(We) can do better

Also published on Online Opinion, Sinking Lifeboat.

In echoing the sentiment shared by many environmentalists who, according to an Australian testament, "want a stronger native tourism industry and more people enjoying our parks", a travel writer made the following case:

"The travel industry cannot prosper in a degraded world if we destroy the natural beauty and ambience people came to enjoy. Both need each other to survive..A sensitive and well-managed tourism industry brings benefits for the visitor, the host country and can help preserve the national environment."

But this argument prompts several questions. Questions like, why "must" there be a stronger nature tourism industry, with "more people enjoying our parks"? Why does nature "need" the travel industry to survive? How does a "sensitive and well-managed tourism industry help preserve the national environment"? In fact, why does healthy biodiversity require people at all? If we were to go extinct, would not biodiversity be on the road to recovery? I know that I need to enjoy nature. But I don't why nature needs me to enjoy it.

I would assert that "sustainable tourism" is an oxymoronic delusion. I suspect that no matter how carefully sensitive flora and fauna is protected, the beauty and allure of ecologically attractive tourist destinations inevitably motivate visitors to become permanent residents. In other words, there is a direct correlation-and causation-between tourist visits and subsequent population growth. In their paper "Beautiful City: Leisure Amenities and Urban Growth", Albert Saiz, professor of real estate at Wharton College (University of Pennsylvania), and Gerald Carlino, a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, correlated leisure visits with population growth. According to the Saiz-Carlino formula, cities that offer substantial leisure amenities grow an average 2% more than they would have grown had they had fewer amenities. This seemingly trivial increment has an exponential impact. A town that grows 2% per year will double its population in 35 years. But if Saiz and Carlino are right, such a town will double its population in just 17.67 years if it is a popular tourist destination.

In fact, tourism provides a more accurate forecast of future population growth than any other factor, according their conclusions. Tourists come to visit, and almost instantly resolve to stay-some day. They typically snap up once cheap property, and then drive up the cost of living for those who had welcomed them. Some locals simply cannot pay for escalating property tax assessments. Others can't even pay the higher rents.

It is my observation and contention that this growth overwhelms the most vigilant defense of natural ecosystems, as well as gentrifying small localities and effectively pricing local inhabitants out of the real estate market. Locals, or their children, become a low wage service class that caters to the needs of the richer migrants while struggling economically to remain in the community they grew up in. To add insult to injury, many of the relatively wealthy newcomers appear in the guise of environmental crusaders who demand sacrifices of the locals while living immodestly themselves.

Visitors to impressive destinations typically purchase real estate as a holding property to await their retirement or summer vacations and often withhold it from the rental market of local young or poor residents. The host community then comes to resemble a ghost town in the winter and a booming madhouse in the summer, with service workers subsisting on low wages while scrambling to find affordable housing in this now gentrified environment.

On British Columbia's Saltspring Island, the magnet for visiting Albertans flush with oil money, one in three homes is said to lie vacant half the year. The homeless can be identified carrying discarded bottles in ragged clothing along the road, or standing as hitchhikers in the rain -- a scene not uncommon in other coastal localities and coveted tourist havens across the land.

To my reckoning, "sustainable tourism" is merely the bastard child of "sustainable growth", itself a mutation of "sustainable development", which, as Garrett Hardin noted, only affords the defenders of the unsteady state "a few more years' moratorium from the painful process of thinking." It is a fraudulent delusion that offers up ecological nuggets to attract a wave of migrant gold-diggers who wish to "retire at first sight" and, in the execution of their plans, conjure up a bigger service sector to serve them and spawn a fifth column of real estate sharks who gather to feast on the dreams of subsequent visitors. No matter how carefully flora and fauna are sequestered and defended, the resulting population boom will overwhelm them. Then a fatal political dynamic is born.

Socialists and progressives take up the cudgels of both locals and newcomers marginalized by inflated real estate and the rents that climb with it and in the process become growth advocates by lobbying for more housing construction to accommodate them. They bleed for unfortunate people but not so much for unfortunate biodiversity, concerns for which they attempt to allay with smart growth snake-oil nostrums.

Those few of us who would aspire to arrest growth rather than "manage" it are then caught in a vise between seemingly unlikely bedfellows. On the one hand there is the coalition of developers and real estate pimps and the planners who do their bidding by coating their naked greed with the greenwash of "strict" land-use planning. Planning that bends with the times and their insatiable appetites. Planning which defies the authentic mission of planning, which is not the passive accommodation to projected trends ("it's inevitable so let's plan for it'), but the proactive imposition of popular will upon those so-called inevitable trends by the simple expedients that some jurisdictions like Noosa Shire, Queensland or Qualicum Beach, BC, have flirted with. Try just withholding building permits for starters!

On the other hand, working in tandem with these dark forces, are the race-baiting, soft green yuppie leftists who collude with growthism in the name of social justice, yet somehow manage to cloak it with a respectable environmentalist ethic. Caught with us in this "squeeze of the sleaze", this excruciating, ineluctable drama of greed, hypocrisy and myopia, are local wildlife, which the growth coalition with brazen duplicity celebrates while holding it out as bait to attract new arrivals whose motto should be "I came, I saw, I destroyed."

Economic considerations then become part of a more "holistic" paradigm, whereby "environmental" sustainability is balanced off against "economic" and "cultural" sustainability. This "three legged stool" model of viability represents what may be termed "the fallacy of equivalent concerns". It is the assumption that would, if applied to human health, rate the heart as an organ of equal importance to every other organ in the body when, as we know, a patient can survive with one lung, or one kidney, or a colonoscopy, or brain impairment, but when his heart stops all of these important but ancillary parts die with the patient. The economy is, as Herman Daly famously noted, "a fully owned branch plant of the environment." We make a living in an economy, but we live in a biosphere.

Many advocates see ecotourism as a mechanism to assist indigenous or traditional groups, who comprise 5% of the global population, maintain their culture. But Brock University professor David A. Fennell, in his article "Ecotourism and the Myth of Indigenous Stewardship" (Vol. 16, No. 2 Journal of Sustainable Tourism) has shown that "ecotourism research abounds with cases where traditional lifestyles (eg. fishing and farming) have been displaced by hotels, golf courses and other tourism developments."

Fennell's references comprise some one hundred studies and books. Citing King and Stewart (Biodiversity and Conservation 5, 1996), he makes the point that "the onset of tourism forces a shift in the relationship between indigenous people and the environment, 'from a source of direct sustenance with a use value to a commodity with an exchange value.from one of working with the land to one working for tourists." It is a shift seen in northern Canada "where the cash economy translates into the ability to purchase newer forms of technology and transportation for the purpose of reaching harvesting sites." Fennell relates a testimony from an academic observer at Pond Inlet who, during his guided eco-tour, saw 'large numbers' of narwhals being hunted by Inuit "with high powered rifles and fast boats, purchased with Canadian government assistance to service the tourism industry." Non-traditional technologies employed by aboriginals, who are wrongly credited with a conservation ethic that predated European contact, clearly threaten conservation efforts.

While the travel industry may employ 200 million people throughout the world, those millions represent, after all, only 3% of the population, and the income they generate is seldom weighed against the staggering costs, both environmental and economic. One needs to ask, would we sacrifice critical habitat for 3% of our population if doing so increased the likelihood of die-off of 90% (or more) of our global population?

To answer in the affirmative would surely place one in the company of those who say that the local pulp mill must be maintained at the cost of severe environmental damage because it employs so many people, or that the Alberta Tars sands development should not be shut down because it is now vital to the livelihood of so many people.

To argue that we can flood an ecologically sensitive area with tourists but at the same time protect it is delusional and contradictory. There are many case histories to showcase my point, but the Galapagos Islands will do nicely. I have enumerated its problems, and salient is the point that tourists need services, which need people to provide them. Hotels, motels, roads, cars, auto mechanics to maintain them, doctors, nurses, dentists, dental assistants, school teachers to instruct the children of service workers etc etc. And the provision of those services cannot be satisfied by local labour. Even if they had the requisite training and skills, the number of local workers is insufficient to meet the growing demand for their services as the "protected" areas gain fame.

Not surprisingly, since the tourist boom began in the early seventies, the human population on the Galapagos Islands has increased 14-fold. This has resulted not only in visual damage and the introduction of foreign species, but also an increase in solid waste generated by the extra 130,000 residents. It is not really about the irresponsible behaviour of tourists, but their numbers. Because their numbers generate ancillary services, which then require people to render them. As Brishen Hoff of Biodiversity First commented, "Tourism does not help preserve the natural environment. It may provide jobs to locals that offer an alternative to primary resource extraction, but jobs only encourage more people to move there (some will extract primary resources and others will work in tourism, likely a growing number of both). Tourism requires infrastructure like hotels, water, sewage, supply stores, etc to accommodate visitors no matter how eco-friendly it is." And it must be noted that nascent commercial greed grows along with tourist numbers and stimulate more tourism by aggressive marketing. But the joke is on the local businesses. Because the cruise ships and the big tour operators external to the locality rake off the big profits.

You can post educational signs on every trail and hire vigilant park wardens to supervise tourists. But these defenses cannot cope with large numbers. That realization has dawned on Ecuador's green-left President Rafael. His first move was to begin the expulsion of the illegal immigrants on the Galapagos who took up jobs in the tourist industry. Imagine a left-wing President coming down on poor, immigrant service residents. Good on him.

Some sober critics have praised his actions, but argue that a cap must be placed on the number of tourists as well. But President Rafael wants to have his cake of ecological integrity and eat it too. He wants the $350 million in tourist revenue but not the tourists. A conundrum. Without services, he will satisfy the demand for a cap because many tourists won't come. Then the cruise ships will fill the vacuum. Tourists can come to visit, wreak havoc on nature, then return to their floating hotel with all services provided on board. Environmental damage but without state revenue. So where is the advantage? To big off-shore tour operators, obviously. Certainly not to wildlife.

To this dynamic of increased tourism>larger sector of resident service workers and their families>environmental damage wrought by that population irrespective of the respectful, educated behaviour of tourists, add the numbers of visitors who decide to make the tourist destination they fall in love with a retirement destination. Or one that they can hold a rental property in while they wait for retirement, or for staying during their visits during peak season, or just for real estate speculation. This may or may not be the case in the Galapogos, but it surely is where I live, and where millions of others live world-wide. Gentrification corrodes and divides a community. Local "haves" either develop a vested interest in growth or are priced out of their community by wealthy part-time residents who invest little of themselves in community life. And there is always a parasitical class of real estate agents who rise up like a Phoenix to lubricate this process by embellishing paradise and disguising its troubles for the visiting love-struck affluent.

The Sierra Club believes that national parks and areas like my own cannot be effectively defended if they do not build up a constituency of political support by allowing more and more visitors to enjoy them. In other words, we need to degrade our treasures in order to promote their preservation. This is a pernicious argument. I can fight for animals without disturbing them with my presence. Let a handful of wildlife biologists do the filming. I am thrilled to see flora and fauna in the wild-that is why I live where I do- but their survival trumps my enjoyment.

