(We) can do better

Report on the Federation Square (Victoria, Australia) Population Forum on 23 April 2010, where Mark O'Connor debated Marcus Spiller.

Report on the Federation Square (Victoria, Australia) Population Forum on 23 April 2010, where Mark O'Connor debated Marcus Spiller.

Put on by the City of Melbourne at the suggestion of Mary Drost of Planning Backlash to Councillor Peter Clarke, the Forum was a very well attended event.

The hall was almost full and, from the clapping, it was obvious where the majority stood. They heavily supported Mark O'Connor, co-author of the book, Overloading Australia, Enviro Press, 2009, who spoke very well against the rapid increase in population in Melbourne. He said there are actually 3 elephants in the room - population, climate change and economic growth.

He called the 'ageing population problem' a "proveable sham", noting that we all age exactly one year per annum.

There were five people on the panel.

O'Connor's main opponent was Marcus Spiller, formerly of the Planning Institute and now adviser to the Ministers of PLanning and Housing. He is still pushing Centralized Planning, just as he was back when Minister Hulls was in charge of Planning.

He may well have a lot of involvement in the current Review of the Planning Act, which promotes centralized planning. Spiller is totally optimistic about a bigger population.

Another panelist, Charles Berger, spoke sensibly. He said that we must do away with 'bigger is better' and go for quality not quanitity He said we must preserve threatened species. He described how our water usage would have to drop with higher and higher population numbers. He also said that there is very little evidence linking population numbers and successful economies.

Saul Eslake, seemed to have moderated his economic views. He said that Melbourne would be different in 2050 with 8 million - not marvellous, more expensive, and more crowded. He said business grows with population growth, but it does not mean people are better off. At present we are losing factories and exporting very little from Victoria and importing a lot.

Kelvin Thomson had been asked to be there but was overseas so could not accept.

Planning Backlash was officially recognized by Cr Peter Clarke in his welcome as being an instigator in them doing this forum.

Source: Planning Backlash

Earlier this year a black swan was admitted to a Perth wildlife shelter after it had landed in one of Alcoa’s caustic red mud lakes. The bird’s injuries included burns to its head, eyes, beak, throat and legs as well as internal poisoning.

Alcoa's red mud lakes

The caustic lakes at Alcoa’s four alumina refineries in Western Australia are settling ponds for red mud, a highly alkaline waste material that is both radioactive and contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants. For very tonne of alumina produced by Alcoa, two tonnes of this residue result and Western Australia produces 12 million tonnes of alumina a year. It is therefore not surprising that the storage of this waste is a significant problem that has faced the industry for many decades. Alcoa’s solution to this problem is to create red mud lakes and allow the waste to dry out in the open.

Alcoa’s Kwinana refinery is located directly next to a wetland containing a couple of lakes called “The Spectacles”. When these lakes dry up as they have done recently it appears that swans in particular find the red mud lakes attractive to land in. Swans being swans immediately have a drink of water upon landing and when that burns their throat they then proceed to have another drink and so on.

DEC have given Alcoa permission to shoot swans

According to Alcoa this occurred 3 or 4 times in 2009. In the first 2 months of 2010 there has already been that number of casualties. Typically when this happens an Alcoa worker onsite shoots the swan. Alcoa have a licence to do this from the Department of Environment and Conservation (WA) and in case you are wondering, shooting is deemed to be a humane form of euthanising a bird if it is over 3kg.

Should Alcoa attempt to cover these lakes?

The West Australian government has deemed it acceptable that Alcoa can create these vast caustic red mud lakes and leave them uncovered. Further they have also given permission to shoot our state bird emblem whenever they land in these poisonous bodies of water that are located next to existing wetlands. A Google-Earth view of southwest WA between Perth and Collie reveals just how huge these red mud lake areas are, they can be seen from an altitude of 500km!

 

 

The fate of our swan

As for our injured swan, an avian vet thought she had a chance so an intense program of bathing, applying creams and tube feeding (4 times daily) was undertaken. Our main concern was that about a third of her tongue had been eaten away but nevertheless her condition appeared to be improving. On one morning several weeks later the lower portion of her beak just fell off and she unfortunately had to be euthanased.

This was obviously a devastating blow for all involved. All that is except for the people at Alcoa who viewed this whole incident as an opportunity to advertise their “green credentials”. A story appeared in an internal Alcoa newsletter claiming that the swan saved by “Alcoans” had recovered and had been released successfully into surrounding wetlands. This story was then picked up by the local paper under the headline “Swanning around”. The journalist wrote:

….this black swan wandering around Kwinana’s Residue area….. The swan was checked out by a vet and was later released into wetlands in the Kwinana area

For background to this public protest see "Save Williamstown requests help..."

Republished here to give background to Sheila Newman's remarks in her debate with Steve Bracks on the Jon Faine show 19-4-2010. You can comment on Jon Faine's "Population Forum" about the debate here and you can listen to the podcast here. The sector in Australia that has the most costly dependency ratio must be the property sector, since it costs all Australians an enormous and unreasonable amount just to cover the cost of land for housing, business and agriculture. Most of the very high costs involved are completely unnecessary, except in the eyes of greedy developers and their hangers-on

Mr Salt, wrong again

Yesterday (4 Feb, 2010) the Australian had Bernard Salt raising the alarm about the dependency ratio (again). But the man is hopelessly misinformed. Elderly people are not the big problem. And children (who are more dependent and for longer and who outnumber elderly people) are not the problem either.

The sector in Australia that has the most costly dependency ratio must be the property sector, since it costs all Australians an enormous and unreasonable amount just to cover the cost of land for housing, business and agriculture. Most of the very high costs involved are completely unnecessary, except in the eyes of greedy developers and their hangers-on. The only reason that the costs are so high is that the industry wants it that way and our state and federal governments are in cahoots with it.

The housing industry is making life in Australia miserable

Australians pay these monstrous costs first and must deduct them from their disposable income. These unnecessary costs affect the amount of hours we must work and how hard we must work and whether we can afford to take holidays. They affect our health and happiness. The high prices affect the cost of doing business, of manufacturing, of storage, garaging etc. When these costs are inflated they take away from other economic and social obligations, which are to provide education, hospitals, child support and retirement funding in the form of pensions and superannuation. Yes, even for self-funded retirees, the cost of doing business is inflated by the cost of land and is deducted as a variety of costs from any profits which devolve to shareholders.

Australia's inflated land-costs

Australia's inflated land-costs mean that small business has had increasing difficulty surviving and that for an increasing number of Australians, survival itself - in terms of accessing shelter and having enough money left over for food and clothing - has become difficult and sometimes impossible. For more Australians each year, transport to get to work or education to train for employment, are luxuries. Yet all this could be changed if property development and housing were no longer considered as private profits but as public expenses and the factors that contribute to their inflation were adjusted accordingly. These factors are those which drive up demand. Demand is affected by births, deaths and immigration and, to a lesser extent, by household size, location and position, which may all be to some extent discretionary.

What drives the high cost of land in Australia?

The most noticeable adjustable drivers of demand are overseas and interstate immigration. Interstate immigration can be dealt with by adjusting building permits at local levels. Overseas immigration can be dealt with by State Governments ceasing advertising for new immigrants and by National Government revising immigration quotas downwards. For maximum reduction of costs, land and housing availability should be exactly equal to demand.

In a steady state society, houses would become available as people died, with some overlap, at very little cost.

It is Australia's housing industry which is responsible for elderly people being scapegoated instead of honoured and supported to enjoy the long and happy lives that we should all be able to look forward to.

ABS data

"For most Australians, whether buying or renting their home, the provision of adequate housing for themselves and their families involves substantial ongoing expenditure throughout much of their lives. Housing costs are often the largest regular expenses to be met from a household's current income.

The housing costs measure compiled from the Survey of Income and Housing is defined as the sum of:

* rent payments,
* rates payments (general and water), and
* mortgage or unsecured loan payments, if the initial purpose was primarily to buy, add or alter the dwelling."
Source: 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008

It is always very difficult to get information from public sources on how the cost of land affects the cost of living in Australia because the Australian Bureau of Statistics refuses to treat land as a 'commodity' and our cost of living measure, the consumer price index, only factors in the cost of 'commodities' - other things you buy.

This kind of information is about the best we can get from the ABS (see below). It doesn't tell us very much. Most of the information is in the private sector and costs a lot to see.

It also doesn't tell us how much people who have businesses pay for rent and buildings on top of the money they pay for their own housing.

The ABS doesn't admit that land is like a commodity in Australia

Yet land is treated like a commodity in Australia, and we know for sure that for many of us it is our greatest burden:

“The development of stock mortgages and wool and crop liens in Australia represented legal ingenuity in that on traditional analysis, a property transfer was taking place with respect to something which would only come into existence in the future – the crop or wool to be grown.

In Australia land was not in itself a source of power but an asset capable of producing wealth. Improvements, particularly fencing, represented a high proportion of the value of real estate and borrowings on the land seem to have been greater than in England. It is thus argued that land in Australia was always viewed as a commodity, see Davidson and Wells, “The Land, the Law and The State: Colonial Australia 1788-1890” (1982) 2 Law in Context 89 AND Whalan, D., The Torrens System in Australia p.98.” Source: Adrian J Bradbrook, Susan V MacCallum, Anthony P Moore, Australian Property Law, LBC Information services, 1996, p.1.103:

Is the Property Development industry becoming an embarassment to its members?

Mr Salt recently argued that the property sector was being too timid. He implied that they had become somewhat embarrassed by bloggers highlighting the industry's reasons for promoting high immigration. He urged them to weigh into public debate and wondered why usually high profile growth lobbyists were acting like such wall-flowers.

"... I must say the “growth vs no growth” issue is ascendant and is likely to remain so during 2010. What disappointed me about this debate was the lack of supporting comment emanating from the property industry. No-one that I could see was out there putting the case for growth.

And I suspect the reason is that “big (property) business” doesn’t want to draw attention to itself on a contentious public issue. There seems to me to be almost a timidity in property individuals getting involved in public debate about growth. The logic seems to be don’t rock the boat."

Who would want to admit they are in this industry?

Well, maybe, the property industry is becoming a little more self-aware and less inclined to shoot from the mouth. Perhaps some of the younger people in the industry are becoming ashamed of the role the industry plays in creating and increasing poverty and inequality. Perhaps some of the young planners and builders aren't too keen on trashing the countryside. Maybe when young property developers, engineers, planners and developers you go to parties these days, their mouths go dry and they blush when some nice girl or bloke asks them what they do for a living.

I mean, what do you say? "I make my money out of unaffordable housing." "My boss is a land-speculator." "I serve the land-lords of the world." "We're in the business of overpopulation. It's good for our profits." "Oh, your mother protested on the steps of parliament last week?" "You hate people who bulldoze trees?" "Um, you think we cause most of the carbon gas increases in Australia?" "Well, I didn't choose to have small animals flee at my approach." "Gee, I might be responsible for people dying of thirst in a few decades, and I'm already responsible for animals dying of starvation, but hey, it's a job."

"The only way to offset the impact of the baby bust next decade is to grow the tax base through immigration. That’s why we need a big Australia, at least in the short term. And, make no mistake, this trajectory is good news for the property industry," writes Bernard Salt.

Well, no, Bernard. There is another way and it involves downsizing the property development industry so that we can afford what any normal functioning society can expect to provide for its children and elderly.

I look forward to some intelligent and responsible leadership from those young people who are currently embarrassed by their industry.

Anticipating the counter-argument

Basic economics requires profit to be made from land so that society can have publicly available infrastructure. Land commodifiers and speculators use the need for a profit margin to justify the buying and selling of land at unreasonable prices and for government and business conspiring to inflate those prices. But, when the costs of land are so high that they make business impossible, the time has come to say good-bye to the private housing and development industries.

NOTES

First published here 2/6/2010 but republished to give background to my remarks on Jon Faine Show - 19-4-2010

This article started off as a comment, but I wanted to put in some shots of the film I mention, which isn't possible in the comment mode. I was initially commenting on the story by John Marlowe, "One man dead, one critical after brawl, but the media suppress the fact that it is ethnic violence."

Ethnic violence or violence incidentally involving 'ethnics'?

Sorry about using 'ethnics' as a noun, which always sounds illiterate and prejudiced, but I wanted a short title.
I think it is important not to label as 'ethnic crime' crime which is perpetrated by people who are identifiable as part of a cultural minority, unless the crime is related to that culture and would not have occurred without it. For the purposes of safety and identification, however, useful descriptions are necessary.

We should also bear in mind that the biggest crimes are usually corporate or state ones because they involve the most damage and the most money. They rarely get prosecuted, except by revolutionary tribunals. And, yes, of course 'crime' is a social construct which can vary quite a lot depending on the society.

Crime on the margins

One could also talk about higher rates of crime in people on the margin of our society and note that a proportion of these people are immigrants - who have to start out on the margins, since they are newcomers, and who therefore don't necessarily have the usual social connections and knowledge that people born here may have (apart from those who are also on the margins, for whatever reason.)

Because there are so many immigrants at the moment, there must surely be a much larger number of people on the margins who are recent immigrants. That means that they will be vulnerable and that a certain number may be desperate or exploitative. I am not claiming any scientific quantitative data on this. A government response would no doubt talk of how we are 'encouraging skilled immigrants' who can provide for themselves, but this would ignore the foreign students who struggle here.

This is not to label all immigrants as marginalised forever.

More Australians are also drifting into those marginal and vulnerable areas because they do not earn the kinds of incomes that will pay for rent and food in our society, even if they can get jobs or the dole (and quite a few immigrants cannot access the dole or medical benefits).

