(We) can do better

I mean, why exactly do we have self-serve checkouts? Can anyone think of 1 good reason for them? They don’t increase efficiency because as my Kmart experience demonstrates, self-serve machines don’t create more service providers as the stores simply hire less staff.

Unhelpful machines

I felt compelled to write this article after a recent eye-opening experience I had at Kmart. During the busy late afternoon shift the store had one attendant on checkout – that’s right, one. I specifically joined the attendant’s queue instead of the 5 self-serve checkout machines as my item was discounted and may have required further assistance. As I joined the queue the customer being served was experiencing difficulties with her credit card so there was a considerable hold-up. While this problem was slowly being resolved the self-serve checkout supervisor indicated for me to join the aforementioned queue instead. I gestured that it was fine; I would remain in the queue for the attendant. As another 5 minutes went past with no further progress in the queue because the credit card issue was still unresolved, the self-serve checkout supervisor once again advised me to change queues. Once again I explained, this time at length, that I couldn’t use the self-serve machines as my purchase specifically required an attendant. Don’t get the wrong impression – the supervisor meant no harm, he genuinely thought he was assisting me by recommending the self-serve, sparing me the time and boredom of waiting in the long queue for the attendant. Eventually I was served by the attendant and the sale was processed without a problem but the whole experience left a lasting impact on me in questioning the role and function of self-serve checkout machines.

Creepy Self-service machines

I mean, why exactly do we have self-serve checkouts? Can anyone think of 1 good reason for them? They don’t increase efficiency because as my Kmart experience demonstrates, self-serve machines don’t create more service providers as the stores simply hire less staff. In fact, self-serve machines are responsible for even greater delays as they are more likely to malfunction and customers are slower completing their transactions than a qualified checkout operator. It is almost as if the people are warring against the machines for employment, like some sort of James Cameron sci-fi epic.

On top of these issues there’s something quite creepy about self-serve checkouts. Is anyone else unsettled by the booming computerised voice?

‘WELCOME TO [INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE]!’
‘PLEASE SELECT YOUR PAYMENT METHOD!!’

Is this supposed to constitute for a conversation? Some may sneer at this point, but a lot of shoppers genuinely value the polite ‘Hi, how are you?’ checkout operators are required to ask customers. At least it’s not a one-sided exchange. Companies invest millions of dollars in their customer service training programs for the very reason that customer loyalty is largely influenced by employee behaviour. Hence human servers are required for checkouts not only in the case of potential transaction problems like my Kmart experience but also in compliance with the friendly, helpful image of the company central to customer satisfaction.

Cheap mechanical slaves but purchase prices stay high

The widespread implementation of self-serve checkouts has significantly increased company profits. Although initially expensive to buy and install, in the long run a heavy duty self-serve machine is much cheaper to maintain than a checkout operator’s salary which comes with additional costs such as holiday and sick leave, workers’ compensation and time-and-a-half. A self-serve machine does not stop working over Christmas. It does not need time off because it caught the flu. Cemented to the ground means it can not slip on a wet floor and claim compensation. It does not demand extra pay for working on Australia Day.

Yet this reduction in service has not equaled a reduction in purchase costs. Australia has the most expensive groceries world wide. One wonders how much further consumers can be passed on the costs the store once provided. Customers aren’t even entitled to free plastic bags anymore and although this initiative has helped reduce waste, it hasn’t been without the additional store profit resultant from charging for canvas bags.

Unreasonable corporate profits

So what is the purpose of self-serve machines besides increasing the profit margins of already thriving multibillion dollar companies? Evidently, not much. However the ramifications have been significant for part-time employment, affecting the livelihood of university students and low skilled workers. Tertiary students rely on checkout work because of its flexible shifts. Balancing around different timetables from one semester to another means students need accommodating part-time work, something difficult to find in office jobs. Low-skilled workers rely on checkout for the different reason that it’s within their limited skills capacity. This condition serves a particularly important function as it provides work for disadvantaged employees who would otherwise likely be on welfare.

Call to boycott self-serve machines

Unfortunately for most customers it’s a ‘if you can’t beat em join em’ attitude on account that if self-serve checkouts aren’t used, queues for staff would be longer and after a hard day’s work or busy weekend few people are prepared to wait more than they have to and fair enough. However this situation unreprimanded will only get worse in the future as far as decreasing customer service, employment opportunity and workers’ rights. So I publicly call now for a boycott of self-serve check out machines because ultimately if no one uses them stores will be forced to remove them and employ more staff. This action would exclude self-serves that don’t reduce the total number of staff like at libraries. I am confident that if enough people take part in this stand we can make a difference.

Is it easier to tackle a vast global population problem than it is to save a suburb from overpopulation or a city from population induced water shortages?

Global vs Local

"My concern is the global issue of population" the international aid worker declared in a somewhat self righteous manner. "Australia is nothing," she continued, "Our population is nothing at only 22 million, it is the world that matters!"

The activist she was addressing had been aware of the global population issue since his late teens when he was one of just over 3 billion people on the planet. Now he is one of nearly 7 billion people. He has no children of his own and is unlikely to have any, nor grandchildren.

What more can he do about global population? Presented with a problem as vast as all of global humanity, the problem could seem overwhelming and he could feel tempted to give up. The aid worker's tone was accusatory with the smugness of one who has claimed the moral high ground. The activist was left to contemplate his selfishness in having turned his attention that afternoon to his own sphere of influence.

A medical doctor joined in . "Population is a global issue" he announced as a small audience gathered around. It was as though he were alerting the gathering to something of which they had no idea hitherto. Was he in the midst of an unread, untraveled, insular, unsophisticated self interested, self selected group of NIMBYs ? Well probably not. They were a group of environmentalists, thinkers and activists with an intelligence quotient at least as high as the average in the community. Several were academics and widely read on the subject of population.

Australia in 1971: Melbourne activists try to protect local environment and quality of life by campaigning against overpopulation

In both cases the assertions were a sort of reprimand for anyone concerning themselves with local issues or even one's own country.

I would argue that adopting an international concern to the exclusion of attending to local issues is the line of least resistance in the population "debate" and could well be the easiest option for anyone claiming to be trying to change the world's terrifying population trajectory!

One can take it either way- the population problem as we hurtle to 9 or 10 billion within the lifetimes of many of us here now is overwhelming if one actually aims to have an effect or on the other hand it is easy if one accepts that little will be achieved. With an international focus one does not often have to identify and face the enemy, so no-one is really threatened. The problem is always elsewhere, amongst people we don't know personally. There is status in this position, which can also become an expensive habit as it involves traveling and mixing with other global representatives. Global population activism has an aura of sophistication, internationalism and ministering aid.

Local population concerns tend to be demoted in the population activism fraternity, with international concerns taken more seriously, as the sphere of the big guys and girls. What's more, global actions are more easily digested by the "intelligentsia" and well off of our society than are attempts to rectify the more direct and local effects of damaging and undemocratic forced population growth on oneself and one's descendants at home.

There is a belief amongst the cognoscenti that modern western medical science can come to the rescue internationally. They believe that it is a matter of being given the go ahead to distribute throughout the world the fruits of modern technology- the contraceptive pill, I.U.D.s and condoms to the people in far away countries who so badly need them. The cognoscenti have the solution to our woes, if only they could find the way through the layers of International governance to distribute them !

The global position is safer

The safest position to take in the area of population is to ignore local population related issues, cast your eyes towards the horizon and say it's a global issue.

Why is this safe?

"Safe" is a relative term when we are talking about probably the greatest challenge facing life on this planet since the dinosaurs went extinct: The prospect of most other animal species becoming extinct or just lonely exhibits in zoos. that is, unless they are employed directly for human benefit or enjoyment and the suffering of other creatures in the service of humans are dismaying. Equally dismaying is the prospect of ever increasing numbers of humans facing starvation as their massive populations collide with the depletion of fossil energy, the fire under the massive growth of humanity over the last 200 years.

There is a perception that the "third world " needs to be brought up to the present day; to start on the road to progress that "we" are on. Almost counter-intuitively the credo is that as modern life comes to the third world, and people no longer live in fear of starvation, lack of water and other basic necessities, their populations will drop because women will then chose to have fewer children. This is what we observe in a snapshot of the world as it is today. After all, women in the "developed countries" tend to have fewer babies and they are better off than their sisters in the "third world." Being better off must cause a drop in fertility or does a drop in fertility make one better off? Consider the following, however : A young couple in Australia are faced with the prospect of needing to wait 10 years on 2 salaries to start buying a house. Are they more or less likely to have children during this period than if they could buy a house immediately and had a manageable mortgage which could be serviced on one salary? Consider also a wealthy family which can well afford to feed, clothe and send 4 children to the schools of their choice. Is this family more or less likely to have those 4 children than if they could only afford to provide for 2?

Are the demographic rules really so different in the "first" and "third" worlds?

I raise these examples to call into question the relative value and "theoretical" basis of efforts that are made both locally and internationally to mitigate the unfolding population calamity. Are there really different forces at work in the "first" and "third" worlds where being better off in one would be expected to facilitate reproduction whilst having the opposite effect in the other? The single minded notion that solving world poverty and making modern contraception available will bring down birth rates, thus achieving two "goods" in one exercise, is I have to admit, extremely comforting. Few of the "intelligentsia" would argue with this kind of foreign aid, which is a recognized "good." On the other hand, taking up the cudgels with one's own governments is stressful and energy sapping. Fighting local issues where population growth is the excuse to destroy much loved nature and heritage, amongst many much more serious minuses, such as placing the security of fresh drinking water in jeopardy for the local population and making the case against high immigration-driven population growth is largely a recipe for frustration, frequent defeats and attracting disapproval.

Which one would you choose, when the thin end of the wedge is ready to cast asunder the two sides of what is really only one coin?

Andrew Chapman is calling for a Royal Commission into the Victorian (Wonthaggi) Desalination Plant. We publish here his comments and some early discussion. We also publish some correspondence with Tim Holding, the Minister for Water under the Brumby government. There seems to be wide support for a royal commission into the matter, which is perceived widely as corrupt. The matter of desalination plants is a huge one in Australia where such plants, not necessary when we had a population of 17m only a decade ago, have been introduced in nearly every state with the excuse that our growing population requires them. The public have not been adequately consulted on the population growth induced by ill-considered government policy nor on the introduction of these plants themselves. What is for sure is that almost no-one likes these plants and governments are bitterly resented for having forced them on Australians. (More about Wonthaggi Desal plant here.)

Andrew Chapman writes:

The Bracks Government won its last election on a policy of opposing a desalination plant to augment Melbourne's water supply. When Ted Baillieu suggested a small desalination plant the Bracks team ridiculed that suggestion but on election Bracks reneged on its election policy and approved the construction of a large scale desalination plant at Wonthaggi.

Times moved on and water storages are now either full or filling rapidly with Melbourne's storages set to reach 60% capacity in the next two or three weeks. Melbourne's water storages have not increased because of the desalination plant, it is a long way from being finished, but because weather cycles moved from drought to floods, something which civil engineers consider when planning water supplies. Taxpayers and consumers are to pay for this very expensive water supply option regardless of whether or not it is needed. The desalination plant will require large amounts of electrical power to operate. Perhaps if the Bracks and Brumby governments pursued water conservation and recycling this huge cost burden would have been avoided.

Whilst the government held a particular view it is clear the planning process did not adequately consider alternative options or submissions presented to the EES that, with evidence, argued that the desalination plant should not be pursued. Many people will remember how the planning process operated right down to the government authorising police files on objectors being handed over to the contractor.

Melbourne's water storages are now at 58.3% (still plenty of wet weather to come), same time last year 35.0% and the year before 26.8%.

The government did not have a mandate for the desalination plant and the planning system has failed Victorians resulting in huge water debts to be met through the purchase of water that is not needed. This is not a small project with a capital cost originally estimated to be no greater than $3.1 but more recent estimates at $5.7b and suggestions that it may be more like $7b when finished.

There are three appendixes below: Appendix A, "Communications with Tim Holding," and Appendix B, "Comments about a Royal Commission from a circular back in March of this year." Appendix C contains some media coverage.

What you can do

If a Royal commission is to get up and running it will only do so with widespread public support. If you could pass your comments on to Andrew Chapman or post them as comments here on candobetter, we can also work towards canvassing the mainstream media. When the storages hit 60% capacity, the time will be appropriate to launch a major campaign.

So, Royal Commission into the Desal Plant - What do the people think?

CONTACTContact by email Andrew Chapman or telephone 56741266 or 0438567412

Appendix A: RECENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH TIM HOLDING MP, THE MINISTER WHO ADVOCATED THE DESAL PLANT

__________________________________________________________________________

As at 19/7/11 there has been no response from Tim Holding.

-------------------------------
14/7/11
Re: Catchment Rainfall and Runoff Forecasts for Melbourne's Dams

Dear Tim,

Perhaps you could confirm whether such information exists?

Regards

Andrew Chapman

-----------------------------------
13/7/11
Re: Catchment Rainfall and Runoff Forecasts for Melbournes Dams

Dear Andrew

Thank you for your email.

As I am no longer the Victorian Water Minister it would be more appropriate for you to direct your request to the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

FOI Unit
Department of Sustainability and Environment
PO Box 500
EAST MELBOURNE VIC 8002

Yours sincerely

Tim Holding

-----------------------------------------

13/7/11

Catchment Rainfall and Runoff Forecasts for Melbourne's Dams

Tim Holding MP

Dear Mr Holding

Catchment Rainfall and Runoff Forecasts
The adoption by the Bracks/Brumby governments of a desalination plant at Wonthaggi to supply water to Melbourne was no doubt based on that government's perceived need for additional water.

When Melbourne's water storages fell to low levels I expect that you, as Water Minister, would have sought expert advice on the long term rainfall and runoff for the catchments supplying the storage dams.

Could you please provide me with, or direct me to where I would find, copies of all the reports and advice provided to you on the catchment rainfall and runoff?

Regards

Andrew Chapman

__________________________________________________________________________

As at 19/7/11 there has been no response from Tim Holding.

------------------------------------

3/3/11

Royal Commission into Desal Project

Timothy Holding MP,

Dear Mr Holding,

It appears from your comments in the media that you think the desalination plant, originally estimated at no more than $3.1b and now at considerably more, is good value for Victorian taxpayers and consumers. If you think the cost, social and environmental impacts are justifiable then I imagine you will be happy to support a community move to establish a Royal Commission into the planning and approval process for the project.

It could deal with, but not be limited to, the Bracks/Brumby government's involvement in the process, the role of Ministers and party advisers who worked in the public service, any influence they may have had on process, whether or not the evidence produced for the EES was appropriate or balanced and how the process considered submissions by the public.

The answers to these matters may be readily available and if a Royal Commission is implemented you and your fellow ex Ministers would no doubt have an opportunity to commission consultants and lawyers to present your case. It may determine that your decisions were soundly based but could also reveal an opportunity to abandon the project without cost to Victorians.

As you can appreciate people are shocked by the recent revelations that the cost of this project has escalated and that it may cost $23.5b by 2030.

I look forward to you and your fellow ex Ministers supporting a Royal Commission into the desalination plant approval process.

Regards

Andrew Chapman

-----------------------
________________________________________________________

Appendix B: SOME COMMENTS IN MARCH THIS YEAR ABOUT A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE DESAL PLANT

Andrew Chapman distributed the following statement in an email. Below this statement are a number of very interesting comments from the public.

Andrew Chapman:

"Yes I do intend to go forward with the intention of getting a Royal Commission Inquiry into the desal plant approval process. It is our one and only big chance to expose the planning system for what it is and what occurred under the previous government. If we don't do something the bureaucrats will eventually persuade the new government to go down the same path on newer proposals. The reason I think we should have high expectations is that it affects so many people in a big way.

Remember when it was announced by Bracks and Thwaites on the same day people were told their properties would be taken, the legal costs awarded against campaigners when they were denied any opportunity to appeal against the decision, then when the government found they required an EES the way in which that was done and then handing over police files on objectors to the contractor.

Then there's the Banks. Westpac signed the Ecuador Principle and made it part of their advertising campaign and yet the way this project was handled was not much different to what happens in third world dictatorships.

All the time people argued that they were going down the wrong path but the Bracks/Brumby obsession could not be stopped.

I think as a starter we should be opening up discussion with as many people and groups as possible. If there are enough people interested in a Royal Commission we should then start to let the media know. We are all burdened with this social, economic and environmental disaster so people should feel free to add their bit in any way they feel they can contribute."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responses

Thank you very much, Mary. I hoped you would forward it. You might also like to mention my blog http://reengineeringaustralia.wordpress.com. The model I refer to is simply a 1 sq. km grid laid over the entire country, where we use on-the-ground and satellite information to populate each element with relevant data. After that, you can apply all sorts of rules and computations to evaluate the usefulness or the sensitivity of that particular element for a particular usage (including “don’t you dare touch it”!).

Regards
Jim W
-------------------------------
Anything to make them accountable and process transparent is worth it!! This must be prevented if at all ever stopped? Id love to know why the contract cant be terminated?

Sheryl
-------------------------------

yes it does, but I fear the chances are small.

best regards Stephen C

-------------------------------

Of course it's corruption. But the reality of it is that our government is Big Business and our Parliament is powerless to stop us being sold into slavery. Most boiled frogs accept the propaganda that we live in a democracy and that our Parliament is Government.

Even if you do manage to get a Royal Commission, it's terms of reference will not be able to tackle the reasons for how such wholesale corruption could have taken place.

And don't get me started on Laws and the Justice system.

Ray

-------------------------------

I have had a career in civil/structural engineering, town planning and IT, but I simply cannot get my head around what professional, accounting and ethical processes could possibly justify the Wonthaggi desalination plant. I had an exchange of emails with Rosemary West about my blog on sustainable population and I quoted the desalination plant as an example of where the land usage model I proposed could be have been used in the design phase or, given the current catastrophe, to chart all of the problems needing attention. Here is what I said to Rosemary on this topic (with a little subsequent expansion):

Did the State Government investigate every possible site along the coast before selecting Wonthaggi ? If so, what were the criteria used and what were the scores of the various sites ?

If they did not do this, did they select the site for technical, financial, political or governmental reasons ? If so, what were those reasons ?

If they did not select the site, was it selected by the contractor ? If so, were a number of contractors approached to tender for the project ? If so, were they in agreement as to the suitability of the site? If not, did any of them suggest alternative sites ? What were the various contractors’ reasons for selecting any particular site ?

If only one contractor was approached to tender, what were the reasons for selecting that contractor ? If the contractor is a consortium, what due diligence was carried out to satisfy probity requirements ?

I have worked on road and rail projects in the UK, East Africa and Australia. I came to Australia to work on the WA Standard Gauge Railway in 1965, so I do have some idea of where the costs lie in constructing such projects. I have done a little research, looking at the costs/lane (roads) and costs/line (railways) in the 1960s. I projected these to the current time, in accordance with the fall in currency values. Broadly speaking, I believe that infrastructure projects today are mostly costing about double what one would expect. I think this is largely due to the finance models in use today and any investigation should include a discussion on the appropriateness of these for constructing infrastructure projects (as opposed to perhaps managing them afterwards.

Here are a few books which I think are required reading for anyone wishing to participate in this latter discussion:

“Pigs at the trough: lessons from Australia’s decade of corporate greed” by Adam Schwab.

“Zombie economics: how dead ideas still walk among us.” by John Quiggin.

“Our corrupt legal system: why everyone is a victim (except rich criminals)” by Evan Whitton. [Evan Whitton home-page (Ed.)]

This last is a little bit out of left field, but I think it is important because it describes the difficulties (and enormous cost) of the adversarial system used in anglophone countries. An important point is the way in information can be hidden or excluded from consideration by courts and inquiries.

