(We) can do better

Tune in

Dr Douglas has a grasp on the broader politics and bureaucracy problems which are making it impossible for the governments involved in regulating water (i.e. all Australian governments) to act effectively on the issue. When I say 'effectively', I mean to say that they simply seem to be paralysed and allowing things to drift into ever greater crisis. They are not paralysed on the privatisation issue; they appear to be enthralled by the privateers, but they are paralysed on taking the necessary measures to safeguard Australian water sources. They need the public to keep up a huge pressure because only public pressure will wake these bureaucratic government sleepwalkers, who will take Australia beyond survival mode if they are not woken up.

See other articles on this issue from Fair Water Use here: http://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/619.

Planning Minister, Mr Madden, ALP.

Justin Madden needs to answer questions

Shadow Minister for Planning Matthew Guy has issued a press release declaring that he will today ask the Parliament’s all-powerful Finance and Public Administration Committee to call the Planning Minister, Mr Madden, and the Growth Areas Authority (GAA) to appear before it to urgently explain the proposed Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) that will have damaging effects on Victorian families."

Matthew Guy says he will ask why taxes not imposed on developers rather than land-owners.

In the press release it says that the Committee has the power to subpoena any Upper House minister or government agency, and that Mr Guy has said the Minister and the GAA should provide full and frank evidence explaining why this tax is being aimed at landholders on the outskirts of Melbourne, and not at those who sought to develop the land.

“The Minister’s public comments to date have been woefully inadequate and have left residents, councils and industry in the dark about this new tax,” committee member Mr Guy said today.

“The only way to make the Minister and the Growth Areas Authority answer in full is to haul them before this Committee and to seek answers under oath,” Mr Guy said.

After eight months, the GAIC is supposedly still in the drafting phase, yet Labor has announced several ‘amendments’ to the tax despite refusing to release any details beyond a handful of information sheets.

“Labor’s failure to keep Victorians informed about this new growth areas tax is atrocious,” Mr Guy said.

“This tax will reap more than $2 billion for the government from residents and the construction industry, yet the government still refuses to tell us the details.

“The GAIC proposal is destroying people’s lives and is creating huge uncertainty in the community.

“The only way to end the uncertainty is to have the Minister and the GAA answer questions in a full public hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and it must be done as soon as possible.”

To observers it looks like the Victorian government, beleagered by financial problems and massive unpopularity due to its undemocratic, unfair and socially and ecologically harmful land-use planning policies, may be in its last throes and thus susceptible to restraint. But bogeymen often come back just when you least expect it, so let's not hold our breath.

Candobetter Ed. We just hope that Mr Guy and the Liberal Party will join in spirit Federal ALP Member, Mr Thompson, in roundly condemning the growthist population policy which has led to these tragic circumstances and menaces all of Victoria's remaining wildlife habitat in the Green Wedges as well as agricultural land there. It would be very disappointing, to say the least, if the Liberal Party were merely to broker some other carve-up of Melbourne's lungs and wildlife corridors, to keep the ravenous and unsustainable growth lobby supplied.

David Davis MP will introduce his resolution for the Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee of Parliament to hold an enquiry into the Extension of the Urban Growth Boundary at 10:30 am on Wednesday 29 July 2009 in the Upper House. Concerned citizens are urged to attend parliament to watch as our representatives argue the toss of our remaining quality of life and environment in Melbourne. A link is also provided to listen on-line. See also: Other relevant articles about the Urban Growth Boundaries assault

David Davis MP will introduce his resolution for the Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee of Parliament to hold an enquiry into the Extension of the Urban Growth Boundary at 10:30 am on Wednesday 29 July 2009 in the Upper House.

It will be under General Business. It is suggested that if people would like to attend then perhaps come half an hour earlier to allow time for security clearance. Ask to go to the Upper House public gallery.

(No banners or shouting at ALP members in Parliament!)

For those at home look up on www.parliament.vic.gov.au and click on Live Audio Broadcast sign on the home page. You can listen to a direct broadcast. The picture of the member of Parliament speaking comes on the screen.

Below is cut and pasted an extract from Hansard with David Davis' resolution, which is the neatly presented bit at the top. What follows are remarks which may be of some interest. (Note that the links do not work.)

The State Government's plan to extend the Urban Growth Boundary, which heralds amongst other things, the destruction of Green Wedges and imposition of a grossly unfair vendor land tax, will have disastrous consequences for Victoria, if it gets through.

The message coming from Fair Water Use Australia is that the Federal and State Governments are not handling Australia's water properly, transparently or effectively. The mishandling is causing a dangerous crisis. The public should be very concerned and NGOs should support Fair Water Use and the UN in their call for a state of emergency and a Royal Commission. Australia, this is really serious.

Higher rainfall should mean more water - so where is it going?

Higher rainfall should mean more water in public and environmental reserves, but it is going to private holdings instead and the public is not aware

Private sector increases its strangle-hold on the Murray-Darling

Data obtained by Fair Water Use from the Bureau of Meteorology and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority provides confirmation of the effect of the rapid increase in privately-held water in the Darling Basin on the volumes of water available for essential public and environmental use, refuting claims that the crisis in the Darling is predominantly drought-related.

image from Fair Water Use site http://www.fairwateruse.com.au/

Despite average-to-above average rainfall in the Darling Basin over the last two years, the amount of water flowing down the Darling has reduced dramatically.

image from Fair Water Use site http://www.fairwateruse.com.au/

Public H20 store 80% less than it should be

Storage in the Menindee Lakes is currently around 80% less than would be expected under average rainfall conditions. As there has been no similar increase in volumes released from the Lakes, the water-hoarding activities of the private sector stand clearly incriminated.

There can be little doubt that, although compounded by drought, rampant water-privatisation is also a major contributor to the current devastation of the Murray catchment. However calculations are impeded by the apparent unwillingness of State Governments to provide required data.

UN Senior Water Advisor supports State of Emergency and Royal Commission on MDB Water

Fair Water Use is encouraged by the recent support of the senior water advisor to the United Nations for its call for declaration of a State of Emergency and the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the management of the water of the Murray-Darling Basin. Such actions offer the only means whereby Australians can regain control of this vital and acutely-threatened resource.

Listen to interview.

Source: Fair Water Use Australia. Fair Water Use Australia strives for a revived Murray-Darling basin by supporting environmentally sustainable water-use.

At the last council meeting Cr. Katie Milne, heroine of environmentally-minded local residents, moved a raft of motions to protect koalas, which were unanimously adopted. They were:-

1. The Recovery of the Tweed Coast Koalas is to be classed as an urgent and very high priority.

2. A review of Council’s Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) be undertaken to include identified Koala habitat:-

a) Currently identified Koala habitat to be included in the TPO as a matter of urgency.
b) Further identified Koala habitat to be included as a high priority as information becomes available.
c) Council holds a workshop on the Tree Preservation orders to facilitate further preservation of native bushland and urban vegetation, especially landscape values and waterways corridors.

4. Council develops a marketing campaign to educate and enlist the assistance of the community in the preservation and enhancement of Koala populations.

5. Where Koala habitat or corridors occur on private property, Council to inform landholders and provide appropriate strategies to preserve and enhance these habitats and linkages.

6. Council develops an interim Koala Recovery Action Plan, as a matter or urgency, until a Koala Management Plan is able to be funded and implemented, this plan to include addressing ameliorative measures to known Koala problem hotspots such as Clothier's Creek Road and South Tweed.

7. Council brings forward a report on appropriate incentives that could be provided for Private Landholders to enhance Koala habitat and corridors.

8. Council writes to the Minister for the Environment and the local State Members with a request that:

a. The SEPP 44 Koala legislation be reviewed, as a matter of urgency to provide stronger protection for koalas, and
b. Additional identified tree species utilised by Tweed Coast Koala populations that are not listed in the SEPP 44 for Koalas be included as a matter of urgency.

9. The Tweed Link to be utilised as a medium to promote this marketing campaign to the community.

Unfortunately, Council did not vote to establish a Fund for Koala Conservation in the Tweed which would have included a donation tin (at front counters of Council offices, libraries, holiday parks and other approopriate Council places) and establishing a fund with annual financial targets promoted in the Tweed Link. How on earth will they be able fund the development of a marketing plan or campaign let alone a Koala Management Plan without funding???

Tweed Shire Council has already shown in the 2009 Management Plan not a single penny is to be allocated to the Koala Recovery Plan while they are happy to spend $150,000 on new carpets for the auditorium and $50,000 for security cameras in Main St and so on.

It leads one to ponder just how serious this Council is especially in light of the following letter written by the CEO of Australian Koala Foundation to Qld Premier Anna Bligh:

*********

Dear Premier,

On behalf of the Australian Koala Foundation, I am writing to advise that we have lodged a nomination to list the Koala Coast koala population as Endangered under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. The nomination proves this population is eligible for listing under this legislation. I also wish to advise that the AKF has nominated this population as Critically Endangered under the Federal Government's EPBC Act and await the Federal Minister's decision.

You are to be chastised. This action should have been your Government's responsibility given your public admission of its endangered status. It is Queensland's faunal emblem, for goodness sake.

For the purposes of both the EPBC Act and the Nature Conservation Act, a "geographically separate population of any animal or plant" is eligible for listing. The Koala Coast area is delineated by Manly Road and Lota Creek to the north, the Gateway and Pacific Motorways to the west, Logan River to the south, and Moreton Bay to the east. These barriers effectively isolate the resident koala population as a geographically disjunct population. Genetic analysis has confirmed this geographic isolation; koalas from the Koala Coast region are genetically distinct from all other regions in South East Queensland.

A recent report prepared by one of your Departments has concluded that koalas within the Koala Coast have declined by 51% since 2006, and by 64% in the 10 years since the original 1996-1999 surveys. These declines are generally the result of high levels of anthropogenic mortality and habitat loss. There is no scientific evidence these declines have been caused by drought even though you have made a public comment to the contrary. As such, the Koala Coast population resoundingly fulfils the requirements for listing as an endangered species under the Nature Conservation Act.

The AKF believes that listing the Koala Coast koala population as `endangered' under the Nature Conservation Act will highlight the policy failures of the past 15 years, and increase community awareness of the plight of the koala in South East Queensland, encouraging further community participation in the recovery of this important population. I am disappointed that the Department of Environment and Resource Management has not already undertaken to review the status of this population under the NCA, given that the population declines have been observed and reported by departmental staff.

I would also like to take this opportunity to raise our concerns with the current process for listing species under the Nature Conservation Act. As you are no doubt aware, there appears to have been a number of significant changes to the nomination and listing process since the previous AKF nomination which was successful in listing the SEQ koala population as vulnerable under the NCA in 2003. Disturbingly, the EPA website currently has no information to guide those wishing to nominate a species for listing. In addition, the pro-forma nomination form on the EPA website has significant flaws, and does not appear to have been updated since 2007. The nomination form specifically requests anyone submitting a nomination to provide details of their publications and scientific qualifications - I would suggest this is designed to intimidate the average citizen from nominating any species for listing. Indeed I will suggest that it would be impossible for a member of the public to complete this process.

I further believe that the independence of the listing process has been compromised, as the nomination is now judged by a "technical group" many of whom are department employees, rather than by a committee of independent scientific experts as in previous years.

In short, Premier the process is flawed from beginning to end and indeed I believe I can predict the outcome both from Queensland and the Federal Government because of the perceived implications you fear from developer backlash.

Why you cannot initiate Koala Beach style developments throughout South East Queensland is just beyond me, but it is clear the development industry in Queensland is just "business as usual" to the citizen's and the koala's detriment.

A timely assessment of this nomination is requested.

Yours faithfully,
Deborah Tabart OAM
Chief Executive Officer

******************
It was then reported in the media at www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/premier-chastised-over-looming-koala-extinction-20090722-dtf6.html

Premier chastised over looming koala extinction
Brisbane Times - Tony Moore
July 23, 2009 - 5:10AMSouth-East Queensland's urban koala population could be wiped out within two years, according to conservationists.

State Government figures released in May showed numbers of the iconic species in the Redland and Logan areas halved from 4611 in 2006 to 2279 last year.

The Australian Koala Foundation has accused Premier Anna Bligh of driving South-East Queensland's population towards extinction. The organisation has now gone over her head, writing to Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett nominating the region's koalas as a "critically-endangered" population.

In a letter to Ms Bligh, AKF executive director Deborah Tabart harshly criticised the Premier for failing to protect the animals and nominate them for extra protection.

"This action should have been your Government's responsibility given your public admission of its endangered status," the letter read.

"It is Queensland's faunal emblem, for goodness' sake."

Ms Tabart told brisbanetimes.com.au the extinction of the animals on the 'Koala Coast' - which includes Redlands, Logan and Brisbane - was now inevitable.

"It's been on [former premiers Wayne] Goss' watch, on [Peter] Beattie's watch and now on Bligh's watch," she said.

Queensland Climate Change and Sustainability Minister Kate Jones yesterday said she understood the need to act quickly and that new state planning policy would soon be implemented to help protect koalas.

She said better koala habitat mapping, which would be available within weeks, would give councils the ability to veto development on habitat land, which was was more valuable than changing their protection status.