No doubt numerous palliatives and controls (e.g., changes in the tax regime) can be offered to mitigate the tourist assault on the environment and the social structure of small local communities that exist at the gateways. But in the context of the corrupt and apparently insuperable power structure that prevails, these measures seem utopian or hypothetical at best. In the more environmentally fragile zones of precious biodiversity at least, it is clear that we must stop tourist growth, not manage it. This effort would reprise David and Goliath, except that it would not likely duplicate David's success. But heck, why not go for it? Anything less would be unsatisfactory.

Postscript

PS Barry Murphy of Ireland commented:

Brilliant article.

Here in the West of Ireland, we have many such problems - tourist towns where locals can only rent a house Sept to May, then get kicked out for the tourists to arrive and pay weekly, rather than monthly.

Other places where well over 3 in 4 houses lie empty during winter.

Tourists come to see 'beautiful, unspoiled' places. By definition, then, do they leave them less beautiful and unspoiled?

Barry in Ireland.

tourismpure.wordpress.com

The Australian outback town of Mitchell lies in the Western Downs region of southern Queensland on the Warrego Highway just shy of 600 km west of Brisbane on the way to Charleville. Situated on the Maranoa River, the town of Mitchell was named in honour of the 19th Century explorer, and the town emerged as a pastoral town out of the farming of grains, beef and sheep. Tourism has become a strong drawcard to Mitchell and especially to its Great Artesian Spa.

But more recently, Mitchell's fame has been lowered to infamy with it taking on a reputation for becoming the home of the kangaroo slaughter trade.

"You see a lot of utes in Mitchell and the towns just like it that emerge from the roadside only to disppear again as you drive west through southern Queensland on the Warrego Highway. You can tell the ones that are driven by kangaroo shooters. They have racks for guns and long spikes upon which the freshly eviscerated carcasses are placed. One, parked just around the corner, has black steel bullbars with the words "roo raper" cut into them."

Besides the slaughter of Australia's iconic kangaroos for pet meat and indeed export for human consumption in fancy restaurant, it is the sanitary conditions that is shocking and a life threatening time bomb. Following the international biolab standards of Silliker, animal liberation chief, Mark Pearson says "the last time we did swabs here and in Charleville, they were alarmingly high in E.coli."

'The chiller doors aren't locked. When Ben-Ami opens the first, problems are immediately apparent. Bright drips from fresh kills are spotting onto another layer of older, duller, deader blood, which is particularly thick nearest the front. The lip of the door frame is so thick and sticky, the red's turned a dull, dark brown. Hairs are stuck to it.

'The carcasses are packed as tightly as possible. They hang from hooks by their legs, their heads and tails missing,gaping rents where their stomachs once were, leg muscles tensed visibly; severed necks poke into gut cavities; hundreds of paws hang in a grisly reach towards the bloody floor. According to their tags, they're four days dead.

"These are quite young ones, heads cut off quite low," Pearson says, pointing to a nub of spine that's jutting out just above the shoulder. "Most of them are cut too far back." To decapitate in this way requires significantly more effort than using the traditional method, with a slice directly beloiw the jawline. It also makes bad financial sense to remove most of the neck , as harvesters are paid by weight. Proof, claim the activists, that an illegal shot in the jaw or neck has been covered up.

'Pearson points to the floor. "They're bringing in new carcasses and hanging them above the floor, which has blood from old carcasses. Blood is a Petri dish for disease and contamination. This is a major breach of any export abattoir standards." he points to a small grey kangaroo that is caked elbow to paw in blood and dirt. "That's from the evisceration," he says. That's all supposed to fall to the ground. And don't forget, these would have been on the back [of a ute] for four, five, six hours, and it would have been 20 degrees. When you consider this is export meat...Uh-oh..."

Besides Mitchell, the roo rapers store their roo chillers at Charleville, Augathella and Blackall. The practice in outback Queensland is widespread.

To struggling towns in the outback like Mitchell, kangaroo meat is big business. "The Kangaroo Industry Industry Association of Australia says theirs is a business worth $270 million a year that directly employs about 4000 people" many in remote areas."
SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald, Good Weekend, 23rd May 2009.

AusHunt, a website dedicated to hunting in Australia and it's hunters, advocates:
"Kangaroo shooting is a unique job and many people are involved in one way or another in Australia’s kangaroo industry. My advice for the wannabe ‘roo shooter? You’ll need to make a few phone calls to chiller-box operators in various rural centers to evaluate the impact another ‘roo shooter would have there. Then decide on a location. Before doing anything, take a week off work and go out with a qualified, professional ‘roo shooter and see what is actually involved.

Australia’s kangaroo industry is one of the only jobs in the world where a person can legally shoot wild animals fulltime for a living. Kangaroo shooting is a tough life with long hours, and a certain danger element. Depending on weather conditions (wind, rain), phases of the moon and drought, the kangaroo shooter may have a good or bad night. It can be a very irregular income earner.

Many shooters struggle to make money, some make a living, and a few make good profits of A$100,000/annum +. Dedication is the name of the game …. going out night after night and avoiding the temptations of the local pub. The upside is that the shooter is very independent and can lead an exciting outdoors life, totally using his wits, determination and shooting prowess to make money.

Okay, you like what you see and you’ve done your courses. Move to the rural center that you have selected and get a day job there, whether it be pumping gas or whatever. THEN, start looking around for properties on which to shoot and start off by shooting week-ends. See how you go, then move on to fulltime when you know that you can make money. Good luck!"

Kangaroo 'gourmet' recipe.

Concerned Tweed Valley residents will express their opposition on Thursday to the proposal to hold a leg of the World Rally Championships in the Tweed and Kyogle areas.

No Rally Group, set up by locals in February to fight plans to hold the rally, has organized a protest at Knox Park commencing at 2pm which will then proceed to the Council Chambers.

“We will be staging our own rally” President of No Rally Group Michael McNamara said today “one that will not have the negative impacts of the real thing. We will have rally cars and animals and police”

The rally is proposed to run in September 2009 and every second year for up to 20 years.

“Many in the community can’t understand how this proposal ever got serious consideration” Mr McNamara said.

“We have the highest concentration of National Parks in the state, we are one of only three biodiversity hotspots in Australia, we are up there with Uluru and Kakadu in terms of ecological values and we have a strong and growing nature tourism market focused on eco-tourism” he said ”and yet somebody in the Premier’s Department had the bright idea that rally cars hurtling through the bush, including National Parks, at speeds in excess of 160km/h was somehow good for the area.”

Mr McNamara said that community outrage was palpable “We have been circulating a petition against the rally and at Kingscliff recently we had over 350 signatures in 3 hours”

“We have concerns about the Environmental, Economic, and Social impacts of the rally” he said.

“The way in which the proposal was developed, through secret back room deals in Sydney without any community consultation, and imposed on us is appalling” Mr McNamara said.

“The real financial costs of this proposed event have been conveniently ignored in predicting the supposed economic benefits to the area” he said “for instance the cost of the 150 police who will be brought in for the event runs to between $370,000 and $400,000 for salaries only. This does not include the cost of their travel and accommodation” he said.

“Because the event has been declared a Hallmark Event by the state government support from all government departments and agencies is provided free of charge, which means paid for by taxpayers” Mr McNamara said.

“This support is in addition to the several million dollars given to rally organizers by the state government through Events NSW and financial and other support provided by Tweed Shire Council” he continued.

“I am appalled that Nathan Rees, the NSW Premier, should once again impose his love for motor sports on the community generally and make the community pay for the privilege” he said.

Mr McNamara expressed concern about the environmental impact of the rally. “The studies that have been done are far from supportive of the event” he said.

“The environmental consultant contracted by Rally Australia to undertake the ecological assessment has refused to publicly endorse the rally, challenging quotes attributed to him by the organizers” Mr McNamara continued “and some of the strategies proposed in the various reports to address the risks would be laughable if it was not so serious”.

“To tell people affected by excessive noise and dust to go out for the day or to close their windows and doors and switch on their air conditioners is insulting” he said.

“The acoustic (noise) report actually acknowledges that the rally will be unable to meet acceptable noise levels” he continued.

“To only consider the impact on threatened animals and plants of being hit by rally cars, while ignoring the impact of rally associated activities by volunteers, rally staff and spectators is far from satisfactory.” Mr McNamara said “The organizers anticipate 6,000 visitors per day at the service park on the foreshore at Kingscliff, yet this activity was not covered in the ecological report.”

“The so-called ‘Carbon Offset Plan’ by the organizers did not even rate a separate document, being relegated to just one page on their website” he said.

Mr McNamara also expressed disappointment that after Garry Connelly from Repco Rally Australia promised to release the reports concerning the rally many of the downloaded reports were still marked as drafts. “This is just another example of the organizers saying one thing and doing another” he said.

“Rally Australia marched into New South Wales and the Tweed, after they got the boot from Western Australia, like the pied piper into Hamelin, and just like then all the rats are captivated by the music” he said.

Mr McNamara invited all concerned local residents to join the protest to be held in Murwillumbah on Thursday 28 May at 2pm, starting at Knox Park and proceeding to the Council Chambers.

Authorised by Michael McNamara, President, No Rally Group Inc.
TEL: 0438 357 452 EMAIL: no.rally[AT]yahoo.com
WEB: sites.google.com/site/norallygroup

What you can do:

1. Attend our protest
2. Send the media release to your local media outlets.
3. Publicise our message through your social networks (on the web and in the "real" world)

The enormous popularity and reckless preponderance of dogs as pets in the wholly unsuitable suburban environment is causing widespread suffering to these incarcerated animals - and to those unfortunate neighbours forced to endure the anguished cries for attention (called barking) emitted by a creature congenitally programmed to free-range.

Dogs bark mostly through lack of company. The dog is an intensely socialised animal.

Dog owners have the legal obligation of keeping their dogs quiet yet they refuse to do it, Why? Because they don't want to.

Councils have the legal obligation of enforcing the barking control laws yet they refuse to do it. Why? Because they don't want to.

The ongoing consequence of this extremely common dereliction of duty is ongoing suffering for man and beast, and also the abandonment of council revenue so readily obtainable through the issuance of infringement notices for simple barking law enforcement.