I hope you (and perhaps others) find these remarks helpful in moving things along in this matter.

Regards,

Jim W

-------------------------------

1. The desal Royal Commission is essential for several reasons. Firstly, to extract accountability from the previous government, and, secondly, to limit the excesses of the current government.

2. Its not party political but necessary for restoration of public confidence in politics of all shades.

3. Given my druthers, I would like to see a Royal Commission into all Public Private Partnerships, over the last 30 years.

All strength to your arm,

Don K
-------------------------------

Yes, it is essential. Are there plans?
Your correspondent doesn't mention the funding scandals that implicated the Labor Party all the way to Queensland.
The whole thing was a total disaster and according to the Fin Review, Tuesday 3 March 2011, p. 7,

"Even if Victorians don't use a drop of water from the state's desalination plant, it will cost them more than $600 million a year for a quarter of a century, new documents show."

Sheila N

-------------------------------

I agree that how the DeSal project was handled was appalling….and it’s not the only one. Billions of taxpayers’ funds have been spent on projects that we in the community (those who finance these mega projects) neither want nor need.

DeSal, the NS pipeline and Channel Deepening all had its opponents spied on and well orchestrated campaigns to denigrate them whilst promoting the project as being the only alternative. That our elected representatives and we as a community have tolerated this lop sided “contest” for so long is a worry in itself.

And there’s little doubt there’s be more to come in future if we can’t change the way we do things. E.g. the reported $9.5 billion+ to do to Westernport what a handful of shippers and truckers want.

I keep coming back to my main themes:

· An extra 75,000 people per year into Melbourne and their housing, food and transport requirements can’t have any other outcome whilst ever we are on the “business as usual” trajectory. Population pressures (driven by those few faceless entities that benefit from population growth) are at the root of this endless expansion industry.

· Those vested interest groups and faceless entities have too great an influence on our elected representatives. They enjoy armchair rides through open doors to the offices and dining tables of those we elect – whilst the likes of you and I (and many other well meaning, well informed, well educated and altruistic persons) are left outside wringing our hands and waiting perhaps months for a 30 minute meeting with the Minister or more likely his lackey. Meanwhile the bulldozer flattens Westerfields or whatever other special place we are concerned about)

· Our present governance arrangements have allowed this inequitable access to influence to permeate how decisions are made, because:

· Those we elect once every 4 years are not legally obliged to do any of the things they led us to believe they were committed to during their election campaigns. Generally they have misled and disappointed us, and our only recourse at present is to wait another 4 years to elect the next lot who don’t have any legal obligations to abide by their undertakings either. Our influence - once every four years as we shuffle into the polling booth is perfunctory, indeed illusory.

Somehow or other we need to find a way to have more direct and regular input into the decisions made by our elected representatives – Direct democracy. Contentious issues and those where our local MP doesn’t have his/her own firm view, local polls could be held to guide the MP on how to vote in parliament. State-wide and national sissies could be resolved via referendum. It is working well elsewhere e.g. In Switzerland where voters not only elect the government, they also directly vote on policy issues and legislation passed by the parliament. So why not here?

A very interesting and relevant program on ABC RN Rear Vision recently on how such a system works in Switzerland is well worth reading/listening to. Here’s the link http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2010/3047700.htm

-------------------------------

So- If a Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference would address how we could better handle decision making processes on contentious and difficult environmental/social and economic issues like the ones we are so familiar with I’d be all for it.

Thanks for keeping us so well informed and in the loop Mary

Cheers
Jenny W
-------------------------------

I don't think there is any prospect of the current State government deciding on a Royal Commission into the project. The Desal was a decision of the then State government and we might not like the decision but I can't see what the grounds would be for establishing a RC. Bearing in mind too, that a Royal Commission would cost millions to conduct.
Regards, David.

Yes, yes, yes! I'm sure the Greens will support it as well. We knew at the time that if we put in the right conservation strategies, we could generate the same amount of water. This was publicised and ignored so that big corporations could get a Salary from the people of Victoria for life. If the Royal Commission would expose this travesty, let's support it 100%

Gillian C
-------------------------------

Happy to go ahead with asking for a royal commission.

June H

-------------------------------

I agree. Particularly I can not believe that the tax payers of this state are saddled with that massive bill AND the destruction of a lovely area. Talk about a lose/lose situation. I think the terms of the RC should investigate the possibility to minimize $ loss and not go ahead with any aspect of the wretched thing. Remember, the Greens were against it from the start, and the Green candidate for Bass was one of the leading anti-desal campaigners - Neil Rankine. He is a great resource and a fountain of knowledge on the issue.

Cheers
Wendy R

-------------------------------

The argument for a Royal Commission is overwhelming: How was the assessment made-comparing all alternatives? How was the size determined? Was the evaluation of this project fully integrated with other measures, in particular the N/S pipeline and water recycling plans? What was the process for evaluating the most suitable site? What was the basis for selecting the successful tenderer and awarding the contact? What were the true circumstances of commercial in confidence which prevented the Gov't from informing the public beforehand on these issues? What was the basis for electing the extortionist pay rates for this project and what were/are these and all the attendant site awards/provisions? What truth is there to suggestions that the unions involved are selling or seeking other benefits in exchange for the right for workers to work on this project? What was the Gov't policy for managing public opinion and how was this managed and controlled? How much attention did the Gov't give to seeking public opinion and to have genuine consultation with the communities affected? What was the quality of examination of the environmental impacts? What consultants were engaged for this purpose, how was this process handled and what were they paid? There are other issues as well, but surely this is more than enough!

Reg B
-
-------------------------------

You will recall that the EES process was totally flawed. Rather than it examining all alternatives (including the key one of doing nothing) it was
relegated to an examination of effects after the go ahead had been given.

Bracks in his helicopter said the decision had been made and now there could be an EES.

A Royal Commission could also look at the lack of flexibility (ie cancelling the project) caused by putting it into private hands.

Geoff M
-------------------------------

And when they dug up 5000 artifacts what happened to the 2007 legislation designed to conserve and protect aboriginal cultural history and heritage.?
Bev W
-------------------------------

I certainly wholeheartedly agree with your plan. You certainly have our support. Don't know if I mentioned to you also but I intend going to the Ombudsman to ask him to revisit the manner in which the Macarthur windfarm planning permit was amended in July 2010, with so many changes that it hardly resembles the original plan for which they were given approval in 2006. However that will take me a long time getting everything ready for my request and haven't found a moment yet !!!
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you.

Annie G.
-------------------------------

Given Victorians are delivering $2m a day towards this project I think an investigation is more than warranted.

There should be an investigation into the role of the union super funds who invested in this lucrative gravy train. Were independent super funds, such as AMP or MLC or even self-managed super funds given an opportunity to weigh up the investment? I doubt it. I believe an investigation would show that the entire exercise has vastly enriched the CFMEU workers, to the competitive detriment of the entire Victorian construction industry, and enriched the super funds.

Are Bracks and Brumby now on the boards of any of those super funds?

I think this trend to enrich “ALP type” super funds will rapidly shift to Canberra and we are likely to see the bulk of rorting going through the Carbon Tax mechanism and particularly the $10bn Bob Brown Green Bank that will be used to prop up these investments.

Tim L
-------------------------------
Of course there needs to be an Royal Commission.

I presented at the Panel giving advice that the expert technological advice in particular about acid sulfate soil and its eventual disturbance, had been distorted and altered to present a picture of no harm will be done by this Desal excavation of this coastal soil..

Words such as probable were altered to unlikely or similar phrases' There were no recommendations about further testing to establish the extent of this Acid Sulfate Soil l which has a potential to destroy water fish and plants when it is exposed to oxygen and water is withdrawn and returned to the aquifer. I have a substantial submission in which I cited such watering down to the point of negligent culpability and lying.

I have been informed and some items in the local news have relayed that Acid Sulfate Soil had become a major problem.. I also believe the National Policies on disposal of this contaminated soil have been ignored. Mitigation with lime has not been used in appropriate amounts.

I spoke with the project Engineer at an open day earlier this year and he was totally ignorant of the type of soil he was digging up and or how it should be mitigated/managed.

I was enraged about the way I was treated at Panel Hearings in Pakenham when the Chairperson - a woman - was extremely rude to me. I believe discriminated against me because during my 10 minute presentation with power point and handouts which had been an effort of extreme intensity, she stated that I was "holding up lunch" for the panel.

I am am applied scientist and retired University Senior Lecturer . I have studied these soils for over 7 years and I was invited to (perhaps to dumb me down) to join the Government committee of the day. I felt patronised and realised that there was no intent to be sincere in this inquiry.

My colleagues in this protest campaign had undertaken to examine all 25 volumes of the Desal EES reports all agreed that the recommendations had been watered down on each and every occasion in the Executive Summary.

I would be happy to attend any Inquiry and make my outrage known.
Bev W
-------------------------------

Appendix C: MEDIA ARTICLES ON THE DESAL PLANT

TRANSCRIPTS FOLLOW:

Stateline, Age, ABC, Transcripts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABC's Victorian Stateline Program of 31/7/09

TAMARA OUDYN, PRESENTER: The State Government announced this week who it’s chosen to build and operate Australia's largest desalination plant at Wonthaggi. It also revealed it’s agreed to act as a lender of last resort to sure up finance for the project, which will be a public/private partnership. Most of the detail, including financial aspects, hasn't been released. Water Minister Tim Holding wasn't available to speak to Stateline, but here’s some of what he had to say to Jon Faine on ABC Radio this morning.

JON FAINE, ABC RADIO PRESENTER: Why’s it being called a PPP if it’s underwritten by Treasury? It’s not really a PPP and wouldn't it really be cheaper and simpler to build it as state infrastructure?

TIM HOLDING, WATER MINISTER: Well it is a public-private partnership. And the question you’ve asked is: would it have been cheaper to build it as a public – provide it as public sector provided project. And as part of this project – or part of this process, we are required to establish a public sector comparator, which is a tool which tells us what it would have cost us to build this project if the public sector had assumed all of the risk and built the project itself. And the public sector comparator tells us that either of these bids - both the Aquasure bid, which is the bid the Government has accepted, as well as the Bass Water bid - were well below the public sector comparator. So that’s the guarantee that the public is getting value for money from the involvement of the private sector in the delivery of this project. ... There will be new renewable energy projects generated as a consequence of the ...

JON FAINE: Where?

TIM HOLDING: Well, of the – the consortium will make that clear through the purchase of their renewable energy.

JON FAINE: So you don’t know? You can't tell us?

TIM HOLDING: Well it will become clearer over time. They will also be purchasing renewable energy credits as part of the process. And that’s the public's guarantee that the power that’s used, the energy that’s used to power this plant has been offset by the purchase of not just renewable energy, but renewable energy in addition to the targets that the Government had already set.

JON FAINE: Can you guarantee that consumers' water bills will only increase by the stated 100 per cent over five years?

TIM HOLDING: We’ve said that over the next price period, bills will double, but not more than double. We reiterate and reaffirm that guarantee. The Essential Services Commission has reaffirmed that. In fact, the price increase will be a little bit less than that. And as I mentioned earlier by reference to the public sector comparator, that both bids came in below the public sector comparator, and that’s a guarantee also that the price impact of this project will not only be less than the full doubling of water prices, but in fact will be less than if the Government had been forced to deliver this project ourselves.

------------------------------

TAMARA OUDYN, PRESENTER: Tony Shepherd is the chairman of the consortium chosen to build the desalination plant. I spoke with him earlier.

Tony Shepherd, welcome to the program.

TONY SHEPHERD, CHAIRMAN, AQUASURE: Hi, Tamara. Nice to see you.

TAMARA OUDYN: How many desalination plants has your company been responsible for and why is this one different?

TONY SHEPHERD: The technology provided to our consortium is Degremont, a French company. Degremont has provided hundreds of desalination plants throughout the world. In fact I think it's the world's leading provider of desalination plants. They’ve done the plant recently in Perth, which is operating and operating very successfully. The difference in this one: I guess it's a modern plant, state-of-the-art, the design and integration into the local environment is different. And the fact that we have to build such a large plant in a very short time is also different.

TAMARA OUDYN: Finance has obviously been a key issue. Whose idea was it for the Government the lender of last resort?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well obviously with the GFC, raising all of this debt and equity was an issue for us. Having raised all of the debt, the banks were concerned about that part of the debt that they wished to syndicate, and we took that to the Government as a suggestion and the Government adopted it. We think it’s a smart way of getting around the issue. But we’re confident that the banks will in fact be able to syndicate that debt.

TAMARA OUDYN: It’s $4 billion worth. Is it true that you plan to offload most of that?

TONY SHEPHERD: No; I think it’s about $1.7 billion that has to be syndicated of that four.

TAMARA OUDYN: So when would you need to finalise your financial arrangements?

TONY SHEPHERD: By financial close, which is in about two months’ time.

TAMARA OUDYN: The price of the project is now being put at $3.5 billion. Will that be the total cost?

TONY SHEPHERD: That's the total cost of the construction of the plant. On top of that, we’ll have things like interest during construction and company costs.

TAMARA OUDYN: So what other sorts of costs are associated with completing the project that aren’t included in that figure?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well mainly interest during construction.

TAMARA OUDYN: And how much would you expect that to ... ?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well I think the total funding will be $4.8 billion, so the difference between the $3.5 and the $4.8 is associated with the financing of the project.

TAMARA OUDYN: Over and above the cost of building the project and getting it up and running, how much will it cost to run each year?

TONY SHEPHERD: I haven’t got the exact number at my fingertips, but it’s into the hundreds of millions a year, including the cost of power.

TAMARA OUDYN: You’ve struck a deal that allows the Government to order as much or as little water as it needs. How do you make a profit in that circumstance?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well, we get paid for having the capacity available. And obviously we get paid for actually producing the water. So, the Government has the flexibility as to how much water they want us to produce, but obviously we have to service our capital in the meantime and keep the plant in good operating condition and we get compensated for that.

TAMARA OUDYN: Are you free to take orders from other customers?

TONY SHEPHERD: No, no we’re not. We can only supply the Victorian Government.

TAMARA OUDYN: So how will you make a profit if we have a big downpour in Victoria and we’re set for water?

TONY SHEPHERD: Well, we certainly take some risks on that. But if you look at the state of the dams at the present time, at less than 30 per cent capacity, it’s highly unlikely that this desalination plant will not be running in a maximum condition for quite a while, in my view.

TAMARA OUDYN: Roughly how much will a megalitre of water cost?

TONY SHEPHERD: We can’t disclose that as yet. This will be disclosed after financial close, when our contract is published.

TAMARA OUDYN: Why can't you disclose that?

TONY SHEPHERD: Because the Government has asked us not to until the contract is disclosed to the public. The price is not exactly finalised until we reach financial close. There could be some slight variations in the meantime.

TAMARA OUDYN: And what’s the price dependent on?

TONY SHEPHERD: The things that might vary in the meantime is the rate of interest and things like that that might vary over this period of time, but relatively minor. We’re talking marginal changes. But the Government prefers to release the details of the contract in one go after financial close, and I think that’s sensible.

TAMARA OUDYN: It’s been reported that the desal plant will produce more than one million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. Is that irrespective of how the power to run it is generated?

TONY SHEPHERD: That is a hypothetical figure that you’re discussing.

TAMARA OUDYN: More than one million tonnes?

TONY SHEPHERD: Yes, that’s just purely hypothetical. Because the energy that we use – the main energy we use in the plant to produce desalinated water is renewable energy, which, by definition, doesn’t produce carbon. I disagree with the number, yeah.

TAMARA OUDYN: So you can't tell me what the projected emissions would be because ... ?

TONY SHEPHERD: We will be carbon neutral. The plant will be carbon neutral.

TAMARA OUDYN: So what’s your time frame; when do you think you’ll be turning the taps on?

TONY SHEPHERD: December of 2011 is the target, is our contractual commitment, so, that’s a very tight schedule for a plant of this size.

TAMARA OUDYN: And will you be operating at capacity by that stage? Or will it be a gradual run-up to ... ?

TONY SHEPHERD: We’ll be getting close to capacity then.

TAMARA OUDYN: So when do you think you’ll hit capacity?

TONY SHEPHERD: We’re hoping to get it by then.

TAMARA OUDYN: Tony Shepherd, thanks for joining us.

TONY SHEPHERD: Thank you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victorians need evidence they’ll be desal winners - "The Age July 31, 2009"

THE deal is done. Premier John Brumby has announced that AquaSure, an international consortium consisting of Suez Environment, Degremont, Thiess and Macquarie Capital Group, will build Australia’s biggest desalination plant. The decision on the $3.5 billion project — $400 million more than the $3.1 billion price tag that the Government has long quoted — has put paid to suspicions that another French-led consortium might be in line for the contract to make up for Connex parent company Veolia and its potential merger partner, Yarra Trams parent company Transdev, losing their public transport contracts.

The project remains contentious in other ways, not least among local residents fearful of its impact on their environment. The higher cost only increases pressure on the Government to provide solid evidence for why it preferred the costly and environmentally dubious option of desalination — which it scorned before the 2006 election — over water recycling and stormwater capture.

The Government has been reluctant to release the public sector comparator of the costs of desalination and the greener alternatives. One suspects recycling costings have been inflated by provision for third-pipe infrastructure to keep a politically motivated promise not to use recycled water for drinking — an internationally tried and tested solution that really should be the basis for comparison. Instead, most of Melbourne’s treated waste water will still be pumped out to sea — a waste of roughly 200 billion litres a year.

Of course, the Government is talking up the project’s benefits, including jobs. An underground power supply allays one concern about impacts on the landscape and landowners. On the face of it, the commitment to use renewable energy is welcome, given justifiable community concern about the wisdom of using a power-hungry, greenhouse-gas-producing plant to make up for the scarcity of water in an environment of climate change. Water Minister Tim Holding said Aquasure would build, with AGL, a 63-megawatt wind farm near Glenthompson. However, this falls short of the power required to produce 150 billion litres of water a year and pump it 86 kilometres. Government documents predict an ‘‘average electricity requirement of approximately 92 megawatts’’. At best, actual output of wind power is about 40 per cent of installed capacity, so the wind farm will supply barely a quarter of the electricity required. Victorians must take at face value assurances that the shortfall can be met from other green energy sources. The contract must ensure an equivalent increase in the grid’s renewable generating capacity for the plan to be carbon-neutral.

The other issue is the huge cost. Mr Holding said that by 2013 Victorians’ average water bills would be held to less than double their current level — largely to pay for this project. Both Mr Brumby and Mr Holding insisted the contract would deliver value for money. It would provide for flexibility to produce water in increments of between 0 and 100 per cent of the plant’s capacity, supplying the system only when needed. This provision is qualified, though, by the minister’s recent decision to advise water authorities that the plant would run at full capacity in any of the next five financial years, as long as dams are below 65 per cent at the end of the preceding March — the month when levels are usually lowest.

Victorians are not yet privy to the details of payment arrangements, but no business is likely to agree to its income drying up in a wet year. That is not the only concern for taxpayers. Mr Holding said: ‘‘The capacity of AquaSure to raise the necessary funds in such a tough global economic environment is a testament to the strong Victorian economy,’’ and then, somewhat contradictorily, added: ‘‘AquaSure will now seek to diversify its investor base, with the Victorian Government providing a Treasurer’s guarantee of syndication. This means the state will be a lender of last resort if required, at commercial rates.’’ How much could taxpayers be up for, and on what terms?