"That mapping will give councils the ability to identify koala habitat and ask developers to provide an offset parcel of koala habitat land if they want the development to go ahead," Ms Jones said. She said she had received the Australian Koala Foundation's nomination to increase Queensland's protection of koalas.

"We will consider its listing, but it will be done on a South-East Queensland basis, not just on the Koala Coast," Ms Jones said.

"We are prepared to change its categorisation once the koala habitat mapping is completed."

Redland mayor Melva Hobson last month said the State Government's plans had failed, and 1000 koalas were now killed each year. She told brisbanetimes.com.au last night there was too much focus on urban growth, rather than saving koalas.

"To me the balance at the moment should be in favour of koalas, not in favour of people," she said.

"I can't find words to express what (extinction of koalas) would be like and how anybody could allow that to happen. We need to pull out all stops to recover this iconic species."

A population of fewer than 500 koalas cannot sustain itself, experts say.

*******

However, in December 2008 the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation made a raft of protection provisions to the save the koala and established a task force. Yet in spite of them, the koala populations in Redland City dropped by 50% in the last year (mainly due to State authorised clearing of eucalypt trees used by koalas in order to clear land for a new school). http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2006/s2609890.htm

Can we rely on State governments to protect local species when Australia's track record for native extinctions is the worst in the world? Hardly.

The deplorable apathy, ignorance and arrogance filters down from the top to the bottom. Cr Dot Holdom at the same council meeting where Cr Katie Milne's koala motions were carried (which are barely a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done urgently) in response to Cr Milne's impassioned plea to the other councillors to raise their consciousness about the plight of koalas said that she didn't need her consciousness to be raised on this issue and proceeded to not vote for koalas to be in urgent need of protection in Tweed Shire!

I have heard it said by locals that certain business members on the steering committee of Tweed Tourism hold the view that it would make no difference to Tweed Tourism if there were no koalas left and that people would still come to see the topography and flora. But do people really think that flora can exist without fauna? Are they so ignorant about biodiversity to think that we can live in a totally mechanised, sterile world with mountains, sun, rivers and earth without animals to fertilise, aerate, regenerate grasses with seed dispersal, insect control and other integral services required for a healthy ecosystem?

If so, such bureaucrats are urgently in need of educating before they make any decisions that will affect our environment! Decisions such as Repco Rally which will be devastating for not only the future of koalas but all the current endangered/at risk species in Tweed Shire.

Why do they think we are screaming so loud to stop the Repco car crash Rally? Because we would rather spend our time, money and energy holding placards in the street and beating drums for peace for months on end, tossing sleeplessly in our beds at night, than having a life? No! Because WE care about our native animals and ecosystems and will do everything in our power to protect them, in spite of NSW state government's determination to make a blasphemy of environmental protection.

Visit sites.google.com/site/norallygroup.

The consequential problems of maximising immigration intake and associated encouragement of multiculturalism should not be a race issue, but they are unavoidably about displacement of those already here and the unjust pressures of 'dissimilation' (...causing the loss or abandonment of culture or cultural characteristics of a people, society) If Australian's by birth should feel pushed aside by the current flood from immigration, consider what 220 years of colonisation has aflicted Australia's Aboriginal peoples!

If the Australian dominant culture accepts its legimate sovereignty out of historic invasion by armed attrition then these days should Australian-descendants and new borns accept as legimate sovereignty right those arrived through mass immigration? What if the new arrivals outnumber the indigenous and with birth rights? Do sheer numbers mean they have the numbers to overrule and shape Australia?

I could use a specific ethnic example, but then my argument could be dismissed as racist, and I am not. So let me use the example of a non-human invasive species, a species of bird, the Common Myna and the adverse impact it has caused to native birds.

"Common Mynas were brought to Melbourne in 1862 to control insect pests in market gardens, but even though they were not successful at this, they were taken from Melbourne to many other places in Australia, including north Queensland, where it was thought they would control insect pests of sugar cane. Cane Toads were introduced to Queensland for the same reason and have also become pests. Common Mynas have established feral populations in many parts of the world.

Common Mynas can be an economic problem because they damage fruit and grain crops and their noise and smell can be annoying where they are in large numbers.

Perhaps the Common Myna’s most serious “crime” is that it competes aggressively with native wildlife for nesting hollows. Mynas reduce biodiversity by fighting for hollows with native birds like Rosellas, destroying their eggs and chicks and stopping them from breeding. Mynas are capable of evicting even large birds such as Kookaburras and Dollar Birds from their nests. They also evict small mammals, like Sugar Gliders from hollows – which commonly means a death sentence for the Gliders because they have nowhere else to go. It is not uncommon for groups of mynas to mob other birds and mammals like possums.

In the ACT and some other places in Australia Mynas have invaded woodland habitats. There is not much woodland left in Australia and this additional threat to native wildlife can be a serious problem for biodiversity conservation.

Feral Common Mynas are a serious problem for biodiversity conservation in many countries other than Australia. In the year 2000, Common Mynas were listed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) as one of the World’s 100 Worst Invasive Species

Ironically, Common Mynas have not been formally recognised as a problem by conservation agencies in Australia, except in the ACT, where the ACT Government has directed resources to seeking solutions."[SOURCE: Australia National University].

"The Common Myna is an omnivorous open woodland bird with a strong territorial instinct, the Myna has adapted extremely well to urban environments. The Myna has been introduced in many other parts of the world and its distribution range is on the increase to an extent that in 2000 the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN) declared it as one of the just three birds among the World's 100 worst invasive species. It is a serious threat to the ecologies of Australia.

"The common myna thrives in urban and suburban environments; in Canberra, for instance, 110 common mynas were released between 1968 and 1971. By 1991, common myna population density in Canberra averaged 15 birds per square kilometer. Only three years later, a second study found an average population density of 75 birds per square kilometre in the same area.

"In Australia, the Common Myna is an invasive pest. They are now often the predominant bird in urban areas all along the East coast. Currently, common myna populations in Australia are concentrated along the eastern coast around Sydney and its surrounding suburbs." They have also spread into urban Victoria and Queensland.

Compared to native hollow-nesting species, the common myna is extremely aggressive, and breeding males will actively defend areas ranging up to 0.83 hectares in size. This aggressiveness has enabled the common myna to displace many breeding pairs of native hollow-nesters, thereby reducing their reproductive success. In particular, the reproduction rates of native hollow-nesting parrots in the bush land of eastern Australia have been reduced by up to 80% by the common myna. It is known to maintain up to two roosts simultaneously, and both male and female common mynas will fiercely protect both roosts at all times, leading to further exclusion of native birds."Source: Wikipedia

So these species of birds displace native bird colonies and are quick to colonise.

Displacement is the key problem associated with the Common Myna. It is also the key problem that emerges when migrants CHOOSE not to acculturate into their new country, but instead CHOOSE to maintain their existing culture, language, customs, traditions and values. When mass immigration policy stops at the airport, cultural pluralism naturally establishes. It is primitive understandable self-preservation. The larger the immigrant group, the more dominant and more likely to cluster geographically together, establish a distinct territory, change their surroundings and recreate familiarities of the old country. Locals become outnumbered, see their amenity and cultural environment altering. The locality becomes a Chinatown, a Spanish Quarter, a Little Lebanon, a synagogue is built, a islamic school is built, the burkha walks the streets of say Wagga Wagga, the local mayor who has Iranian ancestry then calls for sharia law to be introduced. This is an extreme example, but it highlights what unchecked cultural pluralism can lead to. It can lead to deculturation of the native species.

And ethnic tensions in urban Australia have indeed increased as a consequence of federal flood gate immigration without an overriding population policy. Australian governments continue to abrogate their responsibility for social assimilation and social cohesion flow on needs of immigration. The 2005 Cronulla racial riots and the recent attacks on Indian students in Melbourne and Sydney are harbingers of ethnic unrest that could escalate if the underlying root causes are not addressed.

This is not to say that members of distinct groups within a society should not be allowed to maintain and celebrate their different cultures or cultural identities. This is not to say that a society should not extend tolerance to distinct ethnic and religious groups in order to promote social cohesion. And do we continue to marginalise the traditional Australians, who were here first, to third world status?

So is it appropriate that immigrants within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities. Many third world countries have maintained cultural pluralism under a 'caste' system. None has worked without ethnic tension and periodically descending into civil unrest as a direct consequence. The issue is do doubt complex, but cannot be ignored.
The dominant culture can't have its cake and eat it too! If enough Chinese, Indians or Lilliputians or whomever immigrate, they may become eventually the dominant culture in Australia.

Multiculturalism theory seeks the ideal of promoting acceptance of various cultural divisions for the sake of diversity, as if being likened to the ideals of biodiversity. Good will to all men etc, etc. Wonderful in theory!

An so immigration is embraced and like the United States, Australia becomes a 'melting pot' for many diverse culture, races and religions all living harmoniously. Heterogeneous societies become more homogeneous - a utopian love fest! Until someone wants special treatment and cries accusations of minority discrimination!

Whereas 'cultural assimilation' or 'immigrant assimilation' is the adoption by an individual/immigrant of some or all aspects of a dominant culture, typically by quarantining immigrants to ensure comparable socioeconomic status, reducing spatial concentration of any one group, local language attainment, and through intermarriage.

But what is Australia's dominant culture. How do we define it. What are its core principles and values? Do we want to preserve it? Such core issues require broad public debate to clarify and crystalise, before Australia can move from multiculturalism to immigration assimilation, if indeed it is prepared to.

Until this important debate is brought to the mainstream, Australia's record unchecked and unsupported immigration risks exacerbating costs on our triple bottom line and steady dissimilation.

The area proposed for intensive suburban development directly abuts World Heritage Ramsar Wetlands and close to World Heritage Fraser Island

Craig Warhurst writes in the Gympie Times that:

"GYMPIE Regional Council seems to be taking a leaf out of Premier Anna Bligh's book and is selling off land assets to fund its budget." He quoted "Corporate Governance and Finance Committee chairperson Councillor Donna Neilson" as having said that "Council planned to sell off industrial land at Tin Can Bay, Monkland and a home at Kilkivan to raise revenue."

Apparently Cr Neilson had said that the council would not be selling off assets just to keep running, 'only' those deemed 'superfluous'.

She was reported as having explained that, “Not all the $115 million budget comes from rates revenue,“only about $40 million.”

Urban Development on Inskip Peninsula will send residents' broke through rising rates, taxes & costs

Referring to outlying land-sales to suburban developers, Greg Wood, Coordinator of Friends of Rainbow Beach, said on Thursday (23 July 09) that Urban development on Inskip Peninsula won’t just destroy local lifestyle, it will help send us all broke.

Mr Wood cited a recent study by Victorian Department of Planning that found infrastructure costs due to urban extension are more than twice as much as those needed for infill development.

“Rainbow Shores Stage 2, and the unconsulted Land Swap being engineered to replace it, are both urban extensions beyond the existing township” said Mr Wood. “Both would cost ratepayers and taxpayers more than twice as much to support over time than would sensible development within the existing town footprint”.

Mr Wood said that, given the spiral of rate rises Gympie Regional Council feels compelled to inflict on rate-payers, Councillors would be either foolish or irresponsible to ignore this study.

Development doesn't pay for itself; ratepayers pick up much of the tab

“Some Councillors will say the developer pays all of the development costs,” said Mr Wood. “This is dangerously incorrect. A large proportion of the works and services that are ultimately needed due to any development are not even designed or costed at the time of application approval. They can’t possibly be charged accurately. And then there’s the additional, ongoing cost of upkeep.”

Mr Wood says the Victorian report quantifies the absolutely enormous total cost of infrastructure needed due to relentless urban development. The report presents a cost of $653m for total infrastructure required for 1,000 dwellings built in extension of the existing urban area at. The cost for same amount developed as infill is $309m.

Urban sprawl costs ratepayers twice as much as infill

“That’s over $600,000 and $300,000 per household respectively, said Mr Wood. “There’s no way the average household can contribute this amount to public finances. To the extent services are provided, and many are late or never arrive, they are payed for via debt. With the rate of urban sprawl being encouraged by this current Government it’s not hard to see exactly how the infamous State Budget black hole has been dug.”

Call to Queensland State Gov to cease trampling on local communities

Mr Wood called on the Queensland State Govt to cease trampling on the lives and finances of local communities and ordinary citizens in its increasingly mad rush to serve the interests of private developers. He said development must fulfil community need and not just speculator greed

He has also called on Gympie Regional Council to do something useful about the region’s financial security. He says the current plan of simply leaning on ratepayers until they bust is neither fair nor secure.

Council urged to lobby secretive State against inflicting costly Inskip development on Gympie ratepayers

“Council can make a good start on this by effectively lobbying the State over the expensive Inskip white elephant that is now being concocted behind closed doors”, said Mr Wood.

According to the Gympie Times, the Queensland state budget transferred many costs from state to councils. LNP State Member for Gympie David Gibson said that the council's planning had been 'thrown into chaos'. He illustrated this by explaining that simple things like street lights that the state was no longer funding were now council's responsibility and council could either turn the lights off or pass the cost on to ratepayers. He commented that pensioners and people on fixed incomes would be particularly badly affected.

(Photo by Sheila)

This article is a reflection on the nature and efficacy of wildlife research in Australia.

