(We) can do better

Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada has happened upon the John Howard confidence trick. In the shell game of electoral politics, it is important to get the audience to focus on the pea marked "bogus refugees" rather than the one marked "unsustainable immigration". That way corporations get the policy they paid for. The growth of the cheap labour pool and legions of new consumers. We clap our hands at the crackdown, and are none the wiser for it.

I seem to recall that Australia's one-man wrecking crew (lest we forget) John Howard, successfully exploited public anger over incoming boat-loads of refugees by making a show of his hardline crackdown, then using that stance as a screen to jack up immigration levels to stratospheric heights. Right? Well it seems that the Stephen Harper government is taking the same tack. Use the refugee issue as a decoy and a lightening rod so that an even higher number of migrants can be waived through the airport. This is not about curbing immigration to more sustainable levels, levels that would permit cultural integration and ecological recuperation from the two-decade demographic assault Canada has suffered since 1990. It is about quelling growing public anger so that it does not threaten the great unquestioned project of unsustainable economic growth, which all major parties wrongly believe is dependent on population growth.

It is not just Canada's refugee system that is out of control. Immigration is out of control. Making scapegoats out of phoney refugees and the slime who smuggle them takes the heat off an immigration policy based on economic folly and cynical political empire-building. And the Prime Minister knows it. He wants more immigration, not less. And if the opposition parties, who share his mad dream, were smart, they would accede to his inadequate bill, because it appeases misplaced public wrath. Canadians could then be given the false assurance that everything is now "under control", when in fact immigrant-driven population growth will be more out-of-control than ever. While I support the government's half-measures---as far as they go---- I wonder if by applying a band-aid we might forget that we need major surgery. We need to stabilize and reduce our population, and to accomplish that, we could double or triple the intake of legitimate refugees while slashing the immigration quota to modest and reasonable totals. Cleaning up the refugee mess is not sufficient.

Harper's comments, recorded in this news report, "Human smuggling threatens Canada support for immigration: PM"
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/101020/canada/canada_srilanka_politics_refugee_immigration, makes his motives clear.

"A failure to act and act strongly (against human smugglers) will inevitably lead to a massive collapse in public support for our immigration system.... Not only do we have relatively speaking the largest immigration program in the world; not only do we have the most generous system of sanctuary for refugees in the world -- we also have a level of public support for immigration that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world," Harper said. "And that must continue, because our economy will need even more immigrants." The strong new laws will provide incentives for would-be immigrants to enter the country through "legitmate channels".

Tim Murray
October 22/ 2010

Background stories: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Tories+take+refugee+fraudsters+smugglers/3706309/story.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Laws+turn+tide+refugees/3709436/story.html

Remember the lesson of the great Newfoundland cod fisheries. Rudyard Kipling’s Captains Courageous gives a description of fish so plentiful that the waters seethed with them. In 1977 Canada tried to stop the reduction of the cod stocks by declaring 320 kilometers off Newfoundland off limits to foreign factory ships. The local industry flourished, bringing prosperity to Newfoundland. In the 1980s marine biologists warned that the future was threatened by the heavy fishing and recommended an annual target of 125,000 tonnes of cod. But the community outcry about the economic and social damage made the government set the target at 235,000 tonnes. Stocks fell below a sustainable level and in June 1992 one of the richest natural resources was closed down. 30,000 jobs were lost and Newfoundland fell into rapid economic decline.

Millions of people depend on Murray River health

The lesson for the health of the Murray River is clear. (See Peter Goodwin’s letter in the AGE, October 2010)
Millions of us depend upon this river. We cannot repeat the mistake of Newfoundland when scientists warn us of consequences of letting it die.

We are doing some silly things.

Is water wasted that is not directly used now by the people? Is it wasted if it keeps the river alive for our future use, if it floods the plains where the red gums grow, or keeps alive the swamps, which the migrating birds, and other wildlife depend upon? This is a question, which must be answered by us all now, for the sake of the future.

Four States of Australia squabble over what water there is – Queensland, where much of the water originates, New South Wales and Victoria which have the problem of whether to keep the trees of the flood plains alive, and South Australia, where the river used to flow into the sea, and is now struggling to keep the lakes and estuary alive, as well as the capital of Adelaide.

Water waste by irrigators and country towns is now greatly reduced by more enlightened practices, but some areas are more progressive than others. It is still not worked out which crops are best suited to different areas, especially with water-hungry cotton and rice. Other crops such as dried fruit would prosper more if they could compete with Middle Eastern imports, which have low labor costs but a high real cost in freight, which adds to carbon emissions and fuel loss.

There are some crops necessary for feeding our population, which it would be wiser to grow to some extent at least, in our fertile Murray River Basin, than rely entirely on imports. Water is a scarce commodity the most of the world, and we use the water overseas for our imported food too.

Private ownership of water is disastrous for this country

A great waste of the Murray River is the private ownership of water. This means that government must pay private interests for water to use in the public interest. Originally far-seeing legislators in Victoria decreed that all water belonged to the state, which gave irrigators and others the rights to use it. Unfortunately this right has become a right to own it. Not only irrigators but financial interests have now got a source of income that costs the Murray River and the State dearly. A title system for the use of water similar to land ownership would be disastrous for this dry country.

Farmers and States trading rights to use water on an annual basis is one thing. To have titles to private ownership of water is reckless.

Water ownership would inevitably accumulate into the hands of a few. There would be no legal way to prevent foreign ownership. Greedy people have their eyes on water ownership globally, as with growing population pressures it becomes the most valuable commodity on earth. The pressure on governments from these private interests may be great, and must be resisted.

Governments selling our life-blood away are treasonous

There is such a thing as treason, and selling away our life-blood is one of them. Although distribution can be allowed through private companies, and private interests assist in infrastructure, the living water itself must remain inalienably in public ownership, and subject to public control. Free trade agreements must never have a legal chance to include water.

North South Pipeline is a really stupid waste

The stupidest waste of the Murray River is the North-South Pipeline of Victoria, built by the Victorian government to keep the Melbourne electorates happy, takes water down south for Melbourne, which otherwise would flow down the Goulburn River to the Murray River and associated irrigators.

Australian Aboriginals did it much better than we do

The aboriginal inhabitants for 40,000 years lived sustainably on the banks of the river, and harvested its wildlife without extinction, keeping their population within the bounds of existing technology, droughts and floods.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself

Have you seen the latest TV commercials promoting the new Jeep Grand Cherokee for 2011? The theme is summarized with the slogan, "The Things We Make, Make Us". The 'manifesto' video ad, 1:01 minutes long, makes an unanabashed appeal to American pride and patriotism. Poignant scenes are punctuated by proud declarations.

"This once was a country that made things, beautiful things, and so it is again." "It was a country of colts (with the image of colts galloping across the screen) that made Colt revolvers, and Jeeps (pictures of a stream of Army Jeeps presumably poised for the Normandy invasion, then liberating the streets of European towns in the Second World War).... These things make us who we are."

The American industrial heartland will surely rise again, given the inspirational lead that Chrysler beckons us to follow. The fact that the non-renewable resources critical to this heroic enterprise will not be affordably available to sustain it is just one of life's tiny, inconvenient details that are best swept under the carpet. Pessimism, not the reality of limited resources, is our real enemy you know. What did Obama say? He repeated FDR. "The only fear we have is fear itself." God, is that all. And here I thought I had to worry about Peak Everything and the prospect of a thermo-nuclear exchange that might follow the desperate scramble for scarce resources. Or the strong possibility of biological and chemical war, but then, here I go being pessimistic again. Maybe I should look on the bright side of life, the life that these SUV ads promise me.

The reality of urban gridlock vs. the fantasy of wilderness escape

It is interesting that the product Chrysler is pitching an SUV whose production involved the expenditure of a least 400 barrels of oil per vehicle--or its equivalent--and tons of metals and minerals first mined, then transported, then smelted, then shipped to a factory to rendevous with rubber harvested thousands of miles away and fashioned into a vehicle by hundreds of employees who demand a range of products and services as recompense for their beautiful craftsmnship. Employees who fought two hours of traffic driving their Jeep to work, only to repeat the ordeal after their shift. But hey, they are Americans, like the can-do Americans we once knew, who get the job done! And once it is done, this same vehicle then is marketed as an off-road machine that is seen dashing through lush forests, across unpolluted rivers and over the vast and seemingly pristine Moab desert of Utah."Go where regrets can't follow" is the motto that subtitles the scene. Cameras don't show the getting there, however. You know, the Jeep Grand Cherokee stuck in bumper-to-bumper freeway traffic on a Friday afternoon as its driver tries to make it to his weekend gettaway, cursing and honking in a vehicle built for speed but trapped in a nation of gridlock. But alas, the promised land of galloping colts, lush forests and pristine deserts, the America of our fantasies, the one advertisers play on, surely awaits us. It is quite the juxtaposition. The nasty, noisy and smoky process of primary and secondary industrial activity that heralds the resurgence of proud American manufacturing, co-existing with an apparently vast and uncluttered American hinterland.

There are more than 254 million registered passenger vehicles in America and more than 100 million are SUVs and trucks, with over 8 million of that category sold in 2008 alone. Few of them apparently know or care to know that it takes 98 tons of dead plants and animals buried for eons at seabed, lake and river bottoms to produce one gallon of gas for a nation that consumes one quarter of the world's crude oil. America isn't a country of colts but a country of dolts. How sad it is to see so many fat-ass Crocodile Dundee wanabees and redneck "chicks with dicks" lay down $40,000 US to feed a self-image manufactured by Madison Avenue when their SUV spends most of its life outside a shopping mall or in the drive-in queue of MacDonalds? How many ever see the wilderness? And of those who do, how, one wonders, do they all manage to find it---where are these huge pristine expanses in a nation bursting with 308 going on 508 million people? The answer can be found in the last line of the commercial that has dominated the airways recently:

"The Jeep Grand Cherokee---built for a world without limits"

That just about says it all. American car manufacturers and their ad agencies--- and those who fall for their pitch---really don't have a goddam clue. The phrase "Peak Oil" is notably absent from all of videos and from all the reviews. Instead, we read about "fuel economy". We are supposed to be impressed that the new Jeep Grand Cherokee can allegedly travel 500 miles on a full 24.6 gallon tank. "That's 16 miles in the city and 22 miles on the highway!". Wow. That means that when gas is $20/gallon as analysts like Christopher Steiner predict it will be, it will cost you about a dollar per mile---that is if hyperinflation doesn't overtake us. Auto journalists, like the consuming public who read their columns, are like deer transfixed by the headlights. They see all the bells and whistles and all of the specs but are blinded by the same infatuation with these toys that Americans of three generations ago had for the Model T Ford. The internal combustion engine is as inefficient as it ever was. But maybe that's a good thing, otherwise there would be more drivers driving more cars. You have to feel sorry for American capitalism, it just can't defeat those efficiency paradoxes. Especially when it encourages runaway populaton growth to grow the pool of cheap labour and delusional, manipulated consumers.

I must agree. The Jeep Grand Cherokee for 2011 really is built for a world without limits. Unfortunately, that world is not the one we live in.

Tim Murray
October 15/2010

GEERT WILDERS (witnessing the Dutch experience):

“People are waking up. They see that we are losing our identity, that neighborhoods are unsafe, that women are shouted at and hassled in the streets, that schools are unsafe. If my party were extremist, we’d be at the margins and we’d be getting 1.5 or 2 percent of the vote.

We’re not. In Holland, fortunately, we don’t have many racists. The Dutch are a very tolerant people. We have no problem to be tolerant of the tolerant, but we should be intolerant of the intolerant.

Source: ‘The Jerusalem Post’: What does the rise in support for your party say about Holland?'

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250038/what-wilders-trial-means-editors

Article by Jill Redwood, in response to the historic agreement which has reportedly been reached to save Tasmania's wild forests. The intention is to move loggers from the old forests into the plantation industry. The Age reported that "Parties to the talks, who all strenuously rejected the involvement of politicians in the negotiations, refused to comment before today's announcement." International markets for woodchips have been down for some time. Victorians might wonder, is the Tasmanian Green movement different from - and more really green - than the one identified with the Victorian "Green Brand" party? (See discussion below "Are the Greens a real alternative?".) Consider also that Environmentalist movements exist outside political parties and that we do not need political parties to make a difference if those parties do not serve us well. The following article is sourced from Jill Redwood. This 'teaser' is from candobetter.org Photos by Sheila Newman

Dot points on Tuesday 19th October 2010 Tasmania agreement announcement and implications for Victoria and beyond

(thanks to Luke for some of these figures).

· Gunns has seen the light and is moving into plantations only.

· Very courageous move by industry to get together with green groups and come to an agreement that helps everyone.

· Victorian industry can also follow suit – govt should help these negotiations along.

· Needed now more than ever – native forests logging is on down-hill run as:

o plantation products dominate the timber market,

o high Aussie dollar (and Asia still recovering from GFC) means export woodchip industry in steep decline,

o resource running out – forcing govt to move loggers into highly contentious areas = provoking conflict.

o Gunns – large company, has seen the future is not in native forests.

· Industry also agreed not to use native forest wood “waste” to burn for electricity – a major win.

Plantation option in Victoria is real.

· Plantations can meet 98% of our timber and woodchip/paper markets right now – meaning there is no excuse to continue clearfelling and industrial scale logging in native forests.

· Many new building products like compressed wood board and engineered lumber (flooring/craft wood/paneling/LVL etc) don’t require large diameter trees. General framing timber (scantling) is easily supplied by pine plantations. The small amount of feature grade hardwood timber that can’t yet be supplied by plantations (such as for high grade hardwood flooring and high quality panelling) can be provided by alternate and engineered wood products, recycled hardwood or carefully selected trees from native forests (but not clearfell logging).

· The logging industry is in terminal decline in East Gippsland with employment being less than 1% of the region’s total workforce. The rest of Eastern Victoria is similar – and even Maryvale paper mill is 80% plantation based. Not difficult to get them out of Central Highland’s forests.

To ensure secure employment, the industry needs to:

1. Retool their mills to process plantation wood (from Tumut NSW, Sth Gippy or NE plantations).

2. Receive govt assistance to relocate workers and families to the plantation areas of Western Vic. where the plantation companies are actually importing workers from overseas to fill the employment gaps in logging.

3. Take exit packages and be assisted into other areas of employment.

In Victoria we take 1.9 million tones of native forest wood out every year. Of that, 1.5 million tones is pulplogs – all of which is 100% substitutable with plantation wood.

Of the other 400,000 tonnes that are sawlog trees, the are used for pallets, roof battens, fence palings, crossbars on power poles, subfloor bearers - all are easily substitutable by plantation wood and other products.

The 1-2% used for high quality appearance grade furniture, paneling etc could still be taken from native forests if very carefully selected and used. Clearfelling thousands ha is now unnecessary (never was needed until woodchipping dominated).