Lack of transparency goes to the heart of the difficulty of simply accepting that this and other public-private partnerships offer value for money. Labor has failed to keep its 1999 election promise, prompted by Kennett government secrecy, that commercial-in-confidence provisions would apply only to patents and trade secrets. The Labor-dominated public accounts and estimates committee has concluded that the score of PPPs entered into by this Government ‘‘diminished the accountability of government for substantial state expenditure’’, to the point that Victorians could have no idea whether these projects offered value for money. The bottom line is simple: if the contract truly represents a good deal, it should be good enough to stand up to public scrutiny.

---------------------------

ABC Online - Failed desal bidder to get compensation

Updated Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:54pm AEST
Bidders for the tender to construct the Wonthaggi desalination plant have until the end of the month

Victoria's Water Minister says without a desalination plant the state could run out of water. (ABC TV)

The failed bidder for Victoria's desalination plant will receive compensation from the state government.

BassWater lost out to a consortium called AquaSure in the tendering process to build and operate the $3.5 billion plant near Wonthaggi in South Gippsland

Victorian Water Minister, Tim Holding, says it is appropriate for BassWater to receive up to $10 million compensation.

"You can't compensate the private sector for all of those costs, but you can recognise that sometimes the projects are so large and the bid proposals that we seek are so complicated that it is appropriate to make a modest contribution," he said.

Earlier, Mr Holding, strongly defended the desalination project on ABC 774's Morning Program.

"Without this project we would not have a non-rainfall dependant source of water, which is exactly what we need in an environment of drought and climate change," he said.

Opposition leader Ted Baillieu told the program that Victorians were now "stuck" with a desalination plant and he voiced concern about the fine detail of the contract.

"The details of these contractual arrangements have to be released in full," he said.

AquaSure's Chairman, Tony Shepherd, says the consortium is ready to start work next month.

"We are quietly confident that we'll be able to raise the money," he said.

Meanwhile, the Bass Coast Shire says it will maintain pressure to ensure the local community is not disadvantaged by the project.

Shire mayor, John Duscher, says the council will continue to advocate for ratepayers.

"We will do everything in our power to lessen the impact on our community and maximise any benefits to our community," he said.

The desalination plant is expected to produce about 150 billion litres of drinking water a year and is due to begin operations at the end of 2011.

AquaSure has promised to build a windfarm at Glenthompson, in the state's south-west, to offset the desalination plant's energy needs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with Mr Murdoch's newspaper empire is not just unethical behaviour by his journalists. It goes much deeper. With the alarming concentration of media ownership in Australia and the advent of PR driven journalism, for the sake of democracy, the public must support independent media. David Donovan of Independent Australia comments.

Australian mass media is concentrated into the hands of a very small number of proprietors. For example, 11 of the 12 major newspapers in Australia are owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation or John Fairfax Holdings. In fact, Murdoch bestrides the Australian media landscape like a colossus—NewsCorp owns 8 of that 12, and also dominate the regional and suburban newspaper publishing industry, as well as owning a major slice of Foxtel.

(Image: Rupert Murdoch, courtesy Rex Interstock) Sign this online petition advocating a comprehensive Inquiry into the Australian media industry. #AusPol http://fb.me/18xDXIEuv 1 day ago

The Australian people have less different voices to use upon which to make their decisions than almost any other place in the free world. And Rupert Murdoch is happy to wield his overwhelming power.

In 1979, as Murdoch looked to acquire Channel 10 in Melbourne, the Australian Journalists Association in a submission to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal alleged that Murdoch was an autocratic and unprincipled proprietor who demanded that his lackeys publish distorted accounts of the news when it suited him. There is an abundance of evidence to support this view. Whether this is true or not, where one proprietor owns such a large swathe of the Australian media industry, the danger of interference in our democracy is present and clear.

Despite Australian media ownership being amongst the most concentrated in the world, at the behest of powerful proprietors, successive Australian Governments have gradually further relaxed media ownership rules. The most recent round was put in place in April 2007 under the Howard Government, where the new ‘two out of three’ rule meant that companies are now allowed to own up to two media outlets – television, radio and newspaper – in a single area.

The reason given for the change by the then Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, was that convergence in the media industry as a result of news technologies, particularly the internet, meant that the old regime was ineffective. Newspaper proprietors were now able to transmit video and audio material on their websites, and broadcasters were able to transmit text in the same way. Coonan also said that the advent of “new players” as a result of the internet – the so-called “independent media” meant that there was a new diversity voices in the media landscape, making cross ownership laws largely needless.

“Traditional media services are being challenged by new digital technologies and this is resulting in the emergence of new players, new content and new platforms,” Senator Coonan said in 2006.

Despite digital technologies, mass media still overwhelmingly influential

Unfortunately, the idea that mass media diversity doesn’t matter, and that new players are threatening traditional sources is largely mythical.

Influential political blogger with US website The Nation, John Nicholls, said in Australia last year that, despite the new “players”, “content” and “platforms”, people have never received less information and less of it from alternative sources.

Nicholls offered some troubling facts about journalism in the US, where there is far more diversity of mass media ownership than we have in Australia. He said that rather than offering a diversity of voices, individual journalists were typically obliged to produce content on a range of platforms—video, audio and print. With owners having radio, TV and newspaper interests, this meant less journalists were required—a clear cost-benefit for proprietors. According to Nicholls, there are less journalists now there was in the time of President Franklin D Roosevelt and there were more journalists covering Reagan’s inauguration than Obama’s.

Rather than the new platforms leading to a diversity of voices, voices are in fact being snuffed out. Nicholls called this decline in journalism a “crisis of democracy”.

But, you might ask, as we hear less voices from the main players, isn’t independent media filling the gap?

The answer, says Nicholls, is generally no.

In January 2010, the Pew Centre of Journalism’s published a report detailing a study in which had analysed the way people get their information in the US city of Baltimore. The results were conclusive—people still get most of their information from “traditional” media sources. An analysis of independent media – or “blogs” as they are sometimes known – showed that 96 per cent of stories simply came from recycling stories found in the mainstream press. However, the study also showed that the mainstream press was producing 73 per cent less information than 10 years ago.

In other words, despite us getting almost all our information from traditional sources, these sources are producing less new stories than ever before.

And where are most these stories coming from? With the extra demands placed on the dwindling number of main-stream journalists, they are increasingly reaching for stage managed events and press releases to create their stories. Pew reported that a staggering 86 per cent of stories were produced by power, with only 14% of stories resulting from actual journalism—research, investigation, interviewing sources, digging, et al.

We get most of our news from PR companies. Whilst journalism has declined, career opportunities within the public relations industry have boomed. In 1970, the ratio of PR officers to journalists was 1:1. In 1980, it stretched to 1.2 PR people to every journalist. Now, we see an eye-watering 4:1 disparity. It has reached the point where we now see PR companies producing fully edited news stories that are shown on commercial media networks in their entirety, without any notification to viewers or listeners that this is pure spin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nichols_%28journalist%29

Democracy is at stake, but the people in power aren’t listening because they are very happy with the way they can easily dominate the news cycle. Pew’s research showed that 63 per cent of stories came directly from Government officials.

Nicholls says “democracy is at stake” and this seems no exaggeration.

Why don’t new media produce more new stories?

It all comes down to money. Good journalism takes time, effort and money—something that is in short supply in the world of Independent media. Here at Independent Australia, we are determined to buck this trend and produce new stories—stories you won’t have seen elsewhere.

In the past week, brilliant IA journalist Tess Lawrence, broke a story on Interpol and the Julian Assange red notice that has been published all around the world. However, despite been personally sent by IA to every mass media organisation in Australia, giving them full permission to publish, with the exception of a single brave broadcaster, Murray Peters from 2ST, none have seen fit to cover the story. We understand why—they would like to ignore us and stifle our voice. The last thing the mass media want in this country is competition after they have fought so hard, over so long, to so successfully eliminate it.

ATTRIBUTIONS AND NOTES

Source of this article: Independent Australia
Originally posted On Monday, 14 Mar 2011

The article has been republished, with permission.

In its initial context at Independent Australia the article concluded,

"But, though we are small, we are growing very quickly. This website is doubling in new readers about every two months. With our new revamped website format, our commitment to breaking stories you won’t have seen anywhere else, and with your support, we will keep on growing.

But we do need your support. As we said, good journalism is takes time and is expensive. If you would like to help us create quality Australian journalism, please donate generously to our website. And if you can’t afford to do that, just make sure you keep on reading us and giving is your feedback.

Help us keep democracy alive in this great country."

The Editor at candobetter.net inserted the following heading: "Despite digital technologies, mass media still overwhelmingly influential"

STABLE POPULATION PARTY PUBLIC MEETING
MELBOURNE -

Monday 18 July @ 7-9pm
Venue - Buzzard Lecture Theatre, Evan Burge Building at Trinity College, University of Melbourne, Parkville:
http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/about/campus--culture/virtual-tours.html
(Click and scroll down to bottom map. We suggest you enter Trinity College through Gate B on Royal Parade).

Guest speaker - Clifford Hayes, current Councillor and 2009/10 Mayor of Bayside City Council: 'Population growth and planning problems'.

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/councillors_northern_ward_councillor_2.htm

http://www.populationparty.com/newsletter/newsletter_display.php?secID=108&id=209

William Bourke is the National Convenor of the
Stable Population Party
02 9331 8080
www.populationparty.com

With the revelation that the recently released carbon tax would exclude petrol, there was much protest and disappointment from climate change activists. But once again everyone missed the elephant in the room as far as meeting Australia’s emissions targets – the immigration rate.

With the revelation that the recently released carbon tax would exclude petrol, there was much protest and disappointment from climate change activists. But once again everyone missed the elephant in the room as far as meeting Australia’s emissions targets – the immigration rate. In the recently published online book Sleepwalking to Catastrophe first-time gen Y author Fiona Heinrichs argues in the same vein as Dick Smith’s Population Crisis. There are two sections in Fiona’s book which particularly highlight the elephant in the room: the hypocrisy of liberals in denying population impacts by focusing on consumption and modeling which verifies the ineffectiveness of the carbon tax without immigration reform. The former point is made in the following excerpt from Chapter 2:

environmental groups have had a mixed attitude towards population. Often they have a tendency to regard population growth as not a significant factor affecting environmental degradation, with resource use and consumption being more important. Global social justice issues typically come before local environmental sustainability.[156]

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) was relatively inactive on the immigration and population issue; however, this was within the context that questioning such issues threatened one’s career. As Ian Lowe, president of the ACF and Australia 2020 Summit participant experienced first hand:

[Lowe] explicitly rejects the per capita consumption argument and has stated that reducing per capita consumption won’t solve environmental problems unless we also stabilise population.

Yet even with Lowe the media rarely reports his concern over population. When Mark O’Connor wrote to him in 2006 asking why this was so, he replied, at length, with many examples of how his frequent references to population were ignored or excised by journalists. He also described how he was sacked as a columnist from one paper for insisting on it. He found that the most biased media were the grossly pro-growthist Murdoch papers.[157]

Recently though, the ACF has done good work in filing a formal nomination of population growth as a ‘key threatening process’ to Australia’s biodiversity under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).[158] Interestingly enough, this action opens up the idea of suing the Federal government for the social and ecological damage done by its mass immigration policy, as has been attempted against governments in this on other jurisdictions in relation to climate change.[159]

Ecosocialists Ian Angus and Simon Butler, after making the standard argument that to be critical of immigration is to be a ‘racist’,[160] then argue that emissions from ‘carbon dirty’ industries in Canada, such as oil extraction from the Alberta Tar Sands are perhaps more worrying sources of greenhouse gas emissions than population growth.[161] Despite this claim, it does not follow that ‘the relationship between population growth and environmental destruction is shaped by how we use our resources, not by the number of people who use them’.[162] Population growth, along with affluence/resource use and technology, determine the environmental impact.[163] As Sara Parkin, former politician for the Green Party of England and Wales notes in the Foreword to the Forum for the Future publication, Growing Pains: Population and Sustainability in the UK:

As advisors to Barack Obama have pointed out, the future for everyone will be dominated by scarcity – of resources, of land, of airspace (for CO2 emissions) … The more people there are the harder that will be. The maths of sustainability is simple – the equation requires fewer people, consuming less – yet we find it difficult to talk about either.[164]

A Joint Statement by Fifty-Eight of the World’s Scientific Academics, Population Summit of the World’s Scientific Academies said:

‘The magnitude of the threat to the ecosystem is linked to human population size and resource use per person.’[165] Also: ‘There are warnings that the earth is finite and that natural systems are being pushed even closer to their limits.’[166]

The Australian Academy of Science, Population 2040: Australia’s Choice agreed and concluded that Australia should aim for a stable population of no more than 23 million by 2040.[167]

Penny Wong, Climate Change Minister in the government of Kevin Rudd and now Finance Minister, was asked: ‘Australia’s population is projected to increase by 65% … by 2050. During the same period, the government is committed to cutting our carbon emissions by 60%. Aren’t those goals or facts mutually exclusive?’

Wong said:

‘Absolutely not…Whereas the last few hundred years…growth in our carbon pollution has essentially tracked our population and economic growth … The key issue here is breaking that link, not trying to reduce population.’[168]

Wong’s style of thinking is replicated in South Australia; the driest state in the driest continent on Earth by fellow South Australian Labor Party politician Premier Mike Rann, who on the one hand tries to be seen as doing something about climate change, while on the other seeks to double South Australia’s population by 2050, with no limit in sight.[169] Professor Emeritus, Albert Bartlett, Physics, University of Colorado at Bounder, has shown the mathematical absurdity of claims such as Wong’s:

The average growth rate needed to increase Australia’s population 65% by the year 2050 is only 1.252 percent per year. The average annual reduction of emissions needed to reduce emissions 60% by 2050 is 2.291 percent per year. Add these two rates (1.252 + 2.291) and you will find that to accommodate the projection population growth AND to reduce overall annual emissions by 60% would require an annual rate of decrease of per capita emissions of polluting greenhouse gases of 3.543 percent per year over the next forty years. The per capita annual emissions would have to be cut in half every 19.6 years! What is the base for Minister Wong’s belief that this enormous reduction can be achieved, year after year for forty years? What progress towards this goal has Australia made during Ms. Wong’s leadership in her present position of Climate Change Minister? Does Minister Wong really believe this can be done? Or is she basing her policy recommendations on Walt Disney’s First Law:

‘Wishing will make it so.’

Let’s look a little farther. The present rate of growth Australia’s population is quoted as being 1.8 percent per year which is significantly higher than the 1.252 percent per year assumed above. If this current higher rate continues, Australia’s population will double by 2050 and would reach a density of one person per square metre over the whole continent in just over 700 years! Surely the Minister will admit that population growth in Australia will stop itself through starvation, pollution, warfare and the lack of resources long before the population density reaches one person per square metre. The critical question for the Minister then is,

‘Should Australia encourage continued population growth or should the people of Australia act to stop the growth before Nature stops it?’

If the Minister feels that Australians should act to stop population growth before Nature stops the growth, then why not stop it now while there are still some resources and some open spaces? It would be very helpful for the people of Australia if Climate Change Minister Wong would give these facts and options some serious consideration and then report the results of her considerations promptly to the people of Australia.[170]

However, with the recent portfolio shuffle following Julia Gillard’s election to government, such revelations now lie with the new Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Minister Greg Combet.[171] As to whether or not Minister Combet will come any closer to answering such pressing questions, only time will tell.

In the following excerpt from Chapter 4, Fiona makes the second notable point that a carbon tax implemented without stabilising population cannot reduce total emissions:

Prime Minister Gillard was told by her own Department, in a confidential briefing given in September 2010 that the quality of life in Australian big cities, measured by declining indexes of livability, is falling and could get worse.[315] A National Institute of Labour Studies report concluded that a high level of net overseas migration would have substantial adverse impacts on the quality of Australia’s natural and built environments.[316] Unless high levels of migration are cut, Sydney and Melbourne will require over 430,000 ha of new housing land and the loss in agricultural land will result in the need for imported key food stuffs, including dairy, lamb and vegetables, by 2050. Even if immigration ceased altogether, Australian capital cities will still grow by around 50 per cent within two decades, with a cost to each resident for congestion of $ 1,000 per year. For the present immigration level, capital cities will grow by 1.5 times within 50 years. At a net overseas migration level of 260,000 per annum, demand for oil will double by 2050 and greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion will increase by 200 percent from present levels.[317] Australian Treasury modeling accepts that greenhouse gas emissions grow, other things being equal, when population numbers grow. Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy did a disaggregation of Treasury forecasts to obtain an estimation of the contribution of population to greenhouse gas production and concluded that ‘83 percent of the forecast increase in greenhouse emissions to 2020 will be attributable to population growth’.[318] Further, Jorgenson and Clark examined data from 1960 to 2005 and found a large and positive association between national-level population growth and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions for both developed and developing countries, an association which has been so for at least the past 50 years.[319] So the pivotal question is:

What is the point of introducing an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax or any such policy on already struggling Australian working families, when Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will continue to surge into the future anyway under the federal government’s unreformed surging immigration rate?

Any reduction in emissions made through a cap or tax would be cancelled out by the subsequent increase in emissions of aggravated population expansion.[320] Targets for reducing emissions cannot be reached without targets for reducing population growth. With population growth expected to contribute to 83 percent of increases in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to 2020, surely any passionate climate change activist would tackle this environmental problem through immigration reform first? The much publicised battle[321] everyday Australian working families currently face struggling to pay their power bills, reduced quality of life from restricted water and power usage and genuine environmental conservation efforts are made a mockery of when the federal government sabotages these efforts through its unsustainable immigration policy. Mark O’Connor and William Lines make the same observation in Overloading Australia: How Governments and Media Dither and Deny on Population and subsequently suggest Australians should waste water as:

our analysis shows that until we get restraint in population there is no point in citizens saving water. If they do, this will not mean that their neighbours get more water for their gardens, or that tougher restrictions will be postponed. Rather, it means that politicians will be able to continue their irresponsible dream of putting over a million extra people in each of our three biggest cities over the next 25 years (and proportionately even more into Perth). So long as we have such misguided leaders, any water-restraint shown by the individual citizen will only allow our politicians to persist longer in their folly, and will lead – quite soon – to even worse shortages of water, plus many other environmental disasters.[322]

Certainly, the currently planned carbon tax should at the very least be postponed until after the government implements immigration reform first, and then reassessed on its capacity to reduce emissions.

Certainly indeed. Interestingly, Fiona’s book was published in May, so politicians, journalists, climate change activists and various public figures had plenty of time to digest her ideas before the current carbon tax was released. If only they’d listened to a gen Y female and Dick Smith for that matter.

On Wednesday night in icy cold Woodend, it was standing room only as 200 - 250 people filled St. Ambrose's Hall for a public meeting on Settlement Strategy organised by Macedon Ranges Shire Council, where the Mayor tells public 'you can't speak, can't ask questions', but an emphatic community message gets through in the end. "This meeting supports low growth, no rezoning and no expansion of the town boundary at Woodend, and expects Council to support and respect the community’s wishes by rejecting the higher growth scenario and re-instating the exhibited low growth scenario for Woodend."

When's A Public Meeting Not A Public Meeting? When It's In Macedon Ranges Shire...

At a public meeting last Wednesday on the Settlement Strategy, Mayor tells public 'you can't speak, can't ask questions', but an emphatic community message gets through in the end. On Wednesday night in icy cold Woodend, it was standing room only as 200 - 250 people filled St. Ambrose's Hall for a public meeting, organised by Macedon Ranges Shire Council.

The meeting flowed from Cr. Neil Manning's 25th May motion, that Council report back to the community at a public meeting on July 13 after its own meeting with Planning Minister Matthew Guy on June 22.