I raise 3 issues:

Can research benefit wildlife? Can research contribute to its survival? Can research engender respect for the intrinsic value of wildlife?

The Nature and efficacy of wildlife reseach in Australia

I’ve asked these questions because, despite over 200 years research into every aspect of the lives of our native animals, the many thousands of papers produced and the many millions of dollars spent, fauna populations continue to decline, the number of endangered and extinct species continues to rise and the attitude of the general public towards indigenous animals slides further into the abyss.

The current state of wildlife is desperate. It’s obvious that Australia is waging a war on wildlife. It’s a dirty war. It’s fueled by research and it will ultimately result in the destruction of all native animals.

You would think that our native fauna would be a precious and vital element of our country’s identity and that these animals would be nurtured and protected, not only for their value to the tourism industry or their role in the maintenance of biodiversity and the fragile ecosystem but for their sheer beauty and the elegance of the way they strive to survive in this harsh and dangerous land.

Two prevailing views

Photo provided by Nikki Sutterby, Co-Ordinator, Australian Society for Kangaroos

Unfortunately this is not the case. Very broadly speaking there are two prevailing views of the environment in Australia and I believe that wildlife research reflects and perpetuates these opposing points of view.

The majority view is that humans always have priority, with the right to live wherever, take whatever and do whatever they want.

Depending on who you are, wildlife is a resource to be exploited, a pest to be exterminated, or a curiosity to be dissected. For hunters and hoons, wildlife is fun to kill and for environmentalists it is sustainable food.

These beliefs are perpetrated by bureaucratic, short sighted, exploitative institutions and individuals who are always looking to maximize revenue, trade and profit. The research of selected experts is used to justify lethal management decisions and to excuse horrific cruelty to animals often by incompetent contract killers.

Taxes pay for this

Members of the CSIRO, National Parks, State and Federal Government agencies, councils, universities and agricultural colleges make up this group. Their work is often supported by the RSPCA and always paid for by the tax payer.

At the laboratory level these institutions also appear to be conspiring to eradicate wildlife by any means. They contract and conduct research into all means of destroying wildlife and habitat - poisons, fencing, traps, snares, starvation and introduced predators just to name a few. This research not only uses native animals in lab and field experiments but has contributed to the suffering and death of millions of native animals in the wild, as has the wide variety of cruel and often lethal tracking devices that have been developed and applied by these institutions for their dubious data collections.

Just last week it was revealed that in NSW, native stripe-faced dunnarts, a species classified as vulnerable, died in an experiment to see how their immune function would be affected by pesticides.

Research favourable to animal welfare

West Aust Black Cockatoos in rehab. Photo from Black Cockatoo Conservation Team

While it is true that there is research favourable to animals; research that proves for instance that kangaroos do not threaten the wheat and wool industries and that they are beneficial to the maintenance of natural vegetation, ethics committees and government departments usually choose to ignore these findings in favour of a quick result and often to cover–up incompetence in other areas of environmental protection or worse, to hide plans for building development.

Wildlife is not and has never been a priority in Australia. Based on the research and recommendations of certain experts, state governments and councils continue to sanction the slaughter of populations of flying foxes, koalas, possums, wallabies and kangaroos. Non-violent solutions, long-term planning and pro-active methods are rejected as thousands of ‘inconvenient’ animals die in holocaust-style mass-murder.

But then, when a species comes to the edge of extinction or contracts a mysterious disease, suddenly there appears to be great concern, with heaps of money flying around, lots of experiments in labs and zoos and plenty of carefully manipulated media attention, often to avert a situation which, with attention to research that had warned of environmental threats, could have been avoided.

Views of the Environment

The minority view of the environment is held by a group of Australians who believe that humans must co-exist with the natural environment for our mutual benefit. People with this view are compassionate, moral people, some of whom rescue and care for injured and dying animals, some carry out vital research of their own. They endure threats and scorn but mainly their work is ignored.

This minority group is long-sighted, non-violent, inclusive and creative. These people always look for the third alternative, they promote moral decision-making based on the interests of all players and they offer solutions that are not based on vested interest.

For example;
Last year when the Department of Defense decided to massacre hundreds of kangaroos trapped at the Belconnen Army Base, no amount of non-lethal, alternative solutions offered by researchers from this minority group could persuade the government to show an atom of compassion for these gentle family-oriented animals - and the world saw the most horrendous, unforgettable slaughter. When populations of animals are trapped in areas without corridors, when there is no proactive planning and when ‘management’ is code for ‘killing’, it’s so easy to justify their elimination.

In SA the kangaroo industry killing quotas are reviewed every 3 years after aerial and ground surveys. Although this is euphemistically called research for sustainable management, kangaroos are not benefitting from this. On top of the commercial kill, they also continue to perish as farmers take more land every year and kill more kangaroos. Independent research shows that genetic diversity is diminishing as a direct result of this slaughter but while the government profits from this industry, this issue will not be addressed.

On a smaller scale, there are the activities of the SA Museum, a centre for biodiversity research in that state. Researchers map declines and extinctions. They claim to contribute to the informed management of wildlife. This is defined as the way to provide for human needs without destroying other species. They are keen to point out that no unnecessary pain or suffering occurs in their research procedures but earlier this year a report revealed that, among other deficiencies in research methodologies, trapped tortoises had drowned during a data collection procedure. The solution to this ‘mistake’ was to invent a snorkel device to stop tortoises drowning.

These are just a few of the myriad ways that research harms wildlife in Australia.

Can research benefit wildlife?

Dr Maxine Piggott

Dr Maxine Piggott received the Voiceless Eureka prize last year for her development of non-invasive DNA analysis to research animal behaviour, genetic variation and population structure in Australian native fauna. Traditional methods of data collection involve trapping and handling animals to get blood and tissue samples. This can cause animals stress, injury or death and there is a risk of females abandoning their young in the process. Currently DNA analysis of hair and faeces samples is mainly used for conservation work and is particularly applicable to the study of rare and endangered species. It is an extremely important example of what research can achieve when animal welfare is made a priority.

Can research contribute to the survival of wildlife?

Recently Dr Mike Letnic, of the University of Sydney carried out observational research into the environmental role of the dingo. He has shown that as Australia's top predator, the dingo, plays an important role in maintaining the balance of nature and that reintroducing or maintaining existing dingo populations could reduce the predatory impacts of foxes on small and medium sized mammals, increasing biodiversity across over 2 million square kilometres of Australia..
Different regions separated by the dingo fence in farmlands of New South Wales and Victoria were compared. In regions where dingoes roamed free, there were far fewer kangaroos and red foxes and small native animals thrived. On the other hand, in lands protected from dingoes, researchers noticed far fewer native animals were present.
Dingoes suffer so much because of human pressure and ignorance – it’s amazing to find a researcher presenting in their favour, with data that hopefully cannot be ignored or distorted. And that’s what so great about this kind of research – it focuses on native animals in the context of their environment while highlighting the detrimental human impact of traditional attitudes and providing a non-lethal proposal that puts humans and wildlife on the same side. Is there a possibility that the Minister for the Environment will recognize the importance of this work and act on it before dingoes all disappear into history?

Can research engender respect for the intrinsic value of wildlife?

As you may well know, Northeast of Melbourne in the Whittlesea council, there is an area where a mob of kangaroos have become trapped on its home range by council –approved building developments. Residents are confronted daily by the sight of dead or dying kangaroos that have been hit by cars or mauled by dogs and local police have increasingly been called to euthanize injured kangaroos who have tried to escape to safety or better food availability.
The council and government have allowed development to enclose the kangaroos’ territory and are now just waiting for them all to die as this last tract of land left for the animals is going to be developed as a cinema.

Where is the research on which government based the decision to abandon these kangaroos? Where is the long-term environmental plan that showed respect and concern for the welfare of the original residents of this area? What message about the value of life and the wisdom of government is being conveyed to the local population?

Wildlife research becomes corrupt when it operates outside the ideals of preserving species and habitat; when it fails to protect individual animals and provide an environment where they prosper. Government used such research to justify the killing of the 7000 kangaroos slaughtered at Majura in the ACT over the last month.
Such actions contribute to the public perception of the disposability, even invisibility of wildlife and this manifests in the contempt consistently shown towards wildlife by sections of the public. But, appalling and shameful as any murder of wildlife is, I believe that the long-term consequence of this callous official attitude will be irreparable damage to the national psyche; the destruction of the natural spirit along with the extinction of all native animals.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

I don’t want to live in an Australia without native animals. It’s unbearable that they should continue to suffer because of pseudo-science and society’s addiction to economic growth. But there is great pro-wildlife research out there and many active people lobbying for change. We urgently need a coordinated national approach which makes wildlife protection and preservation a priority to all Australians. Meanwhile we can all get behind the campaign to boycott tourism to the ACT until they stop this obscene rampage against kangaroos.

In a media release on behalf of the Queensland branch of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), branch secretary Peter Simpson questioned the Queensland's decision to pay as much as AU$200 million to two companies Merrill Lynch and the Royal Bank of Scotland, who recently went bankrupt for advice on privatisation, for advice on its privatisation fire sale.

Media release, 23 July 2009: ETU's "Light on the Hill" campaign against privatisation of State Govt assets - update Second billboard goes up in the Premier's electorate Choice of advice consortium raises more questions

The Electrical Trades Union's second billboard attacking the State Government's decision to sell a number of State Government assets has been erected on Gladstone Rd, Highgate Hill, in Premier Anna Bligh's electorate of South Brisbane.

The first billboard was erected earlier this week in Transport Minister Rachel Nolan's electorate of Ipswich. The next one will be erected in Rockhampton in the next few weeks.

The billboard advertising is part of the second phase of the ETU's statewide Light on the Hill campaign and comes as the State Government announced the advisory group for the sale of the assets.

ETU secretary, Peter Simpson, said yesterday's announcement that companies such as Merrill Lynch and the Royal Bank of Scotland will advise the State Government on the sale is a further blow to the credibility of the decision.

"I mean, what a team. A couple of companies that had to be bailed out recently by governments are now back advising Queensland on privatisation. The Royal Bank of Scotland has effectively been nationalised in recent times with the United Kingdom Government announcing it would move towards a 70 per cent ownership stake. In January this year the RBS announced the biggest corporate losses in British history.

"Merrill Lynch in the USA basically went broke in 2008, due to debt risk from the US sub-prime collapse, and was bailed out by a merger with Bank of America, which I am told then had to go to the US Federal Treasury asking for US$20b in public money.

"The appointment of these companies to advise on the privatisation raises even more questions about this unpopular and unnecessary plan. The people of Queensland are entitled to a detailed outline of their recent performance and their role in the global financial crisis.

"The people of Queensland are also entitled to know just what fees these companies will be paid. There is speculation it could be as much as $200 million, the majority of which could go overseas. Surely the State Government is kidding?

"That is good money that could be used on stimulating the Queensland economy and funding Queensland services.

"The appointment of advisers also suggests the State Government is trying to tough it out on this issue, which regrettably means we will be campaigning against these asset sales right up to the next State election by the looks of it.

"Given the negative public reaction to the proposal, that is not good news for the State Government and many Labor MPs," Mr Simpson said.

Research of voting intentions in five State electorates, conducted by UMR Research for the ETU, shows an average nine per cent swing against the Bligh Government with the decision to sell a number of State Government corporations the main reason for the swing. UMR Research has done a lot of research for the ALP itself.

The Light on the Hill campaign is being run until, at least, the next State election to stop State Government plans to sell a number of State Government entities, including most of the profitable sections of Queensland Rail and massive State forests, which contribute to national and international sustainable logging practices.

Media inquiries: Peter Simpson 0419-721 041
John Moran 07-3366 9010; 0410-603 278

The Electrical Trades Union (Qld & NT)
Communications Electrical Plumbing Union
Electrical Division - Qld & NT BRANCH
Secretary: Peter Simpson
41 Peel St South Brisbane Ph: 07-3846 2477

Full text of this submission may be downloaded here in a pdf file 293.43kb.

Kelvin Thompson, ALP, Federal Member for Wills, (a House of Representatives seat.) Wills is located in the north-west of Melbourne, Victoria, comprising Coburg, Coburg North, Gowanbrae, Hadfield, Oak Park, Pascoe Vale, and Strathmore, extending as far north as Fawkner, Glenroy and the Western Ring Road and south to include most of Brunswick and Brunswick East and containing parts of the State electorates of Pascoe Vale, Brunswick, Broadmeadows, Thomastown and Essendon. At a local Government level it shares most of its borders with Moreland, but includes Strathmore from the municipality of Moonee Valley and the Essendon Airport.)

It is indeed cheering to hear a member of the Federal Government criticise the policies of the Growth Lobbyists in Australia. The speech quoted at length below was in Labor MP attacks Melbourne's expansion plan ( July 20 2009) misreported in the Age where it was conflated with statements from the Committee of Melbourne. This conflation misled me and others to believe that Kelvin Thompson was against expansion into the Green Wedges, but was calling for open slather along the main arteries of Melbourne. If you read his submission or the quotes below, you will see that he is actually stating that more population growth in Melbourne is environmentally and socially unsustainable. He is critical of arguments for expansion or infilling. He also exposes the related hypocrisy and nonsensicality of the Government's climate change policies in the light of continuous population growth. He even exposes the fact that the Victorian State Government advertises for high immigration, a fact that they constantly avoid making clear to the long-suffering public.