1986 – NIEIR reported on the projected impacts on the new parks in East Gippy (LCC recommendations). They calculated that unless govt altered their policies there was no future for the industry. They recommended reduction in the take of logs from around 360,000m3 a year of sawlogs (not counting woodchip logs) to 70,000 m3 to ensure sustainability. But government and industry continued cutting at 280,000 through all 1990s and 110,000m3 average in the 2000s).

(In 2002-03 - 191,000m3 sawlogs, in 2003-04 - 135,000m3, 2004-05 – 122,000m3, 2005-06 - 106,000m3, 2006-07 - 91,000m3, 2007-08 - 99,000m3 sawlogs. Plus about 350,000m3 of pulplogs as well. Clearly overcutting – ‘cut-out and get-out’ mentality has ruled the industry and govt)

85% of trees taken from native forests ends up as woodchips. Criminal.

Small 2% of high grade timber can be taken from selectively logged trees off public land while hardwood plantations are established (20-25 years). Some hardwood plantations for pulp could already be used for this if managed for sawlogs and milled in a particular way.

Western Vic plantations is where it’s mostly at – ABARE figures show that up until 2007-08 – only getting 0.5million tonnes m3 of plantation hardwood chips – but this year these plantations are supplying 4 million tonnes! The wall of wood has hit us from plantings in the 80s and 90s.

Western Vic plantations companies (Gunns, Australian Blue Gum Plantations and ITC) are importing jobs from OS to log the plantations! Plenty of scope for helping relocate Eastern Vic logging workers into secure jobs there.

Jill Redwood
Coordinator
Environment East Gippsland Inc
(6800 Bonang Rd Goongerah)
Locked Bag 3
ORBOST Vic 3888

Ph (03) 5154 0145
www.eastgippsland.net.au

Update footage on you tube:

Ed. On 18 October 2010 I received a short email from Prof Francis Ronsin, in Paris, headed “Strikes”. He wrote: “Social war has broken out in France. It is a long time since I had reason to be proud to be French!” So I wrote back to ask for a few paragraphs about the strikes that are paralyzing business as usual and liberating French society, which I have translated here -- Sheila Newman See also "1.3-2.5m French demonstrate against raising retirement age" and "French General Strike on Retirement Age takes to highways of France 13 October"

A surprise for everyone

What is happening in France today comes as a surprise to everyone. A pleasant one for some, an unpleasant one for others.

For several months there have been calls to strike – often with little response – and big demonstrations – with totals of several million people involved, each time, throughout France. The government insisted continually that it would not give in and it seemed possible that the strikers and the demonstrators would finish up becoming discouraged.

Involvement of school children

The first change in these trends occurred last week. High school children (15-18 years old) then middle school children (12-15 years old) began barricading their school entrances and confronting the police in the streets. They were protesting: many young people are unemployed and if the elderly are made to work longer … It was also a game, a party.

Domestic Petrol supply blocked

Another change in trends occurred over the weekend. Protesters blocked access to petrol depots. Truck drivers were asked to form roadblocks. Police were running everywhere. As they unblocked roads in one place, roadblocks would go up somewhere else. Petrol has now run out in many towns and even throughout regions. Little demonstrations are occurring everywhere, involving a few dozen or a few hundred people.

Why in France and not elsewhere?

Today (Tuesday) is a day of strikes and demonstrations throughout France. It’s likely to be risky! Sheila Newman asks the question: “Why in France and not elsewhere?” Do the French have a more conflictual temperament? Is it because of historical tradition? Difficult to say. What is certain, is that there is a link between opposition to a law which most French people do not want and a very strong anger, even hatred, towards the government, above all, towards President Sarkozy.

Francis Ronsin
(Translated by Sheila Newman)

Francis Ronsin was Professor, Department of Contemporary History, at the Université de Bourgogne (Dijon). He has published several books and numerous articles that focus on the relationship between political struggles and private life: La Grève des ventres - Propagande néo-malthusienne et baisse de la natalité en France 19ème-20ème siècles (Aubier, Paris, 1980); Le Contrat sentimental - Débats sur le mariage, l'amour, le divorce, de l'Ancien Régime à la Restauration (Aubier, Paris, 1990) ; Les Divorciaires - Affrontements politiques et conceptions du mariage dans la France du XIXème siècle. (Aubier, Paris, 1992); Le Sexe apprivoisé -Jeanne Humbert et la lutte pour le contrôle des naissances (La Découverte, Paris, 1990) ; and La population de la France de 1789 à nos jours. Données démographiques et affrontements idéologiques (Le Seuil, Paris, 1997); La Guerre et l’oseille (Syllepse, Paris, 2003). He is also the principal organizer of the international research seminar Socialism and Sexuality.

Rights of partial or full reproduction of this article are forbidden without permission from Francis Ronsin.

Anti-growth activists are caught in a vice. In large urban areas bursting at the seams with overtaxed infrastructure, the potent force of the growth lobby and the pervasive influence of the media that supports it makes opposition to the growth juggernaut hazardous to mind, body and spirit. Yet life in a rural locality presents an even more daunting challenge. The costs of growth are not so manifest to those who do not understand its exponential nature. The benefits of fresh air, tranquility and wildlife are taken for granted, and the allure of big city amenities is irresistible. Locals are beguiled by the promise that new development will solve unemployment, increase the supply of affordable housing and keep young people close to hearth and home. To stand up against growth in a small town is to invite ostracism and ridicule from uncomprehending minds that cannot understand why anyone would oppose "progress". The following letter was submitted to the newspaper of one such town, but it could have been the template for letters to almost any small town newspaper in North America or Australia or elsewhere---newspapers which live on the advertising revenue from the businesses that profit from growth.

Civic boosterism predictable and mistaken

From rural Nova Scotia to rural BC, the clichés of civic boosterism are as predictable as they are wrong. Sables-Spanish Rivers appears to be no different. Forum participants in the upcoming township elections seem to be reading from the same script that growth-addicts in my own community are.

“We need to bring in business to bring down taxes.” “Economic development is a priority...its not just about bringing new business...it’s about smart growth, maintaining the tax base.” “ New development will create needed jobs”. “We need to attract new families”. “We need to bring our kids back”. “There is nothing here for the kids”. “Once a school is gone a community begins to collapse”.

Reality

It is the same tired record heard across the land for time immemorial. But what are the facts?

Bigger towns, bigger taxes and lower average incomes

As a rule, the larger the town or city, the higher the taxes. Why? Because the tax revenues that are generated by growth do not offset the infrastructure costs of extended services that must be provided—water, sewage, road maintenance, police and fire protection, waste disposal and so forth. Creating new jobs may indeed attract newcomers, but is so doing it does not lower the unemployment rate. More people require more jobs. Moreover, business growth is correlated with lower per capita incomes, and lower paying jobs-- not limited housing stock or serviceable land--- makes housing unaffordable. And undeveloped property pays more property taxes than it costs in services---not many cows or trees demand medical or educational services.

Self-importance blinds local boosters both to real values and real limits

Some people seem to equate quality of life with more amenities, and having left the urban rat race wish to reproduce it in the bucolic paradise that attracted them, while accusing those who oppose them of being selfish. But the real question is not whether continued growth is necessary or desirable, but whether it is possible. It is astounding that civic debates are conducted without the slightest comprehension or awareness of Peak Oil and its implications. With triple-digit oil and ten dollar a litre gasoline on the near horizon, we will have more to worry about than keeping ice rinks and schools open. Feeding the mouths that are already here may prove to be an insuperable challenge. Forget fuelling the local Zamboni, fuelling tractors will be our focus. Growth ,“smart” or dumb, will not be an option.

Tim Murray

Quathiaski Cove, BC
October 14/2019

Victoria - the place to be? - for bloody whom?

Clearly, the Victorian Brumby Government is hell bent on accommodating immigration hoards regardless of triple-bottom line impacts. The Brumby Government changes to the Victorian State Planning Policy Framework – Amendment VC71, are summarised by Chairman Brumby's growthist mates up at the Property Council on its website.

This is Chairman Brumby's Big Victoria manifesto. He has set up a Growth Areas Authority to prepare Melbourne and its fringes rural areas for "new residential
communities and new employment areas", to "increase consistency and certainty in growth area planning".

Chairman Brumby's Melbourne @ 5 Million ruling proclaims creation of a multi-centre city through six new Central Activities Districts in Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston and Ringwood" and "expansion of the outer Melbourne Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate some of the 284,000 new dwellings". Perhaps Brumby's next demographic phase of his cultural revolution will be to rename his six new Central Activities Districts in Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston and Ringwood respectively 'New Guangzhou', 'New Shenzhen', 'New Nanjing', 'New Chanchun', 'New Qingdao' and 'New Chengdu'.

True-to-form Chairman Brumby's 20th Century growthist mindset shows contempt for socio-ecological quality standards. The bottom line outcomes for a Big Victoria are made starkly clear.

Victoria - the place to be?

Meanwhile, the Victorian Greens are tokenly supportive of triple bottom line principles and the desire for limits on urban growth. But true to form, their policy offering remains idealistic and motherhood, with no shovel-ready strategy nor costed programmes. They may aspire to socio-ecological quality standards, but are the triple bottom line outcomes for a Livable Victoria are starkly missing. The Victorian Greens profess a Land Use Planning policy (see below) and that is where the Victorian Greens contribution to Victorians seems to stop.

Brumby's VC71 'Big Victoria Manifesto'

(summarised by the Property Council)

"ready for tomorrow"...for whom?

Message:

Melbourne's 'most liable city' reputation was once was the envy of the world!
But Brumby is proclaiming - bugger the incumbents and ignore the society and lifestyle that Melbournians have built over generations. If you're from an impoverished underdeveloped country and seeking a better life then sure

Victoria is the place to be...for immigrants!

Meanwhile, the Victorian Greens Land Use Planning Policy reads as follows:

Victorian Greens Policy on Land Use Planning

Source: http://vic.greens.org.au/policies/land-use-planning

Try writing to the daily newspaper, or commenting on a Murdoch News Limited newspaper blog or to a Fairfax newspaper blog, or even on an ABC Radio programme blog.

There, feel better? So what have you gained? Well you have perhaps vented spleen, so gained personal gratification. But another day another paper and reader memories are short. Soon the blog comment section will be 'closed' and inaccessible. So what then have you really gained? Has anyone read it? Will what you've written have any impact, even if people did read it? Will your comments contribute in anyway to an issue?

Don't delude yourself! Writing to corporate (mass) media only benefits the media moguls in stymieing dissent. Blog comments in the mass media go nowhere and achieve nothing. The comments quickly get 'closed' and inaccessible. Dissent is thus lured, netted and buried.

The mass media have only recently promoted their blogs in order to distract vocal readers from contributing to free (alternative) media, like the not-for profit CanDoBetter, Tasmanian Times, etc.

This is one reason why I do not contribute any information to corporate media.
Let the moguls wallow in self-serving propaganda, let them continue be more irrelevant to ordinary people, to lose readership and advertising revenue. Their only in it for the money and the influence anyway. Many of the tabloids have become comic books.

Think I'm being unfair on corporate media? Well, an exposé article in the Fairfax-owned Sydney Morning Herald 9th October 2010 by former News Limited editor Bruce Guthrie was entitled 'Falling out with Rupert' (Murdoch). The opening two paragraphs read:

"Within the News empire, talent is one thing but absolute discretion to Rupert Murdoch's world view and various causes is another. And it's far more important than talent.

The most highly regarded people at News are little more than Murdoch robots, programmed to consider him first and the issue second..."

Guthrie further observes:

"Newspaper editors are never far from power or, at least, the people who wield it. This can be quite seductive if you forget one simple fact: it's not you they're really interested in, it;s the machinery you sit atop. Lose the job tomorrow and most politicians will want to cosy up to your successor, regardless of teh circumstances or their qualities."

These extracts are from Bruce Guthrie's new book 'Man bites Murdoch', which I yet to read.

If you have anything you would like to raise, which is likely to be of interest to our site's visitors, which is not addressed by other articles, please add your comments here.

"SMS and Facebook work really well. People discuss these matters all night. The next day they are organised."

Members of the massive French union confederation CGT (Confederation Generale du Travail) joined with other union confederations, taking from the streets to the freeways and regional highways in France. Members used slow driving to slow traffic and others distributed information to drivers and passengers all over France, and encouraged ordinary citizens to express their support. School students and young workers continue to participate.The striking had gone into a new organisational mode.

This article updates the French general strikes first described in this article describing events of 12 October 2010. 1.3-2.5m French demonstrate against raising retirement age

Update 13 October 2010: French Unions leaflet drivers in snail road campaign over retirement age

Source of pictureshttp://jt.france2.fr/20h/

Members of the massive French CGT (Confederation General de Travail) joined other unions, taking from the streets to the freeways and regional highways in France. Members used slow driving to slow traffic and others distributed information to drivers and passengers all over France, and encouraged ordinary citizens to express their support.

The striking had gone into a new organisational mode.

Young workers

Young workers expressed themselves in groups outside factories and marching in the streets.

"You only have to look at your parents when they come home from work half dead to know that working longer is a bad idea."

One said that you have only to look at the state their parents return home from work of an evening to know that it is a bad idea to extend working years. They return home half-dead.

High school children

High school children and young workers were also much in evidence again. 3 per cent of high schools were said to have participated, according to Actualites Francaises (http://jt.france2.fr/20h/

As one girl said, "SMS and Facebook work really well. People discussed issues all night." Obviously French youth are using electronic opportunities to organise, along with their parents and compatriots.

French Government worried at political awareness of young people

In what looks like a defensive rear-guard action by the government, which feels threatened by real political engagement of young people in France, Ségolène Royal, who, in 2008 contested leadership of the French Socialist Party was accused in parliament of having inadvisedly mobilised schoolchildren in the streets. She defended herself by saying that she had advised them to participate safely.

"Grève Générale" - Massive National Strike against raising retirement age in France

Between 1.5 and 3.5 million French people demonstrated in the streets against raising the retirement age on Tuesday.

The French can still really organise a democratic protest.

Where the populations of so many Anglo* countries have been politically fragmented by mass immigration and the consequent geographical restructuring of society with constant changes to streets, suburbs and buildings, big towns in France largely retain their original street plans and the French themselves retain the characteristics and the capacity to network of a big old tribe that shares the same history, in a land still largely controlled at local level, despite the sophisticated central government.

Between 1.23 m and 3.5 m march

On Tuesday 12 October, between 1,230,000 million and 3,500,000 million French protested in the streets of Paris and in hundreds of towns and cities in a National General Strike against Retirement 'Reform' policies that the government has been trying to bring in for some time. The unions estimated the number at 3.5m and the government estimated it at 1.23m. 250 marches took place in different parts of the country simultaneously.

High school students as young as 15 also marched

This was not the first strike against the raising of the retirement age, but for the first time many high school children were out in the streets, as well as university students and young people who had just begun to work. They were campaigning on their own behalf because they saw their futures as threatened by attempts to raise the number of years worked in order to qualify for a full retirement pension from 41 to 43 years.