John Marlowe's other article today, Prioritise Australia's unemployed ahead of immigrants for unskilled jobs draws attention to the numbers of Australians unemployed and the numbers of new immigrants doing 'low-skill' jobs.

Talking about margins

I can already see a rising sub-class producing and growing drugs, including tobacco, cannabis and amphetamines, simply to survive and pay for shelter. I have long-term occupational connections in the field of psychiatry and I know people who have been on the pension with psychiatric and other disabilities who have accepted the need to beg and to engage in criminal activity from time to time. Population pressure leading to huge housing costs makes this inevitable.

Then there are the young victims of the drug trade who didn't start out marginalised.

I recently talked with an apprentice in an industry where people start work at about 3am, who had been given some amphetamines to help him stay awake, and who had become addicted very quickly. He also had become psychotic due to the speed. He had learned that, in order to be able to pay for the speed, he had to sell it, since apprenticeships don't cover the cost of drugs. After that he realised that he could make a lot more money out of selling speed, but he also realised that he no longer had the choice. He began carrying guns, partly because he was paranoid due to the use of the amphetamines and partly because it is the culture and partly because of the violence in that drug culture. He knows that if he doesn't stop using amphetamines his risk of dying early in a violent incident or from heart problems is racheting up daily. He could go to Narcotics Anonymous - which costs nothing and doesn't dob you into the police - but it is so much easier, in the short term, to take the path of least resistance and keep on taking the drug. And, unfortunately, the chances of his being around for a 'long-term' solution are diminishing.

Source: You-tube-clip of La Vierge des Tueurs.

Recipe for a violent society

You have there the recipe for a very violent society, like the one in Columbia, for instance, as portrayed in that amazing film by Barbet Shroeder, La Vierge des Tueurs [The Killers' Virgin Mary or Our Lady of the Assassins/Killers] based on the book of the same name by Fernando Vallejo. In that film the central character, who lives in a large bare fortified apartment overlooking a big hill covered in dusty slums by day and flickering lights by night, remarks how years ago there were cows there.

Same film: A pregnant woman just learns of the violent death of her son in an impoverished and disorganised city where the birth-rate and the death rate have a cruelly ironical connection

Columbia is full of young men killing each other in gangs and lone women bringing up families in slums where the male children don't last for very long and the girls get raped or married and finish up in the same situation.

Every so often we hear celebrations and see fireworks shooting into the air between the hill and the apartment. The narrator explains that the fireworks are a signal that another drug courier has managed to get his load into the United States successfully.

To compare this scenario to the situation in Australia may seem fanciful, but without equality and democracy and with overpopulation and poverty, that's the way things go. There has always been a small sub-class like that in Australia, but circumstances favour its expansion.

Overpopulation is one of the main subjects of the film.

I wanted to write about this film because I think it is a great and intelligent film. I have described it from memory because I saw it years ago. At the time it was in Spanish with French subtitles. Looking around the net I can see no English versions, but there must be some with English subtitles for anyone who would like to take a look at this film.

I should add that I read some time ago about a good population planning initiative in Columbia - in Bogota, I think, in a Worldwatch source. They were providing sexual health clinics for men as well as women and the men were choosing not to have children after a while and taking responsibility. Unfortunately I cannot find the source.

When violence is reported in the Australian mainstream media, rarely is ethnicity mentioned, due to a self-policing media code of conduct that is premised on claims the reporting of ethnicity risks inciting racism. The Australian Journalists Association code of conduct on this reads:

"2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability."

This seems sensible in order to prevent prejudiced reporting and inciting racism. However, this code has been recently abandoned by the mainstream media in the cases of recent violence against Indian students, probably in an attempt to highlight the particular racial problem. But indeed, the media highlighting of this problem has snowballed into an international political hot potato, resulting in Australia's Prime Minister flying to India and consequential increased policing in Melbourne and funding to deal with the problem. As a result, there has been a notable reduction in reported violence against Indian students in Melbourne. Politicians were embarrased into dealing with the problem, that the Department of Immigration had left to fester.

But otherwise reporting of ethnicity and race is suppressed. Read any report in an Australian newspaper about a violent incident and find mention of ethnicity or race obvious by omission. This is not to say that most violence in Australia has ethnic causes, but there is a lot that is yet remains suppressed from the mainstream public. the frequency of the problem is of course known to police and to the locals that live in what have become 'psuedo' ethnic ghettos.

And so Australia's problem of ethnic tension is suppressed and allowed to fester until someone dies. The death last night of a man at Mirrabooka in Perth's inner north is a case in point.

The news item in The Australian Newspaper today reads:

What the newspaper does not report is the fact that it was a fight between recent migrants from war torn countries. A Sudanese man was stabbed to death during a brawl between ethnic groups. Police and the Tactical Reponse Group later raided a house in nearby suburb of Ballajura and arrested five men, believed to be from Afghanistan.

Mirrabooka is a low socio-economic suburb in Perth's north. It has long had an high Aboriginal population, but recently many east African migrants, mainly from Somalia, Sudan and more recently Afghanistan have settled there. Why, is a matter for social research.

The following non-mainstream media sources reveals somne insight into the social problems at Mirrabooka:

Immigration does not stop at the international arrival gate. Australia's policy of immigration needs to extend well into assimilation after many years and subsequent generations, else we will see more ghettos like Mirrabooka, and more ethnic tension and violence, fuelled by a policy of media news suppression.

Why suppress ethnic tension and violence when to do so does nothing but allow it to fester into murder and social division?

Rudd living in a gated community remains blissfully ignorant at Australia's expense. he has become an arrogant social menace undermining Australia's security.

Photo by Jill Quirk

In Victoria in 2010

Why is it that bushfires, regeneration burns, ecological burns, asset protection burns etc., are not considered fuel-reducing?

Why is Victoria logging in water supply catchments when we are short of water - especially after they have burned?

Why has not the impact of continually losing hollow trees as a result of increased deliberately lit fires and logging and the threat of extinction this poses to possums, parrots and other species being referred for consideration under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act?

What are the projected carbon emissions from all deliberately lit fires such as fuel reduction burns, asset protection burns, regeneration burns, etc.?

Why aren't the fuel loads before and after these deliberately lit fires and bushfires measured? If you believe they are, where and when?

The author suggests that readers
Email these questions to the Bushfires Royal Commission enquiries[AT]royalcommission.vic.gov.au your local Federal and State Members of Parliament Victorian State Members in the Upper House http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/mlcs.html and the Lower House http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/mps.html; Victorian Federal House of Representatives http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp and Victorian Senators http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/index.asp email

Please send all and any replies to jim_w304[AT]hotmail.com

Source of this article was an email.

Why is it that Australia's unemployed in March 2010 just gone number 611,000, while thousands of unskilled jobs are being filled by new immigrants?

Walk around the centres of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney and get into a taxi and find invariably a new migrant at the wheel, born overseas, whose first language is not English, who has had to learn the city streets after driving the taxi. Meanwhile how many of our unemployed, Australian born living in cities, who grew up in the city and could drive a taxi if the opportrunity presented? Why does not Centrelink link up with the taxi industry and put priority on Australia's unemployed, before the jobs go to foreigners? When tourist want to get directions from a taxi driver in a city, someone who is born in the city will have more local knowledge than someone who has not.

Same goes for unskilled and semi-skilled government workers such as those employed by the railways, selling tickets, directing passengers, as guards, as linesmen. Why are these jobs dominated 100% by new migrants?

Is it because Federal and State governments in Australia have prejudiced rules to employ migrants first, because if they don't, they can be branded as discrminatory. That Australian-borns and Indigenous Australians are poorly represented in government unskilled and semi-skilled jobs is REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

In NSW, government policy requires people who work for the NSW Government need to adhere to its principle of
Cultural Diversity, celebrating not Australian values, but different linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds under the Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000. Such diversity recognises linguistic and cultural assets as a 'valuable resource'.

English language, assimilation and cultural fit is out the door.
Employmers, vocational training institutions like TAFE and Centrelink seem to be poles apart not talking to each other. Australians can't find work, yet employers can't find workers. Liberal and Labor simpletons just take the easy quick fix solution - more migrants!.

Tony Abbott's kneejerk solution

Catholic Liberal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's latest kneejerk solution is to ban Australia's unemployed under the age of 30 access to welfare. Abbots wants under-30s to leave the community they grew up in and relocate to areas where employers need unskilled labour. Forget that the migrants have taken the local unskilled jobs.
Tony Abbott calls for debate on banning dole for under-30s

Abbott other kneejerk solution is to send Australia's youth to West Australian and Queensland mining and resources sector. This is the same industry sector that failed to train its workforce before the last resources boom and so had to go offshore for more migrants. Then when the boom ended, corporations like BHP Billiton sacked thousands and abandonned local communities dependent on it.

Remember the 6000 sacked by BHP Billiton a year ago at Ravesthorpe!

Criticism over Abbott's kneejerk solution by Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes, is justified. “If (Abbott) genuinely thinks you are going to solve an economically crippling skills shortage by taking punitive measures against welfare recipients, he has clearly never lived in the real world,” Mr Howes said. “You can't just get any old Joe off the street and plonk them into a mine, and think that's going to mean they can work.”

The skills shortage in WA's resources sector is a direct result of short term profit taking by the mining companies failing to re-invest in skilling. It is a failure by both the companies and the WA and Queensland governments to adequately skills train between the resources booms.

Migration needs to be tied to Australia's carrying capacity. Part of that capacity is utilising our home grown unemployed first. I wager that of our current 611,000 unemployed, 300,000 could take on unskilled jobs while they seek the sought of work they want. That would be 300,000 less people on welfare, 300,000 less migrants, 300,000 more Australian happily contributing to the economy and to Australian society and 300,000 families of one sort or another not under stress. Consequential Australian social problems of homelessness, family breakdown, decline in physical and mental health, substance abuse, etc. would be in part addressed.

Migrants coming to Australia taking Australian jobs are at the same time abandoning their countries of origin and depriving their home countries of a workforce.

www.animaljusticeparty.org

The Animal Justice Party (AJP) is close to the target number of members to be able to register with the Australian Electoral Commission. This is an indication of the importance the community gives to animal welfare. The party is now calling for more members so that it can begin to make an impact. By the way, isn't that a beautiful logo!

Dear Animal Supporter

Much of the cruelty inflicted on animals in this country results from government policy decisions, ignorance, and inertia. The interests of animals have not been represented in the Australian electoral system and as a result governments have not given due regard to their plight.

Over recent months, a small but widely representative group of compassionate animal advocates has been working to establish a political party to represent the interests of animals in the Australian Parliamentary system. During this time, a Charter, Constitution and Party logo have been established and a wide range of policy papers is currently being prepared, covering such areas as: vivisection, intensive farming, live animal exports, animals used for sport and entertainment, wildlife, kangaroos, domestic animals, animals and the law, marine animals, population and settlement, and others.

These policy papers will be on the Animal Justice Party web site in a few weeks from now.

To be registered as a political party with the Australian Electoral Commission the AJP will need 500 members. Simply through word of mouth and our website we have almost reached this target, but we will need many more members if we are to be the significant force that all animals need.

We therefore invite you to visit the infant (but soon to be upgraded) AJP website www.animaljusticeparty.org, read the key documents and download and complete a Party membership form.

Yours faithfully Animal Justice Party Steering Committee

20 April 2010

Photo by Brett Clifton of a new wild male kangaroo come to the neighborhood

The article about SPPA in today's Australian (20 April 2010) is an indication of the profile public dissatisfaction is giving the population issue. The Australian is a self-admittedly big population advocate, and so it is interesting to see how the new party, Stable Population Party of Australia, has been reported.

Predictable but unacceptable slurring

The online version is quite acceptable, but a printed edition this morning uses the headline 'New party slams immigrants'. See, Stephen Lunn, "New Party slams immigrants," (April 20, 2010).

William Bourke says that this in no way represents either the article or his lengthy discussion with Stephen Lunn yesterday.

It looks like that Mr Murdoch's editors are trying to paint him in a certain way.

The Australian got the Party's name completely wrong

The Australian did not get the name of his party correct either. The name of the party is not the 'Sustainable Population Party', but the Stable Population Party of Australia. The newspaper apparently cleared this up later in the online edition, but all those people who only read print media will not be able to find the party which they may desperately wish to find. And a lot of people who otherwise might join may not because of the way the Australian has represented the party.

The article itself covers the basic facts about the party, notably the population stabilising policy of balancing emigration with immigration. It also quotes William's factual statement that "population growth might be a single issue, but it cuts across national policy agendas from health, housing and education to water, climate change..." but over-emphasises the fact that it also cuts across immigration.

Why can't the Australian be more positive about what the people want?

In fact the article could be saying so many positive things, such as how the Stable Population Party, by trying to stabilise our population at as low a level as possible, offers hope of an amnesty on starving out and breaking indigenous animal populations, of mortgage martyrdom, of anxiety about old age and rising costs, of a consolidation of community and democracy, and ultimately, as the baby boomers begin to die off in 20 or 30 years, of green space and freedom becoming available to Australia's growing population of cage-reared children, sedated and bloated with fast food.

The Australian is - unfortunately for Australians - interested in marketing Australian property to the world, through its property dot com, realestate.com.au, so positive reporting here would conflict with their business policy.

Dick Smith, FOKE, and Stable Population Party of Australia in Sydney last week

The Party leader encountered a very positive reception at a venue last week.

On the night of the 15th of April 2010, population campaigner Dick Smith spoke to the Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) group where they had gathered at an environmental event on Sydney's North Shore.

FOKE's main concern is inappropriate development in their suburbs (high rise etc).

The event was packed with 170 seated attendees and a similar number standing.
Dick spoke well and introduced William Bourke of Stable Population Party of Australia to the crowd near the end.