Mayor Henry McLaughlin addressed the crowd, and announced Council's format for the meeting: people were not allowed to speak or ask questions, nor would Councillors speak or take questions. This stunning announcement was met with instant protests, but despite clear community expectations of a dialogue, the Mayor held firm.

Through the Mayor and the Director of Planning and Environment, Sophie Segafredo, Council voiced its views amidst various comments made in defiance of Council's 'cone of silence', then the Mayor announced the meeting was over and everyone could mingle.

A woman in the crowd said "nobody move!"

A woman in the crowd said "nobody move", and they didn't.

Local resident John Shaw then stood and put a motion from the floor, even though Council had apparently indicated it couldn't be
entertained.

That motion was:

[MOTION:] "This meeting supports low growth, no rezoning and no expansion of the town boundary at Woodend, and expects Council to support and respect the community’s wishes by rejecting the higher growth scenario and re-instating the exhibited
low growth scenario for Woodend."

While acknowledging that responses would indicate the mood of the meeting only, Mr. Shaw's call for a show of hands saw an estimated 97% for the motion, and about 6 people against it.

People then wanted to know if Council would take notice of the 97%, and were told Council had a copy of the motion.

All nine Councillors attended. Representatives of Villawood Properties P/L were also present.

Ms. Segafredo advised that the Settlement Strategy has been revised yet again, removing the lately included recommendations that Clarkefield become a metropolitan growth centre, which she said had not been supported by the Minister for Planning.

As for Woodend, she said the lately-included higher growth figure of 5,000 within the existing town was about right [it also corresponds with the Department of Planning and Community Development's 'suggested' growth figure]. It wasn't explained why
someone thinks Woodend will grow twice as fast over the next 30 years as it has over the past 15 years.

The higher 5,000 growth figure is apparently considered appropriate because it responds to about 9 submissions Council received supporting higher growth (3) or Villawood (6). On the other hand, hundreds of submissions supporting the exhibited low growth scenario (4,400 people in 2036) were received by Council.

You can now access the re-revised (110714) version of the Settlement Strategy by going to Council's website (#FF5757">www.mrsc.vic.gov.au) and clicking on Draft Settlement Strategy. This is the document Council will consider for approval at its 27 July meeting.

What a public relations disaster!

MRRA says, "What a public relations disaster! Especially for a Council that has already taken a tumble on Community Engagement in the recent 2011 Community Satisfaction Survey.

The meeting was referred to as a public meeting or worse, a community meeting (we note Council calls it a 'public' meeting on its updated draft Settlement Strategy website page). That raises expectations, as someone pointed out, that there would actually be a
conversation between Council and community. The meeting instead had the characteristics of a lecture, with Council taking no prisoners in telling people what they would have. Arrogance came across, as if Council is interpreting the Minister's advice - that Council (and community) would make the decisions on the Settlement Strategy - as 'Council can do whatever it likes'. It can't.

Council's attitude was offensive and disenfranchising, and many left saying Council didn't want to hear, wasn't listening. Others asked when the next election was due.

The day before the meeting, MRRA met (at Council's invitation) with the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Planning and Environment and was advised the meeting would consist of tables with a Councillor at each where people could express their views individually to the individual councillors. This was seen as allowing people to 'have their say'.

Not buying it

Eyebrows aloft, we said we didn't think people would go for it, that there was an obvious expectation of a public meeting, public questions and answers, and interaction with Council. Although the originally-proposed tables were dispensed with on the night, Council ploughed on with a meeting format that was always doomed to fail. As for the latest Settlement Strategy iteration for Woodend, if democracy and hard evidence counts there is surely something wrong when Council says there are 'mixed' views
in the town. All the vast majority of residents want is for Woodend to continue to grow as it has for the past 15 years within its existing boundaries.

There are some 520 - 1,230 potential lots available in existing residential zones, and no-one except those who appear to have a vested interest wants any more created, particularly not the despised 'Villawood' proposal. The Woodend community is not saying no growth, it's saying protect the character and community feel of the town we love and let us hand that on to future generations. Not rocket science by any stretch. Why does Council seem to have so much difficulty understanding that?

Villawood Properties

Villawood Properties P/L and Davies Hill P/L continued their moronic fear and awe tactics by sending a flyer around to households immediately before the meeting misleadingly depicting landmark sites in the town as victims of infill development if their 550 acres of rural land outside the town boundary isn't transformed into suburban utopia.  We hear the companies see Wednesday's
meeting as Council missing the opportunity to put aside everyone's fears about 'Villawood', as if 'Villawood' is the centre of the universe. They patently don't understand Woodend.

Two events after the motion from the floor was put and staunchly supported left an impression.

• Russell Yardley's attempt to address the meeting about growth figures was greeted with groans, and cut short. It seems his earlier attempts to bring 'both sides' together, by trying to convince people they should talk with 'Villawood', have made him an unpopular figure.

• A resident who drove 10 hours from Sydney to get to the meeting "because that's how important having a low growth scenario for the town is to him and his family." He won strong applause when he disagreed with Mr. Yardley's view that more consultation on numbers was needed, and said the 97% support for the motion meant something, the people of Woodend were intelligent enough to understand the Settlement Strategy, and Council needed to recognise and respect all of this.

Time to get back on the same bus as the community, Council!

Some Councillors have referred to the Settlement Strategy as a 'document of excellence'. It should be, but isn't near that yet. A
document of excellence is owned by the broad community, (has strong community support), and never responds to - or
even appears to respond to - unjustified agendas and vested interests. A Settlement Strategy is about a collective, agreed, long-term vision, and excellence is when people look back in 25 years and still applaud the objectivity, wisdom and far-sightedness of decision-makers of the day.

If Council thinks being in step with the community it represents is as important as the community thinks it is, there is no doubt that Council now has some huge bridges to mend.

First, have the courage to eat some humble pie: acknowledge the major short-comings of Wednesday's meeting, and pledge to not go there again. Even a large mea culpa may not be enough wash away the anger, cynicism and loss of confidence, but it would signal that Council recognizes the offence, and may recoup some respect for being big enough to admit the mistake. Second, take the 'unjustifieds' that are making so many people unhappy out of the Settlement Strategy - for example, the out-of-the-blue doubling of population at Riddells Creek; the surreptitious and inappropriate support for increased Rural Living zone opportunities* in advance of undertaking a Rural Living Strategy; the extra 1,300 people in Rural Living zones slid into Gisborne on top of the
Gisborne Outline Development Plan's thumping population increase; higher growth in Woodend and anything that can be interpreted as doing Villawood Properties P/L a favour; and rezoning Rural Conservation to commercial at Mt. Macedon.

And be mindful that with Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 about to become State policy again, the Settlement Strategy - and growth levels - must be compatible with that policy's objectives of protecting this place from over-development.

Click here to see MRRA's list of problems in the Settlement Strategy.

There is still an opportunity for Council to make amends and get back on track with the community and the Settlement strategy. Will Council take up the challenge?

MRRA has been told these opportunities are justified by the Gisborne and Romsey Outline Development Plans. All we can say is they weren't in the ODPs we read."

If the reason for a carbon tax is primarily to change behaviour, what is the behaviour that households can change to reduce their carbon tax payments?

Curiously, the same behaviour will reduce waste of resources as well as cut emissions. We will have a User’s economy, not a Consumers’ economy.

But everyone’s job cannot be kept. Many are wasteful. New jobs are waiting in plenty, if only they are funded. And we certainly do not need more population to do the wasteful jobs. More population means the need for more resources to keep them alive. It means that farmland will be sacrificed for towns.

An individual’s behaviour seems puny. All one person can do is save money by not spending on wasting resources and costing unnecessary carbon emissions. And setting an example that more individuals can follow. And can at last reach the Movers and Shakers who make the great difference. Jobs will be lost; jobs will be made.

How can you cut your budget by half or even a quarter?

Cut use of petrol. Replace using the big family car for all one-person journeys with a minicar or public transport for commuting, walking, and cycling. (Minicars? Australian-made?) Only use a power-mower for vast expanses and civic ‘English’ lawns. Households save petrol, fertiliser, and water by mowing ‘Australian’ lawns with a good hand-mower, not a power mower. (Resurrect the good Australian hand-mower – present ones on sale are hopeless.) Australian lawns that die down in summer and don’t worry about flatweeds, Nature strips are ‘no-mow’ tough plants, rather than lawns.

Cut use of power. Reduce use of air-conditioning and central heating by sensible building practices, curtains, blinds and passages, and by heating or cooling only the rooms you are in, and dressing for the weather.

Use electric household appliances only when necessary. Half the time the big appliances are not necessary; exercise with manual appliances is just as good.

Throw less out into landfill or energy-intensive recycling. You save money when you buy for quality that lasts and refuse to buy goods that quickly obsolesce or fall to bits. All those ads that cry ‘Cheap!’ are misleading.

Cut your bills by knowing what is in your frig, and have recipes to use food that is not used.

Only buy furniture that can be repaired. Rubber latex mattresses are recommended rather than inner-springs, except for the obese who would wear them out; twenty year’s use, and then the rubber can be re-used.

Cut the loss of resources and carbon emissions in buying clothes you will not love, or cannot stand washing. Love your clothes and renovate them with accessories rather than throwing them out. Children can learn to love and be proud of the clothes they get handed down in the family as well as their new gear. Sewing and mending while listening to the radio or conversation are arts worth learning.

Hot water bills can be cut. Shampoo your hair weekly rather than daily; it will enjoy that, it is better for it, and it cuts your electricity and water bills. It’s amazing how much is saved if a kettle is filled only one cup more than you need. Go further , and get solar panels.

Gardens can stop using fertilisers and water unnecessarily; tanks, compost and worm farms are cost savers.

Many of these practices mean less carbon tax for the economy, not just yourselves.

If you think this is being told what to do - you can easily work out how to save carbon emissions and wasting resources yourselves. All those stand-by lights - -

It may seem a drop in the scheme of things, when the MacMansion building opposite you is contributing to the GDP by pulling down a beautiful single story home and employing about a dozen men for a year building the 90-square monster over almost an entire block.

But what good does this really do to the country, in the long run? You and your other neighbours can cut the value of such Conspicuous Consumption when you turn the goal of householders to Conspicuous Saving.

And what of the jobs that will go if you do not spend as much on waste? Think of all the jobs that are needed when the cry is ‘We need more population to do all the jobs’! If all the jobs that need to be done were being done, there would be no unemployment, and much less waste.

Animal carer, Denise McLean, talks about how she became a wildlife carer, and her night and day-shift nurse routine taking care of Raini, a very young baby kangaroo, and other macropod charges. Raini the pinkie joey's mother was a car accident victim. Raini was found in his dead mother's pouch by a woman as she was shifting the mother off the road. Fortunately for him, the woman called an animal rescue line.

Bringing Raini home

Raini was accidentally found as a tiny joey by a woman out walking one morning. His mother had been hit by a car. As she approached Raini's mother to move her off the road, the woman was shocked to see a movement in the dead kangaroo's pouch. Luckily the woman had her mobile with her. She rang her husband and he rang the rescue number.

I was the person on the other end of the animal rescue-line.

At only 270 grams, furless with eyes closed, the pinkie-Raini needed someone experienced and dedicated to care for him. I turned on the electric blanket and went out to bring my little Raini home.

The success rate with pinkies is not very high. They are very premature compared with a human baby. Joeys, normally brought up in their mother's pouch, are unable to thermoregulate until their fur grows (called "furring".) Until then they need to be kept at a temperature of between 33 and 34 degrees celsius.

Various methods are used to control temperature. Humidicribs would be the most ideal (but they are very expensive). I use an electric blanket that has been sewn into a pouch. I then suspend the pouch with the pinkie inside and put a temperature probe underneath the joey to monitor the temperature.

Here is a typical 24 hours in my life

At the moment I have Raini (whippy 1.2 kg) with his brain injury and now broken foot. Mickey (whippy 4 kg), Buddy (grey 4.5 kg), Rosie (grey 6 kg) + 2 others that still come home morning and night for bottles. With my injured shoulder and all the other day to day things, I just don't think I could take on another task at the moment.

Kangaroos are early risers and, baby kangaroos, like most babies, expect to be fed at all hours.

6am Alarm goes off. Get up, boil kettle for bottles and coffee. Feed Buddy (1.5 kg grey male kangaroo), then Raini. Must have drunk my coffee, cup is empty. Clean up bottles etc.

7am Might have another cuppa. Boil kettle. Max and Molly (15 kg grey male and 20 kg grey female) are here for their morning bottle. Feed Max & Molly, spend some special time with them. They have their morning pieces of sweet potato (hand fed of course), pats and tick search. Coffee is cold now, only drank about ¼ cup. Oh well.

7.40am Have shower and get dressed.

8am Spend 10 minutes in sun with Raini (he needs his vitamin D for his fast growing bones). Rub paw paw ointment on tail. Moisturise rest of body.

8.20am Put on load of washing, wash Raini’s liners, make bed.

8.45am Boil kettle for Raini’s syringes etc. Prepare bottles and medicine, feed Raini. Moisturise and attend to tail. Clean up bottles etc.

9.30am Hang out washing. Check emails (nothing important so they can wait).

10am Feed Buddy, take him for a walk. Clean up bottles

10.40am Must go to town and get some supplies.

11.15am Get home from town, have a cuppa and something to eat (haven’t had a chance yet). Make some coleslaw for lunch. Garry is coming home from work so am making some nice salads (mostly from the vege garden).

11.45am Boil kettle for Raini’s syringes etc. Feed him and attend to moisturizing. Clean up bottles etc.

12.40pm Have lunch and rest. I should clean up the kitchen but it can wait. Rest interrupted by 2 phone calls.

1.50pm Boil kettle for Buddy’s 2pm bottle. Feed Buddy, take him for walk. Clean up bottles etc.

2.30pm Clean kitchen (see, I did get to it). Boil kettle for Raini’s 3pm bottle. Max and Molly have turned up. Have weaned them off their daytime bottles but they still come home to see if one is on offer. Gave them some mixture (chaff and steamed flaked oats) and shut door so they couldn’t come inside.

3.10pm Feed Raini, sit outside in sun for 10 minutes with him. Clean up bottles/syringes, put everything on to boil (to sterilize joey equipment). Boil water to make up formula later. Check on Buddy. Take him outside for a while to get some sun. Pick some grass for him and put him back in his pouch.

4pm Take washing off line, fold and put away. Let chooks out, clean and refill water, collect eggs.

4.30pm Now I am going to sit down and rest for half and hour.

5pm Make up 24 hours worth of bottles for Raini and Buddy. Put dishes away. Clean up bottle making equipment. Prepare veges for tea.

5.30pm Max and Molly have come in to see about a bottle. Haven’t got any formula made up. Make formula and prepare bottles. Feed Max and Molly, give them some chaff. Clean up again.

6pm Get everything ready to feed Buddy and Raini. Feed Buddy, Garry will have to take him for a nurse and a walk as I am now late feeding Raini. Feed Raini, have cuddles and moisturize tail Clean up bottles etc.

7pm Cook tea and eat.

7.45pm That’s it, I have to have a lie down for a bit. Was going to give Raini some lectade but will do it later.

8.40pm Boil kettle for Raini’s bottle etc. At least I got nearly 1 full hour of rest.

9pm Feed Raini, attend to tail. Clean bottles etc.

9.45pm Boil kettle for Buddys bottle.

10pm Feed Buddy. Clean bottles.

10.20pm What to do now. Need to go to bed, am so, so tired but, Raini needs his 2nd lectade. Washing up not done from tea.

10.30pm OK, do washing up. Attend to Raini’s bed, temperature is rising.

10.45pm Boil kettle for Raini’s lectade. Feed Raini, clean up.

11pm Go to bed.

Baby kangaroos require night feeds

Midnight Alarm goes off. Get up, feed Raini, wash bottles.

12.40am Go back to bed.

2.15am Alarm goes off. Get up, feed Buddy, feed Raini, wash bottles.

3am Go back to bed.

6am Alarm goes off and so starts another day, another milestone for Raini.

"Even if the government’s emissions target is met by all existing Australians, based on current rates of population growth any benefit gained will have been completely wiped out before we get to 2020."

Carbon pollution plans will fail because of population growth

On the eve of World Population Day, the Australian government yesterday announced a 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 – a target which will be useless by 2020 because of Australia’s continuing population growth.

Sandra Kanck, National President of environment group Sustainable Population Australia, (SPA), says it seems to be beyond the intellect of both Government and Greens MPs to understand that more people means more carbon pollution.
“Even if the government’s emissions target is met by all existing Australians, based on current rates of population growth any benefit gained will have been completely wiped out before we get to 2020.

It gets worse – the larger population will then have to reduce emissions by 20% (instead of the 5% required in 2011) to bring the total emissions back to 2011 targets, effectively to just stand still.

“Reining in population growth is essential if any impact is to be made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“While the opponents of a carbon tax will make much of the fact that our electricity prices will rise by around 10% as a consequence, a much bigger contributor already to electricity prices is population increase.

“Between 2007 and 2010 there was a more than 30% increase in electricity costs because of the increased costs of the distribution network – a direct result of more people and the associated urban sprawl with increased demand for electricity.

“More electricity will be consumed by allowing uncontained population growth, producing still more greenhouse gas emissions.

“After all the hoo-ha about the carbon tax and targets, the public will justifiably be angry when they find out that the government’s plans will make no difference to the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia” concluded Ms Kanck “and that things will be worse still because of population growth”.

Source: MEDIA RELEASE – WORLD POPULATION DAY from Sustainable Population Australia, (SPA),
Monday, 11th July, 2011, Sustainable Population Australia, www.population.org.au

Patrons: Hon Bob Carr, Dr Paul Collins, Prof Tim Flannery, Prof Ian Lowe, Dr Mary E White

Further comment: Sandra Kanck ph. 0417882143

The Julian Simon/Matt Ridley School of economic optimism essentially denies the limits to growth and the possibility of human extinction because they believe that human technological capacity makes humans exceptional. But technology is applied science and it is well recognised that science in itself has limits, perhaps intrinsic limits.

by Fiona Heinrichs

Sitting above an article by Paul Howes for The Australian about alleged ‘thought crimes’ (20 June, 2011, p.14) is an article by the author of The Rational Optimist, Matt Ridley, ‘Left Activists Profits of Doom’. Ridley is of the Julian L. Simon School of optimism that sees the world as getting better and the future as so bright that we’ll all need to wear shades. The Australian, especially in columns such as ‘Cut & Paste’ has pushed the line that the ABC appears intolerant of controversial views, but The Australian has its own economic correctness, that of a faith in endless economic growth.

In his book The Ultimate Resource (1981) Simon claimed that the supply of natural resources was ‘infinite’ due to recycling and substitutes. Further, even though more people ‘mean higher total output, and this implies more pollution in the short run, all else being equal’ (248), in the longer term additional people will create new ways of reducing pollution. People are the ultimate resource being creative problem-solvers.

Matt Ridley carries on where Julian Simon left off. He maintains that ecological pessimism, largely advanced by the left, ‘relentlessly preaches millennial doom and technological risk’. But Ridley claims even with rapid growth in the world economy, there will be falling populations, ample food and mild climate change. All this based ‘on the trajectory of the past five decades’. But assuming that is true, in itself that is no scientific basis for supposing that such a trend will continue. Philosophers are still debating how inductive inferences are justified but many believe that the basis for predictions is some law-like relationship. Nothing like that is shown by Ridley.

He raises against the pessimists the failed predictions of the Y2K computer bug. See, it didn’t happen, and right he is. It did not happen because nations mobilised to correct the problem. If nothing was done to correct the date problem then no doubt chaos would have occurred. Rather than showing that ecological pessimism is false, his example supports the basic philosophy behind it, namely that action is needed to avert catastrophe.