It is hard to imagine such political engagement by youth on intergenerational issues of finance in Anglo countries. The solidarity is lacking.

Late retirement means no jobs for young people

They were protesting that, if the trend to raise the age of retirement continued, they would be working until they were extremely old. They also protested that if people retired later and later, there would be no jobs for young people.

Unlike the anglo-norm where people have been taught to endorse the work-ethic as the be-all and end-all, the French are more sensible and frank. As one elderly man said, "I don't want to work two more years. I'm tired. Give my job to a young person."

And a young woman, who said, "If I have to work for 43 years to put aside enough to qualify for retirement, what if I want to have children? When will I have time to do that?

Other young people said, "We don't want to work until we drop. And there won't be any jobs for us if people continue to work past the age of 60."

Entire families went out into the street, like this woman, who held up a sign, explaining that she was 43 years old and employers said she was too old to work, but if the government had its way she would have to work for 43 years to get a pension. She said the situation meant that for her family poverty will be permanent.

She would, of course, be worse off in the US or Australia, where rents and land and house-prices are far higher and there is almost no public housing, and where unemployment benefits are not guaranteed, as they are in France.

Vive la France! We can all learn from France.

For another article showing the tribal muscle of the French, see what happened when the government tried to privatise the post-offices.

Obviously the same pressures are being applied to France as have been successfully applied to the Anglo-countries, where privatisation and superannuation, instead of proper pensions, is rampant. The difference is that, even though the French Press, like the Anglo-press, tries to manufacture a reality and normalise the idea that 'most' people agree that privatisation and working longer are 'necessary', due to the relatively intact family and clan organisation of the French and the strength of local government, it is harder to put one over them, because neighbours and families still communicate.

Why don't Anglo populations have the same ability as the French to self-organise?

In countries like the USA, England, Canada and Australia, the artificial organisation of their populations, with people working far from their homes, and living in newly built estates where neighbours have no shared history, and where people are out of touch with their relatives and 'clans', the basic structure of social organisation has been fragmented and smashed. The growth lobby has been in control too long and the people are not really citizens, more clients of a corporate state which is in the business of land-speculation, financed by taxes and the selling off of national estate. In France, state property development and subsidisation of all housing have made it hard for the private growth lobby to pervert democracy and impose their own restructuring on the population. For more on this read the relevant sections on The Growth Lobby and its Absence".

French pension system

There are two levels of ordinary pension in France. To get a full pension you now need to have worked for at least 41 years. You may qualify for a pension at age 60 years, regardless of when you began to work, but 10% is taken off for every year less than 41. People who work 65 years get a better pension, although this is also subject to deductions if they have not worked for at least 41 years. There are also variations on the retirement age depending on occupation. For people who work in the liberal professions, it is 65, and for some other occupations, it is 50 or 55. In some cases people who have not been in paid work nonetheless are counted as if they had been, for example, mothers who have disabled children.

Special Retirement fund law of 1999

A law in 1999 created the Reserve Fund for retirees.
The left, which came into power in 1997, did not try to change the retirement age, but voted in a law on financing social security in 1999, through which a Reserve Fund for retirees (FRR) was created. This fund made it possible to put aside a surplus which originated during the years of strong economic growth, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The FRR aimed to protect low-waged workers against the possibility of harsh changes to retirement law which might accompany an economic crisis. The funds accumulated under the FRR were expected to reduce the pressure the government might feel to raise the retirement age or increase superannuation levies.

The French government decided after 2002, when economic growth had slowed, to stop putting money into the retirement reserve fund. Nonetheless, in June 2010, there were 34 billion euros in the FRR funds. (Source: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraite_en_France#Confiscation_des_sommes_capitalis.C3.A9es_en_1941

Source of photos and major source of news was: JT France2

*"Anglo" - refers to countries which have inherited the British systems of land-use planning and inheritance, usually through colonisation, but also refers to the UK, even though it is now part of the EU and may now change.

Few are prepared to admit when they are wrong, so then why has this expression become a cliché?

Humans as animals have a survival instinct and so by extension are naturally defensive of criticism. They will defend their actions to the hilt, despite the surrounding damage they knowingly cause. Modern 'progressive' Man (humans) even more arrogantly proclaims that the world without human endeavour would be a wasteland.

So blaming human overpopulation for the earth's ills does not come easy to humans, especially to those self-righteously but religiously conditioned to traditional procreation; far more palatable to blame some external force for human damage.

Climate change is just pollution re-badged. Many were protesting back in the 1960s and 70s about the impact of pollution on the planet. Pollution seems to have matured into climate change - whatever. Some even let humans off the hook.

But climate change is 1% of the environmental problem.
How so? Well, when one considers the exponential sexed up epidemic in developing countries (India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh), compounded by the human food demand for more farmland, the human deforestation to make way for food growing, human consumption habits driven by corporate marketing increasing in sexed up developing countries, increased housing demand pushing into nature, increased energy demands to feed the consumption demands of more sexed up humans, biofuels clearing more of nature to fuel exponential human energy demand...

Well ain't the core driver of environmental damage caused by the sexed up habit of humans and the selfish overpopulation they procreate?

Independent scientists have proven that 'climate change' is a contributor to the environmental damage collectively across the planet. But when compared with the cumulative impact of human overpopulation, the impact of climate change pales to 1% like the impact of passive smoking on a chain cigar smoker.

Societal Two Year Olds
This is a dilemma of the immature society that like a typical human two year old selfishly believes that it is the centre of the world and has an unlimited right to have what it wants.

The problem of the two year old is one for the parents, to reshape immature thinking and behaviour so it learns to be part of society rather than falsely thinking it is the centre of society.

Immature societies have a similar problem. Twentieth century societies emerged out of 19th century societies that were spoilt by their governments. Exploitative, selfish habits are cross generational. Emerging third world societies are now aspiring to the execesses of their 'first world' older siblings.

What to do with Societal Two Year Olds in the 21st Century?

The once wholesome term 'sustainable' has long been stolen by the Corporate Sector - aka big business and corporatised government. The term continues to be misused and abused by those employed with communications degrees (aka 'spin doctors') to mean anything they want it to mean.

'Sustainable' has become almost compulsorily used in public relations to justify proposed works that may adversely impact on the natural environment and upon society. In so doing, the proposed works pacify potential detracting 'greenie' and 'socialist' types.

'Sustainability' has become a corporate pseudonym for 'viable' - viable for corporate sustainable profit or government saving money.

So in order to drag the Corporate Sector to social and environmental accountability, it is preferable to instead use the once popular but clearer term 'Triple Bottom Line'.

Triple Bottom Line (TBL) was coined in 1998 by John Elkington:

'An addition of social and environmental values to the traditional economic measures of a corporation or organization's success. Triple Bottom Line accounting attempts to describe the social and environmental impact of an organization's activities, in a measurable way, to its economic performance in order to show improvement or to make evaluation more in-depth.'*

It is much harder to greenwash the defined term 'Triple Bottom Line' than it is 'sustainable'.

'Sustainable Population' or Triple Bottom Line Immigration Policy

In developed countries like Australia, human population size, distribution and demographics are not influenced by organic growth, but in the main are a consequence of government open-door immigration policy. If developed countries, like Australia, applied a Triple Bottom Line test to the performance of immigration policies, then the social and environmental values of those policies would be added to the more traditional economic measures in order to evaluate immigration policy performance.

Currently, the narrow Economic/Accounting (single) Bottom Line approach only considers the economic benefits of immigration. Even then, the measures of economic impact are limited to short term macro-economic metrics such as consumption, GDP and labour force.

Of course more immigrants will demand more so consumption rises, but also demand on public services and environmental resources (such as drinking water) - which are conveniently not reported by government.

Of course more skilled immigrants will plug skills shortages of business and so business grows and GDP rises and tax revenues rise. Plus business and government save money by not having to spend on education and skills training. But this skill matching is inequitable as it displaces and disenfranchises an unskilled local population. Most job growth ignores rural and regional Australia. GDP growth also puts more pressure on environmental resources (such as coal-fired power stations) - such TBL impacts are conveniently not reported by government.

Of course more skilled immigrants will increase the labour force. But why are immigrants (born overseas) over-represented in the public service and in unskilled positions like transport drivers, while Australia's registered unemployment numbers are over 611,000? A domestic social impact of immigrant employment is domestic unemployment.

And how many of the registered unemployed are immigrants? Such Triple Bottom Line impacts are conveniently not reported by government.

Is not immigration policy a economic, social and environmental responsibility of national governments?

The following article takes the Victorian Greens severely to task . We at candobetter.org are very willing to publish a reply from the Greens explaining their failure to move a motion to replace or to vote against VC71.

Labor and Green MPs' condemned on VC 71

This week Protectors of Public Land Victoria and Planning Backlash both condemned Labor and Green members of Parliament for failing to act to remove the infamous Clause 16 of Planning Amendment VC 71.

VC71 clause 16 was to be challenged by the Liberals on 6 October. Greens were approached to support it and many people expected that support to be automatic. The Greens had voted against clause 16 in an earlier form[1] and it had now reappeared without significant changes. Many conservationists and planning activists throughout Melbourne have seen in the Greens some hope of an alternative to population growth and development uber al. They were aghast to realise that the Greens had finished up supporting the Brumby Government's ecologically unsustainable population growth and this crowning horror of Justin Madden's bad development laws.

But there were signs of this earlier. See "Are the Greens a real alternative?".

Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash, wrote that she was "devastated" to have to tell people that, when the partial debate took place on Wednesday night (the 6th):

Greg Barber, Planning Spokesperson for the Greens, talked so long that the time was up and there was no time for a vote, due to Standing Orders of Parliament. Reading his words in Hansard I am still not sure what he was saying. Some are calling it a "Filibuster" (to avoid a vote being taken). Hence it means that VC71 clause 16 was not challenged and remains in force."

"Even worse," Mary continued,

"On Thursday (the 7th) there was a motion that the Upper House return to Parliament next week to vote on deleting the clause from VC71 motion. The Greens voted with Labor against returning to Parliament, saving the Greens the decision whether to vote for deleting Clause 16 of VC71 and upsetting Labor or voting against the motion and upsetting the community. Well we are upset, we feel badly let down. We condemn those members of Parliament - Labor and Green – for allowing Clause 16 of VC71 to remain in force.

So VC71 stays in and is already being used in VCAT to help developers. It is pie in the sky for Greg Barber to say in his lengthy speech that it can still be got rid of in the new parliament.

Of Clause 16, Julianne Bell, of Protectors of Public Land wrote,

"PPL VIC has long campaigned against such high rise urban development along transport routes and also against the extension of the urban growth boundary. The community has not been consulted over VC 71 but it has been imposed on Melburnians by the Brumby Government despite the extraordinary community opposition demonstrated through Melbourne, including several rallies at Parliament. This plan to line public transport routes with multi storey apartments to accommodate the anticipated increase of one and a half million population had its genesis in the blueprint "Transforming Australian Cities" commissioned by the City of Melbourne and the State Government in May 2009. (This plan was said to have been derived from a South American architect who sought to house former shanty town dwellers in high rise/multi storey apartment units along bus routes.)

Atkinson's opening speech to the motion 6 October 2010

Liberal, Bruce Atkinson, despite the party's formal opposition to Clause 16,
summed up his party's spineless endorsement of Labor's laws to mandate land-speculation and profit at the expense of democracy through high density development, in this piffling piece of hairsplitting:

Mr. Bruce Atkinson (Liberal) speaking to the motion in the Upper House on Wednesday last 6 October : "What concerns us about the government's approach in planning amendment VC 71 is not higher density development per se but the fact that this particular provision is indiscriminate. This provision would suggest that higher density development could run along every major railway, every major bus route, every major tramline throughout the metropolitan area and could quite conceivably involve development along these major transport corridors to a level of five, six, eight or nine storeys and for a significant depth, some 400 metres in, from those transport corridors - those bus routes, tramlines or train lines. That is a very significant change to the character of Melbourne and its suburbs."

(...)

"We are not opposed to some of the objectives the government had in arriving initially at its Melbourne 2030 policy — a policy that became discredited in the community and needed to be re-badged as Melbourne @ 5 Million. "

Victorian Greens Greg Barber's hollow words

What did Greg Barber talk about for so long that everyone else ran out of time?

Barber canned both Labor and Liberal for their failure to care for the environment or to provide better policies. All very well, but completely hollow words, for the Greens simply failed to supply an alternative to clause 16. And they all went right along and voted against any further review of Clause 16.

Read the full text at the end of this article, [2] but here is a stirring and clever excerpt which unfortunately led from nowhere to nowhere and round and round and round until all the allocated time was gone:

[Ed. Excerpt reparagraphed for clarity.]

"Ms Mikakos described this proposal by the government as policy neutral, which is a very post-modern Labor way of saying, ‘The document actually does nothing’ — and I
agree.

This document, which appears to update and make changes to the highest level decisions and aims of our planning scheme, does nothing.

We all know with the sorts of environmental, social and economic pressures on our city that doing nothing right now is not really an option. In a way, doing nothing is making a decision.

It allows the invisible hand of the market to have its way, and when you intervene it is usually at the ministerial level, site by site, favour by favour.

Let us have a look at this policy-neutral document in front of us.

If we take Ms Mikakos at her word, it is policy neutral in relation to the supply of urban land, but in fact having just voted on an expansion to the urban growth boundary (UGB), which the Greens opposed, this material anticipates the next extension of the urban growth boundary. It is policy neutral in the sense that we will continue to have the oxymoron known as a growth boundary, which really means sprawl-for-ever.

It is policy neutral in relation to planning for growth areas.

When we debated the UGB and the growth areas infrastructure charge the Greens knew the major issue then was the failure of planning for growth areas, not just in the sense of structure planning but in all the matters that go along with a livable community on a greenfield site.

It is policy neutral — that is to say it does nothing in relation to structure planning, a phrase that first popped up when Melbourne 2030 landed on our city like a group of lost aliens and said, ‘Take us to your leader’, or more importantly, ‘We are in charge now’.

Structure planning was meant to indicate that councils would take control of how development was to occur in activity centres. The amendment is policy neutral in relation to open space, which is to say that the government will continue to chip away at it where it is most needed, where it is already underprovided.

Nothing in this will protect open space, particularly when even what we think of as open space turns out not to be zoned for public purposes. Nothing in this suggests that land used as open space and essential to the community must have an appropriate zoning, let alone the kind of zoning that can just be wiped away in an instant at the stroke of a pen by the minister. That is exactly what happened in relation to the Abbotsford convent until we fought the government back.

The document is policy neutral in relation to activity centre hierarchy because we just do not have one. Sure, we have different forms of activity centres listed in a document, but it does not tell us what will then be the fate of each of those activity centres.

The amendment is policy neutral in relation to employment corridors.

When I asked the minister in hearings with the Growth Areas Authority what the idea of the employment corridors was he could not really explain it to me. Mr Guy is not here and I do not want to verbal him, but I had the same conversation with him. What does it mean?