Mainstream media were in attendance including 60 Minutes (who had been with Dick Smith all day), SBS TV, and North Shore Times (News Ltd).

William Bourke was interviewed by SBS TV and around 50 people came up to him after the event for a chat. Most of them departed after getting a SPPA membership form.

Looks like Dick Smith is leading the democratic population policy campaign and helping Australia find political alternatives to the growth lobby.

Makes a good counterpoint to Murdoch's mammoth Australia campaign.

Icelanders have rejected demands from England to repay US$5.3 billion blaming the debt on the 'gross negligence' of Iceland's former Prime Minister Geir Haarde and central bank chief David Oddsson during 2007 and 2008.

With Gordon Brown pledging legal action against the Icelandic government for refusing to honour its obligations, Iceland's pagan god Thor has lashed out at the foreigner, erupting one of Iceland's dormant volcanos on the Eyjafjallajökull glacier last Thursday [Þórsdagr Thor's Day] and sending plumes of ash southwards over the UK.

It's about time the gods looked after the rights of the ordinary citizen.
Corporate UK is now taking its financial medicine, with downed flights costing $200 million a day.

Financial services firm at the heart of unfettered Wall Street gambling, Goldman Sachs, helped the Greek government to mask the true extent of its deficit with the help of a derivatives deal that legally circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit rules. Lehmann Bros, Citibank and corporate financial gamblers and the international deregulators that fuelled predatory lending need to be held accountable for gambling the economic wealth of nations like Iceland, Mexico and Greece.

Residents of the Brisbane suburb of Milton have overwhelmingly rejected a developer's plans to erect a 31 story residential and commercial development atop. A phenomenal 700 submissions have been made by the local community in 3 days against the plans. Instead of respecting community wishes of the community, Minister for Infrastructure and Planning Stirling Hinchliffe has, instead, declared the project to be of state interest and "called-in" the development process in order to allow the project to bypass the normal legal avenues available to the community to lodge objections to the development.

Both Stirlng Hinchliffe and Andrew Fraser the local state member of Parliament have declined invitations to attend the meeting.

What you can do: Please show your support for the embattled residents of Milton by attending the meeting at 6.30PM, next Thursday at the Milton State School, Vote against the use of call-in powers on Westside News's online poll. More information: Ph 0404 833057, 0408 101117, enquiries[AT]cramed.org, cramed.org.

We reproduce below the media Release from CRAMED. Please also find PDF from which it has been adapted attached.

#SeeAlso" id="SeeAlso">See also: Mitchelton residents resist imposition of congestion nightmare of 16 Apr 10, Have your say: Tussle over Milton tower project in the Westside News of 14 Apr 10, Plans for property hubs near train stations have gone off the rails in the Courier-Mail of 8 Apr 10, Residents slam 'sledgehammer' approach to planning in the Brisbane Times of 8 Apr 10, Govt 'calls in' Milton high-rise in the Brisbane Times of 16 Apr 10, Milton tower development called-in in Quest News of 16 Apr 10

 

Concerned Residents Against Milton's Excessive Development

 

Final Public Meeting

 

Before submissions due on Milton Tennis Court and Milton Station
Neighbourhood Plan

 

When: 6.30PM, Thursday 22 April
Where: Milton State School

A LARGE public attendance is important to demonstrate the strong community opposition to the proposed developments. Bring your neighbours. Bring your family and friends -- wherever they live in SEQ, the same town planning issues we face will eventually impact them and their lifestyle. STOP THIS CRAZINESS!! SIGN SUBMISSIONS!!

Local State MP Andrew Fraser and State Planning and Infrastructure Minister Stirling Hinchliffe have again declined invitations to attend, but local media outlets are expected. Join us in giving a clear message to our elected representatives that enough is enough!!!

Local Councillor Peter Matic will attend and Council town planners have been invited so you will have an opportunity to question them.

The meeting will update you on the Milton Tennis Court Development Application and Milton Station Neighbourhood Plan, as well as developments on the proposed 31 storey development in Railway Terrace, Milton.

Submissions on the Milton Tennis Court DA and the Milton Station Neighbourhood Plan are due before the end of April. Please bring your signed submissions to the meeting. Pro-forma submissions will be available at the meeting if you wish to sign them then.

We are seeking volunteers to door knock with the pro-forma submissions. We have had an excellent response to previous door knocking efforts. Please email [email protected] if you can help.

See over for key facts about the proposed developments and what you can do to help.

CRAMED

Get involved for a better Brisbane

FACT SHEET

Milton Tennis Court

• Zoned Sport and Recreation in Brisbane City Plan

• Development application to break block in to 9 blocks, with up to 20 storey buildings, allocated green space is largely flood plain, tidal creek or Council land

• 660 units, 120 room motel, 34000 square metres commercial/retail

• Road access via Milton Road and Haig Road (opposite school)

• 2006 approval for 174 units, 8 storeys expires in September

• Local area has lost many community facilities and has inadequate green space for the existing population. Proposed increases in population mean we need more green space & community facilities

Milton
Station Neighbourhood Plan

• City Plan for this area includes 3 to 10 storey height limit

• Council seeking to increase to up to 30 storeys

• De-facto expansion of CBD

• Developers will use as a precedent for other sites (Milton Tennis Court, St Francis College, Fourex Brewery and then...)

• Council survey in 2009 showed 76% of community opposed proposed heights but Council pushing ahead

Proposed 31 storey development in Railway Terrace

• Approved by Council despite breaching City Plan (February). Approval references the State Government's SEQ Regional Plan

• Does not qualify as a transport oriented development despite public comments that it is a TOD

• Appealed by CRAMED to Planning and Environment Court (March)

• Council and developer approach State Government to declare the project of "State Interest" and use executive powers to approve the development and remove community's right to appeal

• Minister Stirling Hinchliffe to make his decision by Friday 16^th April

• 700 community submissions to Minister during Easter holidays

Submissions

• Submissions to Council are due by 29^th April (Milton Tennis Court DA) and 30^th April (Milton Station Neighbourhood Plan)

• CRAMED would like submissions returned by 23^rd April so we can copy the submissions to the State Government and hand deliver them to Council before the due dates (note Anzac Day 25^th April)

• Visit www.cramed.org for pro-forma submissions or write your own

• If you are able to door knock your local streets, we can deliver multiple copies of the submissions to you. Call Elizabeth (0404 833 057) or Paul (0408 101 117) or Bronwyn (3369 0785) to get copies delivered to you

• Opportunity to sign or return signed submissions at public meeting at 6.30pm, Thursday 22^nd April at Milton State School

• If you send your submission directly to Council, please copy Andrew Fraser, Stirling Hinchliffe and CRAMED

Two 19 year old men recently appeared in court charged with animal cruelty, this is the story that appeared in the Albany and Great Southern Weekender

TWO 19-year-olds appeared in the Albany Magistrates Court on Tuesday for allegedly striking a kangaroo and then dragging it behind their car.
Jeremy Robert Lutley (19) from Kalgan appeared on reckless driving, ill treatment of animals and drink-driving charges.

Grayson Delury (19) from Albany also appeared before the court on the ill-treatment of animals.

Police prosector Sergeant Ron Watkins said police were still waiting on paperwork relating to the charges.

Sgt Watkins said it was unusual police had charged the two men because the RSPCA often deal with these types of charges.

He said the cruelty charges might be dropped if the animal was found to be dead before it was tied behind the car.

Magistrate Elizabeth Hamilton adjourned the case until May 18 for hearing.

Of course this sort of thing is nothing new. Usually however the offenders are not caught and all we are left with is a dead kangaroo with a rope tied around its tail as was the case in Gidgegannup, WA last year. Another exception to the rule was in 2006 when 2 police officers, a ranger and a security guard in Perth were charged with animal cruelty. In this case a kangaroo that had escaped from a golf course was dragged behind a rangers vehicle for 250m while a security guard and policeman walked alongside. The case against these individuals was dropped as the DPP accepted they had not intended to injure the kangaroo.

2009 incidences involving kangaroo cruelty in Western Australia alone include:

• A beheaded kangaroo found in Ellenbrook
• A kangaroo found hanged in Manjimup
• In Mandurah a kangaroo was found with its front paws cut off along with another that had been cut in half
• In Byford a female kangaroo was euthanised after being shot with a crossbow leaving behind an orphaned in-pouch joey
• 5 kangaroos were shot with either a crossbow or a bow in the Mandurah area over a one month period
• An orphaned joey was attacked with a whipper snipper in Preston Beach, the same area where a proposed cull of 100 individuals is due to take place this year on a golf course
• 2 Dawesville men who struck a kangaroo with their car later returned to behead and gut the injured animal. 18 year old Shannon Christopher Conway was fined $3000 for his involvement yet 20 year old Thomas Forward had his charges dismissed and was awarded $5000 in costs. In this case the body of the kangaroo went missing and the prosecution was unable to prove the kangaroo was still alive when the men mutilated the animal

The residents of the Brisbane suburb of Mitchelton are amongst the latest of communities at whose expense the houing development juggernaut plans to profit. The 5,000 current residents of Mitchelton now face the prospect of having as many as 20,000 more residents crammed into high rises in the area, but they are not taking this lying down and have formed the Mitchelton Action Group to fight these plans. Below, we include the 'about' page re-published from the web site of the Mitchelton Action Group.

About the Mitchelton Action Group

The Mitchelton Action Group was set up to represent the Mitchelton Community in the consultation process with the Brisbane Housing Company (BHC) about a proposed affordable housing development in Blackwood Street Mitchelton. MAG is made up of residents and business owners who live and work in Mitchelton.

MAG has since reformed in response to the proposed Brisbane City Council plans to develop the Mitchelton area.  5 of the members of the Councils Planning team are members of MAG.

Governments are trying to overcome a chronic housing shortage caused by lack of foresight and planning by cramming high rise, high density housing into suburbs with train stations!

This will destroy Mitchelton.

Mitchelton should accept its share of new residents but Council's Plan is way over the top and the lifestyle of residents will be changed forever.

Calculations by community representatives on the Council's Planning Team indicate that the current population of the Mitchelton area is just over 5,000 and the added population could easily accommodate over of 20,000 people.

• Blackwood Street CBD 6 and 8 storeys on either side Osborne Road West
• 6 storeys from Northmore down to Sussex Street
• then higher to Samford Road Osborne Road East (Brookside)
• 6 to 10 storeys Ruby Road and Sussex Streets
• 3 to 8 storeys University Road
• 5 storeys on both sides

No plans to improve infrastructure

• No rail overpasses
• No improved intersections
• No more train station parking
• No new sporting facilities
• No public toilets for Blackwood St
• No widened main roads

It will be a congested nightmare for motorists and residents.

---

The Mitchelton Action Group is a not for profit organisation originally set up to consult with the Brisbane Housing Company on the plans to develop affordable housing in Blackwood Street Mitchelton. The Mitchelton Action Group is now representing the Mitchelton Community in negotiating with the Brisbane City Council and other interested parties in the development of the Mitchelton area.

---

See also: "Milton residents fight high-rise menace" of 25 Mar 10. #OtherGroups" id="OtherGroups">Other Brisbane Residents action groups: Auchenflower Residents Alliance, Jamboree Residents Association, Kalinga-Wooloowin Residents Association, Kedron and Gordon Park - Save Our Suburbs, Kenmore to Karalee - Save our Suburbs, Long Pocket Concerned Residents Group, Mandalay Progress Association (Fig Tree Pocket) Concerned Residents against Milton's Excessive Development, Oxley Creek Environmental Group, Save our Southbank Parkland, Sinnamon Park Residents Progress Association, Walter Taylor South Action Group Inc, West End Community Association, West Toowong Community Association.

Japanese contempt for whales, dolphins and sharks has highlihghted to the world the backward culture of this part of traditional Japanese society. Japanese whalers and fishing corporations have made Japan the pariah of the world's oceans. The Japanese lie of scientific whaling has become a cliched euphemism. Now the science has been officially confirmed as a fraud, as if we didn't already know.

The following article has just been published in the online Science Daily:

JAPANESE LOVE SLAUGHTERING DOLPHINS TOO

Each year at a cove near Taiji on the south east cost of central Japan, thousands of bottlenose dolphins and pilot whales are slaughtered by the Japanese. The cull is endorsed by the Japanese goivernment to commence on 1st September every year.

Bottlenose Dolphin, confimed as one of the most intelligent animals on the planet

Typically, over six months the town's fishermen will catch over 2,000 of Japan's annual quota of 20,000 dolphins.

CALL TO BOYCOTT JAPANESE RESTAURANTS

This slaughter of whales, dolphins and endangered fish such as Bluefin and sharks confirms the barbaric backwardness of traditional cultures in east Asia. Japan clearly is making a point to highlight its backwardness.

Around the world, including in Australia, Japanese restaurants continue to serve up Bluefin Tuna and Shark Fin soup and probably 'scientific' whale meat and dolphin. It is a disgrace!

Bluefin is critically endangered and both the scalloped hammerhead shark and whitetip shark "have seen their numbers drop dramatically since the 1980s, due to rising demand for shark fin soup especially among China's nouveau rich and for fish and chips in Europe. Surging demand for shark fin soup among Asia's booming middle classes is driving many species of these big fish to the brink of extinction."
[Source: 'Sharks threatened by Asian consumers, says Group' Michael Casey, AP, 16 March 2010]

In this March 8, 2010 photo, a woman walks past shark fins displayed in a glass case at a dried seafood shop in Hong Kong. [AP].

The following example Japanese restaurants in Australia sell Bluefin and shark fin. It is time Australians boycotted such trades perpetuating wildlife extinctions.

