cost of the audit was $560 000.

1.3.3 Structure of the report

The report is structured as follows:

• Part 2 examines the adequacy of State Trustees’
  governance structures and internal control frameworks to manage its legislative
  responsibilities.
• Part 3 examines whether State Trustees has
  sufficient resources and adequate practices in place to act in the best
  interests of represented persons.

Appendix A. Audit Act 1994 section 16—submissions and comments

Introduction

In accordance with section 16(3) of the Audit Act 1994 a copy of this report was provided to State Trustees Limited with a request for submissions or comments.

The submission and comments provided are not subject to audit nor the evidentiary standards required to reach an audit conclusion. Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of those comments rests solely with the agency head.

Feb. 6, 2012 - Last Wednesday, Oscar-nominated filmmaker Josh Fox was arrested after refusing requests from Republican committee members to leave a hearing on hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." The hearing focused on a recent EPA report that suggested that hydraulic fracturing methods of extracting natural gas most likely caused contamination of drinking water in Wyoming.

The filmmaker, a noted critic of hydraulic fracturing, was removed after Republican members of the
Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee asked his camera crew to leave the hearing because they were not accredited. Mr. Fox refused to leave and was arrested for "unlawful entry." The hearing continued despite the excitement, with Republicans questioning the scientific rigor of the report and Democrats and EPA official Jim Martin defending it.

The process of hydraulic fracturing has been heavily criticized by environmental groups because of its potential to contaminate drinking water, while representatives of the natural gas industry have repeatedly claimed that it is safe.

MapLight has conducted an analysis of campaign contributions to members of the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment from interest groups representing Oil & Gas,
Natural gas transmission & distribution, Major (multinational) oil & gas producers and Independent oil & gas producers as well as Environmental policy and Alternative energy production & services.

• Interest groups connected to natural gas industries have given a total of $199,808 to members of the subcommittee, with 90% of those contributions going to Republican subcommittee members.
• Republican subcommittee members received 9.2 times as much ($180,308) from interest groups connected to the natural gas industry as did Democratic members ($19,500) of the subcommittee.
• Interest groups representing environmental policy and alternative energy have given a total of $99,568 to members of the subcommittee, with 93% of those contributions going to Democratic subcommittee members.
• Democratic subcommittee members received 14.3 times as much ($93,068) from environmental and alternative energy interest groups as did Republican members ($6,500) of the subcommittee.
• Republican subcommittee members received 94% more from interest groups representing the natural gas industry than Democratic subcommittee members received from environmental and alternative energy interest groups.

METHODOLOGY: Includes reported contributions to congressional campaigns of Members of the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, including Ex Officio members, in office during the 112th U.S. Congress, from
Oil & gas, Natural gas transmission & distribution, Major (multinational) oil & gas producers, Independent oil & gas producers, Environmental policy and Alternative energy production & services interest groups selected by MapLight, July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2011. Contributions data source:
OpenSecrets.org.

A link to this data release can be found
here.

MapLight is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that reveals money's influence on politics.

Media Contact:

Pamela Heisey

c: 415-299-0898 | w: 510-868-0894 | e:

Connect with MapLight on
Twitter and
Facebook.