I have to say: Bravo Kelvin Thompson! You show leadership in a government apparently composed mostly of cowards and ignoramuses who take orders from big business against the interests of their electorates. The only thing you have left out is the role that the Federal Government plays in granting the states the numbers they so vociferously demand of it.

Headings are by the candobetter editor:

Kelvin writes:

"Our city is forecast to have 4 million people living in it by the end of this year, with annual population growth rates reaching 2% (Colebatch 2009). The outer fringe of Melbourne is currently taking 61% of our population growth (Buckley 2009). This is placing pressure on the existing Urban Growth Boundary.

Climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time

Climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time and addressing it must be at the forefront of our public policy planning. Compared to other major cities throughout the developed world, Melbourne has one of the highest rates of carbon emissions per capita. Our city’s cars, trucks, motorcycles and public transport services were recently recorded to generate 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, compared with just 8.5 million tonnes in London. This equates to 3.1 tonnes of carbon per person in Melbourne compared with 1.2 tonnes per person in Greater London. One of the key reasons for our significantly higher rate of emissions per person is because of Melbourne’s larger geographic area, which means journeys tend to be longer and heavily reliant on cars (Lucas & Millar 2008).

Twice the number of people in Melbourne will mean twice the amount of carbon emissions, congestion and pollution.

Existing Government policies are encouraging an expansion of up to 75,000 people a year. If we continue down this public policy path we will need to accommodate another 1 million people before 2025 (Buckley 2009). By 2036 Melbourne is predicted to have a further 1.8 million people, nearly twice the number forecast in Melbourne 2030 (Moncrief 2008). Twice the number of people in Melbourne will mean twice the amount of carbon emissions, congestion and pollution.

Submission to the Urban Growth Boundary Review

1. Executive Summary

Our city has reached the point where we need to change direction or risk our social and environmental future.

Melbourne is at a fork in the road. For a long time our city, its way of life and the opportunities it offers to all who come here has been the envy of cities around the world. To maintain this desirable situation we must act decisively to address the issues that threaten Melbourne with becoming another crowded, over populated, congested and polluted metropolis. Our city has reached the point where we need to change direction or risk our social and environmental future.

The Urban Growth Boundary Melbourne@ 5 million review provides the opportunity to investigate the issues currently facing our city and the options we still have to address them. This submission will identify the ecological issues associated with expanding the northern, western and southern Urban Growth Boundaries and discuss the long term consequences for Melbourne of the proposed expansion. I am making recommendations which will protect Melbourne’s social and economic
growth, local amenity, transport system and reduce our carbon footprint. I have put forward an alternative plan to that of an ever expanding urban fringe.

Melbourne is one of the world’s most liveable cities. This year it was ranked third out of 140 cities as being the most liveable city. Our lifestyle, employment opportunities, health system, education system, infrastructure and environment are all aspects of a community that is the envy of many around the world (The Age 2009).

Melbourne is now the fastest growing city in Australia, with thousands flocking to live here on a never before seen scale. Melbourne’s population is growing on a scale not seen in Australia before, swelling by almost 150,000 people in two years (Colebatch 2009). The 2001 Census recorded Melbourne’s population at 3.3 million people (ABS 2001). In 2006 our population reached 3.6 million (ABS 2006). It has continued to grow faster than that of any other city in the country.

Melbourne’s population grew by 74,713 in the year to last June and by 74, 791 during the previous year. Melbourne’s population is growing by more than 200 people a day, or almost 1500 per week. Melbourne’s population growth last year far outpaced all other major Australian cities. Sydney grew by 55,047 (1.35%), Brisbane by 43,404 (2.3%) and Perth by 43,381 (2.8%) (Colebatch 2009).

In response to revised population projections showing that Melbourne will reach five million people faster than anticipated, the Victorian Government announced its intention to review the Urban Growth Boundary in December 2008 (DoPCD 2009:i). The Urban Growth Boundary was introduced in 2002 as part of Melbourne 2030 (DoPCD 2009A). The boundary was expressly put in place to contain urban sprawl. It was expressly designed to prevent ongoing urban expansion into rural land surrounding metropolitan Melbourne and its fringe (DoSE 2005). It set out to place a clear limit to metropolitan Melbourne’s development. It sought to concentrate urban expansion into growth areas that are served by high capacity public transport (DoSE 2005A).

The most recent review of Melbourne @ 5 million forecasts an additional 600,000 new dwellings in Melbourne with 284,000 of these needing to be located in growth areas. Most of this future growth will be in the north and west of Melbourne (DoPCD 2009:i).

The State Government is investigating changes to the Urban Growth Boundary in response to updated population forecasts and revised longer term growth issues (DoPCD:6). Areas under consideration for urban expansion include 20,448
hectares in Melbourne’s west around Caroline Springs, Melton and Werribee; 25,385 hectares around Sunbury, Craigieburn and Donnybrook and 5560 hectares east of Cranbourne.

Under the plan Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary would be allowed to grow another 41,000 hectares to accommodate an extra 415,000 people. Development of these areas would lead to a loss of some of the most valuable grasslands on the city’s fringe (Dowling & Lahey 2009).

Around the urban fringe, we have a concentration of some of the most endangered ecosystems in Australia, including Western Basalt Plains Grassland and Grassy Woodland, and a diverse range of other vegetation types and threatened species (Environment Victoria 2009). It is vital we do everything we can to protect these ecologically sensitive and important areas from being overrun by high density development.

The Victorian Government is now seeking public feedback on the proposals regarding the proposed changes to the Urban Growth Boundary before a final decision is made (DoPCD 2009:3). In making a final decision, I encourage the Victorian Government to consider the issues of population, local amenity and liveability, climate change, economic growth and transport. I have put forward recommendations that are designed to tackle urban sprawl and that will continue to protect the
things that make Melbourne great.

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate.

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate. We must implement a strategy to control population growth, urban expansion and development. Our way of life, open spaces and infrastructure cannot be sacrificed on the altar of ever expanding population. We have a responsibility to secure our city’s future through thorough, thoughtful and detailed planning. This
planning should not include an expanding Melbourne waistline.

[...]

Encouraging urban sprawl and ever increasing high density developments will lead to a more
polluted, congested and unsustainable Melbourne. Bringing millions of people in to Melbourne will increase the stress on water supplies that are already strained, increase reliance on fossil fuels by communities that are on our urban fringe, and it will increase Melbourne’s carbon footprint when we must be reducing it.

Regrettably the planning process in Melbourne is not being used to achieve environmental sustainability. Melbourne is generating more greenhouse emissions, using more water, losing open space and turning into a high rise steel and concrete jungle. Planners and policy makers talk the talk of protecting Melbourne’s environment, but their actions have the opposite effect. They behave as Gough Whitlam once described rowers facing in one direction but heading in the opposite one.

The promise of Green Wedges to give Melbourne lungs of open space in which to breathe has been broken

A fundamental component of planning for Melbourne’s growth during the 1970s was the concept of
urban growth corridors radiating outwards, separated by wedges of non-urban land (Friends of Merri Creek 2009:3). But the promise of Green Wedges to give Melbourne lungs of open space in which to breathe has been broken, and is proposed to be broken yet again. We need to retain Green Wedges as permanent wedges between growth corridors, not as potential urban land supply that is bulldozed as soon as there is a demand for it.

Media release 20 July 2009 Greens MP Lee Rhiannon is calling on the NSW government to halt tomorrow's auction of 1,200 mega litres of water from the Artesian Basin in Walgett that was saved through the Commonwealth and landowners' funded Cap and Pipe the Bores Program. "Premier Nathan Rees should invest in scientific research to clarify what levels of groundwater use in the artesian basin are sustainable rather then undertake this ill-advised sell off," Ms Rhiannon said. "Farmers who adopted more sustainable land use practices to improve the basin's health and water pressure are justifiably angry that the government is now flogging it off to other users. "Selling licenses to outfits like mining and processing companies shows that the government is willing to put corporate profits before the needs of farmers and the natural environment. "The auction is the thin edge of the wedge for future water trading in the basin and threatens sensitive groundwater dependent ecosystems which sustain native birds, animals, insects, fish and plants. "This precious water supply should not be flogged off. This is a crude money grab by the Rees government. "There is no clear scientific evidence yet available on the amount of groundwater can be sustainably extracted from the basin without damaging fragile ecosystems. "The basin, which lies beneath 22 percent of Australia, contains thousands of springs that help preserve rare bird, animal and plant species. "Climate change will exacerbate the importance of keeping these springs healthy, with the anticipated increase in drought conditions. "The auction of 39 percent of water saved annually under the Cap and Pipe the Bores Program is a kick in the teeth for farmers. "On current prices the government is set to make approximately $2.6 million from the first auction and $28 million from the Cap and Pipe the Bores Program over the next ten years. "The NSW government should postpone this auction," Ms Rhiannon said.

On 19 July 2009, the Sydney Sun-Herald newspaper ran the following article by writer Kelsey Munro: 'Record number of arrivals swells population'

"Figures suggest we're experiencing the biggest boom since the 1950s. A combination of high immigration rates and high birth rates has pushed Australia to a record population boom."

To summarise, Munro identifies the following population statistical trends in Australia from source 'RP Data':

* (Australia's) population growth in 2008 was the highest since the baby boom of the 1950s, according to statistics from RP Data.

* Last year, Australia's population grew by 1.9 per cent, or 406,083 people (nearly 1/2 a million!), to 21.6 million. This is a record figure of 253,415 in net migration (total arrivals minus total departures) represented a great increase over 2007's net migration figure of 184,438.

* Western Australia was the fastest-growing state in 2008, with a 3.1 per cent population increase largely fuelled by overseas migration drawn by the resources boom.

* However, Queensland had the greatest raw number of new residents, with 107,000 new Queenslanders (including births) arriving during 2008.

* NSW grew by 97,509 people but lost 22,690 residents to other states, mostly Queensland. However, this is almost half the number of rescees and publci idents heading north compared with the year before."

Demographer Peter McDonald from ANU claims that our popluation is mainly from immigration, made up from overseas students, New Zealanders, long-stay business visas and working holidaymakers.

Based on 2008's 1.9% cummulative growth rate, Australia's population by 2050 will be at least 44 million.

RE-ELECTION QUESTIONS FOR RUDD:

1. If record immigration offers such net economic and social benefits, why are all Australian states failing to cope and deliver on the flooding demand for public infrastructure and services?

2. Why is Australia's federal government choosing to lead the first world in population growth?

3. Why with such record immigration, is the Australian public denied disclosure of Rudd's federal population policy? - a policy that is the root driver of domestic demand for all resources, for imports, for inflation, for unemployment and for all public infrastructure and services!

4. Why are Australia's living standards and affordabilty being allowed to erode?

In history, there are two types of invasion. One by military aggression, the other by mass immigration. Australia has colonial history of both, which is being perpetuated today in a kind of neo-colonisation. Politically acceptable economics that seeks to silence views on the economics of mass population growth is head-in-the-sand politics that ignores the living standards of a society.

The Rudd Government is perpetuating a policy of 'eco-colonisation' without realisating the triple bottom line consequences. By eco-colonisation I mean a form of unofficial colonisation by way of mass imigration on teh basis of generating domestic economic growth. Like other forms of colonisation, eco-colonisation in mass like Australia has presently can similarly lead to displacement of the existing population by the immigrant population. For instance, more educated immigrants tend to displace the indigenous. A country's indigenous culture can be steadily eroded by an immigrant mass-culture, especially when that immigration involves economic immigrants with employable skills and wealth.

This was the nature of Australia's colonial past and it is being perpetuated today on an economic basis by the current Rudd Government. But importantly, this has nothing to do with race or ethnic origin. The problem is the impact of the sheer volume of immigrants and the impact on local society and environment.

Rudd no understand history.

Original Source: http://www.climate4you.com/images/OperationBarbarossa1941.jpg

Submission by Jill Quirk, headlines and teaser by Admin, candobetter

Growth is discretionary but the Government doesn't want Victorians to realise this

We have just learned from a newly issued State Government report that building on the outer urban fringes -taking into consideration the infrastructure needs for making new suburbs from scratch- costs more than twice as much as building within established areas.

The hackneyed arguments about urban sprawl vs. urban densification are usually presented and reported as either forced choices or choices of the most suitable recipe of proportions of one or the other.

What is rarely questioned is the actual need to have the rate of population growth that forces these dilemmas on us.

The State Government and planning authorities as well as developers and all those who lobby for higher population growth must be well aware of the extent to which the level of population growth in Victoria is discretionary. These aforementioned must also be well aware that logically, growth at the present rate or indeed at any rate is not possible into the indefinite future.

http://www.liveinvictoria.com.au is a Government website to drive population growth upwards

Even without the State Government recklessly inviting people from overseas and interstate to join us in our water depleted state e.g. via the website http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au, Victoria would still experience population growth- but at a far more manageable level- roughly 30-40,000 per annum as opposed to the present nearer 100,000 p.a. increase . Eventually with a balanced level of incomings and outgoings and our natural birth and death rate , Victoria's population would level off in the next 40 odd years.