* SYDNEY: Blue Fin Seafood Restaurant, Brighton-Le-Sands Amateur Fishermans Club, Bestic St
Brighton-Le-Sands NSW 2216

* MELBOURNE: Blue Fin, 342 Brunswick St, Fitzroy VIC 3065

* BRISBANE: Oishii Sushi Bar Shop2/70 Pinelands Rd Sunnybank Hills Brisbane

This important statement from the Public Health Association of Australia came out in November last year but has been overlooked. It should be emphasised that the Public Health Association does not make press releases like this lightly. The entire document can be downloaded here.

Time for leadership on Australia’s population growth

The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) is calling on Federal and State Governments to develop sustainable population policies to curb the associated population health and environmental risks.

“Australia’s population is projected to grow from the current 22 million to 35 million people by 2049 unless urgent action is taken now. Given the dramatic impacts that population growth has on health and environmental sustainability, it is hard to believe that Australia still has no population policy -- it is well past time to develop one,” according to Michael Moore the CEO of the PHAA.

More population will dramatically impact on food security, housing, mental health ...

PHAA spokesperson Dr Peter Howat of the PHAA said: “The projected 60% increase in the population in just 40 years will have a dramatic impact across many areas of service provision including hospitals and other health care services. The impact will extend to food security, nutrition, affordable housing, transport, education, stress and depression with the changing demography of Australia’s population”.

More population will negate any reduction of Australia's carbon footprint

Importantly, this rate of population growth would also effectively negate any achievements in reducing Australia’s carbon footprint. Yesterday the United Nations released its State of the World Population 2009 identifying population growth projections between 8 billion and 10.5 billion people by 2050. The report also identified ‘the key point is that women and men themselves, not Governments or any other institutions, make decisions on childbearing that contribute to an environmentally sustainable human population’.

PHAA spokesperson Dr Liz Hanna added:

“Population growth of this scale will magnify environmental impacts including climate change, drought, and soil degradation and will dilute all the health benefits of migration, including access to education, health care and employment. On the other hand, stabilising population growth would have many benefits for both health and environment.”

Policy to curb overpopulation risks now critical

Dr Howat noted that: “It is now critical that all our Federal and State Governments develop sustainable population policies to curb the risks associated with the social, economic and environmental instability that result from rapid and unsustainable population growth. Population policies must be developed to assure the equitable provision of services and infrastructure. With careful planning, there is a greater likelihood that the already vulnerable members of our communities -- including Indigenous people, recent migrants, non-English speaking people, single parents, unemployed, homeless and other low income people will not be further disadvantaged.”

Emphasis placed on need for OBJECTIVE inquiry

Mr Moore emphasised “The PHAA is calling for leadership from the Australian Government to commission an objective inquiry into Australia’s population policy options in order to develop a sensible population policy”.

For further information:

see PHAA Sustainable Population Policy http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/20091028SustainablePopulationforAustraliafinal.pdf

Source: PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA MEDIA RELEASE www.phaa.net.au 18 November 2009

For further comment:
Michael Moore CEO PHAA
Dr Peter Howat, PHAA Spokesperson (Perth)
Dr Liz Hanna, Environmental Health Special Interest Group Spokesperson (ACT)

Rudd's penchant for a 'big Australia' is behind his absurd record immigration policy. Population growth and congestion is out of control and is the common denominator driving up Australian land prices, electricity, water, inflation, consumer demand, interest rates, and consequently the costs of living of ordinary Australians.

Our state and federal public infrastructure cannot cope - roads, public transport, health, education, housing, you name it!

Our state and federal public infrastructure cannot cope.
The cost of living for ordinary Australians is becoming desperate!

BIGGER ELECTRICITY BILLS

Today, Origin Energy chief executive, Grant King, warned the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia in Sydney that Electricity prices across Australia were likely to triple over the next 10 years.
He blamed the combination of the federal government's mandatory renewable-energy targets, energy policy uncertainty, higher electricity transmission and distribution costs, and higher fuel costs would drive the increase.

King attributed the rise in electricity demand to booming sales in energy-inefficient flat-screen televisions and air-conditioners. ['Energy prices to triple', The Australian April 14, 2010] This is clearly a consequence of new housing development driven by population growth laregley fueld by record immigration. And the growth lobby like the Urban Taskforce are lapping up the new cash!

Last month, that dodgy NSW Government euphemism 'The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART)' approved electricity price rises of up to 64% over the next three years, with "those living outside the main cities will bear the brunt of the increases."

'Country Energy, which provides all of rural NSW customers with their electricity, has been allowed to raise its prices by the steepest amount, with an increase of $918 if the scheme is introduced; otherwise, the rise will be $601.

'Overall, Energy Australia customers will see prices rise by a total of 46 per cent, for Integral Energy 60 per cent, and for Country Energy 64 per cent.

Welfare groups have warned that the price rises will force many low-income households into ''energy poverty'', and they will not be able to afford to pay their bills.'

[Brisbane Courier Mail, 'Households to feel pinch as price of power soars', 19th March 2010]

BIGGER WATER RATES

Across Australia, water rates are on the rise as each capital city spends big on desalination plants to cope with their swelling populations.

Last April (2009) it was reported by the Essential Services Commission that Melbourne households faced water price hikes of up to 84% over five years. The key drivers were claimed to be the global economy (standard excuse) as well as government not keeping water infrastructure up to demand and so deferring infrastructure works for years. [The Age (Melb), 21 Apr 2009]

Just two days ago, (12th April 2010), with Melbourne's extravagant new desal plant blowing out to cost a whopping $5.7 billion, Melbourne's water prices will further escalate to pay the bill and because of the extravagant dependency of desalination for electricity, which is also going up in price.

'Over the past five years the price of electricity has increased 13 per cent a year in Victoria - and in NSW prices have risen 28 per cent a year in each of the past two years.'

['Water plans drift behind a veil of secrecy', The Age April 12, 2010]

BIGGER HOUSING PRICES

In 2009 Australian capital city house prices rose by 12.1%. Meanwhile Australia's homeless stands at 16,000. Key drivers for house prices surging are the government’s first-home owners’ grant boost.
['Web alert - warning on 'crazy' house prices', Sydney Morning Herald, 16th February 2010]

Other drivers are the inflow of new immigrants seeking accommodation and foreign nationals permitted to invest in Australia's residential housing market.

BIGGER MORTAGE INTEREST RATES

Last December, interest rates were predicted to rise 1% during 2010. But the drivers were the surge of capital projects in the next few years and China growth.
['Business, brace for 1% rise in interest rates in 2010', Sydney Moring Herald, 24th December 2009]

This month, all the banks followed the Reserve Bank in raising their mortgage rates by 25 basis points, making this the 5th interest rate rise since October and has pushed up mortgage costs by a total of almost $250 a month.

Treasurer Swan said the rise was “a painful reminder” the economy was improving. How out of touch is Swan?

Economists warned there could be at least one more rate rise before the end of the year.

['CBA, ANZ, Westpac follow as Reserve Bank raises official cash rate to 4.25%', Herald Sun , 6th April 2010]

BIGGER GROCERIES BILLS

It was confirmed just last November that Australians "are paying the fastest-rising food prices of any major developed nation. The cost of feeding a family has shot up more than 40 per cent this decade, new OECD figures reveal.

Experts say the explanation for our pricey produce and soaring staples is not drought, currency movements or transport costs. University of NSW associate professor Frank Zumbo said comparing costs over 10 years eliminated such variables and exposed our "cosy" supermarket duopoly as the main reason.

[Daily Telegraph, 'Australia has fastest-rising food prices of any major developed nation', 9th November 2009]

BIGGER MEAT PRICES

Wholesale butcher Kevin Masterton says the days of expensive cuts at cheap prices are over for Australian meat lovers. He's predicted Australian meat prices will never be the same again.

"Everyone is predicting Lamb will be the first Australian meat that is unaffordable. Some of the predictions I've seen is that lamb racks and cutlets will be one hundred dollars a kilo by the middle of this decade," Kevin said.

And it's all because we've been spoiled for choice. The drought has forced farmers' hands - they've had to off-load cattle to stay afloat. "They see that they are going to make more money on the cattle so they hold onto them for longer. There is also quite a bit of export, the economy has started to turn so there is less cattle in the market," Kevin said.

And it's a similar story when it comes to lamb. There's been a nine per cent jump in retail sales and a 10 per cent rise in national expenditure on the meat.

And this year the nation's sheep flock is forecast to hit its lowest point since 1905. "And we have got massive exports to the middle east, so if you take those factors into account they've had a pretty detrimental impact on the stock," Kevin said.

"Lamb has probably had the most spectacular increase - we are probably talking four to five dollars a kilo for the lamb cuts."

['Meat prices on the rise', Today Tonight, 3rd March 2010]

So there is not enough capacity in our meat livestock industry to cope with demand, hence meat prices are going up.

BIGGER PETROL COSTS

"Crude oil prices have surged to 18-month highs on the weekend and have swept petrol prices higher.
Oil prices could go to $US95 a barrel, warns analysts. Domestically, a litre of unleaded petrol costs $1.29, up 0.3 cents.

'Oil, which has been trading at between $US75 and $US85 a barrel for months, now appears to be in a new range that could go up to $95, according to oil trader and analyst Stephen Schork.'

[Perth Sunday Times, 'Petrol prices set to rise, 6th April, 2010]

The trend suggests that Australian petrol prices could be nudging $2 a litre in two years time and this time it will stay there in line with international prices. Ain't globalisation and free trade great for locals!

BIGGER POORER AUSTRALIA

The compounding cost of living for ordinary Australians is becoming desperate!
What the economic data doesn't report is the social consequences - like the growing depression, family breakdowns, homelessness, substance abuse, suicides and domestic violence.
The long term impacts on children are devastating for not only the children but the future society they become adults in.

More people into less space driving up living costs, only delivers a poorer Australia.

The drivers of these costs must be addressed as a national priority.
The BIG elephant in the room is starkly Rudd's immigration out of control!
Rudd's red herring Population Minister is just that, an election red herring.

Rampant Rudd and his immigration wrath must be stopped!

The Medical Journal of Australia has published an article which looks at the devastating impact of population growth on public hospitals in Australia, as well as the more general impact of increased urbanisation, urban sprawl, and the reduced 'walkability' of neighbourhoods.

Here is an extract focusing on the problems public hospitals are already having coping with the demands of the current population.

"The Garling inquiry concluded in 2008 that the New South Wales health system is in a state of crisis.[13] This finding also applies to the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Victoria.[14]

An independent analysis by the Australian Medical Association has concluded that Australian public hospitals are dysfunctional, operating at full or above-full capacity, and urgently in need of increased capital funding. An important finding was that major metropolitan teaching hospitals operate on a bed occupancy rate of 95% or above. The report noted that hospital overcrowding was the most serious cause of reduced patient safety.[15]

It is clear that, even at Australia’s current population ...[*16A] the public health system is struggling to cope with demand. Changes will be required to deal with a vastly increased, yet still ageing, population and the attendant multiple comorbidities, many attributable to increased urbanisation.

Practical measures might include disinvestment (reallocating health resources from existing practices, procedures, technologies, and pharmaceuticals that do not deliver much health gain for their cost); investing in prevention; increasing the health workforce; and emphasising community health. Other measures might include increasing the role of practice nurses and expanding the role of pharmacists.

The increasing pressure on health services as a result of increased immigration might provide further motivation for a move to a single level of funding, with the federal government taking over responsibility for hospitals from the states. At the very least, this might end the “blame game” and cost-shifting that currently blights the system.

In his 2004 documentary Super size me, Morgan Spurlock suffered severe adverse health consequences after a 30-day period of eating super-sized meals at McDonald’s.16 Prime Minister Rudd’s vision of a super-sized Australia, while it might have some short-term economic benefits, will put further strain on the health system.

The plan to dramatically increase the population of Australia has to be debated and critically evaluated, and a population policy must be developed. In particular, health care professionals must engage with the federal government to ensure that it commits to and delivers on comprehensive national health and hospital reform, matching its appetite for unfettered, economically expedient migration to this country.

If this is not done, we — the citizens of a “big Australia” — will all, like Spurlock, suffer the damaging health consequences of super sizing."

NOTES

[13] Garling P. Final report of the Special Commission of Inquiry: acute care services in NSW public hospitals. Sydney: New South Wales Government, 2008. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Special_Projects/ll_splprojects.nsf/pages/acsi_finalreport (accessed Aug 2009).
[14] Penington DG. Does the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission have a real answer for public hospitals? Med J Aust 2009; 191: 446-447.
[15] Australian Medical Association. AMA public hospital report card 2009: an AMA analysis of Australia’s public hospital system. http://www.ama.com.au/node/5030 (accessed Mar 2010).
[16] Gregory AT. A counterweight to fast-food advertising [film review]. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 590.
[*16A] The author, writing at the end of 2009, underestimates Australia's population by about 2 million people, so we have left this number out. Australia's population was estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to be 22,306,143 on 13 April 2010 at 05:45:22 AM (Canberra time). Refer to the ABS population clock here: hhttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument

Source

Deborah Pelser, "Super size me: is a big Australia good for our health?"