It says: Develop the following employment corridors: Avalon Airport to Werribee, Melton, Melbourne Airport and Donnybrook (Hume-Mitchell). Who will work there and what will they do? Who said that that will be a great place for a set of industries?

Under this same section transport networks are being provided that will allow circumferential in addition to radial movements. That means that you can be a metalworker living in Werribee and working in Warrandyte and every day on the Western Ring Road you can pass another metalworker who does the opposite and you can wave to each other on the freeway.

The amendment is policy neutral in the sense that the government will just keep on building roads and people will just keep on driving on them. The government will not ask us about how we want the city to develop. We will just follow the cars that have an asphalt truck in front of them.

The document is reasonably policy neutral in relation to central Melbourne because there does not seem to be a vision for central Melbourne. Between the two census periods central Melbourne added 25 000 jobs. Some of the CADs (central activities districts) have only about 25 000 jobs each. If in one census period central Melbourne added the equivalent number of jobs of a CAD, why did that happen? Is that what was intended? What will the government do about it?

Why did the government not buy enough trains to get those people to work?

If the government could not make provision for even those sorts of things, what chance does it have with other CADs in other locations across the landscape?

We absolutely know that the amendment is policy neutral in relation to green wedges because the government has done nothing for green wedges, to protect them and their values, since it has been in power. The green wedges have been there forever. As Mr Atkinson said, the city has always been there and the green wedges have always been there. The government has recognised them in policy occasionally. As with the CADs, the test is what the government did and what this document does to protect and enhance the values of the green wedges. The fact is that they are chipped away every year. "

Such reasonable observations. All talk apparently. The Greens offered up no new motion or recommendation. Perhaps they have some explanation - in which case, we want to hear it and publish it.

Three political parties or one big land-corporation?

All three parties seem to have become completely subservient to the developers and their agenda of growing Victoria (and Australia's) population just in order to promote inflation of their assets and demand for their products. There is much evidence to suggest that the ALP is no longer a real political party but more of a land-development corporation (see articles here), but the absolute lack of real opposition from Greens or Liberals to the way that the Labor government promotes its party's own financial agenda makes observers wonder what the pay-offs are.

The "Greens"

Most activists realise now that they cannot expect any kind of democratic reform from the Liberal or the Labor party. But many still had illusions about the Greens.

Maybe Victorians need to realise that branding - as in calling a party "Green" doesn't make it green. I mean, do you buy a dishwashing detergent just because it comes in a green bottle and calls itself 'environmental'? or do you look at the ingredients? Do you vote for a politician because they are a member of the "Greens" or do you look at the politician's record on ecological fundamentals - population, development and democracy?

Parties and politicians need to be judged by their actions and inactions. All the parties have politicians who are only ever seen or heard around election time, often in a photograph with the party leader, endorsing some motherhood cliche.

Others, more sophisticated, have developed a technique of trailing enticing isolated soundbites on issues of significance - population, development and democracy - but if you look more closely, you see that their parties have policies not unlike those of the State Labor government. For instance, check out the Greens' policies on Land-use planning. Not a word about avoiding population growth. Tim Murray's comments here about 'The Green Contradiction' are very apt, even though he is talking about Canadian Greens.

Truly, we are in dire need of new independent candidates. More activists should step forward and give it a go - outside the parties. Consider forming alliances of community independents.

Victorians urgently need someone else to vote for besides the Greens, Labor and the Liberals, or we are doomed. Let us hope for an outcome at the very least similar to the Federal election outcome, which gave the public for the first time in many decades, the possibility of real choice over policy directions.

Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands writes:

"We consider that candidates standing in the forthcoming elections should be questioned on this issue and asked if they would consider acting to rescind Planning Amendment Clause 16, VC 71. We understand that the Liberal Party has recently advertised in a local paper that "a Coalition Government is committed to scrapping John Brumby's planning law changes." PPL VIC will circulate details of candidates election forums. Please send me details of any in your area for which you would like publicity."

REFERENCES

[1]
On Wednesday October 6th, the Coalition moved a motion to remove clause 16 from Amendment VC71 which Madden had signed 2 weeks earlier. This was a rewrite of the old clause 12 that had been sliced off VC67 earlier in the year, and resurrected in VC71 in the form of clause 16:

Link to the current clause 16 in VC71.

This will give developers an easy road to high density high rise development along tram train and bus routes and in and around all hundreds of Activity Centres. (see below quote from VC71 clause 16) This will allow indiscriminate development all over Melbourne. This will enable developers to win easily in VCAT, residents and councils would be rendered powerless in opposing high rise on transport routes and around Activity Centres, including even Neighbourhood Centres.

[2] Speech by Mr Barber

Hansard: Wednesday, 6 October 2010 COUNCIL PROOF 109 (pp.105-112 includes other speakers)

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — It is amazing. It has taken four years and I never thought it would happen, but Ms Mikakos and I agree on something in relation to planning. Ms Mikakos described this proposal by the government as policy neutral, which is a very post-modern Labor way of saying, ‘The document actually does nothing’ — and I
agree. This document, which appears to update and make changes to the highest level decisions and aims of our planning scheme, does nothing. We all know with the sorts of environmental, social and economic pressures on our city that doing nothing right now is not really an option. In a way, doing nothing is making a decision. It allows the invisible hand of the market to have its way, and when you intervene it is usually at the
ministerial level, site by site, favour by favour. Let us have a look at this policy-neutral document in front of us. If we take Ms Mikakos at her word, it is policy neutral in relation to the supply of urban land, but in fact having just voted on an expansion to the urban growth boundary (UGB), which the Greens opposed, this material anticipates the next extension of the urban growth boundary. It is policy neutral in the sense that we will continue to have the oxymoron known as a growth boundary, which really means
sprawl-for-ever. It is policy neutral in relation to planning for growth areas. When we debated the UGB and the growth areas infrastructure charge the Greens knew the
major issue then was the failure of planning for growth areas, not just in the sense of structure planning but in all the matters that go along with a livable community on a greenfield site. It is policy neutral — that is to say it does nothing in relation to structure planning, a phrase that first popped up when Melbourne 2030 landed on our city like a group of lost aliens and said, ‘Take us to your leader’, or more importantly, ‘We are in charge now’. Structure planning was meant to indicate that councils would take control of how development was to occur in activity centres. The amendment is policy neutral in relation to open space, which is to say that the government will continue to chip away at it where it is most needed, where it is already underprovided. Nothing in this will protect open space, particularly when even what we think of as open space turns out not to be zoned for public purposes. Nothing in this suggests that land used as open space and essential to the community must have an appropriate zoning, let alone the kind of zoning that can just be wiped away in an instant at the stroke of a pen by the minister. That is exactly what happened in relation to the Abbotsford convent until we fought the government back. The document is policy neutral in relation to activity centre hierarchy because we just do not have one. Sure, we have different forms of activity centres listed in a document, but it does not tell us what will then be the fate of each of those activity centres. The amendment is policy neutral in relation to employment corridors. When I asked the minister in hearings with the Growth Areas Authority what the idea of the employment corridors was he could not really explain it to me. Mr Guy is not here and I do not want to verbal him, but I had the same conversation with him. What does it mean? It says: Develop the following employment corridors: Avalon Airport to Werribee, Melton, Melbourne Airport and Donnybrook (Hume-Mitchell). Who will work there and what will they do? Who said that that will be a great place for a set of industries? Under this same section transport networks are being provided that will allow circumferential in addition to radial movements. That means that you can be a metalworker living in Werribee and working in Warrandyte and every day on the Western Ring Road you can pass another metalworker who does the opposite and you can wave to each other on the freeway. The amendment is policy neutral in the sense that the government will just keep on building roads and people will just keep on driving on them. The government will not ask us about how we want the city to develop. We will just follow the cars that have an asphalt truck in front of them. The document is reasonably policy neutral in relation to central Melbourne because there does not seem to be a vision for central Melbourne. Between the two census periods central Melbourne added 25 000 jobs. Some of the CADs (central activities districts) have only about 25 000 jobs each. If in one census period central Melbourne added the equivalent number of jobs of a CAD, why did that happen? Is that what was intended? What will the government do about it? Why did the government not buy enough trains to get those people to work? If the government could not make provision for even those sorts of things, what chance does it have with other CADs in other locations across the landscape? We absolutely know that the amendment is policy neutral in relation to green wedges because the government has done nothing for green wedges, to protect them and their values, since it has been in power. The green wedges have been there forever. As Mr Atkinson said, the city has always been there and the green wedges have always been there. The government has recognised them in policy occasionally. As with the CADs, the test is what the government did and what this document does to protect and enhance the values of the green wedges. The fact is that they are chipped away every year. Land values, in farming, the landscape and biodiversity, are in decline in the green wedges. The document is certainly policy neutral in relation to wildfire. That in itself is a minor scandal given that members of this place have spent an awfully long time talking about wildfire and the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and its recommendations. I go back to what the recommendations in relation to planning are so that we can remind ourselves that they are not being implemented, at least not through this exercise. The bushfires royal commission wanted a number of tasks done. In terms of actual strategic planning, these were the specific recommendations: The state amend the Victoria planning provisions relating to bushfire to ensure that the provisions give priority to the protection of human life, adopt a clear objective of substantially restricting development in the areas of highest bushfire risk — giving due consideration to biodiversity conservation — and provide clear guidance for decision-makers. The amendments should take account of the conclusions reached by the commission and do the following: outline the state’s objectives for managing bushfire risk through land use planning in an amended state planning policy for bushfire, as set out in clause 15.07 of the Victoria planning provisions — It is not there in this effort — allow municipal councils to include a minimum lot size for use of land for a dwelling, both with and without a permit, in a schedule to each of the rural living zone, green wedge zone, green wedge A zone, rural conservation zone, farming zone and rural activity zone amend clause 44.06 of the Victoria planning provisions to provide a comprehensive bushfire-prone overlay provision. The commission then goes on to talk about a number of other changing rules for various decision-makers and referral authorities, including the Country Fire Authority. It suggests some considerable changes being made to those, changes that cannot be seen in the document that is being considered here. It is possible that the government is working on this and it will bring forward another document, but there is no alacrity. There must have been some kind of momentum behind this particular document, which is a complete review, if you like, of the overarching state planning policy framework, but it seems to have overtaken the efforts that we are making in relation to bushfire, which I would have thought were urgent. I spoke about that at length in various responses to the bushfires royal commission, and I have spoken about it in relation to particular planning decisions that have been made since February 2009. I do not really need to speak to it much more but simply point out that the government has failed at that particular hurdle. In relation to the continuing chipping away of productive agricultural land, which is a problem at the urban fringe but also in those leapfrog growth areas such as the Macedon Ranges, again there is nothing in the amendment from the point of view of protecting productive agricultural land, which we can expect to shrink over time under the climate change scenario. Members of the coalition are looking very worried. On a matter of procedure I just want to tell people not to despair because there are two possibilities when we come back here in February. One is that the coalition parties are in government and Mr Guy is the planning minister, in which case they can rewrite this amendment however they want. The second possibility is that we are back here and where we started, at which point this amendment is still a disallowable instrument. The capacity to disallow this or any part of it, including the small part that Mr Guy is going after today, will still be disallowable when we get back here in February, and no doubt in our first sitting week in March, because the clock will not have run out on it. There is plenty of time; there is no shortage of time. I know that some members are looking at the clock. There is no shortage of time, firstly, for the coalition to put out an alternative vision to what is here and, secondly, for Mr Guy to become planning minister, if the planets line up. The worst-case scenario is that if the opposition is fair dinkum about what it is saying tonight, it can come back and make the same motion in February, and it will not have run out of time. It is policy neutral in relation to Aboriginal cultural heritage, but of most concern, I would have thought, to people thinking years down the track is the impact on our rural landscape, which has been under pressure ever since this new form of planning scheme has been in place. Having addressed Ms Mikakos’s issues I now want to pick up on what Mr Atkinson, the mover of the motion, said. He said he is worried that this provision is indiscriminate. Everything in the planning scheme is indiscriminate. ‘Nothing’ means ‘nothing’ under this planning scheme, and that is the way the Liberals, when last in government, designed it. That is the way that Labor, for 11 years, has kept it. It loves it. What we are really debating here is a by-law. There is the Planning and Environment Act, and then there is a by-law to the act, which this thing is. However, what we are told is that it is a wonderful form of law because it is performance-based; it is objective-based. The very things that Mr Atkinson is objecting to today, on behalf of Mr Guy, are in fact objectives; that is all they are. They are objectives to be achieved. We would never vote for an objective-based traffic law. Would we come in here and say, ‘We’re passing this new law and there will be some by-laws worked out later by the minister, but effectively what they will say is that the objective of the traffic law is “Don’t kill people”, and here is a table of preferred maximum speeds’. It would be like these preferred maximum heights that the Liberal-Labor coalition is so keen on when it comes to every other aspect, including the Windsor Hotel, which we could have had a crack at if we had had our chance. Preferred maximum speeds are designed to achieve more objectives. As a driver you can consider the different factors at play. There will be a list. There will be decision guidelines underneath that you have to check off. If someone says you are doing the wrong thing, you go to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, spin the wheel of fortune and argue about whether or not you were speeding. At VCAT you can bring in various kind of road consultants, perhaps physicists, mechanical engineers and so forth to prove that on balance — not as a matter of law, but on balance, when all the different parts of the decision-making guidelines are considered — that you were generally compliant with the preferred maximum speed on the Geelong Road. That is an extremely contrasting example, I have to say, but this is an extremely important issue. We are trying to do some really important things here — maybe not as immediately important as road safety, but important for the entire fate of all the people who live in Melbourne. It is sometimes their physical wellbeing, sometimes their access to buildings, if the question is accessibility and sometimes their ability to afford a house, if the question is affordability, which we can come back to when we debate this motion a bit further. It is very much their direct and daily welfare, but it is also our shared welfare. It is our social, economic and environmental future. It includes things such as biodiversity, which we want to pass on to generations to come and which in a way are not really ours to mess with. We might think we are the Parliament, that we are elected and that people gave us the job to make a lot of decisions, but there are certain decisions that I think should be virtually out of bounds because they are for future generations. We might pride ourselves on being in a liberal democracy, but it was a reasonably democratic liberal democracy that sat down and made the very considered decision to kill all the Tasmanian tigers. Unfortunately today’s Tasmanian Parliament does not get to vote them back into existence. When it comes to matters of biodiversity, environment and the future legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren for many generations to come we have to be extraordinarily careful in the way we exercise that power. Mr Atkinson said he was worried about consultation in relation to the way planning schemes were amended, if I understood him correctly. The mechanisms for consultation and having your say under amendments to the planning scheme I would say are fundamentally the same as they always were under the Kennett government that created this architecture. The bigger question, though — and there is no doubt that Mr Atkinson thinks very deeply about these things — is the proper planning of the city. He said it is the major issue. He said the opposition is not opposed to high density. He said it is not opposed to a number of other things as well. Unfortunately over the four years I have been here I have discovered to my cost that the opposition is not opposed to development assessment committees. It was opposed to them for a while. Then it got scared and decided they were all right. The opposition is not opposed to urban sprawl. It is not opposed to the growth areas infrastructure charge. It is not opposed to raking in the same sorts of donations from developers that the government of the day does, but the opposition thinks the donations are a bit cleaner in its hands simply because it is not the government writing these planning schemes at the moment. However, the opposition is writing them because ever since the Greens have been here we have been bringing these matters up for debate, and the opposition was never opposed to Mr Madden’s intervention on the Yarra River down there at Richmond or down there on the bay — — Mr P. Davis — Yes, we were, actually; some of us were opposed to that. Mr BARBER — No, you may have been opposed, but you did not vote that way, Mr Davis. And you were not opposed to Mr Madden’s intervention down there in Williamstown, despite the fact that the entire community, Joan Kirner, Steve Bracks and the local council were all opposed to that intervention.