The RSPCA has undertaken various inspections under the Animal Cruelty Act in respect to the current 'culling' program kangaroos at Majura Firing Range by the Commonwealth Dept. of Defence. Various institutions forwarded several reasons for the necessity of this massacre, one being that the kangaroos were 'starving' so the RSPCA was requested to give advice regarding evidence of 'starvation.' The RSPCA was very compliant in providing the necessary statements this time last year for the 500 + kangaroos at Belconnen Naval Transmission Station, even though photographs taken by locals revealed no starving kangaroos. The majority of those kangaroos were killed so they wouldn't have to experience 'starvation.' On Tuesday May 5, 2009 Defence began to shoot the kangaroos which continued up till Wednesday May 13, 2009 at which time an injunction called for a cease-fire. In eight days a total of 4,000 kangaroos were claimed to have been killed - er sorry, 'culled.' We have a number of questions for the CEO of the RSPCA: 1. On What days, at what times and for what lengths of time were representatives of the RSPCA in attendance at the site before and during this period? 2. What procedures did these representatives use to ensure that (a) kangaroos were starving and (b) the killing by Defence was 'humane' according to the Animal Welfare Act and the ACT Code of Practice for the Humane 'Destruction' of Kangaroos. 3. In relation to question 2 above, please outline in detail:- (i) Did RSPCA representatives travel across the entirety of this large 8,000 ha site or were inspections restricted to particular areas? If the latter, please specify which areas were inspected. (ii) What sample size of kangaroos was used to draw conclusions about the population? (iii) Were qualified veterinarians in attendance at this time? (iv) Was any video footage or photographs taken before or during the kill program by RSPCA inspectors/representatives? (v) What percentage of kangaroos were killed by a single head shot? (vi) How were in-pouch joeys killed? (vii) How were ex-pouch joeys killed? (viii) How many Defence shooters were used and what was their level of expertise/qualification for the task? (ix) What type of firearms were observed by your inspectors to be used by Defence shooters to kill the kangaroos? (x) Was the killing undertaken by night spotlight and rifle shooting of free-ranging animals? Or were other methods such as rapid-fire weapons, coralling of animals used? (xi) If the kangaroos were confined, how long had they been confined? What type of fencing was used? Did they have access to food and water? Were they exhibiting signs of stress? (xii) Has the RSPCA given a schedule of numbers of kangaroos killed during the period including a demographic profile of male/female, adult/juvenile/pouch young? (xiii) Is the killing to be continued? Are the health and stress levels of the remaining kangaroos being monitored? On June 2 there will be an Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing in Canberra to determine whether or not Defence has adequate grounds to continue the killing in light of new scientific evidence that has not been considered by Defence proving that there need never have been any 'culling'. Jon Stanhope, in the meantime, has his knickers in a knot trying to create new laws to override the injuction so the killing can continue regardless. It's pretty obvious that there is another cover-up story waiting to be discovered, as was revealed at Belconnen. Would any of us be surprised if six months down the track poof! a new housing estate or extension of the airport required the purchase of surplus Defence land at Majura? I for one wouldn't be. HELP US GET 10,000 SIGNATURES - ASK YOUR FRIENDS TO SIGN TOO!

President Mahinda Rajapaksa - leader of Sri Lanka since April 2004 (initially as PM)

We're lucky here in Australia; colonial history aside, the dominating colonist derived population doesn't hunt down and slaughter its ethnic minority Aboriginals, these days at least.

Not so in Sri Lanka, where the dominant Sinhalese government lead by President Mahinda Rajapaksa since coming to power in April 2004 as then Prime Minister, has seen it his personal mandate to exterminate the Tamil Tigers from Sri Lanka, like vermin. To be absolutely effective Rajapaksa has ensured that media was kept away and no international monitoring. By ensuring no witnesses to the slaugher, Rajapaksa's army, navy and airforce, with its new British weapons has had free reign to exterminate, shoot on sight and take no prisoners as it sees fit. This way, Rajapaksa's slaughter has been absolute - war crimes and all. So the media coverage has been denied, controlled and filtered as if a post-graduate application of war coverage from the lessons of America's 1960's war against Vietnam. Indeed, Rajapaksa's hunting down Tamil Tigers to the last man, follows comparable histories of ethnic cleansing. But eventually, witnesses will come forward and some truth about what Rajapaksa's army, navy and airforce committed. Reports from medical units in Sri Lanka have reported phosphorus cluster bombs having inflicted horrific burns on the Tamils and civilians.

Back in May 2006, The Indian Express newspaper reported that Sri Lanka had placed orders with Pakistan for cluster bombs, deep penetration bombs and rockets and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). On March 1, 2006 Sri Lankan chief of defense staff D.W.K. Sandagiri wrote to the Pakistan High Commissioner in Colombo requesting he urgently send a technical team to Colombo for an immediate survey of T-55 tanks and C-130 Hercules transport aircraft. Colombo unsuccessfully asked India for “maintenance contracts and spares for the Sri Lankan Air Force’s large MiG-27 ground strike fleet, laser-guided bomb upgrade kits, dumb bombs, penetration bombs, rocket pod systems and strafing ammunition,” the paper said.

Sri Lanka also asked India for “ship-based mortars, ammunition, small fast-attack craft and sea-mines for the Sri Lankan navy,” but the Indian government “has only allowed the transfer of ammunition and some non-lethal stores.” Sri Lanka also asked India for “multi-barrel rocket launcher systems, mortars, air defence artillery systems, 5.56 mm weapons, ground radars, night vision devices, armoured troop carriers, UAVs, Milan anti-tank missile jeeps and mine-protected vehicles for the Lankan Army.”
SOURCE: http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=18028

Ethnic Cleasing of the Chagossians
The seed of ethnic discord was sown during the era of British colonisation of the Chagos Archipelago. Britain's takeover of the Chagos Archipelago remote in the Indian Ocean (including Diego Garcia) ruling that its indigenous Chagossians, forbidden anyone from residing in the islands without a permit. This was all so Britan's ally, the US, could establish a strategic air and naval base on Diego Garcia.

Ethnic Cleansing of the Cambodians
The seed of ethnic discord was sown during the era of French colonisation of Indo-China. France's reluctant post-World War II decolonisation of Indo-China in 1953 saw the creation of Cambodia and perpetuated a class struggle and civil unrest, which culminated in strong anti-colonist movement and by 1975 the coming to power of the Khmer Rouge, which under Pol Pot was responsible for the exterminations of up to 1.7 million Cambodians between 1976 and 1979.

Ethnic 'realignment' of India's Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs
The seed of ethnic discord was sown during the era of British colonisation of the Indian subcontinent. Britain's withdrawal of its colonial control of India saw it impose arbitrary geographic divisions of the subcontinent under what was called the 'Mountbatten Plan' as part of Britain's 'partition' of India in 1947. This directly caused ethnic splitting between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, that lead to displacement of millions of people along ethnic lines, including 7,226,000 Muslims forced to Pakistan from India, while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved in the former British Indian Empire. It lead to the the Indo-Pakistani War of that year and to ongoing civil unrest in the region ever since.

Ethic cleansing of Tamils
The seed of ethnic discord was sown during the British colonisation of Ceylon. Britain's decolonising of its 'dominion' of Ceylon in 1948 saw biased handover of power to the dominant ethnic Sinhalese, which has fueled civil unrest between ethnic Hindu Tamils and Buddhist Sinhalese ever since.

In Sri Lanka, both the dominate Sinhalese and Tamils separately hold legitimate anthropological custodial inheritance to the island that date back beyond 200 BC. For instance, King Devanampiya Tissa (250-210 BC), a Sinhalese King of the Mauriya clan introduced Buddhism to the island. While King Elara (205-161 BC), a South Indian Tamil invader, ruled "Pihiti Rata" north of the Mahaweli on the island. Historic details are so complex that they compare with any European country's history. So one cannot accept simple stories about the Tamil Tiger conflict in Sri Lanka nor any convenient skin deep consequential solution to the ongoing civil war. SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sri_Lanka

This article post does not seek to even try to condense 2000 odd years of this island's rich and complex history, but points out that in the wake of another 21st Century ethnic slaughter just last week, the underlying social and political causes stem from an historic conspiracy of neglect and prejudice. Britain historically ruled Ceylon in the 19th Century and so Queen Victoria's reign is deservedly accountable for the British empirical domination and designed aftermath. Britain set in place a political structure of civil unrest not just in its 'Dominion of Ceylon', but in almost all its illegal colonial possessions. Read the history of this colonial period to appreciate this damning perspective of the British colonial empire and the post World War II so-called 'independence' mess it left behind in dozens of former British colonies from Northern Ireland to Palestine to Sri Lanka. British Prime Minister Clement Attlee at the time has a lot to answer for.

Earlier, on 7th July 1931, Britain's Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, approved hand over of Britain's colonial sovereignty over Ceylon to Britain's preferred Sinhalese government. But this single unjust bias by an injust colonial power denied all heritage rights of ethnic Tamils to their ancient rights of homeland on the island. In so doing, Britain effectively and insidiously seeded decades of Sinhalese-Tamil tension and civil war up which has persisted up until last week.

Once George Bush Jnr labelled the ethnic Tamil Tigers a terrorist group after 9/11 and created a global policy for zero tolerance, national liberation groups became conveniently bundled as terrorist organisations. Since 2006, the unaccountable CIA has been complicit in the exponential arming of the Sinhalese since 2006 and the de-arming of the LTTE by thwarting naval arms shipments to the Tamils from SE Asia. In 2009, Britain has sold £7 million worth of weapons and military equipment to PM Mahinda Rajapaksa's army, according to Britain's ruling Labor MP Joan Ruddock.

Britain's sales of arms to Sri Lanka since 2006 makes Tony Blair complicit in the Sinhalese genocide of Tamils in northern Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka had no other need. The reported 10,000 killed in the last few months exceeds those of Srebrenica but not Rwanda but why rank human slaughter statistics? It is the toothless,underfunded and token UN, the British antiquated Commonwealth, and the countries supplying arms to the Sri Lankan military are complicit in the effects of this civil war. Politically correct attempts to argue this military crusade was a fight against terrorists is to use the same propaganda that South Africa's P.W. Botha used against Nelson Mandela.

The UN, US, UK, France, and India have allowed this genocide to happen. Pakistan's Swat Valley conflict against the Taliban sounds too well CIA-timed to be co-incidental.

History will reveal that the 2006-09 Sinhalese offensive was to obliterate the Tamils any right of self-determination. That it was a well planned, extremely well funded and indeed international co-ordinated effort. It was another unjust George Bush atrocity and it implicated Vincent Cannistraro (CIA-previously), Leon Panetta (CIA-currently), Dr. Manmohan Singh, Ban Ki-moon, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozyn.

The seed of ethnic discord in Sri Lanka was sown during the British colonisation era.
But Britain's sense of empirialist self-righteousness persists long after its colonial withdraw. The British Government under Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown has pursued consistent foreign policy biases in Sri Lanka, being the big global power underpinning Rajapaksa's Sinhalese regime. The British government has been active behind the scene, isolating the Tamils from funding, arms and an international voice.

Current Situation in Sri Lanka:
"UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, is currently in Sri Lanka to discuss the plight of up to 300,000 Tamils displaced by the war. His chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, who flew over the scene of the final battle on Thursday, described a devastated landscape in which the loosely-packed tents appeared to have been destroyed and there were large numbers of burning vehicles. Only a few soldiers could be seen moving around, he said. "We were not able to see any civilians. What was truly striking was almost the total absence of human habitation … it was almost eerie."

He said the issues surrounding an investigation into possible war crimes would be discussed by the UN Human Rights Council next week.

"As far as the UN is concerned, where there are grave and systematic violations of international humanitarian law, these are things which should be looked at by the international community, by the United Nations," he said.