Victoria now in ecological overshoot

Victoria is now in ecological overshoot-as clearly demonstrated by the need to industrialise our water supply with a desalination plant and by the parlous state of our environment as described in the State of the Environment report 2008.

That is why we need to stabilise and then allow natural attrition

This is why Victoria, for a secure future needs to look towards stabilising its population in future decades. As long as our population increases, our environment will be in decline. The present scenario of high population growth guarantees a poorer existence for future citizens than that of present citizens just as the present residents are poorer than those of 40 years ago when the environment was in much better shape and we had adequate water supplies.

As Victoria is in overshoot in 2009, imagine what it will be like in 10 years with 1 million more people,many of them living on the Melbourne outer fringe in large poorly designed houses on small blocks of land with few transport options. 10 years from now, more of our agricultural land close to the city will be either built on or earmarked for development. At the same time we will be further down the one way road towards oil depletion which will adversley affect car travel economy, agricultural output and transport of goods.

In ten years people on the outer edges will be much closer to the edges of survival - food, water, petrol

The people of Melbourne especially those in the suburbs of the urban fringes will be much closer to the edges of survival. Their lives will be more difficult as they struggle to find economical transport and their opportunities for self sufficiency in a climate of rising food prices will be limited by lack of land and time.

These are all arguments against a mindset of continual population growth and expansion of our city which has so many unwanted consequences right now for the bulk the population.

Higher urban density not the answer; we are already going upwards and outwards

The alternative to extending the urban growth boundary given continued population growth is the densification of the established parts of the city which the State Government report says is the cheaper option for accommodating population growth. Unfortunately, at a massive 2% socially engineered p.a growth rate, we will get both more urban sprawl and urban densification . Urban densification has distinctly negative consequences for affected residents- overcrowding , uncertainty of what will be built next and where, loss of natural light in houses, loss of gardens and of open space and increased traffic. Eventually everyone will be adversely affected except those with enormous property buffers within the city i.e the very rich.

Apart from major conservation and wildlife considerations on which other organisations will be making separate submissions especially as extension of UGB affects the Green Wedges, the proposal to extend the UGB totally lacks vision and any will to make a different future in the interests of Victoria's citizens.

The Victorian Government should totally revise its modis operandi with regard to its own part in population growth in Victoria and work towards a sustainable future with first a future stable population and then inevitably a smaller one after mid century. This kind of foresight is needed if we are to have a future and not ecological collapse.

Jill Quirk

(Submission by Jill Quirk, on behalf of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) Victorian Branch)
If you want to contact Jill, send her a message to [email protected]

***

See also on the financial cost alone:Jason Dowling and Clay Lucas, "Suburban sprawl costs billions more," The Age, July 17, 2009

"PLANS to build thousands of homes on Melbourne's fringes will cost Victorians around $40 billion more than if they were built in existing suburbs, a new State Government report shows.

In an embarrassment for the Government on the day that submissions close on its plans to further expand Melbourne's urban growth boundary, the report released on Wednesday shows the total cost of building homes in new outer suburbs is more than double that of building in existing areas.[...]"

Ed. But don't believe that writing to the Age will save you or even that the Age owners care - the Fairfax Press and the Murdoch Press would be backing this growth to the hilt, since they have corporate investments in property development and its marketing throughout the world, as indicated by, for instance, www.domain.com.au and www.realestate.com.au

Image from cover of Graeme Base, Uno's Garden, Viking, Penguin Australia, 2006

Re: Proposed Urban Growth Boundary changes.

There is a fantastic book by renowned author Graeme Base, that I often read to my children. It’s called ‘Uno’s Garden’. It’s about a guy named Uno, who arrives in the forest one beautiful day, where there are many fascinating and extraordinary animals there to greet him. And one entirely exceptional Snortlepig.

Uno loves the forest so much, he decides to live there. But, in time, a little village grows up around his house. Then a town, then a city….and soon Uno realises that the animals and plants have begun to disappear….
(sounding familiar?)

***

Graeme Base starts his book with this rhyme:

‘The animals go one by one
A hundred plants, then there were none
And all the while the buildings double…
This numbers game adds up to trouble’

So significant is this story, that it featured as the Myer Christmas windows in 2007. If you haven’t already read the book, I urge you to get a copy. It really is easy to read, and makes perfect sense.

On behalf of my children, I would like you to seriously consider the moral of this story when determining the UGB and population expansion.

Sharing our backyard on the periphery of the proposed new South East UGB, are EPBC listed, endangered Southern Brown Bandicoots. To my kids, these are like the ‘Snortlepig’ in the story. They think the Government must be careful to protect them as it’s important we have biodiversity. They really get that. What they don’t get, is that the Government is now planning to shift the boundary of the Urban Growth Corridor encroaching into Green Wedge land further threatening the SBB’s, to make way for more ‘concrete and McMansions’. They are worried that it will never end, and wonder where all the animals and farmers producing our food are going to go. They are worried that when they get ‘old’, their children and grandchildren will suffer for today’s government’s seeming lack of concern for the environment.

What should I tell them?

Submitted by: Catherine Manning [to the Growth Areas Authority]
Friday 17th July, 2009.

Photographs of Southern Brown Bandicoots in our backyard near Clyde.

Kangaroo Island scrub fire, photo from CFS by Lisa Dalby, December 2007

In April 2009, Australia's leading bushfire research organisation, Bushfire CRC Ltd, published another important report 'THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF AERIAL FIRE-FIGHTING IN AUSTRALIA'
by Gaminda Ganewatta & John Handmer, via the Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT University in Melbourne.

The report has examined the cost effectiveness of aerial fire suppression in Australia and has made the following important and most relevant findings, which cannot be ignored by fire authorities and their politically disposed masters:

1. "The use of ground resources with initial aerial support is the most economically efficient approach to fire suppression!"

2. "Aircraft are economically efficient where they are able to reach and knock down a fire well before the ground crew arrives!"

3. "Rapid deployment of aerial suppression resources is important, especially in remote or otherwise inaccessible terrain!"

4. "The sole use of aircraft is economically justified in the event of other suppression methods being unable to reach the fire event quickly!"

5. "Critical factors are speed of deployment and turnaround time!"

6. "Aircraft save more damage than they cost to operate, noting that high volume helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are economically more efficient in fire suppression, compared to small helicopters and large air tankers. Air tankers are less manoeuvrable compared to helicopters, thus their use in initial attack is not practical, unless used solely for large events!"

So while Brumby's Royal Commission is working towards finalising its investigation into the Victorian Bushfires, this presents an opportunity for Fire Management to harness such relevant bushfire research. Before next bushfire risk season key relevant bushfire research like this can be evaluated and the costs, budgets and business cases formulated to propose application to fire management operations.

But frankly can one lead a politicised brumby to water?

The following references provide useful illustrations and real life accounts of practical aerial fire fighting resource options out there (print them off and have a darn good read):

www.richard-seaman.com

'Helicopters: Stopping the Blazes'

Tigerquoll
[Licensed Commercial Helicopter Pilot]

The Emperor Julian codified the land-tenure laws which Napoleon later consolidated. The substitution of the Napoleonic code for the British inheritance system could help overpopulation and poverty.

July 11 was World Population Day, marking the day in 1987 when the world’s population passed five billion. This year’s theme in the UN is ‘Fight Poverty: Educate Girls.’

Here are some things that the UN does not talk about and which Bill Gates probably doesn't realise.

The third world countries that have natural increase problems began by their steady-state communities being disorganised through massive immigration - then called colonisation, now called industrialisation. The problems began with loss of land-tenure as entire peoples were disorganised and disoriented by having their traditional land removed from their control. Africa and India, for instance, had many stable populations for centuries, as testified by their high biodiversity and healthy natural systems at time of colonisation. The degradation of their natural systems has accompanied the destabilising of their human social organisation and overpopulation.

It was not until the 18th and 19th Century, with the imposition of the English political systems that these populations blew out. Polynesia, micronesia and Australia, colonised later, are succumbing later to the same failure of practical democracy.

The people of the original steady state societies lost their land to the colonisers and were encouraged to become wage-earners instead of self-sufficient. The new economy was initially agricultural and then manufacturing. Large landless families benefited both agriculturalists and manufacturers. Those without land were totally dependent on wages for their labour to survive and could not opt out of the labour market. Thus, people who for thousands of years had been self-sufficient and free, became servants.

Like the Americas and Canada, Australia is still being 'colonised'. The landless people who were forced to come here or who came voluntarily and displaced the aboriginal population are now losing their own access to land here, just like the Aboriginals. At the same time women here are being conned into having more children. It is becoming harder to get a decent education as well.

There is every reason to anticipate that this difficulty will increase.

The Importance of Child Labour Laws in preventing overpopulation:

Once the rot has set in, next thing to go are effective child labour laws. This is because if there is no ban enforced on children labouring, then large families are preferred to educated wives. Once children are a major source of income, mass-education withers away.

Child Labour Laws as a variable in fertility rates[i]

Here are some explanations for changes in human fertility since the beginning of agriculture.

In countries where effective labour laws prohibit the employment of children, those children become costly rather than income-beneficial.[ii] In those countries where working for wages is the main option for survival for many but where child labour is prohibited, then people who rely mainly or uniquely on wages will have fewer children.

Similarly, a woman who has education will be more valuable as an income-earner than as a child-producing wife in a society that prohibits child-labour. Where women earn less than men for doing the same job, in a society which needs skilled workers and prohibits child-labour, then this will be a disincentive for taking such women out of the workforce to have children. It will also be an obstacle to marriage because men's capacity to find work will be undermined by the cheaper but still skilled labour of women. In societies where monogamous marriage is the model for raising children, there are implications for marriage frequency. With children a high cost, only men with high incomes will be able to afford to take a wife out of the workforce to nurture children.

Inheritance Laws as a variable in average wealth differentials

In countries where men can own and inherit land, but women cannot, (England from the 12th century until the 1920s) then lack of land is an incentive for women to marry for material survival, but women who can own land and earn a salary may experience their ability to earn as a disincentive to marriage due to the status and power of running their own lives.

A disincentive also operates in countries where, in divorce, either partner may acquire rights to the assets that the other brought to the marriage.

Some countries have facilitated the ability of women to work, raise and educate children outside marriage -- e.g. France. To this should be added the fact that French women also benefit from equal inheritance rights to men.

Although French women only recently (in the 1970s) regained the right to manage their affairs, this right, coupled with the government's duty to house, educate and assure an income to its citizens, enhances women's security and independence.

France also, through its inheritance system, makes French women more likely to inherit wealth than British women and many British men, who had almost no land inheritance rights until primogeniture was revoked in 1926.[iii] Even though all children may now inherit in societies based on British law, because there is no legal requirement that they inherit, there is still a profound tendency to disinherit children in those societies, through second marriages or due to their being the product of casual union, or based on ideology or a whim. (I often think of how the very rich Australian, Reg Ansett, disinherited his son, Bob, apparently excusing the inexcusable with an ideology that everyone should make their own way in the world, failing to take into account that different generations have very different prospects according to resource depletion and other changes.)

The legally enforceable inheritance rights of any French child, legitimate, illegitimate, issue of first or subsequent marriages is almost certainly a major factor in the lesser disparities between rich and poor in France and those other countries in Europe which benefited from the Napoleonic Code (a Roman law based system). It is noteworthy that Pacific Islands which have inherited the French system do not have the same rates of overpopulation, homelessness and economic poverty as the ones that were colonised with the English system. (Neither do those in Japanese waters, with the exception of those which passed into US ownership after the Second World War. The Japanese inheritance system also preserves land in families.)

Unfortunately the French situation of equity will be affected by changes to the Napoleonic Code introduced by President Sarkozi in 2008. Now it becomes possible for a spouse to make a serious claim on part of a deceased's estate where that estate previously went entirely to blood relatives.

The recent ability of technological societies to prove paternity is a new factor that could be exploited to access additional income for children whose mothers might otherwise be their sole providers. This could act to increase the fertility rate, but men might become more careful about impregnating women under these new circumstances.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Excerpt from my book in progress below on this subject.
[ii] Doepke, M., Growth and Fertility in the Long Run, Mimeo, University of Chicago, 2000, available in reduced form in Doepke, M. "Accounting for Fertility Decline During the Transition to Growth", Journal of Economic Growth, 9(3), 347-383, September 2004. The speed of the fertility transition depends on policies that affect the opportunity cost of education, namely education subsidies and child-labor restrictions. Doepke considered the case of two countries that started to grow at roughly the same time, but which had experienced very different government policies: (South) Korea and Brazil. Korea had a strong public education system, and child-labor restrictions were strictly enforced, while Brazil had an ineffective public education system, with little systematic enforcement of child labour restrictions. Doepke found, as his model predicted, that the fertility decline associated with development proceeded much faster in Korea than in Brazil.

[iii] The rule of primogeniture in England was not changed until the Administration of Estates Act of 1926.

Al Gore has been involved in the business of raising Black Angus cattle for most of his life.

Not once during the 96 minute presentation, An Inconvenient Truth, did Al Gore mention livestock and our diets as a cause of global warming, or suggest any form of solution or alternatives. This omission would be similar to not mentioning cigarette smoking in a discussion of lung cancer!