The Greens were opposed to it too. The coalition and the Labor Party were not. There is a certain point when you need to be opposed to a few things. It is a good start to say what you are against, what you are not for. If you can go on from that, you can start talking about what you are in favour of. I am in favour of all the things the government lists in its table here. That is what planning is for — it is to allow for changing things we want to change and protecting things we want to protect. Unfortunately Ms Mikakos’s policy-neutral document does not give those sorts of things the protection they need, and therefore I am against it. I am against the lack of protection in Ms Mikakos’s planning scheme, inherited from those guys. Mr Atkinson quite rightly pointed out that in established areas we need infrastructure. He was talking about drains and sewers, but there is a lot more to that when you are running an inner city or even middle suburban municipality. It is very important. That is why the Greens support enhanced developer contribution plans, not just out in the greenfield areas where you have the growth areas infrastructure contribution now but also in established areas where the question of infrastructure provision is a lot harder. The densification builds up very quickly. You cannot simply create new open space. You cannot always shoehorn in community infrastructure such as child-care centres; it is very expensive to do so. What you are really doing is site-by-site development. You are supposed to be giving the money to councils so they can provide something for all of the residents, both established and new, but the trigger is new. If you have ever tried to deal with one of these developer contribution plans, you know it is an absolute nightmare. The way it is structured under the planning scheme and under the Planning and Environment Act makes it not worth doing. It is hopeless. Some councils have looked at doing them. I know the City of Darebin did one and it has barely collected any money from it so far. It probably has not even paid back the cost of going through the exercise, which the government forced it to do.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Quark writes about how the mainstream press is becoming increasingly hysterical in its promotion of growth lobby propaganda, particularly since the Australian Federal election in August 2010.

This article was originally placed as a comment to Tim Murray's article, "Four Stages in Finding a Mechanism for Rapid Population Decline,"

Quark writes about how the mainstream press is becoming increasingly hysterical in its promotion of growth lobby propaganda, particularly since the Australian Federal election in August 2010.

Since the Australian Federal election in August it seems any talk in the public realm of population sanity in Australia has been drowned out by articles in the mainstream press e.g The Australian, The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, embracing a large population, rubbishing a "sustainable population" and lecturing on how Australia's population will grow anyway no matter what the federal government does.

Just as there is a difference between a tree right next to my back door growing to 4 metres with a slender trunk and it growing to 50 metres with girth half the width of my house, the rate of population growth over which governments certainly do have control makes a difference to where we are in 2050. One would think 2050 by the way is the year that time will end given the number of references to it in demographic predictions and projections. In addition, federal government politicians have all received a "Red Book" delivered from Treasury containing sage advice . It seems the bureaucrats are telling the government that there must be no more nonsense about a sustainable population.
According to a "PM" interview on September 24th the Red Book says it's all about infrastructure and planning.

"MARK COLVIN: What about population growth which was such an issue during the election campaign and on which Julia Gillard appeared to back away from Kevin Rudd's idea of the big Australia?

LYNDAL CURTIS: Yes in fact both sides of politics did but Treasury says if the net overseas migration averages only 60,000 a year over the next 40 years, a figure it says has been exceeded in 25 of the last 30 years, the population will be 29 million by 2050.

It says given the powerful forces driving the economy, net immigration figures in excess of that are probably inescapable but it says strong population growth is not necessarily unsustainable providing the planning is right. And it says there are concerns about the level of planning that has been done and it says there's a chronic under-investment in infrastructure. "

The Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday that the "Think Tank" Centre for Independent Studies has just come out with a report on Australia's population which "...... tested 36 scenarios using different combinations of migration levels, fertility rates and life expectancy. Population would grow under every scenario except in the unlikely event where migration was cut to zero, the birth rate plummeted and life expectancy stagnated." ("Bigger Australia as certain as death and taxes," Sydney Morning Herald, Oct 7th)

Since Australia's birth rate is now approximately twice the death rate this is not surprising although without immigration our population would stabilise towards mid-century.

What the Centre for Independent Studies gets out of this is that the government should not even think it has any control over future population levels but simply plan for a larger population in terms of infrastructure.

This conclusion of the C.I.S. appears from the article to be so simplistic that if Clive Hamilton's sanity and logic had not been reported, the thinking coming out of this might have been widely accepted by those who read the article. Mr. Hamilton points out and is reported in the article that it does in fact make a difference if Australia's population increases by 3 or 14 million.

Nationalism is a domestic reaction to foreign invasion (be it militarily or by mass immigration) and the consequential displacement of the local population - real or perceived.

Foreigners visiting are guests and are welcome. But foreigners arriving as permanent settlers threaten to compete with the territory and rights of the local ancestral population - again, real or perceived. So any immigration program warrants prior approval by the local population, and sensitive and respectful settling, adjustment, communication and time and space for assimilation to integrate.

Humans are territorial by nature. Foreigners visiting are guests and are welcome. But foreigners arriving as permanent settlers can threaten to be competition with the local population - again, real or perceived. So the immigration process demands local acceptance and careful and respectful settling, adjustment, communication and time and space for foreigner assimilation with the local ancestral population.

History has shown that over time, foreigners can become accepted by the local population if assimilation is carefully managed in small doses over time. The rate needs to be evolutionary not revolutionary.

Britain's foreign invasion of Australia never respected or tried to assimilate with the local Aboriginal peoples. It is a lesson of history still not learnt in Australia.

When many foreigners arrive as permanent settlers, ancestral locals feel their territory and rights naturally threatened, like all territorial animals.

When social pressures ensue (higher costs of living, higher rents, higher house prices, jobs filled by immigrants, increased unemployment, congestion of public infrastructure - roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, child care, migrant favouritism in the workplace) such domestic fears are confirmed. Resentment then builds.

Mass immigration is by definition non-military invasion. Nationalism is a domestic reaction to foreign invasion. Stop the mass immigration and nationalism pressures subside. Read history and learn from it. Nationalism is always just below the surface in any established identifiable community.

Australia's open-door policy on immigration is driven by the short-term published yet narrow economic benefits and lobbied by those who stand to personally gain financially. But Australia's open-door policy on immigration is ignorant of the social consequence and longer term capital burden of requisite infrastructure.

Australia's LibLab politics of mass immigration is set to fuel fervent nationalism for years to come. Sydney's Cronulla Riot of 2005 was one of unchecked localised domestic resentment to foreigners.

The riot was a spontaneous groundswell by local juveniles defending their traditional beach turf from a perceived invasion of gangs of arrogant Middle Eastern immigrants muscling in. It was classic tribal territorial reaction and a regrettable chapter in Australian history. Since that ugly time, the relationship between the two groups has cooled due to concerted efforts by all parties to work together. But the underlying cause of the riot was the Immigration Department's abandonment of assimilation.

The Cronulla Riot was a warning to all national governments who choose to narrow-mindedly ignore the domestic social implications of uncontrolled mass immigration and who abandon immigration assimilation principles. If perpetuated, mass immigration and the displacement it causes to traditional populations may in future be more co-ordinated and organised.

Our politicians do not study social history and they are the cause of the problem, not the immigrants themselves. Australia should learn from the Fijian experience of mass immigration by Indians, which ended up outnumbering the indigenous Indo-Fijians. indigenous Fijian Commodore Frank Bainimarama stated that:

" his main reasons for overthrowing the Qarase government were that it was corrupt, and that it was conducting racially discriminatory policies against the country's Indo-Fijian minority. In a speech publicly announcing the coup, he stated that Qarase's policies had "divided the nation now and will have very serious consequences to our future generations".
[Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Bainimarama#Explaining_the_coup]

It is critical for social cohesion in any country, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand or anywhere that immigration is carefully planned, implemented and monitored and that assimilation is effective through to full integration. For governments to abandon its core protective responsibility of the ancestral rights of its citizenry is unpalatable in its social consequences.

National public water rights and environmental advocacy group Fair Water Use is encouragedby the broad recommendations made in the guide to the draft Basin Plan released earlier today by the Murray Darling Basin Authority, but is concerned that Federal and State parliamentarians will use the forthcoming consultation period to justify softening of the Plan for short term electoral advantage, rather than to promote the long term interests of the river system and its communities.

The group’s national coordinator, Ian Douglas, commented this afternoon, "The progressive degradation of the Murray-Darling cannot be resolved without significant impact upon those who were previously encouraged by successive governments to overexploit the waters of the nation’s most vital rivers."

Fair Water Use believes that Australian governments must shoulder much of the blame for the crisis, as a result of a raft of inept policies, including the hyper-allocation of Murray-Darling water, the COAG decision of 1994 to develop a national "water industry" and the promotion of agribusiness-based managed investment schemes.

"Basin communities have themselves been exploited by Federal and State administrations and the pro-market lobby and have every right to feel aggrieved", Dr Douglas added.

A politically fudged and compromised Basin Plan will be no friend to those who seek to make responsible use of Murray-Darling water. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority must be allowed to develop its Basin Plan free from pressure from those who fail to grasp, or choose to ignore, the profound, long term, economic, social and environmental implications of a degraded Murray-Darling river system.

"Governments must now devise concerted regional development initiatives, to enable Basin communities to transition to a sustainable future," Dr Douglas concluded.

See also: Murray Darling Basin plan must not become a political football

The mass slaughter of rhinos have continued in South Africa and with the indiscriminate
slaughter of more than 250 rhinos since January 2010 it can only be described as a
genocide; with all due respect to the human race. The slaughter has been fuelled by man’s greed and the recent arrests of various prominent business men, professional hunters and game farm owners have rocked South African communities.

The manager of a well-known game farm called Maremani in the Mussina district and
owned by the AAGE. V. Jensen Charity Foundation Mr. Tommie Fourie (52) have systematically been de-horning rhinos on the property and selling the horns. He appeared in the court in Mussina on the 1st November on charges of the illegal rhino horn. It is alleged that he sold 36 rhino horns to a prominent game farmer in the Thabazimbi area Mr. Jacques Els (36).

Els handed himself over to the authorities and was released on bail of R30 000.00. He
was also charged for the illegal trade in rhino horns. He admitted that he also dehorned some of his own rhinos without the necessary permits. When he was asked about the alleged sale of rhino horn between him and Fourie, he denied this vehemently.
I only held onto someone’s horns for them. He reiterated that he was not involved in the illegal poaching of rhinos.

Earlier the owner of a safari operator, his wife and a professional hunter are alleged to
be some of the masterminds arrested and taken into custody for rhino poaching.

Mr. Dawie Groenewald (42) a director of Out of Africa Adventurous Safaris in Polokwane Limpopo South Africa and the alleged master mind behind the poaching syndicate, his wife Sariette (34) and Tielman Erasmus a professional hunter all spent a couple of day behind bars before they were released on bail.

They were arrested on the 20th September along with Drs. Carel Toet and Manie du
Plessis of the Nylstroom Animal Clinic and Toet’s wife Marisa.

Source: newsletter, October, 2010 San Wild

Midday: Anti Desal Plant Rally on steps of parliament, Melbourne. All supporters welcome. After that, go to the Upper House Gallery, Parliament House,and show your support to the Opposition's motion to Overturn Amendment VC71

Anti Desal Plant Rally, Wednesday 6 October, midday until 1.30

Watershed (formerly Your Water, Your Say) – those protesting the now infamous Desal Plant at Wonthaggi, ARE HOLDING A RALLY ON THE STEPS OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE, calling for the very expensive and deeply troubled project to be scrapped. You are enthusiastically invited to support them by being there – after all, its OUR money and OUR future too, not just theirs.

Parliament House – Opposition To Overturn Amendment VC71

Wednesday 6 October (time to be advised but likely afternoon)

Matthew Guy, Shadow Planning, will be moving a motion in the Upper House to get rid of the terrible Amendment VC71 that was approved by Planning Minister Justin Madden last week. VC71 is a terrible amendment and terrible planning which puts Melbourne 2030 across all of Victoria, forcing metro standards on country areas, and makes it obligatory to have high rise and high density across the metro area (these provisions could also be applied in country areas).

Please show your support for getting rid of this horrid amendment by being at Parliament House Upper House gallery if you can. If you haven’t been to parliament before, here’s your chance to see how our democracy works (or not).

Also, please encourage Greg Barber (Greens) greg.barber[at]parliament.vic.gov.au and Peter Kavanagh (DLP) peter.kavanagh[at]parliament.vic.gov.au to support Matthew Guy’s motion by sending a message to both.

Source: Christine Pruneau of Macedon Ranges' Residents Association (MRRA)

4th October 2010

Jan Beer, Plug The Pipe spokesperson and environmental activist in opposition to North-South Pipeline, is taking legal action against Government Agency Melbourne Water for alleged infringements of her right to privacy over a 2 year period.

Mrs Beer was photographed, video-taped and followed whilst the pipeline was being constructed. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard this morning that over 100 documents exist detailing the monitoring of Ms Beer by Melbourne Water.

“At no time during this period was I informed who the people collecting my information were employed by, why they were collection my information, and what it would be used for" says Mrs Beer.

“I felt harassed, persecuted and along with other opponents of the pipeline have been branded a “quasi-terrorist” by a Minister of the Victorian Government. In fact I feel as though I have been treated like a dangerous terrorist that needed to be silenced” said Mrs Beer “ It is like living under a dictatorship, rather than a democracy, where people have the right to peacefully protest.”

A Memorandum of Understanding is in place for the North-South Pipeline, similar to that for the Desalination Plant, between Melbourne Water and the Victorian Police. It is possible that the information collected on Ms Beer has been transferred to other parties pursuant to the MoU.

“The sheer volume of information collected on my client is astounding” said Elizabeth McKinnon, solicitor at the Environment Defenders Office. “At issue in the proceedings is whether Melbourne Water attempted to comply with the Information Privacy Act in relation to the management of protest activity at the site”.

The next hearing in this matter will take place in February 2011.