He said the secretary general would press the Sri Lankan government over the detention of doctors who treated civilians inside the war zone but who have since been arrested, accused of giving out false casualty figures.

A UN official later said the Sri Lankan government would be urged to consider an amnesty to former LTTE members to speed up the peace process.

He said the issues surrounding an investigation into possible war crimes would be discussed by the UN Human Rights Council next week."
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/22/sri-lanka-ban-ki-moon-un

Conclusion
The UN is obligated to investigate the charges of war crimes, human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing allegations against the Sri Lankan military and to pursue if justified, criminal charges against Rajapaksa and his unjust Sinhalese regime. The terms of reference must extend to those countries like Britain, India, the US and France which have been complicit in what clearly has been the deliberate ethic slaughter of Tamils.

In his review of "Overloading Australia" by Mark O'Connor and William Lines, Frosty Wooldridge author of #AmericaOnTheBrink">America on the brink who has cycled 100,000 miles across six continents in the past 25 years, refutes commonly held misconceptions that the Australian continent is underpopulated.

Also published on Australia.to News and in American Chronicle as part 1 and part 2.

With a scant 21 million people on the vast continent of Australia, how could anyone state with any certitude that Oz suffers from human overpopulation? What impudence might that take? How out of touch? How completely absurd? Definitely not 'fair dinkum'!

China features not much more land mass than Oz but houses 1.3 billion souls. The United States--at least the lower 48 states--equals about the same land mass, but houses 306 million people. Mexico, less than a quarter the size of Australia, features 108 million people.

So what's the problem? How could there be a snag? Australia encompasses an endless amount of land. It features 2,970,000 square miles of terra firma. How do I know? In 1984 through 1985, I cycled 17,000 kms around Australia including Tasmania. One Aussie, after learning that I intended to cycle the entire perimeter of Australia said, "Well Yank, you must be dead from the neck up!" I answered, "Yes, but it's a great adventure." He responded, "Do you know what the Nullabor Plains means?" I said, "No." He said, "It means treeless for 2,000 kms and 40 degrees C. every day. You'll fry in the heat!"

None the less, I traveled from Sydney down the Princess Highway to Melbourne; sailed over to Tasmania, up the Great Ocean Road to see the 12 Apostles, to Ceduna and across the Nullabor Plains (treeless) and on to Esperance and then to Perth, onward to Port Headlands and upward to Darwin. From there to Cairns and back down to Sydney! What did I see and how did I feel? I fried in the saddle and sweated while I slept at night under the Southern Cross. Withering heat at 120+ degrees F. daily! I stopped at the Great Australian Bite, saw Bondy's (Alan Bond) boat that beat the Yanks in the Americas Cup, viewed the Pinnacles of Cervantes, rode past the ant castles, witnessed the 'prison boab tree' near Port Headlands and watched the big crocs in Darwin. A frilled lizard scared the daylights out of me near Tenant Creek and I dove on the Great Barrier Reef. I read A.F. Facey's "A Fortunate Life." I'm still friends with John Brown in Kiama and Lance Hill in Perth. I've backpacked with Lance in Nepal and push-biked across the USA with John. I love Oz and its people.

So why does Australia suffer an overpopulation crisis? From my firsthand experiences, I am here to tell you: desert and sand cover 95 percent of Australia. No water and no arable land! It's a wasteland with kangaroos, emus, wombats and stray camels eking out their existences in the devil's horrid heat. When I traveled Oz, it featured 14 million people which it could support. Today, at 21 million, it's on the edge of its own non-sustainable future. Australians might fool Mother Nature in the short term, but they cannot in the long run. Oz doesn't possess water or arable land needed to grow food thus to sustain a large human population. That's a brutal fact!

However, powerful governmental, capitalistic and growth oriented organizations expect to push Australia's population to 50 million tortured souls. Much the same holds true in the United States and other countries where 'growthists' disregard reality and push human populations beyond the ability of the land and water to sustain them. How do they do it? They promote unlimited immigration from other countries that have already exceeded their carrying capacities---and simply exhaust their excess humanity onto the shores of Australia and other countries that possess stable populations. The third world grows by a net gain of 77 million annually, so the line never ends. That alone should give any Oz citizen pause!

The author Mark O'Connor of Overloading Australia, lamented, "I found this book almost impossible to write." He found the fortitude to finish the project only after teaming with his co-author, conservationist William J. Lines.

With electrifying clarity, O'Connor and Lines spell out a sobering future for Australia. Any kangaroo could figure out what the 'kangaroo' government in Canberra cannot seem to grasp! As one man who has seen more of Australia than 95 percent of Australians, I can vouch for the fact that Oz does not possess the farmland or the water to sustain any more population.

"Rightwing growthists demand endless growth of 'the economy' backed by endless population growth," O'Connor said. "Forced since late 2006 to accept a serious public debate about water supplies and about how to maintain 'growth' without increasing greenhouse gases, they are nevertheless determined to scotch any discussion about limiting growth."

I found it exceedingly exasperating that the 'very' people in charge of Australia's future, like Prime Minister Rudd in 2008, did and does not understand the consequences of his/their own actions. He promotes a "Faustian Bargain' on every citizen in Australia that will force a "Hobson's Choice."

"Rudd announced a million new homes would need to be built over the next six years to house the influx [of people] he did not venture to question," Lines said.

Where might that influx originate? Answer: Australia immigrates roughly 300,000 people annually into its dry and dusty desert country.

Why?

"There is a powerful lobby concerned not with whether human life or that of other species would be better in a 'larger' Australia, but with profits!" O'Connor said.

What 'growthists' create stems from that "Faustian Bargain" or selling their souls to the devil of growth for the present to place everyone into an environmental and unsustainable 'hell' later. Once another five or ten million Australians manifest on that desert continent, everyone suffers "Hobson's Choice": if you pick door number A---you walk through and over a cliff. If you pick door number B---you walk through and sink into quicksand. In other words, all your choices lead to death of your civilization.

How do I know that? My cycling travels across six continents have given me a bird's eye view of death from overloaded countries. Over 18 million people starve to death or die of starvation related diseases every year. Over 10 million of them are children under the age of 12 years.

"'Business as usual' desires even more people each demanding more from a finite Nature. A sustainable future is one in which human demands on the natural environment are within the capacity of that environment to meet. It means living within a boundary set by Nature. As we are already well beyond that boundary, it means reducing our population and our per capita demand. Both! Not one or the other!" John Coulter, author "Population and Sustainability: A Global Role for Australia." (pdf, 83K)

In the first part of this book review, Overloading Australia, by O'Connor and Lines, we covered Australia's daunting future if it continues on its present immigration-driven hyper-population growth path. We discussed a "Faustian Bargain" and "Hobson's Choice." We discovered that Australia does not possess enough water or arable land to sustain more than 20 million citizens.

Yet, corporations, politicians and immigration groups known as 'growthists', defy all logic while pushing their agenda toward a 50 million population in Australia.

Oz and the United States, where I live, share similar paradigms. Both maintain stable populations via their own citizens, but both find themselves suffering hyper-population growth by immigration forced down their throats by pandering politicians. Both countries don't comprehend their end-result of relentless immigration

.

U.S. demographic expert Dr. Albert Bartlett said, "A century of 1.6 percent per year growth, which is Australia's current growth rate, would cause Australia to increase to 100 million."

It shows you that if you were riding in a car with Kevin Rudd, he would drive over a cliff and take you with him. Once you arrived in Heaven, and you asked him why he did that, he might answer, "I didn't realize where I was going."

The fact remains, folks pushing growth agendas don't understand where they take Australia, but overpopulation advocates drive Oz over a cliff.

"First, we need to clear away a quite different objection," O'Connor said. "Clearly the writers of this book care about nature. So why, some conservationists will ask us, are we writing about the number of people, instead of worrying about the amount of damage each person does?"

Obviously, like in the U.S., Australian media and politicians deftly avoid the population issue. It's the sacred cow of Faustian proponents. You'll hear about tons of people pushing alternative gardening, alternative energy and all sorts of environmentally feel-good concepts that fail to address the one issue that will negate all their efforts. No matter how many new energy saving light bulbs or 100 kilometers to the liter of gas automobiles or water conservation---when you add another 10 million people, you lose on all counts.

It's simple mathematics, but those devils drive you toward the cliff by spinning the facts into confusion! Amazingly, they assume they are not, nor are their children vulnerable to the consequences.

Simon Grose, writing in the Canberra Times, in 2007, said, "Can we really expect to increase our numbers by about 30 percent over 50 years and keep all fed and comfortable with the hope of a car and a fridge without raising greenhouse emissions? No way!"

Finally, a mind that writes a reality based piece! What a concept! Reality! Deal with it or be swept away by it!

"No one wants to go back to rushlights and mule-back," Lines said. "But there are just two problems. First, any interruption to the power-supply brings chaos and before long, deaths. Second, there seems no way that the planet can provide resources for this lifestyle to be shared by nearly seven billion people, let alone another two or three billion by 2050."

At the head of each chapter, O'Connor and Lines place compelling quotes from experts and world leaders. It doesn't take a Sydney lawyer with an ounce of common sense to connect the dots! Australia already stands in the cross-hairs of terrible environmental conflict with its own human numbers.

Mikhail Gorbachev said, "We are all passengers aboard one ship, the Earth, and we must not allow it to be wrecked. There will be no second Noah's Ark."

What I found most compelling with O'Connor's work stems from the fact that I have witnessed firsthand the ramifications facing other countries that allowed their populations to spin out of control. For example, Bangladesh, not much bigger in landmass than Tasmania, houses 144 million people. Can any Australian fathom Tasmania with 144 million people? That's what's happening worldwide and that's why people flee those countries by the millions.

Instead of absorbing an unending line of immigrants, Australia and other first world countries might help those other countries by NOT taking their refugees, but instead, send them birth control and family planning along with food production techniques and water purification. Help them in their own countries. If they refuse help, then, in the final analysis, they must suffer their own Malthusian overload. If Australia keeps taking immigrants, then, Australia becomes another Bangladesh or variation thereof at some point in this century.

"Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all--ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet." Dr. Otis Graham, Unguarded Gates

In chapter 5, the authors land, like the shocking wildfires in Sydney and NSW last year, with a savage reality punch: food or the scarcity of it!

"There are several reasons why Earth is failing---but they all come down to the fact that an increasing number of people are making increasing demands on a single planet," Lines said. "The Green Revolution is basically over, it's gains already cancelled by population growth."

To attest to that fact, an average of 18 million people die of starvation or starvation related diseases annually worldwide. I can say, that in my world bicycle travels, I've seen those deaths firsthand. It's not a benign statistic to me; it's a harsh visual reality. If you look at any "Save the Children" program begging to feed the children, you have seen what I have seen. For anyone that really wants to save the children, first world countries should send birth control with food. (www.quinacrine.com)

"Humans will continue to clear the diminishing lands left to other species," O'Connor said. "Wreaking disaster upon creatures already pushed to the margins."