According to a report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options, released in November of 2006 from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to every one of the most serious environmental problems. Additionally, animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents.

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Livestock:

Produces 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.

Accounts for 37 percent of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2.

Generates 64 percent of the ammonia, which contributes to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

With a burgeoning world population, and rising middle classes in Asia, the demand for meat and dairy will continue to grow.

The loss of species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background rates found in the fossil record, largely due to the land required by livestock.

Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part of the industry's damage. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

With a burgeoning world population, and rising middle classes in Asia, the demand for meat and dairy will continue to grow.

The twin "elephants in the room", livestock production and population growth, are avoided by Al Gore and by many environmental and climate change groups.

Surely these "inconvenient truths" need to be debated at Copenhagen if there are to be any realistic gains made?

Al Gore's web site

This article was originally sent to me on 5 July 09. Apologies to Joan for the delay in publishing - JS Counsel assisting the Royal Commission into the 2009 bushfires are reported to have advocated the 'reinstatement' of community bushfire shelters. Communities have never had bushfire shelters to reinstate. Previous so-called 'community refuges' were not purpose-built bushfire shelters, and most were no safer than a house or any other building. Many were potential death traps. They were buildings with raised, rubbish-littered sub-floors, holiday camps consisting of small, separated timber huts surrounded by metre-high grass, car parks and football grounds reached by narrow, bush-lined tracks. While a well constructed shelter may provide safety for those who are in it, this is not the only consideration. What cannot be assured is:

• that outlying evacuees will reach them safely
• that shelters will be open to receive evacuees early on each day of bushfire danger.
• that any town can forecast whether it will actually be threatened, and therefore need to have its community shelter open.
• that community shelters used for other purposes on normal days (as they must be for economy) will be able, on any and every day of bushfire danger, to convert their normal activities at short notice, and make ready to receive evacuees. (Would they eject their usual occupants?)
• that those working in community shelters used for other purposes know of their bushfire purpose? The North Warrandyte Community Centre was typical of these (1991). Though it exhibited an `Emergency Refuge' sign, when evacuees from a bushfire arrived at its door, neither the fire brigade nor the Centre's committee had known it was a general evacuation refuge. Staff did not know whom to contact or what procedures to follow. (See Community safe refuges, Chapter 12, The Complete Bushfire Safety Book.)
• that community shelters in tourist towns will be large enough to accommodate the townspeople plus tourists. (If these became overcrowded, would late evacuees be rejected?)
• that if community refuges are redesignated, and if they are made safe, but seldom need to be used as bushfire shelters, their purpose will not fall into a limbo of bureaucractic and community apathy. As has happened with the wonderful, purpose- built bushfire shelters constructed at an average cost of $1/4 million in 1989 at schools in the Dandenong Ranges.

Two other big aspects for consideration:

• the use of community and/or family bushfire shelters was originally intended only forchildren, the frail and aged. Able-bodied persons were expected to learn how to defend their homes, or shelter in them, in a safe manner
• unattended homes (of evacuees and other absentees), have the highest incidence of destruction.

The more people dependent on shelters, the more homes left unattended to be destroyed. As each burning house send off embers to ignite other houses the rebuilding costs for a shelter-dependent society will be astronomical - annually. Isn't it cheaper and better all round to teach individual and community safety? In schools, workplaces, clubs, migrant centres …? Isn't it cheaper and better all round for grants and low interest loans to be made available to low income residents of bushfire prone areas before the bushfire season, to help them prepare their homes for bushfire safety? Isn't it cheaper and better all round for specific funding to be provided to municipal councils to help less able householders put their properties in a safe state before summer? The more households who prepare their homes, grounds and prepare themselves properly in the knowledge of bushfire defence and survival, the less places will be needed in refuges and the more homes will survive for well founded evacuees to return to. © Joan WebsterAuthor of The Complete Bushfire Safety Book (Random House 2000) andEssential Bushfire Safety Tips (CSIRO 2008) See also: "How misconceptions about bushfire bunkers may cost lives" of 21 Jun 09, and "Fire bunkers could have helped in the Victorian fires" of 10 Feb 09.

One of several speeches made at Melbourne 14 July 2009 rally against undemocratic rezoning of green wedges to benefit developers by making it possible to continue high immigration by providing housing at the expense of wildlife, open spaces and democracy.

The speaker is Michael Hocking of Taxed Out. The GAIC tax proposed is quite medieval, like a tax on peasants to benefit lords, which is how the feudal system worked. Where modern practice in the anglophone land-tenure systems is to tax developers the windfall they make on rezoned land, the GAIC tax would tax landowners if they sold land which had been rezoned against their wishes. The choice is a Hobson's one; if you stay you pay very high rates based on the theoretical value of resale. Hard to stay under the circumstances. A recipe for driving farmers and wildlife out and ushering suburbia in. A policy driven by the Growth Lobby.

Language is powerful. ‘In the beginning was the word’. Everything in the universe vibrates. The words we speak vibrate from our vocal chords and pass through every cell of our bodies. Infants in the womb feel the vibration of their mother’s words all around them, pervading their environment and their bodies. Somewhat like being in a surround sound Imax theatre only more so.

The words we think become the words we speak. These words reflect our consciousness which attracts people and experiences that mirror our thoughts. Like attracts like. The bible says “To him who has, more will be given.”

Words have power, not only because of the sound they vibrate but because of the associations they carry. Every time you say or think a word, instantaneously, for a split second, the image of that word imprints on your brain. You may not even be aware of it. For example if I say the word ‘apple’, you just visualised it, didn’t you? That’s because we learn language by associating images and feelings with sounds. In the same way by hearing the same word, whether from someone else or from yourself, bombards the mind with that image. Are we going to choose to fill our minds with positive images or negative images?

Japanese researcher Masaru Emoto found by freezing drops of water and photographing them under a darkfield microscope that when one said ‘Thank you’, ‘I love you’ or “I appreciate you’ or placed the written word on paper attached to the water, the water organised itself into beautiful, symmetrical crystals which looked like vibrant gems. Conversely, when negative thoughts and words like “I hate you,” “ugly,” “demon” were used, it made the water disorganized and unstructured, which looked like a muddy sewer. His research clearly shows that water responds to our thoughts, words and feelings. Since humans are 70% water, it’s obvious that negative thoughts, words and feelings can adversely affect people (see footnote).

So if people around you are constantly using language that is foul, disrespectful, violent, negative, how does that make you feel? If you use foul language yourself, how does it make you feel? For myself when I hear the word my aura contracts and my heart chakra closes. This is not desirable to me.

Spiritual people talk about the beneficial effect of repeating certain words such as mantras on our consciousness. So what about the negative effect of speaking and hearing certain other words on our consciousness? Do people realise what they are creating in their aura?
Perhaps this is why the Buddha taught that Right Speech is part of the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Power of Swearing:
Cultures with no written language believe that spoken words have the power to curse or bless people as well as affect the world around us. This means some words are very good and some words are very bad. Researchers agree that swearing came from early forms of word magic. So let’s consider that for a moment - sounds have the power to affect our psyche deeply. Given that the right hemisphere of our brain controls our instinctual and emotional sides and the left hemisphere the rational, logical part of the brain, it’s interesting to note that studies show that swear words do not need the left brain to process them. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies show that the more complex parts of our brain (that process language) can struggle with the simpler part of our brain (that process emotions, motor responses) when a person swears.

The F Word:
Let’s take the F word for example. This word means different things to different people. What does it mean to you? To many people, it conjures up images of rough, lustful sex, totally lacking in refinement or sensitivity, somewhat like copulating animals. As such, it violates the sanctity of love-making and is arguably one of the most profane, vulgar words in the English language. Those who use the word often say it means nothing to them at all, just a collection of syllables – or does it? What about subconscious associations?

Why do People use the F Word?:
Studies show that men swear more than women. Men swear to create a masculine identity and to express emotion, since they are taught not to cry. Some people use the F word to add humour, emphasis or shock to the conversation. Or it could be used to camouflage one’s fear or insecurity.

People use the F word for a number of reasons, one of which is to establish rapport and build camaraderie – but that only works if both parties use vulgar language, otherwise, a wedge can be driven between people.

As the world becomes increasingly chaotic, confused and destructive, more people seem to be using this word in daily conversations without even realising it, especially in Australia where it is like a pandemic, followed by its ugly sister, the P Word.

1. Expressing Anger:
It is a word most commonly used to express anger. What has sex got to do with anger? Have you noticed that in general most negative people of this generation use the F word frequently and positive, uplifted people never use it?

The F word is like an umbilical chord connecting people to the womb of anger, violence, rage, fear and despair. On the other hand, positive, uplifting words connect people to the womb of peace, harmony, generosity, gratitude and humility.

Swearing can not only arise from a hostile mind but can create a hostile environment and induce other people to violence. In the U.S. the courts take this into account and regard obscenity as ‘unprotected speech’ that does not come under the constitutional First Amendment of freedom of speech.

2. Being Cool:
It was thought at one point that women swear to imitate men but now studies show that women swear in order to imitate women they admire and to establish trust and intimacy with other women.

In certain social groups, the F word is regarded as ‘trendy’ or ‘cool’ and not necessarily used when the person is angry but for the sake of appearing ‘sexy’. Such people appear to be fascinated with the F word and actually speak the word louder than other words in the same sentence. If your friends are all using the word, it’s very easy in order to be accepted by them to use it too.

People who use vulgar language in a conversation think that non-users are overly conservative, however I know many people who are very radical in their thinking and lifestyle but never use the word and even detest it. It may be an interesting exercise for such people to make this subject a topic of conversation to find out what others think.

3. Obsession with Sex:
I wonder if people who use the F word constantly are actually saying ‘I want sex.’ Why all the obsession with sex? Could it be to escape from the pervasive and undeniable suffering around them, or simply to escape their own suffering? Humans are constantly seeking pleasure and running from pain. The pleasure dulls the pain sensation. Food is a big one and so is sex.

Or could it be that humans suffer so much from Nature Deprivation Disorder (feeling disconnected from the natural world) and themselves, that by using the F word - which is distantly related to a unifying act of deep intimacy - they are trying to reconnect? Sex for many people is the only way they know to feel unified with a world that fosters increasing disconnectedness.

If that is the case, why not sit and meditate in silence, connecting with our higher mind and angelic kingdoms? Or, if that is too difficult, then perhaps go out into nature and focus on another species, imagining ourselves as that creature and feeling union-oneness with it. If we feel another being as if we were that being, separation disappears like an illusion in a timeless, magical moment. Maybe that is the reason why universally people love to watch animals in the wild.

4. Habit:
For other people, using the F word is only a habit - albeit a bad one – fuelled by habituators around them. With a little self-awareness this habit could be broken simply by noticing when this word is used in thought processes and immediately replacing it with a different word. In no time the habit will be broken much to the surprise of non-swearing colleagues, many of whom will be quietly relieved.

5. Rebellion Against Society:
Some people use the F word to rebel against society. Interestingly, swearing was a punishable offence in New England and in today’s world is the #1 reason to be fired from your job. A new survey from TheLadders.com reveals that 36% of US bosses have issued a formal warning and 6% have fired an employee for swearing, deeming a foul mouth the most punishable of all workplace faux pas. This poll of over 2,000 executives reveals that 81.2% of senior office executives find a foul mouthed colleague unacceptable to work with.

I met a woman recently who told me that the F word is the only way to accurately and strongly express your anger and that she trained other women to 'come into their power' by using this word. Perhaps what she was really saying was that foul (anti-social) language is a way of saying that you don't care what society thinks of you. The sad thing is that such a person ostracises not only society but also intelligent non-swearing individuals from their circle.

6. Brain Damage:
Who has not seen the sad spectacle of a demented alcoholic staggering down the street shouting angrily at the world using the F word excessively? According to studies, too much swearing could be a symptom of disease or as a result of damage to parts of their brain. Various neurological and emotional conditions can also affect a person’s ability to speak and lead to extreme swearing.

7. Unresolved Negative Emotions:
It’s a mystery to me why highly intelligent people who are earnestly trying to make a positive difference in the world are habituated to using the F word. Such people have an extensive vocabulary to draw upon and could easily find other words to adequately express their anger. Could they be needing to rise above their own negativity, which is after all an emotional condition born of frustration, anger, fear, disappointment, despair and so on before trying to save the planet? Can they not see that using the F word perpetuates negativity in a never-ending vicious circle and lowers the vibrations on our planet, like adding fuel to a fire that is already raging?

The P Word:
Another similar swearword used to express anger is the P word. Every time it is used, an image of a person urinating imprints the brain. How unsavoury is that to contemplate? Why do we even need to think these disgusting, irrelevant things when we can use less unsavoury words like ‘annoy’ bother, irritate and so on?

Affect on Non-Swearers:
Incessantly using the F word in the presence of those who never use it and find it offensive is disrespectful and can make them feel polluted by you. Some individuals go so far as to avoid those who use the F word or even hang up the phone when speaking with them.

Even threatening to use the F word around non-swearers but then not using it, causes the hearer to think the word momentarily in their mind and cringe in expectation. This can produce physiological symptoms of stress such as a tightening in the abdomen, neck, hands, or face in the non-swearer. To use the F word around people who don’t use it, or to threaten to, can be a subtle psychic assault on that person, whether they speak up about it or not.