Freeway proponents' argument for clearing push prior to provision of net gain offsets:
"Their main argument was that granting this injunction would cost them millions of dollars. They did not challenge that the Incorporated Document said the offsets should be in place prior to construction. They did not produce a list of offsets that are being considered." (Gillian Collins)

Ed. The below was written by Gillian Collins. The only editorial changes are the use of subtitles and emphasis by formatting changes. Note that VCAT stands for Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal - an institution where Victorian laws are meant to be administered in a relatively low key and inexpensive way by 'members' who are usually not professionally legally trained.

"At the VCAT Directions hearing yesterday, the Frankston North Community Group, Inc., Pines Protectors, was represented by Felicity Millner of the Environment Defenders Office, and Barristers Julie Davis and Stephen Grant. Julie Davis presented the argument. And I was there.

The LMA, Southern Way, and AbiGroup had a total of 19 lawyers, solicitors, and helpers, including one Queens Council for LMA. Frankston City Council and Mornington Council each had one lawyer there. Neither supported our application, which was very disappointing.

Four against 19 - David and Goliath indeed.

At the hearing in the Administrative Division, Planning and Environment section, we asked for an Interim injunction to prevent AbiGroup from clearing the two remaining sections of the Peninsula Link right-of-way that still contain rare and endangered plant communities - the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve and the Eastlink interchange Herb rich Grassy Wetlands - until the entire application could be heard. That may take up to six months.

Conservationists' Argument

"Our argument was fairly simple - the Incorporated Document in the Frankston and Mornington Planning Schemes that give permission for the project state that net gain offsets will be provided prior to the beginning of construction and works."

Ms Davis presented the evidence based on the documents and Ms Millner and Mr. Grant supported her with additional points. It took about an hour and 15 minutes.

The rest of the 4 hour hearing was taken up with the QC and other lawyers presenting the defence, plus a 10 minute break. Their affidavit from Geoff Rayner of LMA was only presented shortly before the hearing, and it was huge, so neither the Judge nor our representatives had had time to read it.

"During their testimony, they actually presented a new version of the Environment Management Plan. Quite extraordinary."

Freeway proponents' argument

"Their main argument was that granting this injunction would cost them millions of dollars. They did not challenge that the Incorporated Document said the offsets should be in place prior to construction. They did not produce a list of offsets that are being considered. They did produce a letter from Mark Winfield from DSE dated after the Incorporated Document saying they had one year to produce them. They created lots of date discussion that seemed without any relevance to the application."

We finished about 7:00pm with the Judge saying that she will have her decision on the interim injunction by close of day on Monday. The date for the regular appeal about the offsets will probably be set then."

Source:
Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors
0414 309 960

The ALP’s 2006 election promise was to protect ‘the last significant stands of old growth planned for logging’. But environment groups say that most of what has recently been identified for protecton was either in existing protection zones, had already been logged or was degraded forest unwanted for logs or woodchips anyway.

For at least the third time, the Government today announced the new additions to the reserve system in East Gippsland. The ALP’s 2006 election promise was to protect ‘the last significant stands of old growth planned for logging’.

But environment groups say that most of what has been protected was either in existing protection zones, had already been logged or was degraded forest unwanted for logs or woodchips anyway.

“We’re pleased some areas of old growth have been put into National Park, but they account for only about one quarter to a third of what the state government is claiming has been saved from logging”, said Jill Redwood from Environment East Gippsland.

"The government is to be praised on its clever recycling of protected zones back into protected zones, and logged forest into National Park. It’s mostly been a creative game of swaps.”

“However the protection of Yalmy’s forests and Goolengook’s magnificent old growth and rainforest is very welcome, despite Goolengook’s heart having been logged out.”

“The areas have taken four years to be finalised, while DSE accommodated the logging industry’s demands over this election promise. Meanwhile thousands of hectares of old growth and mature forests were clearfelled in the interim. Like an extinct species, they will never return.”

“This includes forests at Brown Mountain, which had recognised old growth values and supported endangered wildlife. If the government didn’t consider Brown Mountain ‘significant old growth’ it shows how many other equally magnificent forests have been condemned to clearfelling.”

“The new parks announcement today is at least a start."

For comment: Jill Redwood (03) 5154 0145

Source: MEDIA RELEASE, "Government recycles announcements and logged forest,"Friday 1st October 2010

Jill Redwood,
Coordinator,
Environment East Gippsland Inc
(6800 Bonang Rd Goongerah)
Locked Bag 3,
ORBOST Vic 3888
www.eastgippsland.net.au

FORESTS - our breathing space!

Comments yesterday from Tony Burke, Federal Minister with responsibility for water, appear to infringe upon the statutory independence of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, according to environmental and public water rights advocacy group, Fair Water Use.

Comments yesterday from Tony Burke, Federal Minister with responsibility for water, appear to infringe upon the statutory independence of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, according to environmental and public water rights advocacy group, Fair Water Use.

Commenting on the long-awaited Basin Plan being drafted by the Authority, Mr Burke indicated that he was worried that the Plan may not be considering the “knock-on” impacts, upon regional businesses, of reduced diversions from the Murray-Darling river system.

There can be little doubt that the Authority is all too well aware of the full, regional implications of an effective Basin Plan. However, as acknowledged by its Chair, the Authority is required to place the health of the river system above all other concerns – and for sound reasons.

The Authority knows that it cannot rely on unpredictable flooding rains to maintain the river system. Unless outflows from the Murray mouth are significantly increased year on year, the nation’s most vital rivers will continue to degrade as a result of salinisation and increased toxin load.

However, the Minister’s comments can only place extreme pressure on the Authority to dilute its recommendations and thereby compromise the future of the river system and all who depend upon it.

The Federal Government is to be lauded for moving to address the endemic mismanagement of the Murray-Darling. However, the long term interests of Basin communities will be best served by carefully designed regional development initiatives - not by a timid and ineffective Basin Plan.

All photos in this story were by Rod Binnington. Some cropping and resizing was done by the editors.

People wanted to know who owned the Westerfield property. The government had said that it owned the property and the police had said last week that it was 99% likely that the government did, but that they could not be categorical. On Tuesday they would not even discuss the question. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to compulsory acquisition about who owns what. Two fantails came out of the trees and flew down towards the men and their machines in a dancing pattern, almost attacking the machines. The men standing by the machines ducked to avoid the tiny birds. Then the little birds returned to their trees and sat there, as if they had made their final statement. See also LMA (was SEITA) Bulldozers trash bushland from Westerfield to the Pines

Tuesday 28 September at Westerfield.

Protesters realised that this was going to be the big day because the Abbeygroup workers, who had previously talked and been friendly enough to the protesters, stopped looking at them, or glared and laughed at them. They lined up as if they were troops in a war and four big machines started rolling in.

Road blocks prevented access for protesters and observers initally

There were only about twenty protesters on site at 6.30 am, perhaps in part because the police had closed off Robinsons road at each end, before and after the entrance to Westerfield. This meant that people who wanted to come into the Westerfield driveway could not enter. The protesters managed to have the barricades moved so that people could still enter the Westerfield property driveway. More protesters arrived later.

Rumours of more and more police arriving

The protesters heard rumours from Robinsons Rd that more and more police were going to turn up. Eventually something around 100 police came through the bush in single file. There were enough of them to man the perimeters of the site. The main police coordinator gave the protesters ten minutes to get off the property. The police refused to answer questions and would only say that they were enforcing the trespassing law.

Compulsory aquisition - a mystery to most Australians

People wanted to know who owned the Westerfield property. The government had said that it owned the property and the police had said last week that it was 99% likely that the government did, but that they could not be categorical. On Tuesday they would not even discuss the question. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to compulsory acquisition about who owns what.

Police give protesters 10 minutes to get out

After the police gave the protesters ten minutes to get off the property or be prosecuted for trespassing, the protesters discussed what they could do. Gillian Collins, who had been the main organiser of the protests there, said that she was not going to stay to be arrested because she has relatives in the United States and that if a person has a criminal record, they are not allowed to enter the US. She then walked away.

Some people remained, however.

The police moved in and more people retreated.

Joyce and Simon, who owned the property now seized by the government to make a freeway, were among the last to leave. Some protesters withdrew sadly to watch events from behind the 2 meters high wire mesh security fence which had been made virtually impenetrable.

Carey Priest's heroic action and others arrested

Carey Priest, memorable for his politeness under pressure, led the next protest action by climbing a tree, where he remained for about two hours, despite the trees all around falling under Abbeygroup's bulldozers. People admired Carey's action very much, and he was arrested for his trouble. So was his girlfriend, Ellen. Five people were arrested in total: Carey, his girlfriend Ellen, then Neil and Mark Adams and another whose name is not available to candobetter.org.

They were released within half an hour with bits of paper containing something vague in writing about how they would be prosecuted and fined $2,500 and or jailed if they returned to the property. Of course there wasn't anything to return to by the time they were released.

David vs Goliath Machines

The presence of the machines was overpowering. It felt like David and Goliath, with Goliath - the machines - winning. To remain and protest demanded courage from the humans, but other species were to suffer far more.

Just after the police had rolled in and lectured the protesters, five of those giant machines lined up to flatten the forest, and two courageous fantails came out of the trees and flew down towards the men and their machines in a dancing pattern, almost attacking the machines. The men standing by the machines ducked to avoid the tiny birds. Then the little birds returned to their trees and sat there, as if they had made their final statement.

A number of people observed that the wildlife carers employed by Abbeygroup who were meant to be rescuing animals during the destruction did not seem to know what they were doing. People yelled out to the lead wildlife carer, "Do you know what you are doing?" because it seemed so obvious that they were only there for the look of things.

The process of destruction was just so rapid. The bulldozers were operating in two areas. On the north side of the dam and the south east side, where the protesters had had their camp for months on Robinsons road. The protesters just stood and watched helplessly, thinking all kinds of thoughts.

Rod Binnington took this photograph of Simon standing by himself watching the destruction of a third of the grounds of his home which his wife and he had spent much of their lives protecting for the flora and fauna now dead or dying and dispossessed. Joyce knew every tiny plant in that property and all the birds. How bleak politics must seem them now. Although the house has been spared, a third of the property has gone. Most of the community doesn't even realise what is happening, let alone the extent of it.

Government has put itself above the law

If it can happen to Westerfield, it can happen to any of us.

Westerfield had everything going for it to be spared from the bulldozers. All the 'boxes' had been ticked, so the protest should have worked.

In a Hansard presentation by Greens Sue Pennicuick, 5 or 6 pages long, one was devoted to Westerfield. In this she described a way of dealing with the traffic flow that would not involve freeways. There were so many logical alternatives. Many people came up with them but they were just ignored.

Despite the so-called ticked boxes, the gov does whatever it likes. Although there was a VCAT hearing in progress, according to an ABC report, the government has claimed that the clearing work has been approved by the relevant bodies and is not subject to the VCAT hearings.

People say that Justin Madden is just a rubber stamp for the government which wants more and more people.

An observer said that, although they respected the way Gillian Collins went about organising the protests in a quiet and respectable way, they could not understand why she seemed to keep believing that what she was being told was the truth.

"The 'authorities' are laughing at us as they lie to us," he said.

Inadequate Mainstream reporting protects government from just repercussions

Something like this should be on radio and tv day and night, but the report about Westerfield on channel 10 was only a minute long. 10secs on Channel 9. They don't place importance on what the public should see. Who knows where they draw their priorities from?

A young girl there yesterday was about 20 y.o. and you could just hear her despair about the fact that all the boxes are ticked and she could see that and here she was seeing what the government could do and she was virtually saying and thinking, "What's the use of protesting?"

How long will it take her to come back from this, because it takes a lot of energy to protest against the abuse of power. Other people were also in despair. That is what the government and the growth lobby want. Poor mainstream press reporting protects the government from democratic reactions to its abuses of power.

One protester encouraged people to ring the 1300 number of Abbeygroup to tell them that there were no wildlife rescuers present when many of the trees came down. She did this to emphasise that the rhetoric of rehoming and rescuing displaced fauna is only words.

After a lot of the trees had come down, it started to rain. One of the foremen said, "Quick, get under the trees!" but there were only about two trees left standing. The protesters called out, "You would have had more trees before!"

The police should be able to refuse to enforce bad laws. Some were obviously sympathetic to the protesters willing to engage and listen to the protesters' reasons through the fence.

Teaser: The question has been asked, "What useful purpose is served by spreading the most pessimistic message possible?" The answer is that Malthusians need to convince people that our situation is extreme before they will agree to what they now perceive to be our "extreme" solutions---until then it will be "business as usual". Movies, videos and you-tubes can be more effective in conveying the extent of our clear and present danger than dry text. "The Road" is one such movie. After viewing it, many people will ask themselves, "Do I want my children or grandchildren to wind up on that road---or can we take a detour now, while there is still time?"

"I think the value of 'The Road' is to wake people up. They have to say that could be me.... The action is not to run and hide in transition towns. The action is to first realize that if the world had 1 million births a year, and we had a global population of only 70 million in 70 years there is no guarantee we could keep it together in the transition. The transition will take careful planning and people have to support both, a highly controversial process for limiting births to 1 million and that planning process. Only someone who sees a really black future like 'The Road' as the high probability event would even consider this extreme deviance from business as usual." Jack Alpert, Director of the Stanford Knowledge Integration Lab.

I have seen perhaps 100 dystopian or apocalyptic movies in my lifetime. That is what makes me such a cheerful fellow. I am gleeful at the prospect of this imperfect world tumbling down, and revel in so many calamitous possibilities. Then I remember that my dog or the people I love would most likely be among the casualties. That tends to throw a wet blanket over the whole idea of an apocalypse. I guess the people who wrote the story of the Great Flood and Sodom and Gomorah were similarly inclined. In fact, I suppose most of the great religions of human history had flood-myths or stories about how wicked and unrepentant people met a sorry end. But I notice that the prophets of these catastrophes seemed to have had an escape hatch. Noah made it through the flood, along with his family, and Lot escaped those cities of sin in time to miss Yahweh's fireballs (his wife, however, looked back and turned into a pillar of salt). And of course, many fundamentalist Christians are quite happy to see this decadent world go to hell because they will go to heaven--- raptured there at the last moment. Those who don't make the cut have no one to blame but themselves. All they had to do was accept Jesus into their hearts and keep the local preacher in the style to which he had become accustomed.

Which movie depicted the disaster scenario that seemed most likely to happen? In the first half of my life, they were movies about nuclear war. "On the Beach" was the first. Then came "The Day After" and "Testament"-- a poignant movie. But the most graphic and hard hitting was the one about a nuclear attack on the city of Sheffield, the aptly named "Threads". There is nothing like a disaster movie to show how fatally interdependent we have become. The British always seem to do it best. They have an eye on realism, while Hollywood has an eye on profits. "Hey, the people want a happy ending, so let's give it to them." But now the Americans---albeit with the help of an Australian director---- have surely taken the prize for realism with a 2009 release. Why?