Mission statement of a community demolitionist “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No I tell you, but division.” Jesus Christ in Luke 12:51 “Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet is the one essential, vital, quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.” Robert F. Kennedy I came to this small community to disturb and rankle you. To provoke your conditioned responses and refute them. To challenge your socially acceptable prejudices with socially outrageous truths. To promote mental yoga by forcing your brain to establish new neural pathways to process your prefabricated information in alternative ways. I came not to build upon a rotten foundation but to tear it asunder. I am not a community-builder but a community-demolitionist. I came to force unspoken and unacknowledged disagreements to the surface with provocative and disrespectful questions so that they may examined and resolved. I came to excavate the dormant truth rather than bury it with soothing falsehoods. I came to yank the self-proclaimed enlightened ones from CBC-life support so that they may survive by intellectual self-reliance and impartial research, rather than their lazy dependence on Sierra Club sound bites. I came to disturb your comfort zone because in our collective crisis no one has a right to be comfortable. Progress depends on unreasonable people, not the meek or the pliable. I came to rip off the bandage of friendly banalities, false harmony, manufactured consent and superficial smiles and expose the festering wound of subterranean acrimony beneath it so that it can be lanced with satire, derision and criticism. Venting it with small town covert gossip is not a cure but a disease of the cowardly. From the imposition of artificial unity comes simmering, septic resentments that ultimately erupt in war. Yugoslavian peace becomes a Balkan war. Delusion and denial do not make for a lasting armistice. From civil wars comes durable harmony. Fevers cannot be cured by throwing out the thermometer nor wounds healed without ventilation. Beware of the “peacemakers” for they do not bring peace but an uneasy truce with unresolved disputes and a prescription of reconciliation and forgiveness for the corrupt and unrepentant. In reality I did not come as a trouble-maker because I already found it here hidden under lock and key by those afraid to air it out. I merely wish to release it with Gestalt therapy on a public scale. I came not to be your emotional caretaker or take responsibility for your reactions and interpretations. I am not obligated to live by your limitations or submit to your chosen mantle of victimhood. If need be I will defy your taboos. In an authentic and robust democracy there can be no constitutional right not to be offended. You can choose not to take offense. I ask for no quarter, for none will be given. Growth-boosters and growth-managers will not suffer critics in our secular growthist theocracy. Fighting growth in one’s local community is a lonely crusade, and ostracism is the price of candour. But censure from the morally relativistic and depraved culture of trendy green capitalism is a badge of honour. Soon the corrupt, money-grubbing corporate lackeys of the Sierra Club hierarchy and their fake green clones will follow the economic system that nurtures them to the dustbin of history. To their willfully ignorant dupes I throw a gauntlet----read to challenge your belief system rather than shore it up. Your cosmetic gestures and trivial sacrifices are the marker of fake rebellion that does nothing to disrupt the structure of this suicidal society. Taking fewer showers and recycling your garbage will not topple the institutions of ecological ruin and insatiable exploitation. Feel-goodism is a safety valve for dissent, not a vehicle of change. You cannot consume your way to sustainability. We do not need green consumers, but fewer consumers. I have been called an extremist. But are my views extreme or is it our predicament that is extreme? Extreme growthism provokes extreme anti-growthism. Sometimes the truth is offensive. If you elect to be offended, your perceptions of me are not of my concern. I know who I am. I am a writer, and writers are not elected to be kind, but to liberate the truth and set you free. Tim Murray, environmental writer and anti-growth activist.

It's about time! In the decades since Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke decided to impose "elite as opposed to popular views on immigration", ordinary Australians have been given little access to the mass media in order to be express their opposition to population growth.

On the rare occasions when immigration has been discussed on Australia Talks, conspicuously lacking from the panel have been knowledgeable and articulate opponents of population growth. Tonight, for a change, Mark O'Connor, co-author of "Overloading Australia" will be a panel guest on Australia Talks.

So, please listen and be sure to phone in to express your opposition to the Rudd Government's anti-democratic imposition record high immigration.

When: Tonight (Monday 12 April) after the 6:00PM news Phone: 1300 22 55 76

The details from the Australia Talks web site are as follows:

There's growing unease about Australia's rapidly rising population, with a forecast of 36 million people by 2050. The prime minister's responded by appointing the nation's first Population Minister. It's shaping up as a hot election year issue, with the Coalition calling for immigration cuts. So what numbers can the country sustain? Should we be aiming for a big Australia? How much does our economic growth depend on migration?

In 2002, Senior Constable McEnally, 26, was shot at Hillsdale in Sydney's east after pursuing four men in a stolen car with four loaded stolen guns. The stolen car was driven riven by Motekiai Taufahema, then 25. The car crashed and Sione Penisini shot Senior Constable McEnallay four times through the windscreen. Penisini had fired five times at Constable McEnallay from 10 metres away. McEnallay died in hospital from head and chest wounds soon afterwards.

Senior Constable McEnally

Sione Penisini, was sentenced to 36 years for the murder. The judge at the time described the murder as "a cowardly, senseless and unnecessary crime". Motekiai Taufahema, and his brother John, who was also in the stolen car together with two other men with four loaded stolen guns, were initially convicted of murder, but their convictions were overturned and they both pleaded guilty to manslaughter. They received the same sentence. The fourth man, Meli Lagi, is serving 10 years for firearms offences.’ All four men are Tongan nationals with criminal records.

Motekiai Taufahema's visa was cancelled in August last year and he was to be deported to Tonga once he completed his sentence, but he successfully appealed against the ruling. This month (April 2010) the Criminal Court of Appeal in the Federal Court has now upheld that decision, which means Motekiai Taufahema to stay in Australia.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans says he is considering another appeal and looking at what other action he can take under the Migration Act. "I have sought advice from my department to urgently determine whether there are any appeal prospects," Immigration and Citizenship Minister Chris Evans said in a statement.

"If matters for appeal are identified, I will appeal this decision to the Full Federal Court. If no appeal prospects are identified, then I will fully consider all options available to me under the Migration Act..."

"The manslaughter of a police officer in the line of duty is a most serious offence."

Senior Constable McEnally's father, after the initial sentencing had said, "They're a bunch of grubs," Mr McEnally said. "They took my son's life and they deserve life and I'm not happy with anything less." The dead policeman's fiancee, Amanda Mahon, said there should be a mandatory life sentence for anyone who killed a police officer.

Policeman delivering flowers to hospital where slain Senior Constable McEnallay died

"We loan our men and women out . . . to protect the Australian community and the only thing we ask for in return is if something happens to them then the repercussions be severe."

All four men are immigrants to Australia from Tonga. They have each been convicted of serious crimes in Australia, including the most serious of crimes - the murder of a police officer in the line of duty.

These men have demonstrated contempt for Australian values and laws. There is no reason why he should remain in Australia.

Australian laws need to be immediately changed to automatically deport back to their originating country any immigrant found guilty of a serious crime (indictable offence) in Australia. Then judges won't have an option to allow foreign criminals remain in Australia.

It is obscene and unjust that Australians should be forced to tolerate people from overseas who become serious criminals in Australia.

Bilateral Prisoner Swap

We should go further. Our gaols should not have to wear the cost burden of foreign criminals. Australia should establish bilateral agreements with all overseas countries that foreigners convicted of serious crimes get automatically deported to the origin to serve their sentence. Conversely, Australians overseas convicted of serious crimes are automatically deported back to Australia to serve their sentences. Quid pro quo.

This would mean Sione Penisini, Motekiai Taufahema, John Taufahema, and Meli Lagi get automatically deported to Tonga immediately to serve there respective gaol terms there and be permanently barred entry from Australia.

Scapelle Corby

Jock Palfreeman

Stern Hu

Bali Nine

Importantly, it would also mean that Australians in foreign gaols such as Schappell Corby in Indonesia, Jock Palfreeman in Bulgaria, Stern Hu in China, the Bali Nine in Indonesia [Andrew Chan, Si Yi Chen, Michael Czugaj, Renae Lawrence, Tach Duc Thanh Nguyen, Matthew Norman, Scott Rush, Martin Stephens and Myuran Sukumaran] if convicted, and other Australians gaoled overseas be immediately sent back to Australia to serve their respective sentences here.

West Australian, Holly Deane-Johns, convicted of heroine trafficking in Thailand in 2000 was sentenced to 31 years gaol, but subsequently transferred to Bandyup Women's Prison in Australia in late 2007, escaping the death sentence.

Holly-Deane-Johns

Australians in Australian prisons.
This is moral justice which I challenge anyone to dispute.

=============================================

References

‘Evans exploring options to deport police killer’, ABC 7th April 2010
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/07/2866673.htm?section=justin

Govt seeks advice after Taufahema ruling, The Age, 7th April 2010
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/govt-seeks-advice-after-taufahema-ruling-20100407-rs0g.html

‘The night Glenn McEnallay died’, 9th May 2006
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/garyhughes/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_night_glenn_mcenallay_died/

‘Tributes for officer who defended city with his life’, Sydney Morning Herald, 4rd April 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/03/1017206222051.html

‘Anger at police killer's term’, Malcolm Brown and AAP, 3-Oct, 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/02/1064988346855.html?from=storyrhs

‘Australian gets 20 years for murder in Bulgaria’, Georgina Robinson, Ari Sharp [Sydney Morning Herald], 3rd December 3, 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/world/australian-gets-20-years-for-murder-in-bulgaria-20091203-k6p5.html

‘Schapelle Corby could be forced to move to remote East Java’, Herald Sun 5th April, 2010
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/schapelle-corby-could-be-forced-to-move-to-remote-east-java-jail/story-e6frf7jx-1225850017353

‘10 years for Stern Hu’, Stephen McDonell, ABC, 30th March, 2010
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/29/2859384.htm

‘Heroin addicts escape Thai death sentence’, by Mark Baker, The Age, 5th July 2003
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/04/1057179158696.html

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Nine

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australians_imprisoned_or_executed_abroad

New potoroos detected!

New Potoroos detected - in bunch of planned logging coupes – in fact a fairly outrageous cluster of 6 in an area enviro groups were negotiating for protection in the upper Yalmy River catchment last year.

Amazing new footage via remote camera

There are more clips on you-tube, but this clip number one is the best. The other three show it gathering the dry fern fronds and grass and tucking it under its belly into its curled tail - quite amazing footage captured by remote cameras and never before seen in the wild. It’s new behaviour that was previously unknown. Volunteer surveyor, Andy, has written a report which is now with the relevant authorities and Ministers. Response has been to ask for the entire footage from the camera again (as in pre-court case shenanigans) to be able to verify that the footage hasn’t been doctored or something (?!).

Something like 14 separate Potoroo images were taken over a 3-4 week period in this area of forest! They now only score a 50 ha protection zone, but with the two sites and a Potoroo skull found, DSE/VicForests should protect the entire block of forest from logging.

VicForests whole of landscape obliteration plans for Victoria's forests

These people are supposed to be working for us!

And while speaking of ‘never before seen’ phenomena – VicForests logging plans have been amended to include 24 coupes in the Big River and St Patricks River junction just to the sth west of Mt Ellery and Errinundra Nat park (west of Goolengook). These coupes are in a mass block shoulder to shoulder, again in an area mapped for protection by enviro groups while negotiating old growth and High Conservation Value (HCV) forests for protection. This is whole of landscape obliteration and appears to be deliberate targeting – or a major mapping error! It’s also in a Potoroo and Spot-tailed Quoll Special Management Zone! Closing date for submissions and comments were yesterday.

Forests Forever Ecology Camp

Forests Forever Ecology camp – a fantastic event again over Easter. Rainforests, old growth, (sadly, too much of it logged) and of course Brown Mountain all featured. If people want to visit Brown Mt on their own at any time, grab the booklet from the EEG website and take yourself in there. http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/?q=node/265 then click on the bottom button to download the booklet as a PDF. EEG have now tracked into a beautiful new stand of giants around a magical glade. They than all the FF camp helpers, and especially Robyn and John.

New EEG Branch in Melbourne soon

A new EEG branch in Melb is being set up to help facilitate campaign work down there. EEG will let supporters know when and where the first meeting will be.

Importance of EEG's work reflected in massive response in donations from public

Over 700 donors have helped pay EEG's legal fees so far. This is phenomenal support that even some bigger groups can’t manage. EEG still could need more donations as the case was twice as long as anticipated and ended up with more expert witnesses than first thought. All were needed to try and secure a win for the forests.

If you want to make a tax-deductible donation before the end of the financial year – think about making this it! And if you want to donate, why not buy a beautiful Brown Mt card as a gift in exchange for your donation. See website here for details #10;<p>If you’d like to donate specifically to help buy more survey gear like cameras ($400) or 6v gel cell batteries to run the cameras ($30) or fuel to help run the car to go out with survey eqpt (any amount) or a new-fandangled weatherproof sound recorder that can be trained to pick up only endangered frogs etc ($800), then by all means let EEG know. </p>&#10;<p>There are various options for donating – PayPal via website, another secure system (if you don’t like PayPal), direct deposit (email me for details) or cheque via old fashioned envelope and stamp method.</p>&#10;</body></html>">

Help requested by Williamstown Saturday 10th at 1pm

Save Williamstown Meeting and Workshop at Seaworks Tavern this Saturday 10 April at 1pm

Seaworks is on Nelson Place, parking entry on Ann St.

This is an important meeting.

See below video from 29 March, which gives the story up to the most recent outrages:

Arbitrary rezoning tramples democracy

The Minister, Justin Madden, has already rezoned the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site residential, preventing any mixed use which could have benefited the community and protected the shipyards. Hobsons Bay Council has been excluded from the rezoning decision and was not informed until minutes before the Minister's press release on 26th March. The rezone was on the request of the developer, Nelson Place Village Pty Ltd with no reference to our council or the community or the industrial stakeholders.

The council had NOT delayed the decision on the development application, the developer had only submitted the application in August 2009 and the Council considered it in December 2009.