Worldwide, humans cause the extinction of 100 creatures daily via human encroachment on habitat. In Oz, many kangaroos suffer endangerment as well as dozens of other species.

"The debate ought to be about the carrying capacity of the continent---a continent that has lousy soils, fragile soils and depleted and degraded river systems." Bob Carr, writing for Weekend Australian, June 1994

In the third part of this book review, Overloading Australia by O'Connor and Lines, we covered the fact that Australia cannot sustain added population numbers as to food, energy and water. That hasn't stopped 'growthists' in their 'spin' to obfuscate the realities facing the 'desert continent'.

The authors covered the 'refugee' dilemma, but again, the world grows by 77 million annually, which leaves long-term immigration a futile gesture. At some point, all civilizations must come to terms with their own numbers and their own recovery.

How many more people can Australia sustain? Short answer: not many! The most realistic question arises from anyone with a three digit IQ: what's the point of growing more population in Australia when you see what it did to China, India, Indonesia and other hyper-populated countries? Let's face it, the reason those immigrants flee their countries provides the exact reason Australia should stabilize its own population in order to remain within its carrying capacity.

John Coulter said in a letter to the editor in The Age, "If I were a Melbournian, I would not reduce my water consumption until Premier Bracks abandons his crazy plan to bring another million people into Melbourne. Why should I save to have my savings squandered by an irresponsible Premier and leave my children in an even worse situation than today?"

Another writer said, "We have been told that Melbourne must populate or perish and that by 2030 we must absorb another one million residents. The question that Planning Minister Justin Madden should ponder is: how do we cater for increased population given that our rivers, dams and reservoirs are drying up, the drought shows no sign of breaking, one-third of the state is affected by bushfires, and blackouts are becoming commonplace?"

O'Connor addressed the 'shortage of workers' façade that also occurs in the United States. While 2.4 million legal and illegal migrants pour over our borders annually, corporations demand hundreds of thousands of work visas for foreign workers.

However, as of March 2009, the U.S. suffers an 11.1 percent unemployment rate and 32.2 million Americans live on food stamps. Yes, that number 32.2 million is correct!

If Australia's politicians prove as cunning and feckless as my country's leaders, both our countries face being overwhelmed by the third world---again with no end of the line of immigrants fleeing their own misery as they grow by 77 million annually. Once millions of poor established in both our countries, our poverty rates, language chaos and sustainability will not survive.

While you read this book, you can't put it on the coffee table. Every chapter enlightens you to greater understanding. If you feel like it, start yelling at the top of your lungs, because it could put you into a logical rage.

"We know that by mid-century the world population is going to be as high as 10 billion people. The world advice is that, that simply cannot be sustained. We are down to fewer than 50 days of flow-on food availability to meet any great emergency and will be facing a mammoth, chaotic social outcome of too many people with too few resources on the planet in the lifetime of some of us here. That is why I asked the government whether it had a population policy, and I do not believe it does," Bob Brown in the Senate, September 16, 2008

That same applies to the U.S. It causes you to wonder if the patients run the insane asylum. Why can the media and government maintain such a high level of arrogance and stupidity side by side?

One writer said, "How can you kill a planet and still expect to live on it?"

O'Connor and Lines in the final chapters of the book provide a sobering rendition of the consequences of endless growth to the 'desert continent'. I invite every politician, college professor, high school and college student in Australia---to read this book. It needs to be read in boardrooms and bedrooms of parents. It needs reviews by every critic across Australia. It needs to be a best seller in the first world. Every mother and father needs to read it because their kids will be wrapped up in this great 'human dilemma'.

Thankfully, the authors addressed 'racism' in the book. I can vouch for Mother Nature that she doesn't care what your race, creed or color happens to be when your species overwhelms its carrying capacity. Mother Nature kills and cripples without prejudice. As in Chapter 15 of the book, "Fooling people, fooling nature", you bluff Mother Nature for only so long, and then, she will kick your Aussie ass! That blunt, that simple!

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said, "Twaddle, rubbish and gossip is what people want, not action. Politicians know this. Aided by the media and cheered by intellectuals, they peddle illusion, fantasy, myth, faith and hope."

"But then there is the natural world," O'Connor said. "It's vastly different from politics and our delusions. People can be fooled over and over again, but nature cannot, not even once."

At the end of the book, Lines and O'Connor show how 'green groups' avoid the population equation along with the media. It's a cute and dangerous façade. They address the "Aborigines" guilt complex. They talk about climate change and ecological footprint. They nail it!

"You'd have to be an economist or a fool to think you can keep adding population forever!" said Kenneth Boulding, economist.

While the authors present cogent advice at the end of the book, I found myself laughing out loud at one of their ideas. "Why we should all waste water!" While all the environmentalists and do-gooders cry out to conserve, and the same happens with the Sierra Club in America, all the conservation in the world won't help as Australia adds another 10, 20, 30 or 50 million people. Therefore, start wasting as much water as possible today to force the population issue to the front burner. Frankly, it will power its way into the public's attention either now or later.

As I said at the beginning of this review, I've already seen what's coming in my world cycling travels. It's not pretty. Instead of walking that same perilous path as overpopulated countries, I invite every Australian to read this book, heed its wisdom and change course toward a sustainable nation and bright future for all Australians. Call for an "Australian Sustainable Population Policy" that limits mass immigration to near zero. You cannot save the rest of the world, but you can destroy your own civilization or turn it into a water starved, food scant and quality of life nightmare. Your children will thank you in 2050 and the world will thank you for leading the way for humanity toward a plausible and livable planet. By the way, the rest of Earth's creatures will thank you, too!

Overloading Australia: How governments and media dither and deny on population
Mark O'Connor & William J. Lines

#AmericaOnTheBrink" id="AmericaOnTheBrink">America on the brink: the next added 100 million Americans

By Frosty Wooldridge

Published April 27, 2009; Available at 1-888 280 7715;  Barnes and Noble   www.barnesandnoble.com ;  Borders ; Amazon www.Amazon.com

Reviewers - Radio, TV, newsprint: for complimentary media copy, call Yvona Doane: 1 888 519 5121 Ext. 5299

"Eye-opening, incisive, brilliant!

"The U.S. has the fastest growing population of any industrial nation, and one of the world's highest consumption rates.  Water, topsoil, forests, fish, petroleum... the more of us, the more pressure we exert on our environment.  Many discuss our personal consumption patterns, but few dare talk about the underlying crisis of population growth.  Wooldridge is one of the few courageous voices warning us about the implications of our current direction, and informing us what we can do to change course."

   - Richard Heinberg, author of Peak Everything

"Electrifying reading!  This is a veritable cannonade of a book.

"Wooldridge targets the people and institutions, from the President on down, who refuse to look at the consequences of population growth in the modern era.   His focus is on the United States, but his range is the world.

"He fearlessly addresses issues that politicians fear to mention, such as the effects of mass immigration on our population future and our social systems.  He engages to force population issues into our local and national political decisions."

   - Lindsey Grant, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment & Population

"The environmental community may be outrageously AWOL on the important subject of population, but not Frosty Wooldridge.  Read this book!"

   - Richard D. Lamm, Governor of Colorado 1975-1987

"Wooldridge's powerful indictment of our political leaders for failing to address U.S. overpopulation should be required reading in classrooms and boardrooms.

"To mindlessly add 100 million more people to our nation's population in the next 30 years will put the United States economy and social order at further risk.  His challenge needs to be addressed on individual, national and international levels before it's too late."

   - William B. Dickinson, The Biocentric Institute

America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans --

injects a whole new dynamic facing the United States in the 21st century.  While national leaders at every level ignore accelerating consequences, immigration-driven hyper-population growth will become THE single greatest issue facing America in the years ahead.

In adding 100 million people by 2035, every crisis facing Americans today accelerates in harsher consequences -- whether it is water shortages, climate change, energy scarcity, dwindling resources, gridlock, air pollution and a decline of quality of life.

Wooldridge compellingly states the obvious... the U.S. cannot continue unplanned population expansion indefinitely.

He offers Hobson's Choice as a final result of mass denial.  If the U.S. adds another 100 million people via immigration, it faces two doors:

   -- if the country picks door # 1, this civilization walks over a cliff.

   -- If it picks door # 2, it walks into quicksand.

Once that 100 million people manifest, no one, no matter what their race, creed or color---escapes.  Americans will endure water shortages, energy problems, crowding and a much diminished standard of living.  The American Dream will no longer be available.

However, Frosty offers concrete ways to change the future.  In all great social change, it takes a 'conscious shift' that leads to a 'critical mass shift' and finally, a 'tipping point' whereby a civilization turns toward a sustainable and viable future.  It's up to each citizen and leader to make sure that 'tipping point' occurs.

The fate of this civilization hangs in the balance.

Author Contact: www.frostywooldridge.com

J Bell to me
show details 3:22 PM (3 hours ago) Reply

Dear Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. - Sheila and Jill You know people in Frankston. Can you circulate?

Rally to oppose Peninsula link Frankston Bypass Sunday 24 may , 2009, Noon at Trig Point.

Why Rally?: The proposed freeway the Peninsula Link will bypass Frankston and cut straight through the guts of the Pines Flora & Fauna Reserve.

When: Join Rod Quantock (Deputy President of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. PPL VIC) ) on Sunday 24 May at 12 noon
Where: The Excelsior Drive entrance to the Pines, Frankston North. Mel. 100 C9 to reclaim the Pines for the people of Frankston at Trig Point.

Website: The website Save the Pines will be launched at the same time. This website not only deals with the Pines, but also highlights other areas and flora/fauna that will be affected by the proposed Freeway. www.savethepines.net
Organisers: The Connies See www.connies.com.au

Why Save The Pines?

It was once described by the Victorian Government as the most botanically significant land in Melbourne's south and south east. It's the closest place this side of Melbourne where the swamp wallaby, echidna, koala, ringtail and bushy tailed possums, sugar glider and swamp rat roam freely. The Reserve has also supported the Swamp Skink, Dwarf Galaxias, Hooded Robin, the Powerful Owl and Swift's Parrot.

If not stopped, the SEITA by-pass and toll way will also cut a 4 lane 26 kilometre swathe through the landscape from Carrum Downs to Mount Martha. It will destroy an extraordinarily rare patch of Herb Rich Grassy Wetland at Carrum Downs, which Minister Jennings' experts say can't be offset or replaced. It will plough through 60% of the Belvedere Reserve in Seaford, the Pobblebonk/Willow Road Reserve and the Wittenberg Reserves in Langwarrin and destroy a pristine remnant at the heritage Westerfield property, whilst bisecting precious farmland on the Moorooduc Plain.

See also www.savethepines.net.

There are alternatives.

The Eureka Flag was flown at Trig Point in the 1970's by a group of residents to recalim the Reserve for the people of Frankston from development. The Pines bneed our help again. See you Sunday 24 May at the Excelsior Drive entrance to the Pines.