Every word we use can be a weapon to hurt others or a healing balm to heal and bless them. Let’s choose carefully.

Breaking the Swearing Habit:
Words are pictures that we paint on the canvas of our own and others’ minds. Using a rich array of image-provoking words is mentally satisfying and socially stimulating. For example, in casual situations we could substitute the F word with other words such as darn, pesky, blooming, gosh, heck or gee. To express anger we could use words like furious, livid, irate, wild, outraged, boiling mad, incensed, disgusted, appalled, devastated, disturbed, aggravated, upset, ballistic, explosive, raving, or fuming. Or come up with your own versions!

For example substitute the four letter F word with the three letter F word i.e. FUN. Try saying 'Fun off!' or What a FUN hot day it is today! What the FUN are you doing??? Our FUN government has decided to run another rally.....Get FUNNED! He is a FUN-wit. If you say it with as much anger as possible it actually sounds hilarious.

Do you see what a smorgasbord of linguistically colourful words we have to choose from instead of the same predictable boring old F word? It’s like going into a restaurant and choosing the same old MacDonalds burger with fries for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

Additionally, we can use adjectives to qualify the word, for example steaming, supremely, increasingly, outrageous and so on. And we can invent new slang like ‘Let’s see how the mop flops’ or ‘trot the rot’. For hundreds of years Australians have been famous for humorous and unique colloquial expressions which define our culture and give us originality. What happened? Have we all dried up and resigned ourselves to predictably spitting out the F word every other sentence? It’s fun to think up and use new slang so why not try it?

How do Swearers Respond to being Challenged?
On raising this subject with people who use the F word frequently, responses have ranged from 'You need to get over this and just accept me as I am' to ‘It’s a colourful word and part of the Australian vernacular’ to 'You are right - I feel like a fisherman's wife and hate using the word! Thank you I will replace it with a different word.'

Some people have gone out of their way to use the F word more frequently to deliberately annoy me. Does such a person truly care about how I feel?

I would dearly love for a revolution in consciousness about this word with some open dialogue or debate or at the very least some serious consideration of how this word affects us and others in our vicinity.

Raising Your Own Vibration to Raise the Planet’s Vibration:
Raising our vibration starts with words we use in internal dialogue - the thoughts in our heads. If we choose positive words that encourage self-confidence, kindness, appreciation and gratitude we tend to respond more positively to the outer world. This contributes to peace and helps turn the tide on planetary destruction which originates from hatred and anger. It sounds like a long shot, but remember, sound is vibration and everything originates from vibration.

We Australians seem to have the habit of putting ourselves down, as if it’s some kind of virtue - and it’s not. As a result we are less likely to express appreciation of others. Have you noticed that when you are kind to yourself it’s a lot easier to be kind to others? And we wonder why there is so much discord in the world. If we tell ourselves ‘I am loveable, generous, kind, caring, intelligent, beautiful’ etc. and appreciate ourselves, it will help us be that much closer to extending the same kindness to others. If everyone practised appreciating each other, the world would be a better place.

Imagine if, instead of someone saying ‘F you!’ they said ‘Thank you, I will think about this.’

Doesn’t it make sense to consciously eliminate toxic words that foster harshness and vulgarity and instead use words that foster love and kindness to all creatures? Wouldn’t that help heal a troubled world on the brink of ecocidal madness and create the peace, love and harmony we all deeply crave?

Not everybody speaks about how much they dislike the F word, but such people do exist and they suffer quietly for a long time. Maybe it’s time to speak up and help the world change the tide of negativity and usher in a new age of genuinely positive imprinting of consciousness of ourselves and those around us?

******

Footnote: While not all scientists agree that Dr Emoto’s work is credible research, bear in mind that the understanding of resonance is in its infancy and scientific trials can be problematic when the results can be so easily influenced by an experimenter’s mind. See Dr Emoto explaining what his critics fail to grasp at youtube.com/watch?v=rZDOPQRdxJM.

Subtitled, "Admiral Wayne Swan and Kaptain Kevin Rudd D-Day WWII Budget Newsreel Spending Campaign".

Yes, this video puts our problems of 'leadership' and 'vision' succinctly.
And could lead to deeper questions about the meaning of life, the notion of human intelligence, and the nature of money.
Or we could just be happy that people like Cyrius01 are out there to balance out the Krudd and Howard humour deficits.

Erickson Aircrane Flynn
Courtesy: G. Brooks, January 2009.

['Flynn' part of record CFS fleet']

It took many bushfires over many decades, but in December 2008, South Australia's Premier Mike Rann started seriously committing to Aerial Bushfire Fighting by securing an Erickson Aircrane water bombing aircraft being based in South Australia during the Fire Danger Season. The Erickson Aircrane, nicknamed 'Flynn' is now part of a serious CFS fleet of 15 fire-fighting dedicated aircraft with standby crews as Premier Rann says "to improve the capacity and flexibility of the Country Fire Service to respond to potentially threatening bushfires.”

The Erickson Aircrane, is capable of carrying 7,500 litres of water (freshwater or seawater) and has been proven an effective response and support to 'bolster' ground bushfire fighting crews in Europe, the US and in Canada. “In the past we’ve had to rely on an Erickson Aircrane from interstate but now we can call on this aircraft when needed at short notice." Mr Rann said.

Although Victoria and New South Wales have long had their own Erickson Aircranes and access to other fire fighting aircraft, the scale and number of major bushfires in these two states over recent decades has far outsurpassed the bushfires of South Australia. Similarly, the population sizes and government budgets of both Victoria and NSW far exceed that of South Australia. So why has Victoria and NSW lagged behind in proportional terms with its airborne bushfire fighting capacity?

What is significant coming from South Australia is the Premier of that State declaring: “The State Government recognises its responsibility to provide the best and most effective resources to protect South Australia’s urban fringe and rural communities from bushfires and consistently continues to deliver on this pledge” and his commitment to aerial fire-fighting and bushfire surveillance and his government's recognition that an effective airborne unit can "help accelerate the response times to bushfires!”

Now as a result, bushfire fighting results are coming out of CFS South Australia like that reported by the media below...

[The following extracts from an article by Doug Robertson, Joanna Vaughan and Frances Stewart on AdelaideNow.com.au, 15 March 2008]

'CFS hit heatwave fires hard and early!'

"THE CFS heatwave strategy to strike quickly and with everything has averted a series of potential disasters during our most extreme fire danger period.
Praise yesterday was being heaped on the firefighting force's ferocious attack on fires at Williamstown, Balhannah and Willunga.

The plan – to throw as many people and resources as possible at a fire in its first 30 minutes – kept the SA's three-day fire-damage toll to less than 200ha, one home and only minor injuries.
It is a reflection of lessons learned in the devastating Eyre Peninsula Black Tuesday fires in 2005 and the recommendations handed down in a coronial inquest into that fire.

After 12 days of a record heatwave, firefighters were warned earlier this week that the dry landscape was ready to burn and if a fire had not been controlled within the first 30 minutes, it could spread into a disaster. In a clear example of the rapid response, fire crews yesterday were able to extinguish a "fast-moving" grass fire near Balhannah after only 20 minutes.

Strong winds swept the fire towards Nairne but it was contained to only 8.2ha after several resources, including 120 firefighters, two fixed-winged water bombers, an air crane and two aerial observation aircraft, were thrown at it. The fire at Willunga that destroyed a house, injured nine firefighters and burnt through 153ha, was officially contained yesterday. More than 220 fire fighters were supported by five fixed-winged aerial bombers, one air crane and two aerial observation aircraft. The planes refilled in three minutes and averaged a nine-minute turn-around to the drop site at the height of the bushfire on Thursday.
Erickson Aircrane Flynn
Courtesy: G. Brooks, January 2009

The two air-tractor aircraft carried 3200 litres of foam and three AT-602s – brought in from Port Lincoln – filled up at Woodside and each made more than 25 drops on the fire ground in about five hours. "With the fire behaviour we have seen in Willunga and Williamstown, if there hadn't been such a significant response in terms of numbers and time they spent on the ground, these fires would have taken off and threatened communities far further afield than the areas they have been restricted to."

"When everything works together, it's amazing. The fire bombers are so important helping fight the fires; they help the guys on the ground so much." Australian Maritime Resources chief pilot Peter Bidstrup said the aerial bombers needed the CFS volunteers on the ground to be fully effective.

"We're airborne within two minutes of a page, typically, and able to respond two AT-802 (aircraft) with 3200 litres each anywhere in the Adelaide Hills within 15 minutes," he said. "That gets 6400 litres of foam on to the fire and the idea is to get it on when it's small."

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

Surely this must send a stark lesson to the Premiers of Victoria and NSW and to the respective bushfire fighting Boards and Executive of Victoria's CFA and NSW's RFS. If only the volunteers in those states could receive what those in the CFS do.

Ross Gittens, an economist, discusses the state of the recession in Australia in today's Business Age, 13-7-09. He made a comment about China needing lots of 'steel and energy' - the very 'commodities' that Australia supplies.

This common use of misleading terminology fosters misunderstanding of what is really happening.

Energy is not a commodity. Gittens was implicitly referring to the coal we export. Coal has the inherent potential to supply energy when ignited. It is this type of flow of energy when activated that is used to do work or some other useful purpose for society. This inherent potential has to converted to actual potential. A system has to be installed to mine the coal, transport it to the power station installed to generate the electricity. The inherent potential energy in the coal can then be realized. These activities entail the use of raw materials, including those providing the energy needed, for the construction, operation and maintenance of the system.

Thermodynamics is often mentioned in discussions about what is happening in industrialized society and what is possible in the future. Conventional thermodynamics deals with energy flows when the existing potential is activated. That is only part of the issue. It covers the functioning (operation) of the installed system. It does not cover the development of the system throughout its life that enables the potential in that coal field to be realized. 'net energy' does cover only some aspects of the development and operating costs.

"Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare."

This quote sums up one side of what current society is doing to its inheritance. The other side is what the wastes from its operations do, including causing climate change. It is lamentable that this is not widespread understanding in today's society.

Admiral Rickover spoke these words in 1957. Many prominent people have espoused this wisdom over many decades. However, the community at large and the elite who run the economy are deaf to this stark reality, even though the message on what the wastes are doing is starting to seep out.

It is intriguing to wonder how long it will be before there is widespread awareness of what civilization has done to its life support system. They have to learn that money does not really control what is happening. Dollars will not be a good fuel as oil runs out. They cannot be used for food and do not make a good drink.

It is to be hoped, however, that smart people power will utilize modern communication measures to cope with the irreversible developing challenges.

Denis Frith

Jan Heald and Maryland Wilson of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council

Rights of Wildlife

A lot of people at the July 14 demonstration against Madden's proposed land grab in the Green Wedges were there to campaign for the rights of wildlife. Among them were three members of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC), President Maryland Wilson, Secretary Jan Heald, and winner of an AWPC award for outstanding service, Rod "Roos" Stoner.

"We appreciate this opportunity to be a VOICE for our native animals," said Maryland Wilson. "It is a privilege to be standing with Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands, who speaks for all those affected by the Government's outrageous planning laws, which run roughshod over ecosystems and biodiversity."

She was, of course, referring to Planning Minister Madden's shocking proposed expansion of Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary, involving rezoning up to 46,000 hectares for residential development, new roads and a freeway.

Addressing a large and angry crowd of people who had gathered to protest at the destruction of the wedges and draconian taxes on landholders, President Wilson expressed her sympathy for those who stood to suffer from the taxes, but she said, "Someone here also has to speak up for the kangaroos and other wildlife who cannot vote or speak up themselves. If these plans go ahead millions of living creatures will suffer and die, and our world will be poorer for their loss and we as human beings will be poorer for our loss of decency towards them."

Victoria the leading state in environmental destruction

In an interview, President Wilson told me, "In 2006 the AWPC wrote to Madden, asking that any development should have an environmental impact statement (EIS) before proceeding. Not only has he ignored that reasonable and modest request, but he has proceeded to create policies which destroy native wildlife habitat at an alarming rate, so much so that Victoria is now the leading state in environmental destruction. The Victorian government and Mr Madden's planners run roughshod over wildlife habitat, seemingly without giving a thought to the ramifications of what it means in extinction of species."

When asked what she felt might still be done, President Wilson said, "Obviously Mr Madden is not going to listen to the pleas for help to preserve what wildlife remains. Therefore the only alternative is for a change of government."

She said that the situation is growing so serious for species, especially kangaroos, that she cannot keep up with the calls she receives for help and her volunteers are stretched to the limits on the frontiers of encroaching suburbia, dealing with a sort of 'animal apocalypse'.

Tragic and avoidable situation of the Somerton kangaroos near Thomastown

"For instance", she said, "Several years ago we made an award to one of our 'wildlife warriors' - Rod Stoner - for his incredible efforts to draw public attention to and get help for the plight of a small mob of kangaroos trapped by industrial, commercial and housing development in Somerton. The animals were literally being built around as they foraged for grass in fields that had been enclosed after they had entered it. Some died while trying to make it across the highway. A road was paved down the center of the area; rock crushers made noise and dust on one side; delivery trucks entered and left on another, bulldozers worked on another, and everywhere there was rubbish piled up and strewn around. The animals were being treated like so much rubbish themselves."