Since the end of the Cold War, the mushroom cloud has faded from our nightmares. Perhaps it shouldn't have. Perhaps critical resource shortages will spark the nuclear exchange that we feared decades ago. But right now, the shortage of hydrocarbons seems to be grabbing the centre stage, jostling for attention with the spectre of global warming, which I believe will recede into second place as our nightmare flavour-of-the-month.

Until recently it seemed that "Mad Max", even with all of its cheap stunts, described our most credible disaster---a world where every drop of gas is almost more precious than water. It was a world without government, without education, medicine and social safety nets. And most conspicuously, without law and order. A world where those who survived had to be "mobile enough to scavenge, and brutal enough to pillage." I say "seemed" rather than "seems" because last night I saw a movie that hit home harder than anything that I have ever seen. It was entitled "The Road". It depicted a post-apocalyptic America of the near future, an America of crumbling ghost towns or Alpha cities with empty roads strewn with rusty broken down cars and deserted homes, malls and skyscrapers. The mood was bleak. Set in winter, it followed the wanderings of a man and his young son walking in makeshift shoes and tattered clothing down a road in search of food and shelter, only to find the countryside largely empty of survivors, as armed marauding packs, as desperate for sustenance as they were, search for people to kill and eat. If you think a nation of civilized people would not practice cannibalism then you don't know the full story of Leningrad's 900 day siege. Archives opened in the post-Soviet era confirmed that Leningraders not only ate disinterred corpses, but actually killed living people to survive.

If you want to know how miserable life was for the survivors of this particular apocalypse, imagine being on a camping trip for the rest of your life. Your clothes are wet, damp and dirty, your hair and uncut beard are filthy, your teeth are rotting, a bath or a shower is a distant memory, and your whole life is focused on getting warm and getting something to eat. There might be moments of grief and nostalgia as flashbacks of the good life come back to you. A deceased wife, a daughter, a family dog, a garden, a piano. But those dream-like intrusions were swiftly dispelled by focused desperation. And at every moment, if you were not busy trying to start a fire or look for food, you fear an ambush or an assault. The loss of a jacket or a blanket or the food that you carried to thieves could be a death sentence, unless you were killed outright. To compound the futility of the struggle, the movie was filmed without colour, in a kind of brownish sepia tone that you see in old photographs. I was reminded of "The Elephant Man", which achieved the same gloomy effect.

It was not clear what had precipitated the disaster. The landscape was lifeless. No birds. No greenery But since the ruins and cars and buildings still stood, it seems doubtful that America had been nuked. It seemed rather, that society had simply collapsed. But everything you see makes one thing apparent. There are no hydrocarbons and no energy to run anything. The cities are empty not because of a neutron bomb or chemical warfare, they are empty because they were deserted. As analysts like Rick Belfour and Richard Embleton have observed, post carbon cities of more than 20 or in some cases 30 or 40,000 people will not be able to be fed or energized. In this movie you do not see urban streets or buildings littered with dozens or hundreds of skeletons. With some exceptions, it seems that people fled and died elsewhere.

This film is as emotionally devastating, and my opinion, as realistic as it can get. I don't see any soft landings or smooth transitions in my crystal ball, so to me, it was like viewing a documentary. Had I been the director though, I would have included a vignette of a formerly delusional Green who had once been on the lecture circuit talking about how the End of Oil would usher in a New Jerusalem where people experienced a Spiritual Awakening engendered by a communal life based on sharing, caring and a rejection of materialistic values. Viewers like myself would then spend delicious moments thinking about when his delusional bubble burst. When did his epiphany come? When he realized that his battery-powered car could not be recharged? When the local health food store could no longer be supplied with Amazonian soybeans or blue-green algae harvested from some obscure Oregonian lake, or be stocked with any one of innumerable over-priced exotic herbal placebos that he once thought essential to his life? When he began to regret that off-shore oil drilling succumbed to his environmental protests? Or that his campaign to reinstate Canada's gun registry resulted in his inability to defend his family from rape and murder? I would cast a Jack Layton look-a-like in that role. The last scene would have him on the end of a rope that he threw over the limb of a tree, clutching a copy of the last Sierra Club newsletter, which offered advice as to how we might lessen our personal ecological footprints and welcome more refugees to share our country's bounty.

"The Road". See it, and then savour every moment of life in this doomed civilization.

PS For those lucky enough to be beyond the reach of the CBC , New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton was instrumental in getting his trained parliamentary seals to vote the party line and help urban MPs keep their pet boondoggle, the Gun Registry. You see, law abiding Canadians have no need for guns, as they have the police force to protect them in an emergency, as Americans did in New Orleans during Katrina. I understand that the police can be everywhere at once, and in the midst of a societal collapse, will forget about attending to the needs of their own families, and stay on the job interminably without pay.

Tim Murray

September 25, 2010

Reporting of Federal Parliament this morning was dominated with claims by Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey that the Budget is about to return to deficit and counter-claims by the Government that it is not.

The far more serious deficit, which got no mention, is the deficit to humanity's natural capital, caused by the consumption of non-renewable natural resources and the destruction of our natural environment, without which the global "economic recovery", in particular China's, would not be possible. Australia's rulers are banking on the increased demand for Australia's mineral wealth by China's vast manufacturing sector keeping prices high and money flowing into the Australian economy.

The ecological cost of the increased emission of global-warming carbon dioxide and other pollutants from China's factories and the consumption of mineral resources, which rightly belong to all future generations of Australians, as well as this one, got no mention. Also to dig up so much coal, much of Australia's natural and rural areas face devastation.

Even if China's "growth" were to continue, with its terrible environmental cost, the financial benefits to Australia are likely to be limited by other mining countries being able to fill much of the demand, thereby lowering the high prices upon which the Australian Government is depending.

The only truly sustainable economy is one which is not dependant upon the fortunes of overseas giants. Australia once had a manufacturing sector with a decently paid workforce that was able to meet almost all of its needs, even during the years of the Second World War._#main-fn1">1 Only by returning to an economy something like we had then can we hope to have true long term prosperity for all citizens which is not dependent, in a colonial fashion, upon the fortunes of large overseas nations.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">[back] According to Armed and Ready - The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945 (1995), by Andrew T. Ross, produced as part of the Australian War Musem's "Australia remembers 1945-1995" commemoration, Australian defence capability alone, largely derived from its own defence manufacturing industries, dissuaded the Japanese from invading Australia in 1945. At meetings in February and March 1942, the Japanese Navy proposed that Australia be invaded. This was vetoed by the Japanese Army. The Japanese Army vetoed the Japanese Navy's wishes because its knowledge of the Australian armed forces and its strategic knowledge of the Australian economy convinced it that it would not be able to win a war on Australian soil (pp 408-409). Andrew Ross argues that the Japanese Army's assessment of Australia's defence capability was accurate. Ross's thesis has not been challenged by any other historian in any work comparably researched since then. That Australia's own domestic resources could dissuade such a powerful, populous and militarily effective nation from invading its territory, when it had the occupied nearly all the territory to our North is surely testimony to Australia's manufacturing capability back then. Since then, Australia's leaders have allowed the edge that we have achieved to be lost. Is it too late for this nation to be able to regain that edge?

This is the sequel to our important, long-running article,"SEITA Bulldozers imminent on Westerfield Bushland Sth Frankston - Picket-line plans up to Victorian Elections" (was "SEITA Bulldozers threaten...". Update, Monday 27 September 2010: VCAT Appeal and Be ready on site for action Tuesday 28 Sep
On 21 September 2010, Gillian Collins, who has led the defense of the Pines Bushland and wildlife corridors, against the Frankston Freeway for years now, may have taken her final physical stand on this on the battlefield at Westerfield, where she has been manning a picket-line since Monday 5 July 2010. I doubt, however, that we have heard Gillian's last word on this matter, because as she went down, she was brandishing papers and talking barristers.


[Clarification: Linking Melbourne Authority is the new organisation or name which has replaced SEITA in this section of the Freeway. It's hard to keep up with these name changes.]

Update, Monday 27 September 2010: VCAT Appeal and Be ready on site for action Tuesday 28 Sep

Here is news from the front concerning the threatened destruction of historic Westerfield with construction of Peninsula Link (Frankston Bypass). As reported earlier. on Thursday 23 September 2010 Roads Minister Tim Pallas gave an undertaking that work would be suspended until after a VCAT appeal had been heard.

The AbiGroup and its sub-contractors are apparently not working on the property today, Monday, because they have an agreement with CFMEU to honor their "lock down" week-end.

Gillian Collins says that if the AbiGroup and Linking Melbourne authority do not comply with Minister Pallas' decision to suspend the work until the VCAT appeal has been heard, then we will need to show up in force at Westerfield on Tuesday - tomorrow - to continue to make our case.

So the message is - prepare to come to Westerfield tomorrow early if possible. Check later today on www.savethepines.net. This will have current information. Gillian suggests that if there is to be a picket tomorrow coming to the Westerfield house parking lot and then walking down to the picket line. Hundreds of people have visited the picket over the past months. The community support is very much appreciated.

Contact: Gillian Collins, Pines Protectors Phone: 03-9782-5116 Mobile: 0414 309 960
Source: Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Land

From Gillian: Update#1, 0815hrs, 23-9-2010

Police informed Gillian and site manager confirmed that no trees will be cut down today. Site fences will be built.

From Gillian: Update #2, 22-9-2010

It was a long day today - but what a day! About 60 protestors came to our community picket today and stopped the bulldozers. We owe you such a great debt of gratitude. As Shakespeare's Richard V said in a very loose modern translation - you should have been there!

I am in awe of the courage shown by our faithful band, and by the exceptional work and support shown by the two CFMEU organisers who came to help. Thanks to them and some great mediation by the Frankston Police, we have a short reprieve until 7:00am Thursday morning. Between now and then the Pines Protectors under the auspices of the Frankston North Community Group, Inc. will be filing a case with VCAT to stop the contractor until offsets required by the Native Vegetation Framework are secured. We will also continue to work with the CFMEU and the contractor to get more time.

If we can't stop the contractor from continuing, the bush will be destroyed on Thursday. We saw enough raw power in their three PC300 excavators and a bulldozer today to destroy Westerfield's in a day - a terrifying thought. Some of us will still be there trying to stop them on Thursday. We would welcome your companionship and participation as we face this real life terror.

Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors
0414 309 960

Update 22-9-2010

"Protest co-ordinator Gillian Collins said the group would go to the planning tribunal today to see if there were legal avenues to stop demolition. If the group is successful, the case could become the first test of state legislation put in place last year to stop last-minute legal objections delaying big transport projects. Ms Collins said police had informed the protesters they would be arrested on Thursday morning if they remained. Abigroup spokeswoman Carol Bartley said yesterday work had been put on hold until Thursday morning."
Source: Clay Lucas, "Protesters fight to delay Frankston Bypass work," The Age, September 22, 2010.

The Front Line

Gillian Collins, who has led the defense of the Pines Bushland and wildlife corridors, against the Frankston Freeway for years now, may have taken her final physical stand on this today, September 21, 2010, at Westerfield, where she has been manning a picket-line since Monday 5 July 2010F. The freeway is the work of SEITA and the Victorian Government, and this encounter was with Abbey Road Construction. I doubt, however, that we have heard Gillian's last word on this matter, because as she went down, she was brandishing papers and talking barristers.

Negotiations

Good for her!

She continued to negotiate firmly right to the end with an Abbey Road Construction team, on behalf of the picketers, and all remained on site, to block the passage of the bulldozers in order to defend the wildlife and the trees.

As the picketers stood their ground against several bulldozers, whilst awaiting the arrival of the police, other construction workers began to chainsaw trees at the other end of the property, where the picket-line had its marquee.

Ceci Cairns painting one final beautiful record of tragically destroyed beauty

(My apologies at not getting a picture of the painting which could be reproduced on its own. It is a lovely painting and should become valuable as a unique aesthetic record as well.)

An artist working there, Ceci Cairnes, who had been painting the trees and the tent, was alarmed to see the chainsaws arrive. "No-one even spoke to me. Not even to tell me to be careful. They just began sawing down trees."

When I left only a few trees had been sawed down, here and there, as though the moonscapers didn't want their work to look too obvious right away. Perhaps they intended to finish it at night. A woman carrying one small animal cage - the kind you take a cat to the vet in, followed behind a small group of construction workers, which proceeded towards a large, beautiful dam, surrounded by luxuriant vegetation. As they disappeared among the foliage, I heard their chainsaws start up.

War-zone

My dog had been waiting for me in the car for a couple of hours, so I was anxious to take him walking. I consoled myself with the idea that there were still some areas between here and the Pines Reserve where we could walk off-leash for a kilometer or two without putting wildlife in danger. Heading for the area between Skye Road and the Pines, that runs parallel with McClelland Drive, I passed scenes of complete devastation. Next door to and opposite Peninsular Private Hospital, on the corner of McClelland and Cranbourne Road were moonscaped, with not a tree standing, but mounds of massacred vegetation with broken trunks and branches poking out, and hills of bare, drying earth. You could almost hear the silent screams - or perhaps they were my own - as the earth and the creatures in it died and released the carbon they had stored in their living bodies.

There was industrial mowing along McClelland Drive. Bulldozer-like machines with long metal arms with lawnmowers on the end mowed the roadside vegetation on the left as they drove down the road. This was the first time I had seen such machines. I marvelled at their number, at the embodied energy in these monsters, and at the trouble engineers take to remove every last scrap of life from their projects.

No-where to walk left

When I got to Skye Road, I reeled in horror, because the bushland on both sides was also now reduced to mute and damaged carcasses, bulldozed up to form a dark wall on the horizon. I saw that the actual tree-lined-track beside walled new suburbs that I usually took from Skye Road to the Pines had been spared, although everything between it and McClelland Drive had been blasted. Determined to console myself with this last remaining bit of green, I drove the car up to it and parked. My dog got out of the car eagerly, looking forward to running finally.

All part of "the plan"?

Alas, our way was barred. A grotesquely cheery blue sign announced on behalf of the Victorian Government that this was "all part of the plan!" Maybe body-snatchers have invaded our leaders in Victoria. That would explain their alien plans for the rest of us.

Infuriated, I drove on to a road that leads to the golf course on McClelland Drive. Word was that they had done a deal with SEITA to have their course saved when parts of the adjacent Pines Wildlife reserve had been sacrificed. I thought that I should be able to get into the reserve with my dog, via the golf-course. I realised I would have to keep my dog on a leash, but it would be better than nothing.

Locust-like swathe cuts Pines Reserve

The entrance gates to the Pines Reserve adjacent to the golf course were covered in signs telling the public to keep out, but the gates were wide open, and Nubi and I had had enough. We walked through the gates, heading for the sand-hills in the distance. Alas, to the left and to the right were more scenes of devastation. The bulldozers had already been through here too, leaving only a few self-important little men in florescent parkas walking about with mobile phones a few hundred meters away.

Log-truck load in Frankston Pines

My gaze was arrested by a truck bed stacked with enormous logs. I had not thought that there were such large trees left in this area. For a moment I thought this must be part of an exhibit I had seen in the outdoor exhibition at the McClelland Gallery, but these logs were much larger. I wondered what would happen to them.