Ridley does not attempt to justify his claim that there will be only ‘mild climate change’ in the future. There is considerable scientific debate about this, some of which has been mentioned in The Australian. For example, Professor Chris Field of Stanford University believes that the rate of climate change will be faster than previously predicted by the IPCC because greenhouse gas emissions have increased at a rate faster than expected and because positive feedback processes are now starting to kick in.

Higher temperatures are starting to melt the Artic permafrost which could release hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane. Methane is twenty-five times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. In my online book Sleepwalking to Catastrophe (www.sleepwalking-to-catastrophe.com), I cite scientific papers documenting the release of methane from the permafrost, underwater. The release of only a small fraction of the methane held in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf could trigger catastrophic climate change. Already 80 percent of the deep water and over half of surface waters have methane levels eight times higher than normal sea water.

The Simon/Ridley School of economic optimism essentially denies the limits to growth and the possibility of human extinction because they believe that human technological capacity makes humans exceptional. But technology is applied science and it is well recognised that science in itself has limits, perhaps intrinsic limits. There are unsolvable problems in computing science and limitation results even in mathematical logic such as Gödel’s theorem. In physics, quantum mechanics and relativity are logically inconsistent, although the physics community hopes that String theory will ultimately solve the problem some day. In evolutionary biology it is accepted that mass extinctions, often caused by climate change have devastated life on Earth a number of times. Looked at from the perspective of the hard sciences, Ridley’s optimism simply lacks a scientific basis.

Unfortunately saying all this, that there are limits to growth in a finite world has become something of a ‘thought crime’, contrary to Ridley. This position is rarely seen in opinion pieces in Australian newspapers. Yet regardless of how inconvenient this position is, without action future generations will battle against the conditions past generations left behind. An ecological, rather than a business profit mindset requires thinking beyond commerce and money-making, and focusing upon the biological parameters that keep civilisations in existence. Our business elites seemingly have no concern beyond day-to-day profit-making. This would not matter if they did not hold such influence over both our major political parties.

What to do? Well, leadership has been demonstrated by one notable exception – Dick Smith, who champions the limits to growth argument in his new book Population Crisis. Under such guidance, this force needs to be countered by ordinary people taking action but that is easier said than done. Nevertheless we all must try. As a 23 year old generation Y female, I am determined to show my own leadership in challenging the ideology of growth. After all, it’s our future at stake.

This article examines the explicit support of NATO's bombing by the UK 'Trotskyist' organisation, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the ineffectiveness of other supposed left-wing groups who claim to oppose the war. It is a response to a statement cited in "Dissecting a global empire and the US 'war on terror'" of 8 July of Global Research editor Michel Chossudovsky. He criticized social movements including leftist political parties that supported the US-led wars dubbed as 'war on terrorism'. For the truth about the current war against Libya and other international conflicts, please visit Global Research, one of the free news services committed to speaking the truth.

Workers' Liberty - an unapologetic 'Trotskyist' supporter of NATO bombing

The following is from Dissecting a global empire and the US 'war on terror' of 8 July by Marya Salamat:

(Michel) Chossudovsky criticized Northern governments and social movements including leftist political parties that supported the US-led wars dubbed as war on terrorism, when these are actually wars of conquests to maintain US imperialism and capitalism itself. ...

An example of one such "leftist political party" that is supporting the current war against Libya is the British 'Trotskyist' group Worker's Liberty, or, more formally, the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL). Examples of the AWL's explicit support for the war in Libya can be found in its current front page articles 'Why we should not denounce intervention in Libya' of 23 March, Peter Taaffe equates Libya's rebels with Nicaragua's contras of 24 May and An encounter with the shy Bishop Taaffe of 5 July.

The last of the previously mentioned articles is fluff in which I could find no substantial content about the actual war against Libya. It is an unfunny attempt to ridicule the Socialist Party (formerly known as Militant).

The UK Socialist Party - an opponent of NATO's bombing, if you know where to look

The Socialist Partyat least publicly opposes the war against Libya. Why they won't publicly debate AWL, if the AWL is to believed, is a mystery. However, news of the Libyan conflict is very hard to find on the Socialist Party's web-sites. On its front page, as of 9 July there is only one instance of the word 'Libya'. The link, made over small font text in a small right column, leads to its What's On page, where one Libya-related event on 14 July does get prominent mention.

On its Anti-war campaign page, found only after further searching the site, Libya gets a mention, but only right at the end, in an article Libya: the no-fly zone and the left of 20 April.

So, whilst the Socialist Party of the UK could justifiably be held by the AWL of being opposed to the NATO-backed 'rebels', they could not, by any means, be accused of being overly strident in their opposition.

They are, however, critical of other left-wing organisations which support NATO action against Libya:

The linked article, which explains the SP's stated opposition to NATO's military action against Libya can also be found on another SP site at ttp://www.socialismtoday.org/148/libya.html . It includes the following denuciation of other supposed left-wing organistions, including the AWL, which support the war:

Incredibly, this policy (of support for the NATO "no-fly zone") has been supported by some on the left, including a few who adhere to Marxism and Trotskyism. Amongst these must be included Gilbert Achar, who has written books on the Middle East, and whose support for the no-fly zone was originally carried uncritically on the website journal of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI), International Viewpoint. His views were subsequently repudiated (links added -- presumably the article to which I have linked is what was being referred to, - Ed.) by the USFI.

No such uncertainty, however, exists for the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL). This organisation’s shrill tone, particularly in criticising others on the left, rises in inverse proportion to its small forces and its even more limited influence within the labour movement. The AWL has even dragged in Leon Trotsky to justify imperialist intervention through the no-fly zone. One headline read: "Libya: no illusions in west but ‘anti-intervention’ opposition is abandoning the rebels". Another priceless headline was: 'Why we should not denounce intervention in Libya'. (Workers Liberty website, 23 March)

Workers' Liberty explains why it supports NATO's bombing

The Workers' Liberty article Peter Taaffe equates Libya's rebels with Nicaragua's contras, referred to above, explicitly explains AWL's stance:

AWL sides with the rebels against Qaddafi. Although the evidence is that the rebel leadership includes a miscellany of bourgeois tendencies, they lead an elemental democratic revolt, with potential for development and liberation, against the dead hand of Qaddafi's autocratic police state.

For their own reasons, the NATO powers have intervened on the side of the rebels, bombing Qaddafi's air bases, tanks, and command centres. Because we support the rebels, we welcome that.

The article continues:

We do not endorse or support the NATO powers, because we know that they will serve their own interests.

But, because AWL holds the 'rebels' to be popularly supported and fighting for the benefit of the Libyan people "against the dead hand of Qaddafi's autocratic police state", NATO's support for those 'rebels' must be defended, but only if the NATO war does not become an outright invasion. In the word's of Workers' Liberty:

It would be different if one NATO power or another were to invade Libya and try to establish a colonial-type occupation there.

The article continued:

But they are not doing that. There is no sign of them doing that.

AWL evidently believes itself able to draw the fine distinction that no-one else is capable of drawing. On the one hand, AWL supports NATO's aerial bombing campaign, including, presumably, the use of helicopters capable of carrying ground combat troops, the use of NATO warships off Libyan waters, the dropping of supplies and to the Transitional National Council (TNC) 'rebels' and supporting them with financial donations, but on the other, if that were expanded to become an outright invasion involving US/NATO ground forces they would oppose it.

Presumably, until "Workers' Liberty" is presented with incontrovertible evidence that US/NATO ground troops have been used on Libyan soil, they will continue to cheer on the NATO attacks against Libya and denounce opponents of the war as uncritical apologists for Qaddafi's tyranny.

But judging from the front cover of "Workers' Liberty" as of 9 July, they aren't too attentively following the war. So, AWL could well miss timely evidence and fail to raise its voice against an outright invasion and "colonial-type occupation" in time for AWL to raise its voice to make a difference.

So who could reasonably hold AWL responsible for doing nothing to prevent the murder of hundreds of thousands of Africans, when their reasoning has been so soundly thought out and so well explained on their web site?

Australian 'Marxist' groups fail to speak effectively against war

Australia's 'Marxist' organisations could, like the UK Socialist Party, stand accused, by the AWL, of not providing effective support for the Libyan 'rebels', however their opposition to the NATO's bombing campaign has been even harder to find than on the UK Socialist Party's web-sites.

The Australian Federal 'Labor' Government is currently a participant in the 10 year old war against Afghanistan, which it inherited, in 2007, from the Liberal/National Government of John Howard. It continues Australia's participation in the war, because it claims to accept the fraudulent claim made by the US Bush administration in 2001 that Islamist extremists based in Afghanistan launched the September 11 terrorist attacks against the US.

Australia also participated in two illegal wars against Iraq. The first was the 1991 war, which was started as a result of US Ambasador April Glaspie setting up Saddam Hussein who was led to believe by Glaspie that the US, which had been on good terms with him until then, would not object to Iraq using military force against neighbouring Kuwait to stop Kuwait slant-drilling into Iraq's oil-fields. Public opposition to the US/Australian/UK war against Iraq was screamed down with the lie of the Kuwaiti "incubator babies".

The main pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the claim that Iraq was attempting to build nuclear weapons. This has been shown to be a lie. As has been mentioned before on Candobetter.net, the truth about the WMD lie can be found in the Hollywood movie Fair Game which concludes with live footage of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, (played by Naomi Watts in the movie), testifying to US congress about the WMD lie.

Now, in 2001, The Australian Federal 'Labor' Government is doing its utmost to fan the flames of yet more wars, this time against Libya and Syria. This is exemplified by Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd's recognition of "Libya's rebel council as the country's legitimate political representative".

For their part, not one of Australia's 'Marxist' parties have shown itself able to raise its voice effectively against NATO's new wars nor the Australian Government's complicity. As of 9 July, neither the words 'Libya' nor 'Syria' can even found on the front pages of greenleft.org.au or directaction.org.au. www.socialist-alliance.org/ has a long way down on its front page, the equivocating headline Support the Libyan uprising but reject foreign military intervention dated 18 March.

Of much more urgency to these groups, than the threatened wars which could easily cause the loss of hundreds of thousands more lives in North Africa and the Middle East and turn hundreds of thousands more inhabitants of this region into refugees, is the plight of the far smaller number of asylum seekers who have been able to reach Australia's shores with the help of people smugglers.

At the very top of greenleft.org.au is the story Cruelty to refugees in the spotlight of 25 June. Near the top of directaction.org.au is Self-harm on the rise at detention centres of "Issue 33 June-July 2011". Well before the equivocating story about Libya on www.socialist-alliance.org are the stories about aylum seekers: Nauru refugee detention extreme, inhumane of 18 June, We're not being swamped by refugees of 11 June, Refugees are not commodities: No outsourcing refugee obligations to Malaysia! (Joint statement of the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) and the Socialist Alliance (Australia)) of (undated). Next to the article on Libya is a further article on asylum seekers, Mandatory detention is the problem of 18 May.

In 2011, the Australian left, along with nearly all of Australia's "social movements" remain committed to precisely the same priorities that have allowed Australian Governments to inflict so much harm on the rest of the world, as well as its own people, for at least the past two decades.

For the truth about the current war against Libya and other international conflicts, please visit Global Research, one of the free news services committed to speaking the truth. See also: The US House of Representatives has voted to prevent the Pentagon from supplying weapons, training or advice to Libyan rebels. of 8 Jul 11 .

An unusual thing about Dick Smith's book, "Population Crisis," is that it is written by a wealthy man who points out the failings of rich people. He says that most rich people give nothing away and describes them as very selfish. "Our economic system comes equipped with only one forward gear: foot to the floor growth. The poor want to be rich, and the rich want to be richer. It's an endless treadmill, and none of our leaders appears to know how to get off." Also inside article: Win $1m if you are under 30 by solving the population puzzle.

Dick Smith's book, Population Crisis reminds me of the proverb that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," except that here we are talking about the kingdom of Earth.

The fascinating thing is that the camel may just fit through the eye of that needle in Smith's remarkable attempt to save the earth despite his millionaire wealth.

Books like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings are full of rich and powerful noble creatures standing up for truth and justice and the good of the earth in political systems that rely on the kindness and enlightenment of the powerful and their concern for lesser beings, like hobbits. The reality, however, is quite different, particularly in our global capitalist world, where rich people own or invest in corporations which perpetrate global injustices and manipulate public opinion against democracy and against our own nurturing planet.

Nazis and the business lobby - Déjà vu?

Smith looks into the future and sees a looming darkness which no good citizen can ignore, but he recognises that the fight against the vested interests of the growth lobby will not be easy.

"I'm not so idealistic as to believe the necessary changes will come quickly, or that the arguments over climate change will end soon. It seems to me that we are like the generation that existed in the late 1930s in Great Britain. Some predicted that there would be a catastrophe if Hitler was allowed to keep breaking treaties. Others - particularly the business community - said that it was unlikely anything would eventuate and that 'business as usual' was the way to go. That error alone resulted in more than 60 million people being killed. If we make a similar error now, the lives lost and related trauma could be far higher."

A risk taker

Australians with ecological bones and a sense of danger can only hope that Dick Smith's intervention on the subject of population numbers, democracy and ecological impact in Australia will survive the deadening blanket of growthist propaganda, even though Dick Smith himself has predicted that the Murdoch press will destroy him for coming out against population growth in Australia.

His unexpected success with other hard problems caused by powerful forces, offers some hope, however.

Smith's ability to remain an independent thinker and so surprise, straddle and surmount the political wedges created by the mainstream media and the political parties between terrorism, refugee rights and population numbers, makes him stand out in stature above high profile groups and individuals on both sides. It makes his ability and leadership so much more powerful.

When amorphous notions of terrorism and Afghanistan stigmatised David Hicks as untouchable for many, discarding prisoners of war conventions, Dick Smith funded Hicks's civilian defense in Guantánamo Bay - not, Smith precises, because he actually agreed with Hicks's politics, but so that Hicks could get a fair trial.

Smith also became involved in helping to extract hostages in Somalia and with refugee-asylum seeker Peter Qasim. Qasim was detained for nearly seven years by the Australian department of immigration due in part to inconsistencies in his story which others have explained as caused by his dispensing with an interpreter in the mistaken belief that his English was adequate for him to conduct his own defense. The main reason that he was kept imprisoned, rather than deported, was that he was stateless - and therefore had nowhere to go. After Dick Smith's intervention and with pressure from a small group of parliamentarians, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone invited Peter to apply for a new class of bridging visa that would allow him to live in the community while his situation was resolved. On 16 July 2005, the visa was granted.

Now Smith has written a book about population numbers in Australia. Smith makes an effort to get on top of this wide and difficult subject in a readable book that addresses the growing and reasonable concerns of both the poor and the aspirational classes of Australia and asks those who benefit from their growing insecurity to reconsider.

"Our economic system comes equipped with only one forward gear: foot to the floor growth. The poor want to be rich, and the rich want to be richer. It's an endless treadmill, and none of our leaders appears to know how to get off."

Smith wants Australians to realise how they cannot rely on the mainstream press to inform them on population politics and gives the example of the Murdoch Press.

He says that he knows politicians are afraid of being attacked by the Murdoch media, but that should not stop them from speaking out against population growth. Despite his own (probably well-founded) belief that the Murdoch media will retaliate and destroy him for criticising growth, Smith actually took out a full page advertisement in the Australian telling Australians of the Murdoch media's investment in population growth.

It is indeed a major irony of Australia's predicament that it has a system that forces all major communications through a biased commercial press which inevitably drowns out any single original initiative with its own ubiquitous and repetitious propaganda.

The Electronics Wizard

Dick Smith also downplays his intelligence and qualifications. On Margaret Throsby's show on the ABC on 21 June 2011, he said that his only formal qualification was the Baden Powell Scout award.

Smith's intelligence is however uncontestably demonstrated by the fact that at age 38 he had the good sense, self-confidence and self-control to sell the business that made him a millionaire so that he could enjoy his life. That's a bit like Golem (continuing the Tolkein metaphor) ditching the magic ring before it saps his strength.

He writes:

"I was a relatively young man when I sold my Dick Smith Electronics business. When I could no longer see all the weekly figures in one quick look, I felt it was growing too large. [...] For me it seemed the right time to sell the business to Woolworths. They have built it into a billion-dollar business, and many people have told me I was crazy to sell such a growing concern, but I haven't regretted it for a moment. It was the best thing I ever did, because it allowed me to have the freedom to do worthwhile things - to go adventuring, fly around the world and enjoy my life. "(p.129)

That's the kind of intelligence that can see through growthism. It seems that it is rare in the rich.

He goes on:

"I have successful friends, some of them billionaires, and they often say to me that they wish they could do what I did and get out before the business takes over their lives. I tell them they can, but they just shake their heads as if to say, 'Dick, you don't understand. There are all these pressures that make it impossible to just walk away.' Like most of us, rich or poor, they are trapped inside the delusion that we must forever keep growing."

Maybe the Baden Powell Scout award deserves to be taken more seriously. Smith described to Margaret Throsby how being a cub, then a scout, then a rover was formative. The scout movement allowed him "to be an individual, to organise himself, and get into risk taking."

Smith's parents went through bad luck and poverty. At one stage, Smith's father took to his bed for 12 months causing his mother to go out and get a job for the very first time in her life, in a hat factory. Somehow Smith has missed out on that common rich man's delusion that he deserves to be rich because he is special. He sees himself as having drawn good results in life's lottery, but he has demonstrably retained a feeling of solidarity with ordinary Australians.

Wilberforce Million Dollar Prize to a young person who can solve the population puzzle

An example of this fellow-feeling is Smith's Wilberforce Award.
The Wilberforce award is designed to give a one million dollar prize to anyone under 30 who can impress Dick by becoming famous through his or her ability to show leadership in communicating an alternative to our population and consumption growth-obsessed economy.

How the few that benefit financially from growth do it

I can think of one other thing I would have included in the book, had I been Dick Smith. I would have given a detailed account of how, for some very rich people with control over assets, population growth improves the chances of making money. As Smith implies, what makes the rich richer past what he refers to as the "sweet point" tends to make ordinary people poorer. (The "sweet point" is where the cost of growth is less than the gains to be made from it.) I would have liked to have read more detail on how population growth helped Smith make his fortune. It is important to educate Australians on the how and why of this, so that they can see where the corporate growth spruikers are coming from and what they may have to gain from population growth. It would also educate Australians about how difficult having a few people and corporations controlling most of the assets and means of production in this country and elsewhere makes it for everyone else.

A follow-up book?

One senses that Smith tried to keep things simple in this book. Perhaps he could write another book, to follow up, giving some details on how growth economics and population growth work in favour of the rich and against the rest?

Tens of millions of people will see the 15-second spot, which is airing once an hour on CBS's Super LED Screen, a 520-square-foot television on 42nd Street in the heart of Times Square Plaza. It's important to highlighting the issue now: The planet's population is expected to hit 7 billion this fall.

Square Ad Links Extinction and Overpopulation

Monday, July 11 is World Population Day, so what better place to spread the word about overpopulation driving species extinct than one of the most crowded places in the country? On Friday, the Center for Biological Diversity launched a new public service ad in New York City's Times Square broadcasting the link between unsustainable human population growth and the rapid disappearance of plants and animals around the globe. With arresting images and straightforward text, our ad starkly illustrates the cause and effect:

Too many of us. Not enough room for them. Human population growth is driving species extinct.

Tens of millions of people will see the 15-second spot, which is airing once an hour on CBS's Super LED Screen, a 520-square-foot television on 42nd Street in the heart of Times Square Plaza. It's important to highlighting the issue now: The planet's population is expected to hit 7 billion this fall.