Contact: Julianne Bell Secretary PPL VIC 98184114 or 0408022408

Repco Rally Australia spin merchants have outdone themselves in the last few days. Not only have they spun their web of deceit around the NSW state government and the Tweed Shire Council they have now caught themselves in their own web by posting comments from their "independent" ecological consultant that he did not say. They were caught out very publicly on ABC local radio yesterday.

Repco Rally Australia sent a media release out that quoted Dr Steven Phillips (who prepared their ecological report) as saying "There is no reason on ecological grounds that the rally should not proceed". This quote was printed prominently in the pro-rally Tweed Daily News on 18/5/08. It was their front page story, with follow up on Page 2.

The problem was that Dr Phillips did not say it!!! And he said so very publicly when interviewed by Tony Johnston on ABC North Coast radio the next day.

Tony was so taken aback he had to ask Dr Phillips the question a second time .. and he got the same answer: "The words were attributed to me, but I did not say them".

What else have the organisers got wrong???

What you can do:

Write letters to the editor at the Tweed Daily News letters[AT]tweednews.com.au complaining about their lack of checking source material and also attacking the rally organisers for their repeated peddling of misinformation.

See also: "Environment expert clears rally" by Peter Caton in the Tweed Daily News of 18 May 09 in which Dr Phillips is misquoted by REPCO Australia Rally organising chairman Garry Connelly, "Come in spinner" of 21 May 09, "Repco Rally Australia releases reports 'in stages'" of 15 May 09.

Media Magic

Repco Rally Australia organisers claim that the majority of local residents support (or will support) the rally. The latest edition of the Tweed Shire Echo (the only reliable media outlet around here) gives the lie to that bit of spin.

Read a copy online (or download a pdf copy) at www.tweedecho.com.au.

It makes compelling reading!

Freshly sworn in NSW Premier Nathan Rees MP back on 5th September 2008, recognising people are annoyed and frustrated with the State Government and proclaiming to have a 'red hot go' at fixing NSW. Rees says he recognises people are annoyed and frustrated with the State Government. (SOURCE: ABC 5-Sep-08, Photo: AAP, Sergio Dionisio)

Why do we tolerate it?

Why do politicians, as soon as they taste power, think they have rights akin to the kings of old, to splurge on personal fettishes and pet hobbies using taxpayers' money and abuse the rights of local citizens?

Take Nathan Rees, who came to power as New South Wales Premier by default on Friday 5th September 2008. Less than four weeks later on Monday 29th September 2008, Rees' personal passion for V8 racing saw him personally approve the unprecedented introduction of V8 Supercar racing at Sydney Olympic Park (Homebush) for five years despite strong local community opposition. Hardly a decision to address the people's annoyance and frustration with the NSW Government.

Accompanied by a howl of boos from a small group of protesters, Rees overruled Homebush locals concerns about the required removal of 700 trees, significant noise and air pollution impacts, contamination of parklands waterways & habitat (including Green & Golden Bell Frog habitat) from fuel & oil spills, disturbance to native fauna from noise impacts & crowd movements and the unfair impost on local urban amenity & public open space. Our naive Nathan has been sold on hollow promises of "attracting 15,000 visitors and attracting $100 million to a desperate NSW economy. So desperate and naiive Nathan has grabbed the hype to get quick political wins. It is these 'quick political wins' that have shaped his tenure and that will shape his legacy. Long term State investment, that is investment beyond the next election cycle is not a mandate the NSW Labor Party has granted him.
SOURCE: http://www.tec.org.au/index.php?Itemid=291&id=693&option=com_content&task=view

The motor racing event is being promoted by Events NSW (an arm of the Rees NSW Government) and is set to be an annual event every December. The main sponsor is Telstra, which at the same time hypocritically declares on its corporate website that its "concern for the community and resolve to address environmental issues will only serve to improve Telstra's future."

Then we see another motor racing event for NSW, the Repco Rally, relocated from where is has been staged for two decades outside Perth to the NSW in the Tweed and Kyogle shires in September. It is set to be staged every two years at least until 2017. Of course Rees has given it his red hot support and again his Events NSW is plugging it hard.
svc104.wic466d.server-web.com/images/tweed/CAMS_MediaAnnouncement.pdf

Again, NSW taxpayers are paying up to $8 million to the rally organizers and the Tweed Shire Council has promised to fund the rally organisers an extra $120,000 every two years out of local rates revenue. This funding comes at a time when the Rees government says it can't afford to provide adequate local policing or health services to the people of the Tweed Shire.

Layla Gain-Hill with residents of Barkers Vale and Wadevale who are concerned the Repco Rally with endanger Hanging Rock Creek. Photo courtesy of Mel McMillan and Northern Star newspaper 21st January 2009.

Many locals at both events have strongly and unanimously voiced their objections to these events respectively, but 'king' Rees likes his car racing and has proclaimed it's all going ahead. It's not too dissimilar to the English aristocracy of old pursuing fox hunts through farmers properties, thumbing their noses at the locals. Auburn, Parramatta and Ryde Councils all unanimously passed resolutions opposing the proposed V8 Supercar race at Homebush.

Both races will mean senseless environmental vandalism and are a blatant denial of local communities of their Common Law rights to quiet enjoyment and amenity. If the history of both races is any guide, Rees' red hot go at promoting his car racing fetish is set to cost NSW more than the exaggerated hype of making money for NSW.

At a time when peak oil has been and gone and the motor car industry is in decline, Rees' petrol head fetish can only be a selfish desire and an abuse of privilege and power to doggedly pursue an unsustainable 20th century motor racing culture. This is set to be Rees' legacy of his red hot term in power.

Rees fetish for V8s should be tempered. The V8 race could more suitably staged at the existing dedicated motor racing circuit just down the road at Eastern Creek. Rees' fetish for rally driving could be fed by him flying over to Perth where it used to be staged.

Australia's Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon MP, has just been handed $26,950,000,000 to unjustifiably escalate Australia's military aggression, at a time when Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says the world economy is gripped by the worst recession in 50 years. Labor's 2009 Defence White Paper indulges to the extreme, planning for so-called "Defence" (against what?) to receive some $146 billion in additional funding across the life of the White Paper to 2030.

Hypocritically at the same time, Fitzgibbon has rejected spending just $3.5 million to save thousands of Australia's grey kangaroos fenced in on Defence land at Majura training range just outside Canberra. And at a time when Federal MPs have just awarded themselves another pay rise of $4000 pa for 'electoral allowances'. It all stinks like British Parliamentary abuses.

Australia's kangaroos, stressed from people altering their habitat, have been denied their freedom to roam their traditional grazing lands due to it being bulldozed for selfish property development, due to drought, consistent shooting and from uncontrolled bushfires.

Despite wildlife ecologist Dr Dror Ben-Ami telling the review tribunal that the Defence Department has no assessments of any impacts caused by the kangaroos nor that the kangaroos pose any threat to any threatened species on the Majura range, Fitzgibbon has condoned the senseless slaughter of 4000 of a population of 9000 trapped kangaroos be shot in secret, just last Saturday, 9th May 2009. Fitzgibbon approved a similar massacre just on a year ago at the same place - it must be some idea of a sick sport to him!

Fitzgibbon says it is to reduce the kangaroos to 'sustainable levels'. How's the language?

How is this mass killing different to April 1994 when the Hutu militia hacked thousands of Tutsis to death in Rwanda, or July 1995 in Srebrenica when Serb General Ratko Mladic systematically selected and then massacred 8,372 men and boys 'of fighting age' (between the ages of twelve and sixty), or in May 2000 when the Sri Lanka Army used banned cluster bombs, multi barrel rocket Launchers killing 2,000 Tamil civilians in the island's north?

Just four days ago, 378 Tamil civilians were killed after Sri Lankan forces fired a massive barrage of artillery shells at Tamil Tiger rebels. Again the UN stands by - bit like how Pope Pius XII stood back while Hilter's Nazis massacred millions of Jews during WWII.

In these human massacres, the killers use propaganda to describe their victims such as 'terrorists', 'militants' and justfity the massacres as 'ethnic cleansing'. In each of the above human massacres, the UN has stood back and watched.

Like these human massacre, thousands of Australia's iconic kangaroos, have just as much right to life as humans, yet they are been similarly slaughtered in secret. Defence uses fabricated propaganda like the kangaroos being in “plague proportions” and “hordes” and “pests”, that their “populations have exploded”; that they “compete for pasture”; and the latest ludicrous example; “they are eating endangered species of grass”. All so as to spin the sick aim of "sustainable culling".

It's simply a ecological massacre. It has just been done in secret with approval of Joel Fitzgibbon. How is he any different to Sri Lankan Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa?

This tragic massacre deserves to be written into Australia's history as...

...'Fitzgibbon's Massacre'.

To achieve this bootstrap economy, this Australian sideshow of perpetual motion, or the revival of dead spirits, the PM has invented something called the Australian Business Investment Partnership (ABIP). It's a public-private partnership between the Federal government and the commercial property sector. The Developers and the big four banks think it's just great - so that's okay ... isn't it?

Reanimators Rudd & Swan

Treasurer Swan and Prime Minister Rudd are peddling a new brand of snake oil for our absurd, terminally ill, real-estate economy. It is a bit like keeping a semblance of life in the corpse of some poor overdosed addict by hooking it up to a lightening rod and waiting for a storm. They may be about to create a public-private monster, stitched together from the necrotic remains of Keynesian economics, economic irrationalism and shock-doctrine.

Sure it will create a market for heroin - I mean housing - but do we really want a zombie economy?

The Keynesian solution of public schemes to build infrastructure and cause the employment of masses of people who would otherwise be unemployed worked fine when energy, materials and vital resources were in abundance and populations were relatively small. But, even if the first world were still rich in materials and fuel - which it is not - this isn't about the government putting taxpayers to work for their country; it is about the government propping up corporate property development, banks and their shareholders. The shock-doctrine element refers to Naomi Klein's term for disaster-economics where big-business moves in with government accomplices and hostages and loots injured national economies.[1]

The Government budget 2009 prediction is that we are in for a couple of years of dwindling growth, including one (2010) at negative growth (-0.5%). After that the public are told to expect a return to more growth, leading to economic growth of somewhere round 4.5% in two or three years!

Pull the other one, sir, and the whole thing will fall to bits.

To achieve this bootstrap economy, this Australian sideshow of perpetual motion, or the revival of dead spirits, the PM has invented something called the Australian Business Investment Partnership (ABIP). It's a public-private partnership between the Federal government and the commercial property sector.

A ghastly alliance

Now most of our readers knew that the government was in bed with the property development sector and some of us realise that the property development sector is clandestinely running the country and the newspapers and even the ABC. But we are just a bit shocked, even now, to see that they are going to try to make this travesty official.

Looks like the private-public partnership government so long hidden away like Dr Frankenstein's monster is going to come out of the closet and the rest of us will have to run for cover. But there is nowhere left to run!