"A number of people from different organisations were so shocked that, there and then, we formed the Coalition for Wildlife Corridors. We have published surveys and drawn maps and studied the problem of Victorian wildlife in the particular and the general and we have, most importantly designed easy to follow plans for wildlife corridors in particular areas."

"Rod Stoner has been monitoring these poor kangaroos for several years now,and we have tried everything but stand on our head to gain effective action from VicRoads, DSE, and the Hume City Council. All have made reassuring noises when pressed, but no-one has taken any real responsibility. We who care so much see that those who have power in planning and development have no real concern for the suffering of other creatures and no real respect or understanding for the natural world. Because of this callousness and apathy, this poor little mob of kangaroo refugees will eventually die out. Our wildlife deserves ... So ... Much ... better, " she said, drawing the words out.

"On a bigger scale", she added, "It is obvious that a population explosion in Melbourne, with the accompanying demands for housing is responsible for the Somerton and other tragedies to date, but, with the latest figures showing that Melbourne is increasing by 2000 people a week, it will not be long before we see all our wildlife die out in Victoria, the most cleared state with the worst species extinction in Australia."

"If we cannot refrain from continuing this completely avoidable rate of population growth in addition to climate change and the reduction of indigenous habitat and wildlife access to water and food, our wildlife are doomed."

"Is this really what we want for Victoria?" she asked.

Australian Society of Kangaroos thanks the organisers of the rally

Nikki Sutterby, the Coordinator of the Australian Society for Kangaroos said she sent a big thank you to the people who organised the demonstrations and marched today to save our environment in Victoria, and its green wedges.

"As an organisation that is fighting for the rights of kangaroos, we are well aware of the suffering and displacement that occurs when natural areas are destroyed for development", she said.

"We are currently fighting to save a mob of kangaroos at Mill Park who are land locked by development, and another at Bendigo."

But that is only a teardrop in an ocean of infinite sadness ...

"These animals represent millions of animals that lose their homes every year to the expansion of human development and may we say that we are fully supportive of what you are doing to save our environment and increase the publics awareness regarding it."

Ms Sutterby regretted that she was unable to personally attend the protest, due to circumstances beyond her control, but she offered to give her organisation's ongoing support to the campaign.

Shortly after his lunch with the "Progressive Business Association" must have ended, Mr Madden, who apparently departed shyly out the back door, looked surprised to be intercepted and presented with the resolutions of the Bastille Day Rally against Urban Expansion and Rotten taxes by Julianne Bell, Rosemary West and Jill Quirk, acting on behalf of the environment and democracy.
See also: Unnatural Growth and Rotten Taxes and Animal Apocalypse Shortly after his lunch with the "Progressive Business Association" must have ended, Mr Madden, who apparently departed shyly out the back door, looked surprised to be intercepted and presented with the resolutions of the Bastille Day Rally against Urban Expansion and Rotten taxes by Julianne Bell, Rosemary West and Jill Quirk, acting on behalf of the environment and democracy.
See also: Unnatural Growth and Rotten Taxes and Animal Apocalypse

Julianne Bell presents Planning Minister Mr Madden the resolutions from Melbourne's Bastille Day rally against Urban Expansion, July 14, 2009. (Photo by Jill Quirk)

Bastille Day a good day to defend public land and to demand representation

Bastille Day, Melbourne, Tuesday 14 July, 2009 Many groups with converging environmental, landholder and democratic concerns gathered at the corner of William and Collins Streets, to hear speakers alert the public about Planning Minister Madden's unpleasant and undemocratic plans for Victoria's green wedges.

Ms Bell of Protectors of Public Lands (Victoria), Jill Quirk, of SPA, Ms West, of Green Wedges, and Michael Hocking, of Taxed Out (S.E. Region), had organised a day of protest, which Planning Backlash had urged people to attend. "In our view the attack on Victorians by the Brumby Government in implementing the urban growth boundary expansion, the Green Wedge land grab and levying exorbitant taxes on family farms and small land owners is extraordinarily serious. It has far reaching implications for, amongst other things, destruction of the environment and climate change," wrote Mary Drost.

Resolutions

The meeting passed the following resolutions under the heading of "Protectors of Public Lands":

This meeting:

1. Deplores the fact that Planning Minister Justin Madden MLC is hosting developers at an ALP fund raising lunch and is putting Victoria’s planning policies up for sale.

2. Calls upon the Minister to:

• abandon the Green Wedge land grab.
• levy developers, not family farmers and small landowners.
• hold a population summit to determine how many people Victoria can reasonably sustain.
• meet with community groups at Parliament House to discuss the Urban Growth Boundary Extension and related matters.

Outside the palace

Instead of their usual stamping ground on the steps of Parliament House, where politicians are apparently willing to take the flack for the growth lobby, the protesters had decided to demonstrate closer to the source of Victoria's woes - at a meeting with big business and developers held by the ALP-fundraising arm known as the Progressive Business organisation in the Intercontinental Rialto Hotel.

After speeches from Julianne Bell, Rosemary West, Michael Hocking and Brian Walters S.C., the demonstrators spread out in an angry body hundreds big across Collins Street, rhythmically shouting, "Axe the Taxes" and proceeded downhill to the hotel where Mr Madden's Bastille-Day rendezvous was scheduled.

Outside the hotel there were a number of impromptu speeches through a loud-hailer, punctuated with sustained chants of "Sack Madden", "Sack Brumby", whilst the crowd waited patiently, if noisily, for Julianne, Michael, Jill and Rosemary to deliver the resolutions to Mr Madden. It was clear that most of the people attending, particularly those who stood to lose enormous equity through taxes on any future land-sales or through enormously increased rates if they did not sell, were responding to immediate and serious threat. The faces were tense, there were tears glistening, voices were angry. One man with a continental accent took the loud-hailer and warned that people would be drained of every drop of blood - he meant money - if they failed to halt the process there.

Eventually the four delegates returned to say that they had delivered the resolutions but that Mr Madden had still not arrived for the lunch.

After some deliberation, and in view of the fact that the police had asked politely, the crowd disassembled, with cries of 'We'll be back!" Julianne Bell, Rosemary West, Jill Quirk and a candobetter journalist went around to a cafe behind the hotel and drank their coffee facing the window.

Late meeting with Mr Madden

Mr Madden was spotted shyly leaving the hotel and was intercepted, as pictured in the photos. He did seek to separate himself quickly and turned away, but wheeled around when someone called out, "Marie-Antoinette! Are you afraid to talk to the people?" He then remained long enough for Julianne Bell to present him personally with the Meeting Resolutions. There was a brief chat, where he insisted that his door was always open, or words to that effect, prompting another comment to the effect that if it only cost $1,500 for business to lunch with him, then surely taxpayers who pay much more than that annually, could expect to have much more influence. A member of his party was heard to claim that the State Government has nothing to do with population growth in Melbourne, that it is a Federal Government responsibility. A member of the Bell party corrected this misapprehension.

Indeed, population growth policy, particularly through immigration, is more and more crafted and influenced by the States, for it is the state governments which look after land and water. Population growth increases the price of land and State Governments reap financial benefits from land-transactions via taxes. The Victorian government has a website called www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au (see more about this and the developer lobby in Melbourne at Melbourne 2008: Life in a destruction zone which shows some of its dedication to the policy of increasing population in Australia.)

One more thing. The resolution calling for a population summit could backfire, since Mr Brumby's predecessor, Mr Bracks, held the Melbourne Population Summit in 2002. This event was almost entirely given over to developer propaganda, with journalists making speeches to promote population growth, as if they actually experts. The Premier and many others misled the public by talking as if Australia's population was falling and presenting massive population growth as a benign, even positive. Auspiced by the developer officiated and funded Australian Population Institute (APop), the Dennis Family Corporation (Developers, Financiers, builders, land-bankers), various commercial media with a reliance on marketing land, Mr Pratt, a big advocate of big populations and 'managing water' for business reasons who was facing criminal charges before he died, with Master of Ceremonies, Steve Vizard - convicted of insider trading - it was a very sorry event which reflects and reverberates to this day to the great shame of all politicians associated with it.

A new video has been uploaded to You Tube as part of our continuing campaign against Repco Rally Australia.

The video shows footage from the Byrrill Creek Special (RACING) Stage of the rally.

Help fight this eco-vandalism.

Sign our online petition at www.petitiononline.com/NRG01e/petition.html and check our website at sites.google.com/site/norallygroup for the latest info.

We don't want it!!! We don't need it!!!

Blurring of Government with Land Speculation Ominous for democracy in Australia

The opaque but omnipresent relationship of Australian state governments to developers and big business is a source of disquiet. A Bastille Day lunch between Victorian Planning Minister, Mr Madden, and big-business seemed especially Marie-Antoinette, as hundreds of angry farmers, other landholders, wildlife and other environment groups, demonstrated outside.

All were concerned about the bad laws and injustices that excessive population growth is driving in Victoria. Most are beginning to realise that it is because of the Government's excessively close relationship with the developer growth lobby that Victoria is suffering from water shortages, homelessness, increased violence and loss of democracy. A new tax the government wants, which would involve taxing landowners instead of developers for government-imposed changes to land-zoning could beggar thousands of people.

Jill Quirk, Victorian President of Sustainable Population Australia, said, “Planning Minister Madden's Bastille-day lunch with the ALP's developer-linked Progressive Business fund-raising arm is ironic.”

Yes, Jill. Bastille Day is the anniversary of the time in the French Revolution when the people demanded representation in return for their taxes from a worthless government that was selling off public land to the highest bidder in order to finance debt and printing worthless money.

Progressive Business Association: Official association for Big Business and the Labor Party

The Progressive Business organisation calls itself is ‘an associated entity of the Australian Labor Party [which] from time to time, donate funds to the Party’. It has two membership types : Corporate - $1,550 (incl. GST) and Business - $990 (incl. GST). Corporate members get 5 Tickets to the Breakfast Briefing Program and access to 5 Twilight Briefings for 5 company representatives; Business members get 3 Tickets to the Breakfast Briefing Program and access to 5 Twilight Briefings for 3 company representatives.

Most Victorians pay far more than this in taxes every year but the Minister for Planning doesn't listen to them.

The Victorian public get NOTHING but coercive population growth and development expansion. Research has shown that many of the government's sponsors and business associates reap far more in public contracts than they ever donate.

President Quirk commented that, "In a democracy, government policies should be conceived and drafted with the interests of ordinary citizens in mind. The push for more and more population growth causes friction, disruption and loss for those directly impacted and also to the citizens at large. Nature as a whole is being steam-rolled and many cannot sleep at night from rage and despair."

Sharon Beder should be declared a National Treasure and we should be listening to her rather than to corporate advocates like Bernard Salt. Today, as Victorians go to demonstrate against the assault on democracy of a government which is almost impossible to differentiate from the corporate developer lobby, her words help us to understand our predicament.

Her blog, with many articles like the one cited below is here:http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/

A Revolutionary shift from democracy to corporate rule ...

"The revolutionary shift that we are witnessing at the beginning of the 21st Century from democracy to corporate rule is as significant as the shift from monarchy to democracy, which ushered in the modern age of nation states. It represents a wholesale change in cultural values and aspirations.

This eclipse of democratic values by corporate values is not a natural evolution but the consequence of a deliberate strategy employed by corporate executives who have combined their financial and political resources to spread free market ideology. Corporations, individually and in concert, have utilised all the major communication institutions of a modern society – including the media and education – to shape community beliefs, values and behaviour. This has enabled corporations ‘to enthral and becloud the understanding’ of large numbers of citizens so that it is commonly believed that large corporations are benevolent institutions that should be minimally regulated because what is good for them is good for society as a whole."

More here, in "The Corporate Assault on Democracy" by Sharon Beder.

Beder is also the author of multiple environmental politics books.

Rights of Landowners to be clarified

July 14th 2009

On July 9th at the Seymour Magistrate’s Court, the date of 27th August was set for a contest mention where charges of trespass against Sugarloaf Alliance employees will be refined.

These charges have been made by two Yea landowners, whose freehold properties have been affected by the construction of the North-South Pipeline. Their land was entered by pipeline employees, who fenced off a portion of their property, excluded the owners under threat of arrest and constructed a pipeline 1.75 metres in diameter, all against the wish of the landowner and prior to acquisition under the normal due process by way of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act.

It is extremely important to all landowners, that the question of the right to enter private freehold land, for the purpose of major infrastructure construction, prior to due and proper acquisition(under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act) is clearly and finally clarified.

Brumby government threatenes to recover legal costs

The Brumby Government should hang it’s head in shame when it threatens to recover legal costs over this issue. Any Government should uphold the rights of its citizens to the highest level, particularly the rights of freehold landowners.

One would think that the Government would also want this point of law decided, unless of course, Mr Brumby is worried that in his extreme haste to construct the N-S Pipeline, he has instructed employees to illegally enter freehold land.

Also : Contrary to recent Melbourne Water Media Releases, Plug the Pipe is not involved with any legal actions against Melbourne Water. All actions past and pending have involved private individuals. Melbourne Water has been mischievous in these media statements.

Jan Beer, Plug The Pipe Spokesperson, Yea Group
Mob: 0407 144 777