Click here to see the beautiful PSA short video-announcement for yourself and learn more about the effects of unsustainable population growth. Then check out more on World Population Day.

This article argues that Australian Refugee Activism has been used to divert the public eye from attacks on Australian democracy and away from questioning the very wars that cause refugees. If we judge this political movement by its outcomes, then the Australian "refugee rights" activism has been worse than a total failure for all but a very few international refugees, specifically those who arrive clandestinely on boats.

See also: UN's outdated Refugee Convention - an immigration smoke-screen

A defense might be raised by refugee activists that the absence of serious discussion of the causative issues is the product of biased mainstream media reporting. A look at the blogs strongly associated with the movement, however, reveals that they also fail to seriously confront the causes. See for example socialist-alliance.org and directaction.org.au and greenleft.org.au

The writer contends that Australians and the rest of the world have had to put up with very poor coverage and discussion of the events described below which have given rise to huge numbers of refugees:

* The Hawke 'Labour' Government's support for the 1991 war against Iraq, based upon fraudulent pretexts including the "incubator babies" lie and the set-up of Saddam Hussein by then US Amabassador to Iraq April Glaspie.

This war and the 2003 wars which followed it produced many Iraqi refugees and continue to do so. The focus of refugee activists helped to disorientate Australians politically because it concentrated on only a few landed asylum-seekers rather than protesting against the causes, which lay in war. This probably made it easier for government to wage these wars.

* The Howard Government's re-election in 2001 in spite of broken 1998 election promises, its failed attempt to break the Maritime Union of Australia in 1998 using mercenary strikebreakers and the imposition of its regressive and unpopular Goods and Services tax (GST).

Howard's re-election in the face of all these handicaps was only made possible because of the political disorientation caused by the Tampa 'boat people' incident of 2001, combined with 'refugee rights' activism.

Here is how it happened: When the election was approaching there were a lot of things the Government had done since its election in 1998 that the Australian public should have been thinking critically about. Instead, everything preceding was sort of swept away with the blow-up over the Tampa incident just before the election. This focus on one event allowed the media to ignore many other issues which would have done the Howard government a huge amount of damage if canvassed in the election.

* The Howard Government's support for and participation in the invasion of Afghanistan based on the fraud of the September 11 false flag terrorist attack.

This illegal invasion has cost the lives of 27 Australians and of considerably more Afghanis so far. It has also helped increase to record levels Afghan production of opium, which the overthrown Taliban regime had tried to stop.

Press coverage of the activities of refugee activists distracted people from the really important issues of the time, which included the fraudulent use of the false-flag terrorist attack of September 11 to start the Afghanistan war. The upshot was a whole nation of people turned into a basket case, of which many could qualify as refugees.

* The Howard Government's support for, and participation in, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The main pretext for the invasion, the claim that Iraq was attempting to build nuclear weapons has been shown to be a lie. The truth about the WMD lie can be found in the Hollywood movie Fair Game which concludes with live footage of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, (played by Naomi Watts in the movie), testifying to US congress about the WMD lie. Howard's election in 2001 was helped by press diversion onto refugee activism.

The same thing happened again in 2004 when the press should have been drawing public attention to the WMD and Iraq invasion fiasco and international debacle, which itself has also produced many refugees, quite a few of whom have arrived on Australian shores.

* The re-election of the Howard Government in 2004 with outright Senate and House of Representatives majorities, in spite of the most massive anti-war demonstrations since the 1960's demonstrations against the Vietnam war, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

This re-election left the Howard Government free to pursue its participation in the Iraq war and to pursue other regressive domestic policies. The ongoing issue of refugee and asylum-seeker procedures, as represented by refugee activists, continued chronically to hold the front pages, again dwarfing a major world conflict and creator of many refugees.

* The 'Labor' governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard continue the Howard Government's Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

This is an ongoing consequence of the Australian media's failure to adequately question the rationales of these wars, whilst continuing to feature refugee activism day after day.

* The current 'Labor' Government of Julia Gillard further fanning the flames of civil war in Libya by, at one point, recognising the US/NATO backed National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya.

Australian procedures for dealing with asylum seekers continue to overshadow the necessary public debate and press coverage of our poorly justified recognition of and support for the dubious representatives of the National Transitional Council.

Over the period that 'refugee rights' activists have been able repeatedly to reach large sections of Australian public opinion with their message, the Australian Government has succeeded in helping its US, UK and other allies inflict unprecedented harm in the world, causing the world population of refugees to rise by many millions.

It is not the intention of this article to disparage the cause of individual refugees or the good work of people who help them. The author wonders, however, why the refugee action movement has so little to say about the wars that give rise to much of its existence. Why is it so uncritical and apparently disengaged in regard to the wider political issues that produce refugees?

Planning Minister Matthew Guy has told the Surf Coast Shire Council that ''ministerial amendment'' to planning controls for the land is warranted to ''respond to the urgent need to address housing affordability....and proactively manage growth for Torquay-Jan Juc''.  In other words, the Surf Coast Shire Council must cave into State government demands, or they will be forced to!  ("proactively"!)    It will become another ubiquitous part of Melbourne's sprawling housing estates.  It's an attack on democracy, public opinion, and is ecologically destructive.

Matthew Guy's Ministerial Amendment to override Torquay Council

Mr Guy has told the Surf Coast Shire Council that ''ministerial amendment'' to planning controls for the land is warranted to ''respond to the urgent need to address housing affordability, facilitate the establishment of new schools, and proactively manage growth for Torquay-Jan Juc''.  In other words, the Surf Coast Shire Council must cave into State government demands, or they will be forced to!  ("proactively"!)    It will become another ubiquitous part of Melbourne's sprawling housing estates.  It's an attack on democracy, public opinion, and is ecologically destructive.

Mr Guy plans to rezone about 240 hectares of farmland west of Torquay for housing. The council estimates the land near Spring Creek could provide 1900 new homes with an expected population of 4500 people.

Releasing land from agriculture is short-term foolishness when we in Australia have only 6% arable land, and will be harder to produce food without artificial fertilizers. Mr Guy's feigned concern about providing “afffordable housing” is all spin, and something that nobody could argue about. However, it's all deliberately manipulated so that population growth will continually outstrip available housing, and land.

This takeover of land, and the land rezoning process in Torquay is not about being sustainable or ecologically sound.  Developments will mean bulldozing farmland and sensitive coastal areas.  It's about more urban sprawl, something that the Liberals said they would curb.

2008 Torquay's growth planned

(Sunset at Torquay - there are some places that should be reserved for special occasions such as reflection, holidays and recreation- not for everyday living!)
The pressures for coastal development are increasing, with the number of applications for consent under the Act increasing by 32 % since 2003/04

A draft urban development plan for up to
6400 houses on a 600-hectare site west of Torquay, known as Spring Creek, has ignited a furious local response, with more than 1000 submissions sent to the Surf Coast Shire.

The plan could mean that Torquay more than double in size, with 14,000 residents moving in to the development area in the next 20 to 30 years.

All these submissions and objections are simply so that planners can tick the box “public consultation” and do what they like!

Growth outstrips schools

Back in April this year, the government with its election promise to build a new $20 million secondary college at Torquay North - said the plan to convert the existing school into a prep-to-year six school would go ahead despite public opinion to the contrary. Without a second primary school, Torquay College would swell to about 1300 students by 2015, leading to overcrowding, traffic congestion and a lack of playgrounds.

A housing development at North Torquay was expected to attract another 14,000 people to the area.

2009 Submissions dismissed

The council received 2843 submissions on the Spring Creek Urban Growth Framework Plan, with only about 20 in support. As each councillor rose to reject the plan the crowd burst into applause. The Surf Coast Shire voted overwhelmingly to reject the proposal covering 600 hectares west of Torquay and to review future development policy.

Surf Coast Mayor Libby Mears said that
residents were concerned about how their quality of life and amenity would be affected by Torquay's growth. As a growth area, rates would inevitably increase to pay for the extra services needed to be delivered, and the infrastructure for swelling numbers of people.

Our coastlines are valuable

People enjoy our coastlines for their intrinsic and recreational value.   This is an example of a government bereft of economic and productive ideas.  Grabbing land, and developing it, brings short-term profits, but long term implication and destruction.  Any "vacant" land is now under threat.    Without housing or other structures, it will be vyed for "development", for economic short-term gain.   

This is not a nimby issue, but one for the greater community of Melbourne, and Victoria.  There is no end to urban sprawl and land grabs while our population is being pumped up continually.   The housing and land "shortages" will never be solved while our government take the easy route to economic growth - via population growth. 

Torquay has been a popular destination for day-trippers and sight-seeing and picnics from the days of Cobb and Co in the 1800s.

It is thought that the Wathaurung Aborigines occupied the area prior to European settlement. Picnickers began to frequent the spot from the 1860s. When the first land was sold in the mid-1880s the locality was known to Europeans as Spring Creek,

It will become a generic sea of roofs, housing estates and towers, thanks to successive State Government “planning” regimes! Plans for overdevelopment along Spring Creek in Torquay could lead to multiple sets of traffic lights along the first 2 kms of the Great Ocean Road! This will kill tourism and destroy any sense of community residents have in Jan Juc/Torquay and Bellbrae.

Environmental Threats of developments

Invasive weeds as the greatest threat to the coast's natural values - dwarfing all other biodiversity management issues combined -and developments will bring more people to the area, more weeks, more traffic and threats to coastal birds and marine wildlife. 

The Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) Nature Conservation Review: Marine Conservation Priorities and Issue for Victoria.   (April 2010)
Development and urbanisation is a major threat to intertidal and coastal environments. 

Subdivision and urbanization of coastal areas is increasing in accordance with population growth. This is largely occurring around the fringes of existing coastal towns. An immediate consequence has been the reduction of coastal vegetation communities, however there are also direct implications for water quality (storm water, commercial wastes and sewage) and visitation to shore habitats.

Shipping transport tonnage is continually increasing, in accordance with population and economic growth. Some of the increase in international shipping may be negated through the use of bigger vessels. Associated threatening processes include oil spills, groundings, litter/rubbish and effluent dumping at sea, translocation of marine pests and release of toxic antifouling substances, including tributyl tin. Higher density shipping lanes are within Port Phillip Bay, as well as between Port Phillip Heads and Cape Otway, Wilsons Promontory and northern Tasmania.
With our manufacturing industries largely gone overseas, Victoria depends on service industries and commerce. It means we rely heavily on imports, and shipping goods via shipping.

Marine pests and climate change have the potential to catastrophically impact marine and coastal values in the future.  As human populations increase in coastal areas, coastal vegetation is under increasing pressure from urban sprawl, coast developments, weed invasion, disease, ecreational activities and changing fire regimes. Many habitats have become highly fragmented and some, such as coastal moonah woodland, exist only in a small portion of their pre- settlement range.

The economic model based on perpetual and destructive growth

With priorities based on cash-flow and immediate economic benefits, the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience, social relations, and aesthetic values are being denied and destroyed.

While our economic growth is based on population growth, the wave of land takeovers will destroy Victoria's precious Great Ocean Road coastlines - all justified under the smokescreen of the need for "affordable housing" - something that our government could easily solve if they stopped pumping up our population! 

An economy based on a reliance on population growth is totally flawed, environmentally destructive, economically and ecologically unsustainable and fatalistic.

(Torquay surf beach - the way it should be)

As an introduction, here is a translation of an article in Japanese from Our Planet. There is also a video here, but in Japanese. I may provide a summary later if I have time...

--------------------

Fourteen Children of Koriyama City (Fukushima Prefecture) File for a Provisional Injunction to Demand a Mass Evacuation of Schools [Official name of the trial is Fukushima Shu-dan Sokai Saiban, The Fukushima Mass Evacuation Trial]
(Our Planet, 15:32, Saturday, 25 June 2011)

---------------------------

The parents of 14 elementary and middle school children who attend schools in Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture filed a provisional injunction against Koriyama City on 24 June at the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court to demand a mass evacuation by each school due to strong fears of health damage from radiation emitted by the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Station. This is the first case of a request for the judiciary to decide on radiation exposure due to the nuclear power station accident.

In April, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) issued a notification that the standard for radiation exposure of schoolchildren in school playgrounds would be set at a maximum of 20 millisieverts/year. This, however, met with opposition from parents, and at the end of May MEXT announced that it would set a goal of less than one millisievert/year, the limit for radiation exposure for the general public set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Nevertheless, estimates from the monitoring data by MEXT and others show that the radiation air dose at the seven elementary and middle schools the 14 children are attending reached an accumulated 3.80 to 6.67 millisieverts in just 75 days, from the time the accident occurred on 12 March up to 25 May. Since the external radiation exposure alone greatly exceeds 1 millisievert, the parents are demanding a mass evacuation for each school due to the risk of health damage from radiation exposure.

According to the estimate by the legal team, of the 266 elementary and middle schools in urban areas in Fukushima Prefecture, only five schools show an accumulated annual dose of less than 1 millisievert. Even in Aizu, where the dose rate is relatively low, only one school is below the I milliseivert/year level. Following the filing of the injunction, the legal team held a press conference in Koriyama City at which one of the lawyers, Ken’ichi Ido stated, “The purpose of this action is to see that all children in Fukushima Prefecture are able to take classes in a safe place.”

Until March this year, Mr. Ido was a judge at the Kanazawa Chapter of the Nagoya Court of Appeal. In 2006, he handed down a verdict suspending the operation of the No.2 reactor at the Hokuriku Power Company’s Shika Nuclear Power Station in Ishikawa Prefecture.

--------------------

Also see/hear Skype conversations between Chris Busby and the legal team at a press conference on June 24 - with English-Japanese/Japanese-English non-simultaneous interpreting, which takes quite a long time.

2) For a little more background to the MEXT standards and the backlash from the parents see the following entry in the Rolling Update No.3 on the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Station disaster.

Huge Outcry Erupting: Gov’t is leaving Fukushima to suffer and perish — Impossible to evacuate Fukushima City, home to 300,000 under the update for May 23.

3) For a little more background to Mr. Ken'ichi Ido, see the gist of the article from the Tokyo Newspaper (in green font) under the update for April 23. He was the only judge ever in Japan to hand down a verdict against a nuclear power plant reactor.

4) This is the first case to be filed on radiation exposure due to the nuclear power station accident, but at least one more (in Ibaraki Prefecture) is in preparation.

Denise McLean, an Australian animal carer writes about local council indifference to the effects of car collisions and dog attacks on kangaroos and her concerns about the government's positions on live export. (1 July 2011)

Huge dog problems

Huge dog problems in my neighbourhood, local council are useless. (I don't think they will be happy until every last kangaroo in our area is either killed by a car or mauled to death by a dog). Anyway, had to take measures into my own hands, kept a watch each night and over the course of 1 week, I caught 3 dogs roaming onto my property. One of my released grey kangaroos hadn't been home for 3 days and I was so worried about him but I think he must have gone further away to get away from the dogs. Good news, he has come home and hasn't left for the past 4 days.

Brain injured joey

My little whiptail joey (1.2 kgs) - I have raised him from eyes closed pinkie of 270 grams - is having problems. He had a brain injury and wasn't sending the right signals to his legs so he couldn't stand up. After many weeks of physio and exercise, I am happy to say he is hopping. 2 days ago however, he had a big tumble and has broken a bone near his foot. Really hard trying to keep him off his feet so he can recover. The vet doesn't want to splint it as a bandage on his leg may hinder his brain signals to his foot if it is compromised, so this makes his recovery just a little more difficult.

I had a bad fall a few weeks ago and have torn tendons in my shoulder. Have been in absolute agony but with everything that has been happening, I haven't been able to rest my shoulder so it is not getting any better. My partner has been absolutely great but as you all probably know, men aren't the best nurturers.

Enough of my problems, in the scheme of the world, they are pretty insignificant.

Live exports

Live Exports - Am very concerned regarding the propaganda the cattle people are sending out. It is changing peoples opinions. My mother in law has changed her mind regarding the live trade. After hearing stories that the cattle are starving at the ports, she told me yesterday that it would be better for them to be sent to Indonesia (I finished her sentence with "to be tortured"). I am afraid this is the general feeling out there amongst the general public.

Does anyone have further information regarding a rumour that the Indonesians not requiring our cattle after 2014 as they should be producing enough of their own cattle? If this is indeed true, then the Australian cattle exporters must have a contingency plan, otherwise they would have to stop breeding now for the live export in 2014. So why can't they fast-track this alternative plan? Or is this just more propaganda floating around.

Nick Xenophon

We all must stay diligent regarding this issue. I have heard Nick Xenophon speaking on this issue numerous times and he seems like he genuinely feels disgust at the Australians who have let this atrocity take place for 18 years. Lets hope he can be a loud voice for this cause.

Cumberland Plain Woodland is critically endangered. For the illegal clearing of about 3 hectares Penrith Council deemed that a fine of $1500 was an appropriate penalty. Council ten years ago took a landowner to Court and they were fined $70,000 for clearing 3 hectares of River Flat Forest which is classified as endangered, a lesser category than critically endangered.

Monday 1st July, 2011

Penrith Council issues a pathetic $1500 fine for illegal clearing of critically endangered bushland

Penrith Council has sent a clear message to land owners and developers that it is open season on the natural heritage of Penrith by failing to use the full force of its powers to fine a Castlereagh land owner who cleared about 3 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland which is listed as critically endangered at a State and Federal level.

For the illegal clearing of about 3 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland Penrith Council deemed that a fine of $1500 was an appropriate penalty. Council ten years ago took a landowner to Court and they were fined $70,000 for clearing 3 hectares of River Flat Forest which is classified as endangered, a lesser category than critically endangered.

Geoff Brown, President of Western Sydney Conservation Alliance Inc, said, with disgust:

"This is a typical response of a pro-development anti environment Council. This amazingly ineffectual and inappropriate penalty is a flashing light to developers and anyone else wanting to profit from the destruction of Penrith's critically endangered bushland that, hey, go ahead and take the risk, Penrith Council doesn't really care, we're open for business and all you'll cop is a slap on the wrist."

He said, that, based on this fine by Penrith Council all the CPW in Penrith could be illegally cleared and the penalty issued would only be about $1 million.

A developer is looking at making that sort of money with 1 hectare of land these days so the message Council is sending to developers is, financially, illegal land clearing is worth it if all we will face is a fine of $500 per hectare.

They can simply factor it into their business plans.

But the Council should have taken the miscreant to court.

"Council definitely had the option to take this land owner to court but has chosen to take the cheap option of only issuing an penalty infringement notice. This again reinforces the belief of many that when it actually comes to protecting the environment and the public interest Penrith Council is all talk and no action."

Matter should have been referred up to Federal Environment department

Apparently the Council has not taken taken correct measures:

"Because Cumberland Plain Woodland is critically endangered at a Federal and State level any actions to harm it have to be in accordance with Federal and State legislation including referring the action of clearing directly to the Federal Environment department for assessment. So many checks and balances have been avoided by this example of illegal land clearing. Penrith Council's pathetic fine fails on so many levels to send a clear message to the public about what is right and wrong and why there is a need to protect bushland. Councils pathetic enforcement is why CPW is on the brink of extinction."

Absurd and immoral token penalty

Mr Brown illustrated the absurdity of Penrith Councils almost symbolic penalty:

"The public often hears of footballers copping fines of thousands of dollars just for consuming a few beers yet here we have life, species, that have evolved over millions of years to survive only in Penrith, destroyed for ever and the fine is only $1500. Something is clearly wrong."

Source: Western Sydney Conservation Alliance Inc, Comments: Geoff Brown President WSCA, 0431 222602

SPA Population Film Festival - Brisbane Sunday 4 June 2011, Event supported by The Stable Population Party Australia. Details below.