At last I realised the extent of the Frankston Freeway: it was going to trash most of the bushland I had come to love in the 20 years since I moved into an old house here - no, not some new development. Below is my google-earth grab of what it looks like to me.

The Victorian Government is at War with Nature

The Victorian Government is at war with nature and the people who defend nature. It has been shown to flout its own laws on fauna protection. It presses the interest of property developers and passes laws to promote property development in the name of economic growth which it prioritises over all other things. It forces population growth on the people of Victoria and thus creates new pressures daily for our natural environment. We are not able to affect our government democratically on these issues because the opposition holds similar values to the government. The Victorian Greens won't criticise population growth or property development as priorities, only trying to minimise a harm which must eventually overwhelm all attempts to compensate for it or otherwise attenuate the damages it causes to our natural surroundings and the fauna which depend on them.

The Victorian government licenses agents, such as Abbey Road Constructions, to carry out its will and expects the police to back up such corporate activities in the field. It thereby forcibly exerts its will against democratic objection.

How should Citizens react to forcibly carried out undemocratic actions which they hate?

Most of us cannot afford to access the formal legal system and there are few laws to defend the environment and fauna and flora which the public can actually make a complaint under. Usually those laws require another party - often a State Government agent or an NGO in receipt of government funding - to act on behalf of the public and bring a complaint, and this so rarely happens.

In the absence of legal resources, for whatever reason - either by lack of money or lack of good laws, how should citizens react to force? They cannot afford to initiate force because the state holds the power and the means of savage repression. Citizens do, however, have the moral right to resist the state or its agents and contractors where they forcibly act against democratic objection and the spirit of laws to defend environmental and ecological values, for all kinds of reasons.

The importance of picket lines

The use of picket-lines represents a reasonable and defensible response where citizens use their bodies to resist the impacts of unreasonable government policies, whether carried out by a contractor or directly by government employees, in the opinion of this author.

Gillian Collins and others on the Westerfield Picket line took a courageous and necessary step in the battle of Victorians to defend their right to protect and conserve their natural surroundings and the right of indigenous fauna to live in peace. They have not won this battle, but the war is still on and there must be more battles.

House by house, road by road,
We can see our city grow.
Woodlands, wetlands meet their fate;
Developers, bankers celebrate.
What's a little Nature kill
Compared to money in the till?

Bulldoze the home of duck and turtle?
A minor bureaucratic hurdle!
They just must do an EA first,
Before they dig into the Earth.
That's no great comfort to the frog
Who lost his home that was the bog.

Politicians wring their hands
They say they want to save the land.
They hate to see the greenbelt frayed,
But say that growth cannot be stayed.
So in our parks and nearby counties,
Growth pours cement on nature's bounties.

Now you may think that it's absurd
That no one ever says a word
Against the growth that every hour
Another chunk of land devours.
The greens insist we must conserve,
But won't stop growth: they lack the nerve.

If growth is smart, greens say, we'll manage.
Yes, smart growth will control the damage!
We'll build up high to reach the sky,
We'll in-fill and we'll densify.
It's not the numbers, greens all say,
It's how we live our life each day.

So bankers, builders, and the greens,
Business, leaders, those with means,
Praise "smart growth" in single chorus,
While it consumes another forest.
Perhaps greens can't resist the offers
Of corporate money in their coffers?

To keep the growth of population,
We bring in folks from every nation.
One-quarter million in a year,
Is not enough for us, I hear.
But riches go to just a few,
While gridlock, smog hurt me and you.

So why is pushing growth a mission
For almost every politician?
Big business offers them much more
Than working blokes who mind the store!
Our leaders also want the votes
Of those who come in planes and boats.

Has all this growth improved the lot
Of the average working sod?
Stats Can says that what he got
Amounts to little more than naught.
The truth is that real earnings grew
Only for the richest few.

They saw their yearly earnings rise
Sixteen percent— there's no surprise.
The poorest fifth, alas, not so!
Not only did their funds not grow,
They plunged by a percent of twenty.
Not for the poor—growth's horn of plenty!

They have seen their wages drop
As new competitors take pail and mop.
And ever more people needing room
Turns wilderness to housing boom.
If people need somewhere to live
Field and woodlot have to give.

Environmental laws are but a token
While we keep the floodgates open.
Endangered species make one long list
But surely they will not be missed
By those who benefit the most
From our relentless quest for growth.

So why is it that all we hear
From our media is one loud cheer?
Of growth we never hear them say,
"A few get rich, but we all pay!"
We see growth's damage all around
Yet praises for it still abound.

Just take a mo' to think it through.
Who owns the media? Not me. Not you.
Newspaper ads help tell the story:
Business and banks bask in growth's glory.
So now you can connect the dots
Of why we are in such a spot.

And what will our descendants eat
When farm and field have turned to street?
What do the growth promoters say
About the price our kids will pay?
An old French king once summed it up:
"Après moi—who gives a flip?"

One fine day, we'll hit the wall,
Our growth economy will fall.
It's clear to those not wilfully blind
That nature's bounty has declined.
So have a drink, and drown your sorrow.
Things will be even worse tomorrow.

Madeline Weld
22 September 2010
Ottawa
Bulldozer Blues©

Awareness of population overshoot is a process, not a revelation

Seeing that the volume of humanity has quadrupled in the past century with the addition of more than 5 billion more consumers, it continues to be a source of amazement to me that the majority of people I encounter do not see the obvious necessity of rapid human population decline (RPD). More amazing though, is that those of us who are passionate in our conviction that it is RPD is both a necessity and an inevitability proceed to argue as if our audience is already reconciled to our position. We forget that most of us arrived reluctantly to our unhappy conclusions after going through several mental decompression chambers until finally, we were able to burst upon the surface and see the broad visit above the water.

Don't assume that people know the basics

It is as if we were teaching a class of undergraduates, and began with the fourteenth lecture rather than the first. We assume that those we are attempting to reach come equipped with a rudimentary ecological literacy, but we are mistaken. Even most environmentalists come to a discussion without knowledge of Boulding’s Three Theorems, Hopfenberg’s law, Liebig’s Law of the Minimum, Abernethy’s axiom, the Jevons Paradox or any of Bartlett’s laws of sustainability. These are the building blocks of ecological understanding and the sine qua non of informed debate. Without them we find ourselves having to reinvent the wheel in response to the clichéd criticisms that resurface over and over again.

Common ideological obstacles

How many times must we defeat the Demographic Theory of Transition or send the Replacement Rate Fallacy packing? How many times must we counter the promise of tech fixes and more efficiency with a lesson on efficiency paradoxes? How many times must idiotic Monbiotisms be refuted with the simple observation that economic growth requires people and that if climate change is a consequence of human activity then the number humans must be part of it? How many times must we point out that without the “P”, the IPAT formula is rendered meaningless and incapable of achieving any comprehensive ecological understanding? How many times do we have to demonstrate that smart growth palliatives, land use strategies, green living guides and conservation measures in the context of continued growth are futile?

Radical change requires patience

The truth is, as alarmist as environmentalists are accused of being, they are still the soft soap salesmen of delusional optimism, cornucopians with a green conscience. No wonder Malthusians and those with apocalyptic visions come across as wild-eyed extremists --- our audience or readership does not see that our predicament is extreme and the environmental movement has done nothing to sufficiently enlighten them. Extreme predicaments call for extreme measures, but if we shout fire in a crowded theatre when no one but us can even see smoke, we become instantly marginalized. We must step back and appreciate, as urgent as our agenda is, those beyond our circle are unprepared for it. We must rewind and re-evaluate. We must proceed one step at a time, as impatient for change as we are.

Step one, in my view, is to convince them that there is a fire. Clugston, Heinberg, Ruppert, Goodchild,---any one of a cluster of doomsayers can make that case more effectively than we can. Step two is to present them with options on how the fire can be put out. Here is how I frame my position, in riposte to the human rights coalition. There are four stages to ascend before the right mechanism for RPD can be found. Each stage is a platform to climb to the next. This is not a process of “balance” and trade-offs, but of following steps in the right sequence. The survival of our species cannot be balanced off ethical inhibitions. Ethical considerations must wait their turn, not muddy the waters at the beginning.

Four stages to finding the right mechanism for RPD

1. Stage One--- Base camp. Before beginning the climb we must ask, is RPD necessary? If it isn't, fine. Proceed no further. Climb cancelled.
2. Stage Two—Coming to a firm resolution. If RPD is necessary, it is necessary. It must be effected. By hook or by crook. By hook if possible, but by crook if necessary.
3. Stage Three---The realization that since RPD is necessary, the question as to whether it can be effected humanely is irrelevant. It must be effected regardless. If my leg is infected with gangrene, it must be amputated immediately--with or without an anaesthetic.
4. Stage Four----Therefore only one question remains. What is the least inhumane of effective options?

I would prefer that you use an anaesthetic before amputation, but if none is available, then you must do a cost-benefit analysis. Is allowing me to die in agony over the next 48 hours more humane than chopping my gangrenous leg off without the benefit of drugs so that I may live on? It is only at this juncture of the discussion that competing ethical perspectives can be entertained. Before swinging an axe, perhaps first clubbing me into unconsciousness would be the least inhumane of effective remedies. I am open to suggestions. Mount your high horse and be as ethical as you want to be, but get it done.

Before swinging an axe, perhaps first clubbing me into unconsciousness would be the least inhumane of effective remedies. I am open to suggestions. Mount your high horse and be as ethical as you want to be, but get it done.

Morality has little utility for an extinct species

The mistake that most environmentalists, humanists and theists make is to attempt to "balance" ecological and biophysical imperatives off against some sacrosanct ethical code—be it the tenets of Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Scientology, Wiccan , humanism, Socialism or Democracy or anything else on the ideological buffet . But sustainability and species-survival cannot be a question of "balance" but of priority. After all, what can be more immoral than to allow the extinction of our species--together with the millions that we take down with us---in order to remain faithful to an "ethical" standard? What good is morality to an extinct species? Critics say that we must not lose our "humanity" in an effort to achieve a sustainable population level. What they really mean is that we must not lose a set of ethical principles that evolved in the last few thousand years of human history---a relative eye-blink compared to the eons of our hominid existence.

Ethical codes are expendable---but our species is not

We can indeed lose our traditional set of ethics. Culture is dynamic and ethical standards are a work in progress, as Baby Boomers can attest in reflecting upon the changing mores in their lifetime. Civilized conduct itself is a thin veneer that is easily stripped off in an emergency of short duration. Katrina should have taught us that. But civilization does not define our "humanity". We have always been "human". We were human when we practised cannibalism, infanticide and ritual human sacrifices, or waged wars of tribal genocide. We have always been both selfish and altruistic, empathetic and cruel, compassionate and callous, aggressive and passive. All of these traits are part of the human make-up, and will endure even if we return to a hunter-gatherer state. As long as we survive as a species through the coming tribulations, we have the potential to recapture the best of our nature and rebuild an ethical system more to our liking. But the priority must be on sustaining our race, not on sustaining the number of people who happen to be alive now thanks to unsustainable agriculture and to our unsustainable consumption of non-renewable energy resources. We can lose our civilized manners but we cannot afford to die off as a race. For some reason, even many of those in our own movement cannot grasp this difference. Lester Brown is a classic case in point. Our project should not be framed by the question he poses, by asking "How can we feed 9 billion people" but rather by asking, "How can we save the core of humanity that is necessary to establish a viable population base before an imminent population crash denies us that possibility?”

Playing God by Not Playing God

The lifeboat is more important than any of its passengers. A callous statement perhaps, but not any more than the proposition that we play God by not playing God, that is, by not taking doing what is necessary---no more, no less---to reduce population rapidly. A passive spectator to the unfolding sixth extinction is a silent partner to the crime of our epoch. The institution of coercive population control measures that are effective and necessary are no more the mark of someone playing "God" than is the intervention by anyone of us to stop a mugger from killing a stranger or brandishing a pistol to stop a crowd from trampling hundreds in their panic to escape that which panics them. "Leaving it up to God" is a bizarre position for anyone who claims to be motivated by the conscientious attachment to ethical principles. Consistency should require that they follow through with their logic and advocate the abolition of law enforcement and the judicial process. We can’t have judges, juries and policemen “playing God”, can we? Who are they to make decisions that affect the fate of others? Who are we to judge, or to intervene? After all, isn’t intervention of any kind contingent on presumptions? Who am I stop that mugger? It is not my job to “fix” anyone is it? Let God---or karma---sort it all out. Justice will come in the next life. Some kind of ethical system that.

Wanting omelettes without breaking any eggs

Passivity is a pathology, and it comes in many forms. One form is the position taken by many so called “activists” and armchair revolutionaries would espouse the attainment of a utopian order or a radically different economy or social structure than the one that is killing us, but qualify their support for these goals by insisting that it must be done “democratically”, or non-violently, or respectfully, or with sensitivity, or in accordance with the UN Charter on Human Rights, or some Holy Text. They believe in making an omelette, but are morally opposed to cracking an egg. In practical terms, theirs is a de-facto laissez-faire posture. Announce your determination to fight for a New Jerusalem but attach ethical conditions to that commitment that ensure that it never comes about. Again, these caveats belong to Stage Four of the process. Park your democratic or Christian sensibilities until then-- then weigh in.

All options must be on the table

Those organizations and blogs which promote population reduction, are quick to insist that they advocate “voluntary” family planning, or “reproductive” rights for women, or mutual coercion “mutually” agreed upon. And if ever one of them entertains my argument, they are careful to dissociate themselves from it with a disclaimer. This may be a political necessity. We are presently stuck at Stage One, and until the need for RPD is broadly accepted, the methods required to achieve it must take a back seat—especially if the mere mention of seemingly unsavoury alternatives carries the risk of chasing away potential supporters or presenting a big fat target for the Christian right and the birth-dearth lobby anxious to smear them with the brush of misanthropy. Nevertheless this should not foreclose consideration of draconian measures when the time comes. A Plan B or C must be on deck.

Does that mean that I would favour dictatorship, violence, disrespect or insensitivity in the pursuit of the necessary? Absolutely---if necessary. But I am not there yet, and neither should you be. I would prefer that things be done democratically, but I do not make a fetish out of democracy---or the Ten Commandments or the pronouncements of the Pope or the Delai Lama, for that matter. My support for any means to achieve RPD is provisional. As it happens, I believe that the success of most revolutionary change depends on wide, grassroots support. But failing that, all remaining options must be on the table. The job must get done. I would naturally prefer that it be done democratically, peacefully, rationally, justly and humanely--- but only if that works. I suspect however, that we have run of time. Building a constituency for RPD policies is a tortuous process, and electing a politician who promises to shrink the economy is about as fanciful as finding a mob who would riot for austerity. Quite possibly we haven’t the luxury of waiting upon democratic verdicts---or anaesthetics. Time will tell.

Tim Murray
September 22, 2009