The Minister has set up an advisory committee to report to him on what is suitable development criteria for the site BUT individuals in the community will not be permitted to make submissions to the Minister's committee. The committee's report is to be provided within 8 weeks of submissions closing.

see: http://www.savewilliamstown.net/Save_Williamstown/NEWS/Entries/2010/4/8_Draft_Terms_of_Reference_for_the_Ministers_Advisory_Committee.html

Community locked out of consultations - outsider developers indulged

The community needs to be aware that the Minister's draft Terms of Reference for his advisory committee do not include third party responses or open community consultation. Only community based groups such as Save Williamstown, WNSRA and POW are to be invited to submit to the Minister's advisory committee. Therefore attending Save Williamstown meetings will be your opportunity to tell Minister Madden what our community believes is appropriate development.

Issues such as:

Heritage,

Impact on Williamstown jobs,

Heights and

Impact on Infastructure of an increasing Williamstown population

will be discussed in preparation for the Save Williamstown submission.

Please make sure that everyone who wants to be on our emailing list gives us a contact email address. Lists will be available at the meeting. People not at the meeting who needs to add their name to the list should send an email to [email protected].
If you know people to telephone, please establish telephone trees to let as many people know what is happening.
Funds will also be needed for letterboxing.
If you have skills or time please also let us know on the lists at the meeting or by email to [email protected].

AND FOR THOSE WHO THINK RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS OKAY AS LONG AS THE HERITAGE OVERLAY AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS APPLY.. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE DEVELOPER STILL WANTS AT LEAST 46.5 METRE TOWERS (OR UP TO 17 STOREYS) AS SHOWN IN DESIGN OPTION 5.

THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THEY ARE SEEKING WHATEVER MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND PROFIT THEY CAN OBTAIN OUT OF THIS SITE.

AND THIS WILL BE A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.

Thanks,

Save Williamstown

--

Save Williamstown Working Group
Website: http://www.savewilliamstown.net
Email (General): info[AT]savewilliamstown.net
Planning and Design Issues: [email protected]
Communications and Media Issues: [email protected]
Legal Issues: legal[AT]savewilliamstown.net
Strategy Issues: strategy1[AT]savewilliamstown.net

Transcript:

Panel discussion on population, Radio National Breakfast program
Friday 9 April 2010, 8.10am – 8.23am
Interviewer: Fran Kelly
Panel Members: John Coulter (SPA), Bob Carr, Nick Minchin

Fran Kelly: This week has definitely been about the politics of population. With the appointment of Tony Burke as population minister on the weekend Labor has 12 months to come up with a national population policy. Australia’s never had a formal national population policy or target. So we thought we’d discuss this morning what that policy should look like and also explore why the politics of population is so fraught with danger. To help us answer those questions we’re joined by three guests who all support a contained population for Australia and have tried for many years to put the issue on the map. The call for a smaller Australia was backed up by a Lowy poll this week which showed that 69% of us think that 36 million Australians by 2050, which is the Treasury projections released earlier, is simply too large, too many people.

Dr John Coulter is Vice-President of Sustainable Population Australia and a former leader of the Australian Democrats. Nick Minchin is a former Finance and Industry Minister in the Howard Government and he’s set to retire from the Senate next year after 18 years in that chamber. They both join us in Adelaide this morning. Also on the panel today Bob Carr, Premier of NSW between 1995 and 2005, he’s in our Melbourne studio. Good morning to all of you.

I want to ask all of you what a federal population policy should look like. Nick Minchin, Senator Minchin, can I ask you that first, what should it include, a population policy for this country?

Nick Minchin: Well what I don’t think it would be would be to say we want a particular nominated numerical target in a particular year and when we reach it we’re just going to stop. I don’t think that is realistic but it should be a very deliberate and clear framework within which decisions affecting the population are made. And it should be responsive to both inevitable trends that are not responsive to levers, like the birth and death rates, and certain givens in the immigration rate, but it also should be proactive in trying to influence outcomes, and it should be about the sustainability of particular rates of population growth, and I think the problem we have at the moment is that in the absence of any formal population policy all we have is a responsive component which simply seeks to respond to whatever goes on with the natural increase and the immigration rate. So I think we need a much more proactive component in a formal population policy.

Fran Kelly: Proactive in trying to influence where our population policy heads?

Nick Minchin: Yes. Exactly.

Fran Kelly: OK we’ll come to that in a moment but first let me ask all our panelists this simple question, what should a population policy look like – John Coulter?

John Coulter: A population policy should begin with a recognition that Australians are not living sustainably now, environmentally sustainably now, either with respect to the Australian environment or with respect to the global environment. Moving on from that there needs to be a recognition from all governments that the drivers of this unsustainability are continual population growth and economic growth and both those levers need to be tackled. There is no magic number, I agree with Nick on this, there’s no magic number to which we should be aiming by a particular date because of that reciprocal relationship, so the shape of it should be a direction rather than a particular number.

Fran Kelly: OK, and Bob Carr to you now just on that particular number the Minister Tony Burke did make it clear yesterday that Labor will not be coming up with a target, no number. He says a population policy target is not central to that, he agrees with John Coulter that it should be more about direction than number.

Bob Carr: Yes that’s my position as well, I think though the population policy has got to detach us from the idea of endless growth because the only policy we allow for now has been more – M-O-R-E. I think it’s got to acknowledge that there’s some validity, some truth in the notion of the carrying capacity for a continent with Australia’s characteristics and I think there’s an opportunity to link population growth to a number of variables – I’ll give you three: energy efficiency, limited or cautious population growth until we cease to be such a major emitter of carbon. And that could await the arrival of nuclear fusion for example or another endless non-polluting supply of baseload power. Water – the efficiency with which we handle water, the advent of new technologies for desal, again, a cautious approach on population growth, or restrained approach on population growth, until we make progress on that front. And I think the third very quickly is urban consolidation until cities like Perth and Brisbane achieve the urban consolidation rates that Sydney’s got, i.e. the ratio of apartment dwelling to single detached cottage dwelling I think has got to be linked to population growth.

Fran Kelly: OK so all three of you think we don’t need a target, but all of these things are contingent on numbers, aren’t they? Bob Carr as you said there, a notion of a carrying capacity that is just a target by another name, isn’t it?

Bob Carr: I think we’ve got to discuss the context in which carrying capacity constraints cut in. We’ve got to say carrying capacity constraints are there until we’ve achieved the levels of water efficiency, energy efficiency and efficiency in land use that are desirable. I think that’s a way of dealing with that and of linking that to policy outcomes.

Fran Kelly: Nick Minchin the point you made in your initial answer there, we need to be proactive in trying to impact where our population is headed – what do you mean by proactive? That’s presumably pulling some levers and not others. What would you be proactive in?

Nick Minchin: Well obviously the rate of immigration is the most amenable lever available to governments. Despite Peter Costello’s colourful rhetoric I don’t think governments do have levers over the birthrate and they certainly don’t have and shouldn’t have levers over the death rate. So the natural increase I think is largely a given and not amenable to the government, but the immigration rate is definitely amenable and I’ve sat round our Cabinet table for 10 years where we had the annual discussion of the immigration program and that is entirely within the hands of the government. And I don’t want to be party political today but Mr Rudd just saying ‘Oh well 36 million it’s just going to happen and we just have to work out how to deal with it, that’s ridiculous because the rate of immigration is entirely a function of federal government policy and is a direct lever over which it has all the authority it needs.

Fran Kelly: In fact, let’s stay with that it is a direct lever, a lever that governments pull. It’s our only formal population policy we’ve had really from one year to the next is alterations and changes in the immigration policy. Earlier in the program we spoke to ANU demographer Peter McDonald, he’s given advice to the federal government that the immigration intake in this country should be around the annual intake of 180,000 people a year in order to be able to economically support our ageing population. Let’s have a listen:

Peter McDonald: Yes we have given that advice to the government. Obviously it’s not 180,000 every year, that can’t possibly work. But broadly in the range of 160,000 to just over 200,000 averaging out at about 180,000. This result produces the best impact upon ageing in the population and that then contributes to growth in GDP per capita for Australia.

Fran Kelly: Nick Minchin do you like that number, do you like that advice?

Nick Minchin: No I don’t I think that’s ridiculous. With great respect to Mr McDonald he is well-known as a high immigration guy and none of what he said has any foundation. We all know that the ageing of the population is not amenable to change by dint of the immigration policy because immigrants by and large come in at an age profile not dissimilar to the current profile of the Australian economy.

Fran Kelly: That’s not true for the large number of temporary entrants?

Nick Minchin: No but by and large, every study that’s ever been done on this shows that you’re not going to change the age profile of Australia in any realistic way by altering the immigration program in any realistic way, so that’s nonsense. And the productivity commission has made quite clear that … the real economic determinant for me is real GDP per head. That’s the economic variable in all this, and for Mr McDonald to say that will be maximized by 180,000 is also nonsense according to the Productivity Commission which shows that high rates of immigration will not enhance real GDP per head. That is 50% more, 180,000 is 50% higher immigration than the average under the Coalition government of around 125,000 so it is a massive increase in the immigration rate we’ve had for the last 10 or 15 years.

Fran Kelly: John Coulter, what’s your response to that advice that Peter McDonald has given the government. 180,000 immigrants per year.

John Coulter: Look I agree with you Fran and I’ve looked at the figures which came from the ABS just a couple of weeks ago on per capita growth of gross state product and in fact states that have performed worst were Queensland and Western Australia with a minus 2.3% and WA with a minus 2.1% growth and that was simply due to the very rapid rate of population increase. And if you look at that over a longer period of time you find exactly the same thing. Could I just pick up on what Bob Carr was saying – whilst it is highly desirable to use various technological techniques to try and improve our energy efficiency and find alternative means of energy and to improve the efficiency with which we use other resources, unfortunately humanity over the last couple of centuries has always taken those improvements as a way of increasing its population so the total impact on the environment was actually increased. So while we do those things it is absolutely vital that we recognise that we are not living sustainably now and consequently we need to do those things now which will reduce both the per capita impact and also the number of capits. And picking up on one of the things that Nick Minchin has said in relation to the birth rate, in fact the Howard government followed by the Rudd government has provided a very large baby bonus and that has certainly had some impact on the fertility rate. That should be removed, we should not be rewarding people in Australia for having babies, particularly when we have the highest emissions per capita of greenhouse gases in the world.

Fran Kelly: OK now these are real political hot button points, now John that you’re saying. Bob Carr do you think any politician would willingly suggest we need to cut our birth rate?

Bob Carr: I think it’s quite feasible for politicians to say that. I think Australian people are responsive to the argument that we are not serving the country’s environmental or economic interests by running such an ambitious policy of population growth. And look I agree completely with what’s been said about ageing of the population and immigration. Every study I have seen has made it absolutely clear that you’d have to run immigration at absolutely unsustainably high levels and for a very long time to have an impact on population ageing profiles.

John Coulter: You’re putting it off to the future

Bob Carr: Yes, you’re putting it off to the future. My challenge to the people who support a big Australia, a constantly growing population on both fronts, immigration and natural growth, is this: when are you satisfied? Are you satisfied when a population of 50 million or 60 million, all the east coast of Australia, every last inch of it, is urbanized? Because that’s what this debate is about. In land use patterns, in terms of planning, the idea of a bigger Australia, a population of 50 million, is a concept for the total, heavy, intensive urbanization of the east coast of Australia. That’s what this debate is about. The idea that we’ve got a population distribution that remotely resembles that of north America – we’ve got no Chicagos, we’ve got no Oklahoma cities or Kansas cities, we haven’t got sizeable population centres in inland Australia and given the water and other constraints, the aridity of the land we never will.

Fran Kelly: OK, we’ve only got a couple of minutes left. I’ll come to all of you one more time before we go but Bob Carr just a political question to you from all your experience is it possible to have an immigration debate in this country without it becoming overloaded with racist overtones. Already again this week it’s got muddled up with asylum seekers.

Bob Carr: Absolutely. The Australian public have got the highest political IQ of any electorate in the world and what we’ve seen in the last six months since this 36 million figure started to alarm people and render them anxious is a sophisticated debate where people haven’t opened up the issue of multiculturalism or where migrants come from. There’s been no Hansonite element whatsoever in this, it’s been a debate about population targets, about carrying capacity, about water and energy use, about planning the shape of our cities and these super ambitious immigration targets that governments have signed up to. This is a debate not about the value of immigration but about the costs of surging levels of immigration that Australians find very disturbing.

Fran Kelly: OK Nick Minchin a final question to you, I’m wondering what you make about the hints that our Population Minister Tony Burke is putting out there about our two speed economy and the answer to our population programs might be a greater spread of population? This has been tried before and has failed hasn’t it?

Nick Minchin: Well I was going to say, every immigration minister in living history has said oh what we need is a better distribution of the population. In a country that doesn’t have internal passports it is of course utterly ridiculous. You might give concessions to people to go to Kalgoorlie but they can hop on a bus to Sydney the very next day. That’s an absolute nonsense and we’ve heard it all before and it won’t work.

Fran Kelly: And John Coulter we’ve heard from you, you keep making the point that we’re not living sustainably. The fact is however we’re living here, the world is populating at a massive rate. Human population will increase from 2 billion to 9 billion in a single lifetime, with that sort of potential overload, it’s almost irrelevant what policy we opt for here and more people will ultimately come anyway won’t they?

John Coulter: No, I don’t think so, and I’ve held this view for the last 40 odd years that Australia should be deliberately setting itself on a course towards a sustainable future, not in isolation but being very very prepared to share its knowledge and its technology and its success and its failures with other countries. And just picking up on the issue of racism, the most racist policy we can possibly pursue is this one of high immigration. Because what we’re saying to the rest of the world is ‘You bugger off, we’re going to just continue to consume more and more and more, and we don’t care what happens to the rest of you’. So it’s the high immigration people who are in effect the most racist people.