The Financial Review describes the "ABIP, known as the RuddBank," as "designed to provide liquidity support to the commercial property sector". That is, an institution is going to be created through parliament to funnel tax-payer money into the pockets of property developers. The legislation has not yet been passed and a number of senators have already objected. Nonetheless, according to the Financial Review, the government is relying on the passage of this law for the success of this budget.[2] And, we would add, on some miraculous intervention to avoid severe energy and materials shortages world-wide. We think that the idea of a 'recovery', let alone 4.5% growth in two or three years is just whistling in the dark.

Australian taxes will fund shortfalls if foreign banks pull plug on developers

The APIB legislation is to cover Australian property developers if foreign banks stop financing them. Then you and I are supposed to finance these private property developers. Perhaps not surprisingly, in the parliamentary enquiry about the government's Australian Business Investment Partnership (ABIP), opposition, and cross-bench senators, were not terribly impressed. Actually, you would think that this kind of legislation is the kind of thing an investment banker like Turnbull would dream of, but perhaps only if his party and his favorite property developers were in control of it.

One still unofficial political sector is totally in favour. That is the property industry and the four big banks.

What the Senators have to say so far about the 'RuddBank bill'

In a debate in the Senate on 12 May 2009, Senator Xenophon asked for an Australian competition and consumer commission assessment of the partnership's exemption from the Trade Practices Act.[4] [Note contains speech in parliament]

The Greens, who have the uncomfortable role of remaining in a hot kitchen in order to be able to use the stove, have asked for a cap of one million dollars per annum to executive salaries in organisations which would receive ABIP bail-outs. They have also asked that the proposed ABIP board of directors be expanded from five to eight, with half composed of government representatives.

We ask, in a public-private government run by property developers, what difference would that make?

Senator Steve Fielding, from Family First, suggested sensibly that the terms of ABIP loans be no more liberal than those of ordinary competitive banks and that they be limited to only three years.

Senator Coonan, speaking for the opposition, said the opposition didn't think the bill was necessary.

What do the public have to say?

The public have not been asked. But they will be told (not asked) to pay for this $26 billion commercial property guarantee!

Our money will be guaranteeing the security of the very property developers and their financiers (often the same thing) that most of us hate for destroying our democracy and creating an ecological and financial deficit. Already we are paying more for power, more for water, more for land, more for housing, more for food, because of the inflation caused in Australia by the population growth demanded by the property development sector. There are bizarre, extreme and cruel impacts, like the massacre of thousands of kangaroos to make way for housing estates.

Now the property development growth lobby has managed to so corrupt our economic and political system that they expect the government to create a new public (and private) institution, which will shelter them, unelected, at public expense.

An alternative strategy: a democratic public developer

There is another way:

1. Disconnect the private property development sector from the public purse. Remember, the private property sector is addicted to growth. Let it try to rehabilitate itself independently, through modest and honest behaviour. If it fails to thrive then at least it won't take the whole country down with it.

2. Reconnect the government with the electorate. Remember, the government only has authority because it is supposed to represent the electorate. Without the electorate it would not exist. Establish a public works sector to develop land cheaply for the social and commercial activities of the current population and to reclaim land for generous wildlife corridors and for forests to promote rain, reduce carbon gas output, and make us happy through their beauty. Fund this body with taxes, but without increasing the taxes. Put the unemployed to work for it. Don't go for growth though, of development or population. We already know that the fast returns of a housing based economy cannot last and cost even more than money. They lead to economic addiction and an Absurdistan economy with monsters in parliament.

NOTES

[1] Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine,See Review of Naomi Klein’s "The Shock Doctrine"
[2] John Kehoe, "Projects lead way to fast recovery", Investment, Australian Financial Review, 13 May, 2009, p.89.
[3]Tracy Sutherland, "Senators seek checks, balances on RuddBank loans", Australian Financial Review, 13 May, 2009, p.5.

[4] Appendix:

Senator Xenophon comments from Federal Hansard Reports, (Senate) Wed. 13 May, 2009

Source pp20-21 Hansard: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/latesthansard/shansard.pdf (Note that this is not the complete debate)

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (11.45 am)—The Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 is one of those bills that presents a dilemma for this parliament. That is because in legislation as in life wanting to help is not the same as actually helping.

My main concern, one that I believe is broadly shared with my coalition colleagues, was that I did not want any new legislation to create unintended consequences.

I did not want ABIP to create a cartel or another bank. I did not want ABIP to prop up ventures that should by any commercial standards not be propped up. I was concerned that the creation of ABIP might serve as an incentive for foreign and smaller domestic banks to withdraw from the market and, ultimately, I was concerned about what this means for taxpayers.

Taxpayer funds are not like shareholder funds.

Shareholders choose to get into business. They assess the risks and decide whether to put the money on the table and take a risk. Taxpayers do not do that. They pay their taxes because they have to, which is why I believe there must be a higher standard for the way we use taxpayer money, particularly where there is a contingent liability and especially when the government enters into a business arrangement with businesses.

Throughout this debate I have raised a number of concerns about this bill with the government and I am pleased that the government agreed to a Senate inquiry process by the Senate Committee on Economics, of which I was a part, because that was a very valuable exercise in getting more facts, in getting the information that I believe was necessary in order to make an informed decision on this piece of legislation.

I want to outline my concerns and put them on the record in the context of my discussions with government, but before I do that I want to outline the concerns expressed by Senator Bob Brown on behalf of the Greens and Senator Fielding on behalf of Family First. Senator Brown has maintained a long-term campaign on the issue of executive remuneration. I commend him for that campaign and, as I understand it, his position is quite straightforward. If you are going to have a situation where taxpayer funds will be used to assist the private sector, there must be a quid pro quo on the whole issue of funding of executive remuneration.

Whilst I do not see that going directly to the core of this bill, I respect and appreciate the concerns of Senator Brown and I will be supporting the Greens amendments to curtail executive remuneration packages for those entities that are assisted in what ABIP is proposing to achieve. I think that is important and I think the government should take the concerns of the Greens seriously with respect to executive remuneration.

Senator Fielding has raised a number of concerns in relation to the issue of ensuring that there are safeguards in lending criteria. In his contribution yesterday, Senator Fielding said:

"... ABIP must satisfy lending criteria which, at a minimum, are just as strict as the lending criteria applied by any other commercially competitive bank."

I commend Senator Fielding for raising that. These are my concerns also, and I look forward to seeing an amendment to the legislation that the government, I understand, is preparing or that Senator Fielding will be introducing on this, because I believe that is a legitimate concern in safeguarding shareholder funds.

I have also raised concerns with respect to the issue of the role of the Auditor-General. If I could put on notice to get a response about the role of the Auditor-General from the government either in their summary of the second reading stage or during the committee, the bill provides for the Auditor-General to have a role to audit the books, to have that supervisory role, if you like, in relation to the accounts of ABIP. I simply seek confirmation that the Auditor-General is unfettered in his role with respect to that and that if at any time there is a concern about the operation of ABIP the Auditor-General has the right and the role to, if not intervene, investigate any concerns—which is I think highly unlikely given the governance structure of ABIP. Similarly, as I understand it, ASIC will have a supervisory role here in the operation of ABIP, and confirmation of that from the government would be helpful.

There is the issue of trade practices law that Senator Hurley referred to. The issue of exemptions from the act is one that concerns me. There has been an increasing trend to exempt, to have arrangements where an exemption is granted under the act. This is something that Associate Professor Frank Zumbo from the University of New South Wales Australian School of Business has raised, and I am grateful for his input into this.

Some may not be as grateful as I am for the contribution that Professor Zumbo makes. I note that Senator Arbib is having a chuckle at that.

Senator Arbib—He’s back.

Senator XENOPHON—Senator Arbib, I am grateful for the contributions that Associate Professor Zumbo makes in the field of trade practices law. The suggestion from Associate Professor Zumbo is that there ought to be monitoring and reporting by the ACCC on the exemption that has been provided to ABIP and that there should be a report, preparation of a competition impact statement and ongoing monitoring by the ACCC of this.

My impression is that the ACCC has not had enough input into this. I understand, given the urgency of the scheme and the intent of the legislation, why there is an exemption but I also think it is important to have a monitoring mechanism. That is why I will be moving amendments with respect to monitoring this. I am pleased that in my discussions with the government they broadly supported that principle. It does not stopABIP doing what it is intended to do but it does have that level of scrutiny and transparency, which I think is important.

I have also raised with the government the broader issue, which is not directly relevant to this particular bill, of there being broader, systemic scrutiny by theACCC of exemptions, and I look forward to the government’s response in relation to that, because I think it is overdue. We need to have a good look at theexemptions to the act that are granted. After all, the Trade Practices Act is intended to protect consumers, to enhance competition and to do so in the publicinterest.

My concern is that there have been a whole range of exemptions without appropriate scrutiny by the ACCC.

I look forward to what I hope will be the government’s comprehensive response in relation to that.

In the committee inquiry the issue was raised of the unintended consequences of this bill. There was an interchange between me and Mr Peter Verwer, the CEOof the Property Council of Australia, who raised a concern about moral hazard. He asked: could the legislation have the unintended consequence ofencouraging foreign banks to get out of the market by virtue of the asset value being maintained? I understand that Mr Verwer has resiled from the positionthat he put to the committee. He has further reflected on that and he has made that very clear to me and publicly.

I have also had discussions both with Treasury and with Mr Ahmed Fahour, the interim CEO of ABIP. I am satisfied that the intent of ABIP is to be there as alast resort, as a contingency measure. Mr Fahour said in his evidence that he would hope this contingency facility is not used but that it is there to give a levelof confidence to the marketplace so that we do not see a fire sale of assets. Mr Fahour made the point that liquidity is a key factor in decisions that are made byforeign banks or any other member of a syndicate in determining whether they stay in or out. I believe that, based on the evidence and on the structure that isproposed, there will be that level of confidence, which will provide a level of comfort so that we will not see fire sales and so that liquidity will be propped up.I think that that, on balance, is the right approach. The right thing to do is to ensure that we have, with appropriate safeguards, a mechanism to allow for lendingof last resort on commercial terms if foreign banks pull out of the property market.

I want to comment briefly on Mr Fahour as interim CEO. Whilst the primary concern of this legislation ought to be the government’s structural mechanisms, itis interesting to note that Mr Fahour is involved. Even the critics of the ABIP proposal would have to acknowledge the contribution and the reputation of MrFahour as a former CEO of NAB Australia and his reputation in the banking sector. The government has been lucky to secure his services, given his track record in thebanking system. I have had extensive conversations with Mr Fahour about the issues of governance, structure and the commercial viability of loans forcommercial property. I have been reassured by the fact that Mr Fahour is interim CEO, and he has been helpful in providing information to me.

One of the issues raised by Mr Fahour was of administration, of making ABIP work. He expressed the concern to me that, if you outsource the administrativefunctions of ABIP, there could be issues. My concern is one of a potential conflict of interest in the decisions that ABIP makes. That is why I willbe moving an amendment, following my discussion with Mr Fahour, that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation be involved in assisting ABIPLtd—as agreed to between the EFIC and ABIP—in financing arrangements, with respect to borrowing money and doing such things as are incidental to making ABIPwork. Given the role of the EFIC and the fact that it has commercial expertise similar to that which ABIP will have, the EFIC would be the appropriateentity for ABIP to go to. You would not have the conflict of interest issues that you might if it were outsourced to the private sector, and EFIC is upand running and already in place. I would urge senators to support an amendment along those lines. To me that seems a very pragmatic and sensible way todeal with these particular concerns in terms of having ABIP up and running.