Population Film Festival - Brisbane, Sunday, 04 June 2011 19:13

there

Recent documentaries and short films on a pivotal issue for our planet.   SUNDAY 28 AUGUST 2011 TRIBAL THEATRE 346 GEORGE ST, BRISBANE Purchase tickets online at OzTix. Great value Festival Pass -- see all films for only $25 !! See summary program below, or view detailed program notes here.

 

  Program:

10:00am How many people can live on Planet Earth? 2009. (60 min.). Note: Admission to this film is for Festival Pass holders only.

In this BBC Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.

 11:30am Mother: caring for 7 billion.  2011.  (55 min.) Tiroir A Films.  Australian Premiere. Ticket price: $13

A courageous and sensitive new film that shows how population silently fuels our largest environmental, humanitarian and social crises, and finds hope in the empowerment of women. View trailer at http://www.motherthefilm.com/trailer. 

 Followed by public forum on global aspects of the population issue.

 1:30pm A smorgasbord of short films to munch on.  FREE admission with any other ticket from this Festival.

Arithmetic, population and energy. (30 min.)  Physicist Professor Al Bartlett’s classic lecture on exponential growth rates.
Empty handed: responding to the demand for contraceptives. (8 min.)  Women’s lack of access to reproductive health supplies in sub-Saharan Africa.
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010.  (6 min.)  A colourful and unforgettably graphic test of the rationale for current U.S. immigration levels.

 3:00pm Dick Smith’s population puzzle. 2010 (60 min.) A Simon Nasht film.  Ticket price: $13

Follows the journey of famous Australian Dick Smith as he explores the population issue for Australia.

 4:30pm State of siege: from the green bans of the 1970s to the present. 2011. Tropic of Oz Independent Films. Queensland Premiere.  Ticket price: $13

Dennis Grosvenor’s new documentary on Sydney’s conflict between developers and residents, political patronage, the loss of democracy, and the arrogance of power. 

Sustainable Population Australia is screening this work because we believe that the urban intensification and destruction it depicts are largely powered by Australia's rapid population growth rate, which is higher than that of any other OECD country and China and Indonesia.

 Followed by public forum on Australian aspects of the population issue.

TICKETS

Tickets for sale online and at the door. 
Purchase tickets online at OzTix. Great value Festival Pass -- see all films for only $25 !!

Teas, coffee and snacks available, including tasty vegan hot dogs!

Cinema discount parking available in Tank street.    Roma Street rail and bus station is nearby.

This event is presented by Sustainable Population Australia.           www.population.org.au      Enquiries: seq @ population.org.au

Supported by the Stable Population Party    www.populationparty.com

“Recently VicForests was caught out exporting whole logs, before that it was planned destruction of endangered wildlife habitat and currently the Ombudsman is investigating VicForests’ due processes." The industry is "in decline, with jobs on the line as the supply of trees dries up."

VicForests has been given aid of almost $1.3 million to clean up degraded clear-felled public forests that should have been rehabilitated and paid for by VicForests years ago. It is not the first time its poor management has been subsidised by taxpayers.

Today, Thursday 30th June 2011, Jill Redwood of Environment East Gippsland, asked, “What other business has made a loss every year yet is rewarded by millions of dollars of tax payers money to keep going?”

Miss Redwood described how VicForests has for years claimed that it was regenerating forests as it chopped them down, but it was not really doing so. Now that the government, with its $1.3 million taxpayer dollars is recognising that the forests have been devastated. The $1.3 million keeps a lie going.

“The regeneration backlog is out of control – over 7,000 ha in East Gippsland alone. If logging isn’t profitable enough to be able to clean up the mess it leaves, the logging should stop."

VicForest's poor record in minimising harm to our forests goes way back:

“Recently VicForests was caught out exporting whole logs, before that it was planned destruction of endangered wildlife habitat and currently the Ombudsman is investigating VicForests’ due processes."

“The genuine sawn timber industry, as opposed to the woodchip industry, has been struggling to compete with pine timber products for years. Almost 90% of sawn timber and wood panels are now derived from pine. This is causing loss of jobs in the native forest industry”, said Jill Redwood.

“It’s a bit rich for the Baillieu government to blame conservationists for this”.

The Age recently cited a Treasury report which said that VicForests, which is the government-owned company that logs Victoria's native forests, is "running out of timber, has failed to keep track of how much forest is left to log and cannot manage its costs."

According to the same report, VicForests had breached Department of Sustainability and Environment rules twice by logging too much and its backlog of forest that needs replanting has nearly tripled.

According to The Age,"The report portrays an industry in decline, with jobs on the line as the supply of trees dries up. Its early leak to another media outlet has embarrassed the Baillieu government, under pressure because of divisions between the Liberals and Nationals over conservation issues.

#10;1b42e.html"> Ben Butler, "VicForests operations condemned," The Age, February 23, 2011
....................
Source: Environment East Gippsland, Media Release of 30 June 2011 and the Australian Forests and Climate Alliance Newsletter #3, March 1, 2011

For an instant the ears come up
forked and twitching like a diviner's rod
dowsing the shoreline for lethal sounds - those
faint steady fumblings before the rifle-crack."

THE WALLABIES, FLINDERS ISLAND
by Mark O'Connor

I can find the wombat
grass-snuffler, abroad in the day
like a bland hairy pig
or a fallen koala with middle-age spread;
but the small people stay in the ti-tree
watching me out in the open.
For ten thousand years they have kept their fear
without man or dingo
since the sea washed round their hills.
They long to drink, but it isn't safe,
not yet, until after the gun is heard
and the ute goes home to feed the dogs.
Yet the meek must always possess the earth
or what could the mighty steal?
Their fear has no indignation.
They are meant to be killed and eaten
and to feed in terror all their lives...
Man-smell has entered the thickets
--loud thumpings in ti-tree gullies,
glint of an eye, trembling nostril.
Only the crow, manoeuvring from post to post,
knows that my pencil is not a gun.

But at dusk, by the lake --
something laps.
For an instant the ears come up
forked and twitching like a diviner's rod
dowsing the shoreline for lethal sounds - those
faint steady fumblings before the rifle-crack.
Twin Bennet's wallabies, unshot and ignorant of Bennet
and now, as it turns out, lovers.
My step brings their ears, then their shoulders, erect.
But they forget me, and stare on out
at their lake, where the sun swims into night.

[email protected]
+612 62473341 or Mobile 0451517966
Website: http://www.australianpoet.com/
Blog: http://markoconnor-australianpoet.blogspot.com
Mark is also the author, with Bill Lines, of Overloading AustraliaEnvirobooks, 2009.

No Surprise: The Department of Sustainability and municipal councils' positions on recycling have long been an insult to the intelligence of the population. The auditor general's report should also be used to expose "Green" groups that collude with government on this nonsense and to muzzle sustainable population voices. The audit found that the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Sustainability Victoria, the Environment Protection Authority, the Metropolitan Waste Management Group, one regional waste management group and four municipal councils have not effectively fulfilled their roles in implementing the strategy, resulting in ineffective planning, leadership, coordination, and oversight. And gee, we are not going to meet our so-called target of Towards Zero Waste Strategy by 2014.

Recycling lies

The audit found that the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Sustainability Victoria, the Environment Protection Authority, the Metropolitan Waste Management Group, one regional waste management group and four municipal councils have not effectively fulfilled their roles in implementing the strategy, resulting in ineffective planning, leadership, coordination, and oversight. No surprise that the so-called target of Towards Zero Waste Strategy outcomes being achieved by 2014 in relation to municipal solid waste won't be met. It is particularly shameful is that the Government and colluding Greenish groups have consistently tried to drown out concern about overpopulation by marketing recycling as if it were much more effective than it could possibly be. The questionnaires for the annual event of the Sustainable Living Festival have consistently required environmental groups to rabbit on about what they manufacture and the recycling they do, which places nature preservation and overpopulation groups at a false disadvantage since most are not in business or manufacturing and have little or no built space.

Municipal Solid Waste Management

This audit examined whether waste management and resource recovery actions have been effective and efficient in achieving the Towards Zero Waste Strategy objectives and targets for municipal solid waste. It reviewed the activities of the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Sustainability Victoria, the Environment Protection Authority, the Metropolitan Waste Management Group, one regional waste management group and four municipal councils.

The audit found that Sustainability Victoria and the Department of Sustainability and Environment have not effectively fulfilled their roles in implementing the strategy, resulting in ineffective planning, leadership, coordination, and oversight.

Sustainability Victoria has missed an opportunity to review and modify the strategy to improve its effectiveness. It also missed an opportunity to review its own practices. This has diminished the prospect of the Towards Zero Waste Strategy outcomes being achieved by 2014 in relation to municipal solid waste.

Link to audit summary and full report:
http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/latest_reports/2010-11/20110629_municipal_waste.aspx">

In his Short Report (Tabled in Parliament: 29 June 2011) the Auditor General states:

"The 2005 Sustainability in Action: Towards Zero Waste Strategy (TZW) set statewide objectives and targets to reduce the amount of solid waste generated and increase recovery rates for individual waste streams—thereby decreasing waste disposal to landfills. It also set out to reduce litter.

Sustainability Victoria and the Department of Sustainability and Environment have not effectively fulfilled their roles in implementing the strategy, resulting in ineffective planning, leadership, coordination, and oversight.

While Victoria met four out of six mid-term TZW targets, progress related to the municipal solid waste sector, a significant source of organic waste, and therefore greenhouse gasses, has been slow. Waste generation continues to rise above expectations and little improvement in reducing this rate of increase is envisaged over the remainder of the strategy's life.

Sustainability Victoria has missed an opportunity to thoroughly review the strategy and modify it to improve its effectiveness. It has also missed an opportunity to review its own practices in light of its lead role and the existing level of underperformance. This has diminished the prospect of TZW outcomes being achieved by 2014 in relation to municipal solid waste."

No Surprise

The Department of Sustainability and municipal councils' positions on recycling have long been an insult to the intelligence of the population. The only surprise is that some relatively intelligent people have actually bought the spin. A year or two ago I was amazed to hear a man in charge of a big bit of a large hospital talk about how "We" were all getting on top of environmental problems by recycling. Childlike, he gave an example of how a surgical department had produced a plastic chair from recycled plastic products. Apparently it was being displayed as an example of progress on the problem of pollution and drawdown on resources - as if this were merely something that could be fixed by engineering.

People need to realise that disposable goods and the scale of manufacturing and consumption is laughably unsustainable. It is a sick joke.

About the only useful recycling possible for most of us to practice regularly is that applied on a small scale at home in composting.

Recycling the Emperor's new clothes

No attention is given to the amount of fuel used and pollution generated by recycling inorganic and highly processed materials (such as plastic) on a large scale. No attention is given to the childish math problem of how you cannot meaningfully reduce energy and pollution when you are increasing production and consumption. When recycling is done 'for profit' the problem is even more ridiculous. You can bet that the community, the tax payer, is underwriting scams that use trucks and factories and all sorts of fuels for transport and reprocessing of manufactured bits and pieces. For instance the late Richard Pratt, who was often trotted out as some kind of hero by the growth-extremist Victorian Government under Bracks, had a major business, subsidised by the public, getting stuff from councils and sending it on boats to Taiwan for reprocessing. How anyone could have been fooled by the recycling paradigm in gross or in detail is hard to imagine. Unfortunately the story of the Emperor's New Clothes effectively portrays the unsophisticated state of the nation - and of most peak environment groups (including the ACF, which for a long time effectively promoted Dick Pratt as some kind of business-man eco-hero on this issue) the Greens and the Friends of the Earth. The most shameful thing about this unrealistic and misleading position is how the same groups have used and abused it to deter Australians from acting quickly to stop overpopulation. Again and again they have effectively frightened people from speaking out on high immigration, yet have offered nothing in aggregate of any net effectiveness to help us all avoid catastrophy.

Effective recycling

Glass recycling can be very effective, but the use of returnable bottles has been almost entirely phased out. The reason is false profit at the expense of the community because more money is to be made by manufacturers in churning out petroleum-based disposable containers of extremely overpriced lollywater, diabetagenic fruits and juices and fatty sugary milks. In some cases some plastics are inconveniently and fuel and pollution expensively somewhat recyclable. They don't compare to glass. Overwhelmingly the main feature of glass containers is their durability. Broken glass for reforming is already a stage down in recycling value because it becomes a factory project which needs larger scales, so lots of fuel, transport etc.

Metal recycling can be very effective, as in building and construction materials.

Wood recycling in building can also be extremely effective, where we are reusing whole materials to rebuild. That is doors, lintels, roof-pieces, glass. The idea is to carefully take a building apart and use the materials again. This should happen without transporting those materials over great distances, using fossil fuels.

Manufactured goods recycling:

Tools should also be available for people to borrow or hire cheaply from local governments, instead of so many households having their own fossil-fuel expensive drills, sanders etc.

The fact that no state or federal government seriously supports any of the above effective recycling, yet all of them abuse the notion of recycling for profit, is a condemnation of our leaders.

James Sinnamon, the owner and creator of this internet site, candobetter.net, has long proposed that building materials and tools be held in depots by local governments for reuse by anyone who needs them. Unfortunately a serious accident from which he is still recovering has made it impossible for him to push these projects as effectively as he would wish or to persevere in running for political office on them in the foreseeable future.

Bio-gases

Small-scale local production of cooking gases from compost is also effective, but probably not when communities try to make a profit on selling the gas because the economies of small-scale disappear and transport requires subsidies.

Sewage waste recycling

Sewage waste can be effectively recycled or more properly made into clean water and soil components by allowing it to be processed on a managable scale through natural systems. This is already done by a lot of sewerage systems which are state subsidised or managed.

Medical Instruments waste

Compare the massive use of plastic disposable needles and syringes with the earlier practice of metal and glass syringes and needles which were actually disinfected and reused time and again by hospitals. Similarly, instead of disposable plastic packs, reusable towels and metal instruments were used for small-scale operations and large ones. It required more permanent and responsible staff, more local water and fuel (but less globally) and more time, plus generally more careful and thoughtful practice. The style runs counter to the flashy and wasteful use of resources and human resources for rapid and spurious efficiency of modern hospital practice.

Banyule Homestead

Historic Banyule Homestead, located in Buckingham Drive, Heidelberg has a Development Application pending (Notice dated 11 May, 2011) to subdivide the land and build a number of townhouses.  Application No. P14284

The Homestead and its grounds as well as the surrounding area of Banyule Flats, are the remaining parts of the Banyule Estate dating from the pre Gold Rush era of the 1840’s. This property is one of a few remaining of its type in the State and of major cultural, environmental and historic significance.

Brief History

Banyule Homestead was built in 1846 for Joseph Hawdon, to a design by Colonial architect John Gill. Heidelberg in the 1840’s was a desirable location for rural retreats of the colonial
gentry. Gill designed several houses in medieval styles but Banyule Homestead is his only known one in the Elizabethan style, which was more common in Sydney than Melbourne at the time.

It was finished by Joseph Hawdon in 1846. Set on 283 hectares (700 acres). It's a mansion almost as old as Melbourne with over 2 hectares of gardens. John Hawdon was an Australian pioneer. Hawdon's villa was replaced with a “handsome Elizabethan mansion known as Banyule”.

Banyule Homestead is predominantly Elizabethan in style with Flemish Gables, pepper pot chimney groups and some Gothic Revival elements. It is one of only a few remaining houses or homesteads of this style and of this era in Victoria.

It had a succession of 20th century owners who made it into a cattle stud, but by 1950s the house had fallen into disuse. Sold 1950 with 275 acres. Mr Stanley Korman developed it for housing. Robert Simpson bought it, only a few acres remained. The house badly needed help. There were birds in the dining room!

1963 Banyule Homestead with about 3 acres of garden was purchased by Mr and Mrs Robert G Simpson as a family home. It was renovated and restored.

The original simplicity was changed to give it a somewhat Gothic character to the building.

Korman Group subdivided and sold a lot of the land.
The house was classified “A” (to be preserved at all costs) by the National Trust of Australia (Victoria).

The homestead should have been given to the City of Banyule as it is part of our heritage. It should have stayed open to the people of Victoria.

It's a mockery of democratic process that this property was sold into private hands after NGV when it was deemed as “surplus” government property. It was offered for sale by the Minister of Finance.

The State Government bought the property from Mr Simpson in 1974 for use as n extension of the National Gallery for $2 million from the State to secure this important collection of painting of the Heritage School of Art.

The council lacked imagination in not buying it in 1994. Lack of business foresight on their part. It was a lost opportunity.

1995. Commissioner Lawrie Jones described the building as being “woven into the architectural fabric” of the area. “I would be very concerned if the homestead was sold and the car-park and surrounding grounds carved up in residential development.” The Banyule municipality was named after the house!

There is a heritage overlay over the property in the Banyule Planning Scheme. The Homestead and its grounds are recognised as being of both State and National significance by Heritage Victoria and the National Trust.

The Council had the money to but homestead but commissioners Julian Stock and Laurie Jones were not in favour of spending it on the property.

(Photo courtesy of Friends of Banyule. The townhouses would be imposed on this view.)

Property's value

It has historical, architectural and aesthetic, tourist and environmental values and should be available for the public, not just for a few. It is part of the fabric of our history.

Walls of handmade brick, it represents an era of gracious living, now largely gone. Melbourne, only a few miles away when it was an infant township.

The property needs to earn a living as no one can afford to keep it.
Some of the features are:

• Sandstone foundation
• cedar woodwork
• two foot thick walls of thin hand-made bricks
• Roof with massive trusses fitted together without nails – like a ship
• Wrought-iron keys
• Shingle roof probably changed to slate.
• Large cellars
• Cedar and teak timber for ceiling, rafters, doors and floors imported from England
• 16 rooms

Application for Subdivision
The application for subdivision would in our view, seriously diminish the heritage integrity of the listed property including its historic site, as a whole. Its grounds and setting, being an integral part of it.

With a substantial portion of its grounds gone and with three two storey, contemporary town houses in close proximity, its setting would be materially altered and diminished in a significant way. There is no on going “reasonable economic use” involved here;

With all the profits from property taxes, stamp duty, and income from property development, it's pure hypocrisy that a stately old and such an important building as this isn't funded and cared for adequately. With respect for indigenous people already gone, it's clear that our Colonial history is not of much value either. Without the nimbys, there would be no checks to the land grabs for developments, and they would have the freedom to use our suburbs for their own greed and profits.

The application is presently being accessed by Heritage Victoria.
Minister for Planning, Mr Matthew Guy
[email protected]

Level 7
1 Spring Street
Melbourne
Victoria, 3000

Heritage Victoria
Department of Planning and Community Development
1 Spring Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
(GPO Box 2392, Melbourne VIC 3001)
Level 9, 8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne VIC 3002
(PO Box 500 East Melbourne, East Melbourne VIC 3002)

Irrespective of VCAT’s decision of 5/11/2010 granting the University a permit to build a very large bridge over Gardiner’s Creek Reserve (GCR), it has always been known that, under the Crown Land Reserve Act of 1978, the University must be authorized to enter the land concerned in order to construct and use the bridge. At its meeting of 30/05/2011 the Whitehorse Council voted unanimously not to grant Deakin a licence to enter the Reserve to construct the bridge. Consequently it now seems that the future of the bridge, i.e. whether or not it goes ahead at all or is built in the VCAT approved form, is in the hands of the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change- the Hon Ryan Smith (MLA Warrandyte).

An email to the Minister would be appreciated - this is an important issue, Way below is another request to those in the Burwood area to respond to the local MP on the same issue thank you

Mary Deakin University’s Proposed Bridge Over Gardiner’s Creek Reserve

Irrespective of VCAT’s decision of 5/11/2010 granting the University a permit to build a very large bridge over Gardiner’s Creek Reserve (GCR), it has always been known that, under the Crown Land Reserve Act of 1978, the University must be authorized to enter the land concerned in order to construct and use the bridge.