Fran Kelly: That sounds like a great place to leave it. John Coulter, Bob Carr, and Nick Minchin, thank you very much for joining us on Breakfast.

May 5th 2010 - St Kilda and South Melbourne ALP Branches present POPULATE AND/OR PERISH: Are our migration numbers right or wrong?
A debate and discussion with Michael Danby MP, Federal Member for Melbourne Ports VERSUS Kelvin Thomson MP, Federal Member for Wills, Chair of the joint Standing Committee on Treaties (Non-ALP members may sign in as guests and attend.)

Wednesday May 5, 2010
7.30-9.30pm
Cora Graves Centre
38 Blessington Street ST. KILDA
VICTORIA

Description

Saint Kilda and South Melbourne ALP Branches present POPULATE AND/OR PERISH: Are our migration numbers right or wrong.

A debate and discussion with
Michael Danby MP
Federal Member for Melbourne Ports
versus
Kelvin Thomson MP
Federal Member for Wills
Chair of the joint Standing Committee on Treaties

Yes, its the event that had to happen: a debate on population between two senior Labor Figures
who have featured heavily in the media in recent years with opposing opinions on this important topic.

Come along and see DANBY and THOMSON slog it out, ask them questions, grapple with this enormous policy question

Non-ALP members may sign in as guests

The debate that has been organised is an ALP event, that will be taking place at one of the local branch meetings in Melbourne Ports. Standing orders for the meeting will be suspended to allow for the debate to proceed.

ALP members have been formally invited from the Melbourne Ports Electorate and surrounding electorates. Any non members who are interested in attending need to understand they will be signing in as guests at an ALP branch meeting.

Republished from http://www.colorofchange.org/opennet/

Dear friends,

The Internet has made amazing things possible, like freeing the Jena 6 and electing President Obama. None of it could have happened without an "open" Internet: one where Internet service providers are not allowed to interfere with what is seen and by whom.

Comcast, AT&T, Verizon - powerful broadband providers

Now, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon -- the most powerful broadband providers -- are trying to fundamentally change the way the Internet works. They're seeking to make even bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers over what we see and do online. If they succeed, the Internet would be more like radio and television: a few major corporations would control which voices are heard most easily, and it would be much harder for grassroots groups, individuals, and small businesses to compete with large corporations and well-funded special interests.

Big Money affecting democracy

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants to do the right thing and keep the Internet open, but the big providers have been attacking their efforts, with help from Black leaders who have financial ties to the industry. And a recent court ruling just made the FCC's job even tougher.[1] If the FCC is to preserve an open Internet, they will have to boldly assert their authority and press even harder. It's why they need to hear directly from everyday people about the importance of an open Internet, now.

Send them a message

Will you join me in sending a message to the Federal Communications Commission supporting their effort to preserve an open Internet? It takes only a moment:

http://www.colorofchange.org/opennet/?id=2432-1205225

Net neutrality

The FCC is working to create rules that would protect "net neutrality," the principle that protects an open and free Internet and which has guided the Internet's operation since it began. It guarantees that information you put online is treated the same as anyone else's information in terms of its basic ability to travel across the Internet. Your own personal website or blog can compete on equal footing with the biggest companies. It's the reason the Internet is so diverse -- and so powerful. Anyone with a good idea can find their audience online, whether or not there's money to promote the idea or money to be made from it.

Big providers working on controlling internet information stream

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are spending millions of dollars lobbying to create a new system where they can charge large fees to speed up some data while leaving those who can't afford to pay in the slow lane.[2] Such a system could end the Internet as we know it -- giving wealthier voices on the Internet a much bigger megaphone than poorer voices, and stunting the Internet's amazing equalizing potential.

Front groups posing as your friend

Buying the support of Black organizations?

President Obama strongly supports net neutrality, and so do most members of the FCC. With so much at stake for Black communities, you would expect Black leaders and civic organizations to line up in support of an open Internet.

But instead, a group of Black civic organizations is challenging the adoption of net neutrality rules. Some of the groups are nothing more than front groups for the phone and cable companies. Others, however, are major civil rights groups -- and all of them have significant financial ties to the nation's biggest Internet service providers. For example, AT&T donated half a million dollars last year to the NAACP, and led a drive to raise $5 million more[3], and boasts of donating nearly $3 million over the last ten years to a number of Black-led organizations.[4] Verizon, meanwhile, recently gave The National Urban League and the National Council of La Raza a $2.2 million grant.[5] Comcast is one of the National Urban League's "national partners" (Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen now sits on the NUL's Board of Trustees)[6], and the NUL's 2008 annual report notes that Comcast donated over $1 million that year.[7] Many of these groups have now filed letters with the FCC opposing or cautioning against net neutrality,[8,9,10,11] and the Internet service providers are using the groups' support to promote their agenda in Washington.[12,13]

Wannabe gate-keepers false 'trickle-down' argument

The main argument put forth by these groups is that net neutrality rules would widen the digital divide. They say that unless we allow Internet service providers to make bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers online, they won't expand Internet access in under-served communities. It's a bogus, trickle-down argument that has been thoroughly debunked.[14, 15] Expanding access to high speed Internet is an extremely important goal. But Internet service providers are already making huge profits,[16, 17] and if they believed that investing in low-income communities made good business sense, they would already be doing it. Allowing them to make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet won't change that. When these civil rights groups have been asked to back up their arguments, none have been able to do so without appealing to discredited, industry-funded studies.[18] Nevertheless, the FCC has taken notice of what these civil rights groups are saying about net neutrality, and is wary of going against them for fear of being perceived as insensitive to minority concerns.[19]

Now it's up to you

Now it's up to you

The FCC wants to do the right thing and implement net neutrality rules. FCC commissioners know, as we do, that the anti-net neutrality arguments coming from civil rights groups are bogus. But they don't want to appear to be on the wrong side of Black interests.[20]

We need to demonstrate that there's support among Black folks and everyone else for protecting an open Internet. Please join me in telling the FCC that we support net neutrality.

You can add your voice here

You can add your voice here:

http://www.colorofchange.org/opennet/?id=2432-1205225

Thanks.

References:

1. http://bit.ly/drWbQ3
2. http://www.savetheinternet.com/threats-open-internet
3. http://bit.ly/akyXZS
4. http://bit.ly/aGOz89
5. http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/54262/
6. http://bit.ly/93zDr6
7. http://bit.ly/dnqyq4
8. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020141807
9. http://mmtconline.org/lp-pdf/NatlOrgs%20NN%20Comments%20011410.pdf
10. http://colorofchange.org/opennet/jan-letter.pdf
11. http://colorofchange.org/opennet/naacp-letters.pdf
12. http://colorofchange.org/opennet/usindustry-letter.pdf
13. http://bit.ly/d8GdOu
14. http://www.freepress.net/files/nn_fact_v_fiction_final.pdf
15. http://bit.ly/ay0dx7
16. http://bit.ly/9JQSDk
17. http://nyti.ms/cZaGq8
18. http://bit.ly/cpPA51
19. http://huff.to/awKtvk
20. http://huff.to/awKtvk

Today Treasurer Wayne Swan has tried to justify another rise in interest rates by claiming in true polly-speak that such an impost is a sign of a stronger Australian economy. Swan’s growth fettish belies the LibLab's stale 20th Century baby-boomer ideology. Last month Swan's fettish for strong economic growth and strong population growth for Australia was reaffirmed at the Population Summit in Brisbane held 30th March 2010.

But Swan's growth fettish and consequential rising costs of living do not augur well for most Australians with mortgages.

Swan on the issue of Australia’s current record population growth claims:

“a population cap would compound, not solve, the growth challenges Australia faces.”

“Capping growth over the next 40 years at 0.8 per cent instead of the 1.2 per cent projected would wipe 17 per cent off the nation's gross domestic product by 2050.”

“Restricting population growth in fast-growing southeast Queensland would result in regional product on a per capita basis dropping by 5 per cent.”

“Australia faced a steep decline in workforce participation due to ageing, which would hit growth and government revenue while dramatically pushing up health spending. Boosting productivity would be critical in coping with the ageing trend.”

Swan premised that economic and population growth can only be good for Australia and the task is for Australia to learn how to "grow smarter".

But Swan only sees the economic data yet has no broader social plan. Swan promises to protect national living standards and environmental sustainability, without saying how he can do this.

This is on the back of Prime Minister Rudd infamous October 2009 pronoucement:

"I actually believe in a big Australia I make no apology for that. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing."

It made Australians reel in fear.

On uttering that dire portent, Rudd cast the demise of Australian lifestyle, inviting hoards of legalised arrivals. And neither Rudd nor Swan offers any plans for coping with this enlarged population – no plans for sustainability, infrastructure and maintaining the Australian quality of life. Both are blinkered to the narrow economic interpretations and have lost sight of the social and environmental consequences of high population growth. Rudd’s response on the run is:

"That is why we're taking a leading position on climate change but also the long-term sustainability of the Murray-Darling and the proper provision of water supplies for the future. "This Government is building for the future - we call it nation-building for the future.”

What crap. Some future. Interests rates have just gone up again and are set to continue only exacerbating house unaffordability, the cost of living and degrading Australian living standards. Australian cities have run out of potable water, so billions in taxes are going into desalination plants. Utility charges are going up. Energy Australia is set to raise electricity prices by 60% over the next three years in order to fund Sydney’s massive electricity infrastructure to catch up with the growing urban sprawl. Roads are congested in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. Public transport is old and overloaded.

Swan's and Rudd’s Hong Kong vision for Australia does a not sit well with most Australians. Neither Labor or Liberal have no mandate to impose a growth fettish on Australians. Most Australians already feel that our environment can not cope with a larger population. Treasury’s projection of a population of 35 million by 2050 is obscene.

Back in October 2009, even Federal Treasury head Ken Henry expressed concern that Australia would not be able to sustain a predicted 60 per cent growth in population over the next four decades.

Prosperity is not aggregate GDP figures. It is maintaining and improving the quality of life and standard of living per capita. Swan being a numbers man hasn’t worked out how to measure that so he ignores it. Rudd’s Labor Government has run out of ideas and ideology relevant to Australians.

Rudd’s initiating the role of Minister for Population this month doesn’t change his 'Big Australia' vision, but just wastes more taxpayer money to find a way to justify and spread the 35 million. hardly a priority, population features in Mr Burke's mixed bucked portfolio of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. his only mandate is to deliver some population strategy in 12 months, after the election. Clearly, this is purely electioneering appeasement to disaffected Labor voters. Rudd has responded tokenly to Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown’s proposal for a Senate inquiry into Australia's population. Rudd's population minister appointment effectively hijacks what ought to be an independent review process.

And NSW Labor puppet, Premier Keneally expectedly tows the Labor line: ''I believe Sydney can grow and can grow sustainably, economically and environmentally...Cities can either grow or they can shrink. Shrinking is not an option for Sydney.'' While NSW Liberal planning spokesman, Brad Hazzard, ducked the migration issue saying it was being discussed in the community as Sydney became more crowded.

The Liberal-National Coalition are little different in their ideological response. They listen to Howard’s old Productivity Commission which strangely enough advocates for more productivity and with that more population. The Opposition wants an independent specialist body to inquire into future policies dealing with Australia's population growth – just like the Productivity Commission. Otherwise these listen to self-serving growth fettish extremists the Urban Taskforce.

Not surprisingly, Urban Taskforce chief executive Aaron Gadiel argues for no cap on immigration and says:

"One of the reasons that we don't have the infrastructure that we all want and expect is that in many cases our population in our urban centres is just not large enough," he said. "The larger the population, the more the Government is getting the tax revenue in and has the labour force available to build up the infrastructure."

More people, more urban development, more profits for Urban Taskforce members.

Swan argues that countering pressures of immigration can be addressed by Rudd Labor Government’s education revolution, health reform, welfare reform and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. How so? Population fueled mainly by immigration drives pressures on water scarcity, urban planning and infrastructure. Population growth is pushing up interest rates, making housing even more unaffordable for Australians. Swan makes no mention of addressing the direct cost of immigration – employment opportunities, housing affordability, cost of living, congestion, inadequate hospital beds, inadequate child care places, utility costs up – electricity set to rise by 60 % in NSW.

"We're determined to make sure that this government and subsequent governments stay dedicated to that task...if it doesn't, we'll all be poorer and we won't necessarily be socially cohesive or environmentally sustainable."

What a vague uncommitted statement!

Australia's Big Picture

According to former NSW Premier Bob Carr, I think we've got to recognise that our cities don't get better economically or in terms of liveability if we force feed population growth into them with this surging level of immigration, that when it comes to skills shortages for example, any new trades person brought into this country to fill a skills shortage also brings dependants. Nor does high immigration solve the problem of an aging population We've got to look at nurturing workers to stay in the workforce longer.

Australian businesman, Dick Smith, says Australia should cut population by slashing immigration and encouraging women to have only two babies. Mr Smith said Australia did not have enough water or food to support millions more people. It was crazy that seawater was being desalinated for drinking water to supply a booming population. "I feel they're going to spend most of their time working out how we can cope with 36 million, rather than looking at whether we really want 36 million."

But currently the facts are that Australia’s population growth rate (September 2009) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics is 2.1%. The preliminary estimated resident population (ERP) of Australia at 30 September 2009 was 22,066,000 persons. This was an increase of 451,900 persons (2.1%) since 30 September 2008 and 110,400 persons since 30 June 2009.