At its meeting of 30/05/2011 the Whitehorse Council voted unanimously not to grant Deakin a licence to enter the Reserve to construct the bridge. Consequently it now seems that the future of the bridge, i.e. whether or not it goes ahead at all or is built in the VCAT approved form, is in the hands of the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change- the Hon Ryan Smith (MLA Warrandyte).

If you object to the construction of this inappropriately massive bridge in the GCR one of the most effective things you can do now is to write to the Minister (or email or phone) requesting that he not authorize the construction of this bridge in the GCR. It is also the case that, in order for the bridge to be managed by the University, it will be necessary for the Minister to grant the University control of that area of the Reserve on which the bridge is built.

The more letters the Minister receives the better.

Individual letters are more effective than a petition. If you can persuade friends to write (or email) also that will be even better. Friends do not have to live in the area as it is well known that people come from all over Melbourne to use the GCR. Also it would be worth sending copies of your letter to the two local members of Parliament, Mr. Graham Watt (MLA Burwood) and the Hon David Davis, Minister for Health (MLC Southern Metropolitan), as the Environment Minister may consult these two members before making a decision.

A letter can be a simple request to reject the proposed bridge or a request not to authorize it followed by some given reasons.

Politicians' addresses

Addresses etc for relevant politicians are as follows.

1. The Hon Ryan Smith, Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, Ministerial Office: Level 17, 8 Nicholson Street, Vic.
3002, ph: (03) 96378890 Electorate Office: 44 New Street, Ringwood, Vic.,3134, ph:(03) 98707396 Email: ryan.smith[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au

2. Mr. Graham Watt (MLA, Burwood)
1342 Toorak Road, Camberwell, Vic., 3124, ph: (03) 98091857 Postal address: PO Box 409, Burwood, Vic., 3125 Email: graham.watt[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au

3. The Hon David Davis (MLC Southern Metropolitan), Minister for Health and Minister for Aging Electorate Office: Suit 4, 976 Riversdale Road, Surrey Hills, Vic., 3127, ph: (03)98886244 Ministerial Office: Level 22, 50 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, Vic. ph: (03)90968561 Email: david.davis[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au

We have fought this bridge for the last 7-8 years. Please make an effort to have a positive influence on this probable last step in the process; we cannot continue to lose scarce community parkland to development, however important that development thinks it is.

Terry Randle, Spokesperson, Gardiner’s Creek Community Group; ph: (03) 98088638

Burwood Local Member Questionnaire

To Residents of the Burwood Electorate:

Your local member for Burwood, Mr Watts, will probably be sending out a questionnaire seeking your opinion on a number of issues of interest. One of the questions is likely to be on the proposed Deakin Bridge. It would be helpful if you would make it clear that you do not want this massive bridge in the Gardiner's Creek Reserve if that is your position on this matter. I think Mr. Watt is expecting a healthy response to this issue so please do not disappoint him.

Six months ago an Indian energy corporation, Lanco Infratech, bought an Australian coalmine for $750 million dollars. Although, at the time, it agreed to lower-prices for customers, now it is telling the West Australian government that it will stop supplying electricity to West Australians by September unless Australian customers pay double. Six months ago Indian energy corporation, Lanco Infratech, bought an Australian coalminefor $750 million dollars. Although, at the time, it agreed to lower-prices for customers, now it is telling the West Australian government that it will stop supplying electricity to West Australians by September unless Australian customers pay double.

In 2006: the "Western Australia Domestic Gas Reservation Policy" aimed to safeguard LNG fuel supplies for Australians:

"The equivalent of 15 per cent of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) production from export gas projects will now be required to be reserved for domestic use as a condition of access to WA land for the location of processing facilities."

So a mere 15% of Western Australia's liquefied natural gas, which according to a report (PDF, 223K, linked to from here) of the DomGas Alliance, "Western Australia’s natural gas resources, could be fully depleted within 30 years," is to be reserved for domestic use and the remaining 85% allowed to be sent overseas.

As inadequate as the 2006 provisions to protect LNG will become in the face of increasingly savage oil and gas depletion, they are better than our policies of digging up and exporting coal as fast as possible, leaving absolutely nothing in reserve.

West Australian electricity supplies under threat from foreign ownership

Six months ago Indian energy corporation, Lanco Infratech, bought an Australian coalmine from Ric Stowe for $750 million dollars. Although, at the time, it agreed to lower-prices, now it is telling the West Australian government that it will stop supplying electricity to West Australians by September unless Australian customers pay double.

The Bluewaters power station (also owned by Ric Stowe) is itself in the process of being sold to two Japanese companies, Sumitomo and Kansai Electric.

The West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, has been accused by the opposition state development spokesperson, Mark McGowan, of failing to safeguard West Australia's power supply by not having put in place a 'coal reservation policy' similar to the one already in place for West Australia's natural gas industry.

A chief executive of the holding company for Bluewaters, Griffin Group, Mr Ashcroft, is quoted by the Financial Review as saying,

"What is unfolding here is that our Collie coal will be more and more targeted for export with domestic supplies becoming a second priortiy and only at increasing prices."

Why is West Australian Liberal Premier Colin Barnett resisting these perfectly reasonable demands that he act responsibly and reserve that minimal amount of coal for the needs of Western Australians?

Source: "Barnett rejects call to set aside coal," The Australian Financial Review, Monday 20 June 2011

Don't mention the war

There is something politically incorrect about mentioning past wars because they are almost always a source of embarassment for current governments and the pseudo-sophisticated classes that would rather we all pretended that we were being governed for our own good. Take WW2, where about 40,000 Australians and even more Japanese lost their lives fighting each other on behalf of governments which claimed to be ordering this in the name of their homes and families.

How do Australians who lost their spouses, children and parents in WW2 defending Australia's security and resources deal with the bizarre fact that today's governments are signing our agricultural land, our mineral wealth, and our built infrastructure over in peace time in exchange for a bit of cash up front? Indeed, how does any Australian? Concerns are entirely justified. In ten years time when fuel prices are reaching beyond the wages of many households, the amounts paid today by the purchasers of these energy sources will seem paltry and ephemeral.

Surely it was obvious to our current leaders that our control over these increasingly scarce resources could not be guaranteed by mere sales contracts and polite agreements?

The problems now arising with Indian coal could be the beginning of the end. Are they a sign that members of our governments are just going to surrender, in exchange for cash, the bulk of our scarcest resources to any cashed-up foreign corporation that can then search the world for the most cashed-up market, leaving Australians high and dry?

The economic policy of globalism relies in part on the notion that the intertwining of interests and ownership globally will make countries too interdependent to engage in war. The problem is that globalism makes no provision to protect the rights of citizens and individuals to self-government locally and to maintaining control of essential services and resources locally. It doesn't prevent wars either. They are going on all over the place - in the name of peace and democracy - ironically .

Food security also ignored by our cash-mad 'leaders' this week

And just this week the Senate Economics Committee rejected calls by independent and Greens senators to create a special legislative national interest test for purchases of agricultural land above a certain threshold and to require the Treasurer to publish applications of interest in Australian farms online. The proposed laws were intended to protect Australia's food supply and to reveal the true owners of the nation's farming businesses. The reason for concern is that significant portions of Australian farming land are now being acquired by foreign nations with interests which could become conflictual to those of Australians. The Senate Economics Committee appeared to evade its responsibility, and really to condemn our economy, providing as their excuse for rejecting the legislative proposals the idea that Australia needs to sell off equity in order to create industry and jobs for Australians. They settled for an audit.

Source:http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/agric_ctte/food_production/report/c02.htm Chapter 2 of Food production in Australia - Final report, Parliament of Australia, Senate Select Committee on Agriculture and Related Industries, 23 August 2010:

"Foreign ownership

2.47 Finally, the committee briefly explored the prospect of foreign ownership of Australian agricultural land, particularly the existing regulatory approach to major foreign land acquisitions.

2.48 The Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) informed the committee that investment in agricultural land by foreign investors is generally exempt from the requirement to notify the government in accordance with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. Only if the acquisition exceeds 15 per cent of a business or corporation whose Australian interests are valued above $231 million, or where the investment is made by a foreign government or their agency, is it subject to scrutiny from the Australian Government to establish whether any national interest concerns are raised.[47]

2.49 The committee notes that incremental purchases exceeding the threshold amount in aggregate are not required to be disclosed. The committee also notes that in some countries the distinction between foreign governments and companies is not necessarily straightforward.

Committee view

2.50 Land available for agriculture is declining across the globe as expanding populations inhabit fertile land that could otherwise be devoted to food production. Although this problem is not as severe in Australia as it is in countries with a smaller land mass, urban encroachment is nonetheless affecting the capacity of Australian producers to grow food in the areas in which it is demanded, which in turn affects its quality and affordability. Competition for fertile land from mining and biofuels also threatens to reduce Australia's productive capacity.

2.51 The committee recognises that it is difficult for governments to dictate to landowners the purpose for which their land must be used, particularly when agricultural production may not presently be the most profitable possible use. However, Australian governments need to give serious consideration to mechanisms for protecting our most fertile agricultural land from alternative uses in the interests of our long term productive capacity and food security.

2.52 The committee also notes the marginal viability of agricultural production and the difficulty for potential young farmers to enter the sector, due to high land prices which combine to leave agricultural production vulnerable to structures that are less desirable than traditional family farming. Corporate farming models have the advantage of attracting extra capital to agriculture, though there are questions about the availability of labour and long term stewardship of the land. More significantly, though, Australia risks foreign companies, many with close ties to their home governments, purchasing substantial strategic interests in Australian land without needing to be vetted for national interest concerns. Australia needs to be careful that Australia's productive capacity is not undermined by foreign interests producing food on Australian land that is not intended for trade, but for direct supply to countries that have not managed their own food security needs.

Recommendation 1

2.53 The committee recommends an audit be undertaken to establish the extent of foreign ownership of commercial agricultural and pastoral land, and ownership of water, in Australia, with particular emphasis on ownership by sovereign and part-sovereign-owned companies."

"Australian Governments (Federal, Territory and State), journalists and cattlemen's associations are attempting to cloud facts about Australia's live export trade, known for at least 18 years: Indonesian halal is intended to inflict pain, employing a slow sawing motion to cut throats, rather than the less-than-a-second two-motion movement used by Australian professionals. Moreover, halal knives are invariably blunt. Even if animal rights were legislated in Indonesia, the Indonesian Government is simply too corrupt to maintain regulatory controls." (Tony Ryan)

Article by Tony Ryan

Government, journalists, cattlemen's associations, and various politicians, are attempting to cloud the issues about Australia's live export trade.

Here are some facts:

1. Governments (Federal, Territory and State) have known the facts of halal cruelty for 18 years. Indonesian halal is intended to inflict pain, employing a slow sawing motion to cut throats, rather than the less-than-a-second two-motion movement used by Australian professionals. Moreover, halal knives are invariably blunt. Even if animal rights were legislated in Indonesia, the Indonesian Government is simply too corrupt to maintain regulatory controls.
2. Australian live export feeds only the rich in Indonesia. Indonesian farmers and their families who supply this market are being driven bankrupt by our exports, and have been calling for cessation since imports began. This harms, not helps the Indonesian people.
3. Government warned Australian Meat and Livestock of this crisis six months ago. Crush boxes were sent as a sop to this pressure. Government knew this full well.
4. Live export contributes little to Australia's prosperity; only to the handful directly engaged, and on stations that are often foreign-owned.
5. Live export is endemically cruel, in spite of public relations stunts and media releases organised by the export lobby. Worse, when animals reach their destination, they may be tied up for hours or days without water, before finally being killed in acts of horrific and indifferent cruelty.
6. Live export cost Australians a quarter of a million jobs in: abattoirs, meat packaging, yarding, leather tanning, leather manufacturing, meat distribution, package manufacturing, meat grading dyes, meat and bone cutting implements, organic fertilisers, casein, meat inspection officers, butcher's supplies, freezing works uniforms and laundry services, transport services, and retail.
7. That cattle farming is non-viable in the Top End has been known since at least 1982. Buffalo thrive while cattle starve, and the Department of Primary Production urged a move to buffalo domestication as far back as 1975. Buffalo were largely eradicated by 1988/89 to please US cattle lobbyists. Powerful interests in the NT's Country Liberal Party profited immensely from compensation payments made for the buffalo eradication (BTEC) programme. Claims of buffalo damage to the northern environment were falsified, and were in fact caused by feral pigs and disastrous fire regimes executed by the Commonwealth scientists of then ANPWS, which also destroyed one third of Kakadu northern cypress.
8. There is talk of Indonesia's lack of refrigerators and how this justifies live export, but since 1978 there has been a plan to export dried meat and fish to Malaysia and Indonesia; exploiting the NT's massive fish by-catch, buffalo, and feral camel and donkey populations, during the six months of perfect Top End dry season drying winds. The Federal Government has sat on this potentially lucrative industry ever since; no doubt under pressure from meat export lobbyists and foreign aid programmes executives.
9. Claims that live export employs a significant Aboriginal population are simply untrue. Where there is employment it is only for the few weeks of muster. By contrast, a buffalo and dried meat/fish industry could employ and feed thousands of Aborigines in the Top End, Kimberly, North Queensland and elsewhere. Moreover, this is the kind of industry they can operate without outside interference and this can lead to economic independence and an end to welfare dependency.
   10. Australia's reputation as a nation of decent and civilised human beings is at stake. If we fail to end live export, our good name will be gone forever.

Julia Gillard will say whatever her powerful lobbyists tell her to say, and we cannot rely on her assurances that live export will only proceed on the basis of animal welfare guarantees. It must be stopped now, forever.

There is also the issue of jobs, and regional and rural industrial recovery. Australians need every job we can get, and the elimination of the live export industry will create the biggest explosion in rural and urban jobs in Australia's history.

There is no sound argument to support live export, and ten good reasons (above) why it should be terminated.

We must e-mail to, write to, harangue, and nag our state and federal politicians to end live export. They need to understand that this issue has been embraced by almost the entire nation, and that politicians who do not vote to end live export, will see their names entered on the electoral black list prior to the next elections.

Finally, well done Lyn White of Animals Australia, for her courage in collecting and presenting the evidence of this crime to Four Corners.

This document has been produced by the Ryan Institute of Evidential Demographics (RIED)
PO Box 1786. Sunshine Plaza Qld
4558(07) 54754009
tonyryan43 [ AT ] gmail.com
And also by the: Tariff Restoration Bloc (www.oziz4oziz.com/)
Note: Since 2001, RIED has provided free statistics on unemployment, homelessness; and electoral consensus on current national issues.

Note: The principal of RIED, Tony Ryan, commenced his working life in the cattle industry in 1961 and began studying Top End rural industries after moving to the NT in 1971. He later conducted related socio-economic research for the Commonwealth and NT governments, between 1974 and 1983, and in 1982 wrote about the decline of the cattle industry and recommended replacement by buffalo. He is semi-fluent in several Aboriginal languages, and also worked in NT Aboriginal community development. He is currently developing a demographic and market research service for Australian Business, and the concomitant establishment of an Internet news service, coupled with e-library on the globalisation of Australia ... with particular reference to how this nation can regain control of its economy.

© Copyright 2011: Tony Ryan; RYAN INSTITUTE OF EVIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS

See also: Bring Back the Music - the demise of Oz bands of 22 Oct 08 also by Tony Ryan

This is a telling report on the mainstream media's coverage of events over a few days compared to that of a major alternative. Turn off Murdoch, 7,9,10 and the ABC and tune into RT Media if you are tired of being treated like a fool.

In an interview on NPR a guest from Globalmediawars.com, Nathanael Massey, described RT's coverage for on "On the Media," as entertainment news without substance.

“The gist of that entertainment is making fun of the United States…their content doesn't try to take itself that seriously,” he said.

NPR's interviewer Bob Garfield kept the seemingly disparaging note when he at one point laughed about RT's Osama Bin Laden coverage, saying RT was "maybe thinking the whole thing would just blow over.”

Globalmediawars.com's analysis of RT continued that “RT’s high production values cannot hide its lack of substantive journalism.”

To be fair, we checked this out with some pollsters.

Pew Research tracks the top mainstream media stories week by week and so you can see a breakdown of the top five stories. And looking back there is a really great example where we totally missed one of the five biggest stories of the week covered by the mainstream media.

We missed Charlie Sheen! Just to compare, we looked back at what some of our top stories were that week on RT.

RT covered Libya, labor protests in Wisconsin, and the impact of Middle East and North African unrest on oil prices. You decide which is more newsworthy.

To be fair, that was a big week for Charlie Sheen, we just wanted to look back at one day at another big story we missed when it broke. We missed one of the biggest newsmakers of the week; number three according to Pew Research.

What were some of our top stories that day when the news of Schwarzenneger's love child rocked the news cycle?

Commodity prices, war, the dollar as the reserve currency. No Arnold.

And just to look at what today is one of the big stories on the cable news networks – Casey Anthony.

Dissecting every bit of information in a criminal trial that affects one family, but which is expected to draw as much attention as the OJ Simpson trial and where reportedly 600 members of the press have been credentialed.

Today we are covering the debt ceiling, inequality in the US, the US war in Aghanistan and the factors that have led one million people to apply to McDonald's only for the majority of them to be turned away.

You decide which affects more people, is more newsworthy, contains more substantive journalism, and qualifies as entertainment.

Following an outpouring of opinion on the Internet regarding RT, we wanted to share with you some of the views of your audience via YouTube comments:

"RT tells more truth about America than CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and all the newspapers combined. That in itselt makes RT a saint compared to the trash fed to Americans and the rest of the world. That’s why the attack dogs are out in force to try and discredit RT. I am very pleased with the truth RT uncovers, or at least, asks the questions no one else is asking in the media.”

- Pirell

“I worked for CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS in a 26 year career in news and network programming from journalist to news producer. I was fired for trying to expose the lies within the military industrial media complex about Iraq and other endless cover-ups. RT is not perfect but they're far more truthful than the traitors, liars and media whores that I experienced first-hand.”

-AffinityNetNews

Source of this article was "RT vs. the mainstream media", Published: 2 June, 2011, 02:14, Edited: 2 June, 2011, 13:31"

This extraordinary news report (available on YouTube Obama 'ignore' button: Congress has a say? (also embedded within this article) describes U.S Congress's challenges to President Obama's powers to make war against a foreign nation without approval from congress.

See also: Libya conflict: Backlash ensues to Obama's refusal to seek Congress's nod of 18 Jun 11 by Cheryl Sullivan on Christian Science Monitor, US-NATO are Planning a Ground War in Libya, Military Intervention in Syria of 18 Jun 11 by Bob Chapman on Global Research.

The YouTube broadcast Obama 'ignore' button: Congress has a say? (also embedded below) describes U.S Congress's challenges to President Obama's powers to make war against a foreign nation without approval from congress. Near the end of the broadcast (3' 46" into the 4' 22" broadcast) Author David Swanson remarked:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich was debating a former lawyer from the Reagan White House who was defending Obama and he asked this guy twice -- never got an answer -- "If there were 2,000 missions over the United States by a foreign nation and many of them were dropping bombs, would that be war? Would that be hostilities?"

See also: Libya conflict: Backlash ensues to Obama's refusal to seek Congress's nod of 18 Jun 11 by Cheryl Sullivan on Christian Science Monitor, US-NATO are Planning a Ground War in Libya, Military Intervention in Syria of 18 Jun 11 by Bob Chapman on Global Research.