Compounding at 2.1%, Australia’s population will not be 35 million by 2050, but 35 million by 2030, less than a generation away. [Refer table below]

Sep-08 21,614,100
Sep-09 22,066,000
Sep-10 22,529,000
Sep-11 23,002,000
Sep-12 23,485,000
Sep-13 23,978,000
Sep-14 24,482,000
Sep-15 24,996,000
Sep-16 25,521,000
Sep-17 26,057,000
Sep-18 26,604,000
Sep-19 27,163,000
Sep-20 27,733,000
Sep-21 28,315,000
Sep-22 28,910,000
Sep-23 29,517,000
Sep-24 30,137,000
Sep-25 30,770,000
Sep-26 31,416,000
Sep-27 32,076,000
Sep-28 32,750,000
Sep-29 33,438,000
Sep-30 34,140,000
Sep-31 34,859,000
Sep-32 35,591,000
Sep-33 36,338,000
Sep-34 37,101,000
Sep-35 37,880,000
Sep-36 38,675,000
Sep-37 39,487,000
Sep-38 40,316,000
Sep-39 41,163,000
Sep-40 42,027,000
Sep-41 42,910,000
Sep-42 43,811,000
Sep-43 44,731,000
Sep-44 45,670,000
Sep-45 46,629,000
Sep-46 47,608,000
Sep-47 48,608,000
Sep-48 49,629,000
Sep-49 50,671,000
Sep-50 51,735,000

MESSAGES:

This Rudd-Swan trend for Australia is:

1. 35 million by 2030, not by 2050
2. 50 million by 2050!
3. A million per year (1/4 of Melbourne every year)

Lib/Lab politics have run out of ideology relevant for Australia in the 21st Century. Both are stagnated in 20th Century ideals of economic rationalism, economic growth and globalisation. Neither have workable long term answers to Australia’s entrenched triple bottom line (TBL) dilemmas.

Three simple and effective decisions to stem Australia’s population blowout and give Australia room to explore capacity ready options are:

1. End the Baby Bonus

2. End the Subclass 457 – Business (Long Stay) Visa Scheme

3. Restrict all work visas to Employer Nomination Scheme Occupation List (ENSOL), which requires each applicant to be nominated by an Australian employer to fill a position in an occupation that appears in the ENSOL and for the applicant to demonstrate that they have the necessary skills (including conversational English skills).

But, if economic growth and population growth are causing unacceptable social costs, then what is the alternative?

Clive Hamilton in his 2003 book Growth Fetish argues that our politicans and media are smitten with growth and have an obsession with economic growth (growth fetishism) and the marketing society lie at the heart of our social ills. For decades our political leaders and opinion makers have touted higher incomes as the way to a better future. Economic growth means better lives for us all.

Hamilton points out that 'despite many years of sustained economic growth and increased personal incomes Australia has large social divisions and we don’t seem to be any happier. Economic growth and the marketing society have corrupted our social priorities and political structures, and have created a profound sense of alienation among young and old. lies at the heart of our current political, social and environmental ills - and offers a thought-provoking alternative.’

=======================================================

References:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/23/2721924.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/wayne-swan-goes-for-growth-in-population-debate/story-e6frgczf-1225847691025

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cap-no-solution-to-australias-population-challenge-swan-20100330-r994.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/cut-population-now-by-slashing-immigration-and-encouraging-women-to-have-only-two-babies-dick-smith/story-e6frf7l6-1225823124407

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/04/2863763.htm

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201004/s2866051.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/wayne-swan-down-on-growth-for-its-own-sake/story-e6frg6nf-1225825707741

http://www.familyassist.gov.au/Payments/familyassistance/baby_bonus/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=growth_fetish

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/skilled-workers/sbs/how-the-visa-works.htm

Wayne Swann obfuscates

According to recent reports Wayne Swan ..."can't bring (him)self to agree with those who think we can solve all our problems by putting a freeze on national
population growth”. No Wayne, we certainly can't solve all our problems by reducing runaway population growth, but it sure would go a long way toward easing house prices, shortening hospital queues, preserving the environment and cutting our carbon footprints.

Who is this ‘We’?

A great many Australians these days would really like to know who exactly Mr Swan is referring to when he talks about "we" solving “our” problems. Is it the "working families" struggling in the outer suburbs to pay off hefty mortgages on second-rate housing stock on the fringes of our cities - or is it the vested corporate interests at the big end of town which possess an insatiable appetite for more growth, more markets and more people? Whose problems are you trying to solve Mr Swan?

Political addiction to population growth

The gap between the policies of the Liberal/Labor (Liboral?) party elites - that are politically addicted to massive population growth and mass-immigration - and the wishes of the electorate has never been greater. It’s a bipartisan problem. Tony Abbott has been whipping up mass hysteria about boat people lately, trying to make it an election issue. He's going to "close the borders" screamed the Herald Sun last week. But on the broader topic of mass-immigration, like the P.M. and Wayne Swan, Mr Abbot has also nailed his colours to the mast as a "big Australia" man whose "instinct" is to bring in "as many people as possible".

Who benefits and who loses by population growth?

Cheerleaders for the growthist lobby in the media have been doing their level best to scare the bejesus out of the public by raving on about retiring baby boomers and even raising the prospect of an armed invasion should we dare to consider putting the brakes on. The problem is no-one seems to have any real insight into where all this growth is heading for our country as well as the thorny question of who benefits and who loses from it? Who gets the profits and who gets to pay? How does the average citizen benefit when GDP per capita declines through massive population growth? Exactly what are the long-term implications for the environment and the famed liveability of our cities of this new "mega-trend"?

Rudd like a deer caught in headlights on population numbers

Despite the creation of a new population ministry, Labor has not had a great deal to say on these questions so far other than "growth is good". Mr Rudd hasn't even had an opinion this year. He appeared like a deer caught in the headlights recently when Kerry O’Brien confronted him on the 7:30 report - which is a bit strange considering that he "made no apology" last year for his support for “a big Australia”.

These questions are being ignored by our leaders other than a very vague undertaking to perhaps grow somewhat “differently" than before - presumably by stacking people 50 stories up in ugly high rises or transforming our urban areas into Los Angeles-style megalopolises with double-decker freeways and ghettoes of haves (those who bought houses before the great population explosion) and the less-fortunate have-nots that didn’t.

Some commentators in the media are suggesting that Rudd has "gone cold" on a big Australia this year. But what is far more likely is that he is simply being a very clever politician – like his predecessor John Howard - and is saying nothing publicly. Behind closed doors, however, he and his minions are champing at the bit to raise the volume as high as they can get way with without provoking too great a backlash from so-called working families whose marginal seats Labor took back from “Howard’s battlers” at the last election.

Expect Spin

To keep population growth ticking along at 2.1% per annum and maintaining a docile and electorate Rudd will try to do what politicians do best - bombard us with a mountain of meaningless words on things like the "programmatic specificity" of his new population ministry - but without of course actually doing anything.

One thing is certain, if the present growth trajectory is going to be maintained by Canberra indefinitely, the volume of complaints rising from the public is going to grow incredibly loud. When it takes the average person more than a lifetime to pay off a mortgage on an average house and when commuters have to spend half their lives stuck on clogged freeways or dysfunctional public transport systems, the politicians that continue to push growthist polices are going to eventually pay a heavy price at the ballot box.

Stable Population Party of Australia - a new alternative

Let's hope the newly formed Stable Population Party of Australia can capture many of the votes of the people that are most badly impacted by our government’s mad growth-at–all-costs agenda. We desperately need to lobby and apply pressure on our elected leaders to change their current policies. This is going to require constant media campaigns to get the public's attention as well as a small army of committed activists to get the message out.

Growth Lobby vs The People

The public needs to be made aware that there is an alternative to growth for growth's sake and that there is an alternative to the "Liboral Party” and their bipartisan and undemocratic policies which are failing to maintain a sustainable population. Make no mistake; the growth lobby is a formidable opponent with enormous financial resources on its side as well as the backing of both major parties and large sectors of the media. Only a very vigorous and determined grass-roots campaign the likes of which we haven’t seen before in Australia is going to have any chance at success at slowing down this juggernaut.

NOTES

7 April title was changed to better reflect newsworthy content

This amazing story from Professor Garlick:

"We only know a little of the history of this little girl. She is just 2.75 kgs. She was found in a field with eagles hovering over her. Her mother was protecting her from he eagles. She was brought to Rosemary and me by a member of the public at around 11.00pm a week ago last Sunday. We don't know what caused her horrific injuries - a transverse compound fracture of the mid-shaft right tibia, fracture to the base of the tail, wound of 4cms down to the bone on the left tibia.

With sedation and pain relief we worked on her with gentle traction for a couple of hours to clean, reduce, align and position the bones, dress and splint the compound fracture site and the entire leg (around 1.5cms reduction needed). The tail fracture was also reduced and went back into position quite easily and then splinted.

The wound was cleaned of maggots, sutured and dressed with wound honey.

She was also hypoglycemic and needed warming and fluids over about a week to get her thermo regulating again.

She is receiving a range of intravenous antibiotics twice a day.

Initially we held out little hope and in fact the next morning thought she had died, but there was a glimmer of breathing so we continued with the warming and the fluids and gradually she regained her strength.

Within a few days she was not only scoffing down several bottles of milk a day but also eating grass and other hard food.

Veterinary advice was used all the way."

How inspiring. Without the dedication and caring of these wildlife carers and their very talented wildlife vet this joey would have died a terrible death for sure.

Professors Steve and Rosemary Garlick named this little joey 'Sylvie.'

Wouldn't it be good if more vets and wildlife groups encouraged this kind of treatment instead of euthanising?

Our wildlife deserves a chance. They are sentient beings after all.

UPDATE - May 15, 2010
Sylvie has a much smaller splint on after the last visit to the vet so she can start to get some exercise. Otherwise she has put on 0.5kg and going very well.

May 23, 2010
The photo below shows Sylvie with the splint on. However she will have a reduced splint in another week or so and should then become more mobile. Will keep you updated so keep checking back! Luckily she has an excellent vet helping her.

July 7, 2010
Below is a photo of Sylvie now weighing 5.5kg with her splint off.

After 10 weeks of treatment and recuperation, she is hopping without difficulty. The next phase of her treatment, having been in a splint, is to gradually build up muscle mass and improve ligament flexibility. This will take just a couple of weeks of daily exercise and then she can join the others that have recovered from injury in our small enclosure.

Can you imagine how happy she must feel? What an exquisitely beautiful creature!

Valuable Lesson for other Wildlife Carers
Standard protocol chosen by many wildlife carers for the kind of injuries that Sylvie
sustained is euthanasia. However, after consulting with their specialist wildlife vet about the nature of her injuries and given her size, Steve and Rosemary chose to treat the injury and administer basic first aid to reduce pain by sedation, sterile cleaning of the site, aligning the broken bones and splinting. This was followed up with ongoing veterinarian examination and treatment. Their experience with hundreds of animals in similar situations is given time, pain relief, antibiotics and stress myopathy support, many times the animals will recover.

Having seen the picture of her original injury, some carers aggressively predicted that Sylvie would die within a day or two - or at least within a week - and if she did survive the infection she would collapse the first time she tried to hop. But they were all wrong as Sylvie has now proven.

It can be very difficult breaking the old tradition to euthanise an animal with fractures and it takes enormous courage to go against the tide, but for the sake of the wildlife who are dependent on carers it is important to continually learn from others and not rely on general myth that is not supported by evidence.

September, 2010

(Five months after coming into care, look at her fly! - in the foreground)

Why Not Tell It Like It Is? In discussing James Lovelock's remarks in his latest BBC interview, Chris Huntingford states: "To say that humans are too stupid to prevent climate change is in itself a potentially dangerous remark. It is discouraging, and creates a feeling of inevitability that we will leave a degraded climate for future generations. To achieve climate stability through reductions in fossil fuel emissions will, most likely, require the collective actions of many individuals, and we should remain optimistic that this is possible." http://www.countercurrents.org/huntingford030410.htm Why be optimistic or pessimistic? Why not just be realistic? Isn't that what a scientist should be? If scientists should be cheerleaders and morale-boosters, then who can we rely upon to tell the truth? Scientists should be like Sgt. Friday on "Dragnet". "The facts m'am. Just the facts." They should not be, as Lovelock portrays them, careerists who have every incentive to fudge the data and customize their conclusions to fit the requirements of patrons and benefactors. They should tell governments and corporations what the powerful need to be told, not what they want to hear. We have a surfeit of fools from Disneyworld telling us to wish upon a star. Polticians, envrionmentalists, economists, self-help gurus and Bible-punchers----all telling us that with faith, anything is possible. Garbage. Huntingford then goes on to say: "Human ingenuity is remarkable and often limitless in times of need. There are many instances where society has worked together to address a particular problem, be it provision of health services, construction of better transport systems or the actions of charities such as Oxfam that have a truly global reach. The transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources is a challenge of unparalleled proportions, but are we so stupid that on this issue we will completely fail?" In a word, yes. We are that stupid, not on this issue, but on the issue of overshoot generally. If that old chestnut, "human ingenuity", is remarkable, it is not limitless in times of need. All the things that Huntingford enumerates as achievements of human ingenuity are proven enablers of the very thing that is killing us----growth. Better health care services, better transport and charity without growth controls are futile. Preventing deaths without preventing births is a recipe for disaster, as should be apparent to anyone who has witnessed the failure of these measures to improve life in Africa---and elsewhere. Precious resources are being wasted just to keep up with growing populations. More schools, more roads, more housing. We need to invest in condoms, not condominiums. Smaller populations consuming less that live off the interest, and not the capital, of nature's bank account. It is not about individual people consuming less or using better technology to consume more efficiently, it is about reducing total consumption. It is quite simiple. Number of people times their average per capita consumption and waste. As Lovelock once said, if we had kept the population level that we had in the eighteenth century, we could use any energy source we liked---for a very long time. Tim Murray April 5, 2010