I indicate that—subject to seeing the amendments regarding the commercial viability of loans, the lending criteria being commercial and the safeguards fortaxpayers, as well as indicating my support for the executive remuneration amendments of the Australian Greens—I support this legislation. I want to make itclear that I believe the government has, as a result of the Senate committee inquiry process, acknowledged the issues of competition policy and exemptionsfrom the Trade Practices Act and the need to monitor that.

With the government clarifying the issue of ASIC’s involvement, the Auditor-General’s involvement and governance issues with respect to ABIP, I believe thatthis is a prudent way forward. I hope that, as a contingency measure, ABIP is not used. It is a short-term measure whilst we go through these quiteturbulent economic times. I support the second reading of this bill.

Defence land in Canberra was cleared of supposedly 514 "starving" kangaroos last year that were “threatening” native grasslands and other species. The public were persuaded and conned by the pseudo-science of kangaroos as environmental pests, and their "humane" deaths as the best scientifically-concluded solution. The 149 hectare site at Belconnen, with 19,000 tonnes of waste including asbestos, is now planned to be developed for between 1100-1300 new dwellings!

Now, Majura kangaroos are blamed for threatening several rare species of grasses, insects and lizards due to habitat degradation. This is despite the fact that sheep have created a dust-bowl across the fence, and unsound farming practices are being ignored.

‘...there is a good reason to obtain access to carcasses from at least one future cull which is conducted to an acceptable sampling design.’ (D. Fletcher, Senior Ecologist, Wildlife Research and Monitoring, Environment ACT)

Mr Fletcher is NOT a vet, yet he wants carcasses to do his research on, to assess their "health"! Doesn't this sound like Japan's illegal and brutal whaling? Whaling continues under thin disguises, like Mr Fletcher's excuse to "cull" kangaroos!

Why are thousands of kangaroos being needlessly cruelly slaughtered at Majura when the facts and figures being used by Defence to justify this action are flawed?

The "threatened species" and native grasses are not at threat from kangaroos! No other science has come to the conclusion that Dr Maxine Cooper has come up with! The REAL threats are urban sprawl, heavy grazing from livestock, invasive weeds, rabbits etc. NOT kangaroos! They have evolved and co-existed together for millions of years and the grazing "pressure" from kangaroos is only about 1/3 of that of a sheep.

There are reliable reports of sheep grazing over the fence and have made a dust-bowl there. Why aren't agricultural impacts being assessed! This pseudo-science is about using "science" to justify a pre-determined outcome - the slaughter of kangaroos that are not wanted in the "Bush Capital".

These animals are on our Coat of Arms, and part of our heritage, part of our biodiversity and landscape. Making them a "threat" is purely pseudo-science so that a confused public is lulled and quietened by a "humane" solution!

Three kangaroos per hectare are quite sustainable, as evident! They are NOT STARVING but in peak condition! One kangaroo per hectare is just a way of ensuring that they die off, due to predation, loss of gene pool, human attacks and traffic.

Defence has not produced data to prove there are 9000 "starving" kangaroos, and what their REAL MOTIVES are! Housing estates are due to be built where the last kangaroo massacre took place at Belconnen! Now they will shoot 6000 roos instead of 3000 of these so-called 'environmental pests'!

There is no way of a "humane cull"! They will be running in fear, and bones will be broken, joeys will panic and be lost from their mothers, and the panic and fear and stress from these animals is well known!

If Defence were telling the truth they would let some trustworthy, independent, non-government-funded wildlife vets, entomologists, botanists and other experts visit to see for themselves, but they won’t because they think they can get away with lies and breaking the law by starting the massacre early.

There needs to be investment in wildlife corridors and crossings over roads. Kangaroos could be quite a tourist attraction, a draw-card for Canberra. This massacre is a scandal for Australia and our “management” of wildlife. We have such an abysmal record of animal treatment in Australia, and this killing field will just add to condemnation world-wide!

See also: Protesters slam 'sneaky' kangaroo cull in ABC online of 9 May 09.
Roo cull under way: 2000 shot in Canberra Times of 5 May 09.

President John F Kennedy once famously cited the words of the ancient Greek Law maker Solon, who decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. Yet many supposedly independent web-sites do precisely that. These include #comment-729088">Larvartus Prodeo and Webdiary. in regard to the burning controversy over the 9/11 attacks.

In February this, year a post I made to a discussion on Larvatus Prodeo concerning 9/11:

"I think it's time people questioned the very pretext of the so-called 'war on terror'. Starting in September 2008, 7 years later than I should have, I began to seriously research the controversy over the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I have carefully considered the claims of the '9/11 Truthers' and the '9/11 debunkers' and have arrived at the firm conclusion that 9/11 was a 'false flag' terrorist attack planned and orchestrated by the cabal centred on Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush to advance their geo-political goals.

"I urge others to seriously consider the evidence. It shouldn't take long form anyone with an open objective mind to see that a massive cover-up has occurred. And where there's a cover-up a crime has usually occurred.

"Many credible and very well credentialed people, for example, those listed at patriotsquestion911.com are demanding that new proper investigations, unlike the cover-ups conducted by NIST and the 9/11 Commissions, be held.

However, it was deleted by the site owner Mark Bahnisch. On 19 February, Mark Acknowledged that he had deleted the post, stating:

"I'm not prepared to host 9/11 truther discussions."

In response, on the same day, I asked:

"Do you consider the issue unimportant?

"... or do you believe you know for a fact that the account of the 9/11 attacks given by the Bush administration is true?"

Mark Bahnisch's response, also on the same day, was:

"James - it's not our practice to enter into discussion of moderation decisions, as the comments policy indicates."

I left it for a while to respond further. On 6 March, whilst I was also campaigning as an independent candidate in the Queensland State elections, I wrote:

"Please consider again, what I wrote.  I did not study the question properly until 7 years after it happened.

"Until the middle of 2007 it never seriously entered my head that the Bush administration would have been so monstrous as to deliberately commit the crime of 11 September 2001.

"I point this out only to show that I was not the kind of person who has  lightly come to the view that I have."

I will quote the last post (not made by myself) on on Online Opinion discussion about this question:

'If there was a possibility of complicity by sectors other than the alleged Saudi / UAE "hijackers", which if you read BOTH sides of the argument there seems to be, then this is a most important subject, to be discussed and investigated.

'Any one who says one side has "been completely debunked" needs a self-inflicted slap in the face.'

"If you persist in your decision to censor discussion of this critical issue, I don't believe that your site visitors will thank you in the longer term.

"Yours sincerely,

"James Sinnamon

"Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
candobetter.org/james"

I got no further reply.

On 12 May, I mentioned the issue in passing in the discussion "Murdoch: the current days of the Internet will soon be over":

"... why are so many truly independent websites - globalresearch.ca, www.culturechange.org - constantly crying out for money, whilst those ostensibly alternative independent websites, who accept corporate funding, have become obviously compromised (for example, by refusing to discuss the 9/11 controversy)?"

This drew a few interested responses, including from one who said he didn't realise that 9/11 was a taboo topic. A subsequent post I made was placed in the moderation queue, but did not appear, whilst my post following that one did appear. The #PostNotPublished" id="PostNotPublished">post which did not appear was:

"Well, I certainly hope the LP moderators will reconsider what I was told was their policy of imposing a blanket ban on discussion of the topic to which you referred. Not long ago I #comment-234274">put to John Quiggin that his disapproval of discussion of that topic on his website was misguided. Some discussion ensued. I would say that I won that relatively short argument, but even if I had not, his expressed fears that it would derail discussion were never realised.

"In fact, in my own experience, questioning the principle justification for the so-called 'war on terror', the removal of our rights to free speech, habeus corpus and other civil rights, previously taken for granted, does more than anything else to put such discussions back on the rails.

"If you still truly believe 'Al Qaeda' 'did it', then I urge you to spend ten minutes to view the first part of a two part YouTube broadcast, which I believe was made by US High School Physics teacher David Chandler. If you agree with me that his case is sound and solidly backed by the evidence, then perhaps you will want to then view the second part.

I don't think you will regret having spent your time doing so.

The following #comment-155280">post, which was published, but the content of which appears to have been ignored in regard to the previous post, was:

"I believed for many years that Lindy Chamberlain killed baby Azaria.

"I also believed for many years that what I considered to be ruthless dangerous Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan had largely got what they deserved after 2001. I now know better (even though I still have concerns about political Islam and high immigration) because I have taken the trouble to study the evidence.

"You should do the same

.

"It would greatly help if the LP moderators were to heed the words of JFK when he cited the views of Solon in support of the open, democratic and accountable society he was trying to bring about:

'… the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.'

… and accordingly approve this, as well as my previous post.

The responses, so far, from a few regular LP contributors, dispute the case of the 9/11 Truth movement, but at least they demonstrate that unlike the LP moderators, they are interested in discussing 9/11.

However, as one post has not been approved and the previous post from February was deleted, there is no guarantee that a fair and balanced discussion can proceed.

See also: #comment-238137">"The end of the Taliban?" of 29 May 09, a discussion on johnquiggin.com in which two of my posts were deleted and I was banned for 24 hours, "John Quiggin censors JFK's speeech against secret societies" of 31 May 09, a discussion forum on 911oz.com, #comment-14119">"Pakistani refugees" of 1 Jun 09, a very helpful article about the current conflict in Pakistan.

We invite you to a press conference for the release of a report on the harvesting of kangaroos. The report is being delivered to the European Union, the Russian Federation and China who are key exporters (or potential exporters) of kangaroo meat. The report exposes hygiene, welfare and sustainability issues arising from the kangaroo industry:

A Shot in the Dark: A Report on the Kangaroo Harvesting Industry

Mark Pearson - Animal Liberation NSW
Dror Ben-Ami - Kangaroo expert
Uncle Max - Aboriginal elder from Yuin Country

NSW Parliament House, Parkes Room, 10am
Once you have gone through security it is the first door on the right down the corridor.

Tide's out for marine developers

"Sales of marina berths are collapsing as fast as luxury boat builders"

In "Developers come clean as tide goes out at marinas", Australian Financial Review, 12 May 2009, page 3, Lisa Allen writes, "Recievers have been appointed to Riviera, Australia's largest luxury boat manufacturer." She writes that developers have "finally admitted" that consumer interest in buying marina berths will be dead for at least two years.

"Despite months of protest that marina berths were holding up (...) the market is crumbling and developers are dropping prices. A Queensland investment report claims that only two of the state's marinas out of 38 surveyed posted modest capital growth in the 12 months to February."

"No demonstrated need for more marina berths"

The article quotes Rory Mc Court of the Whitsunday-based community group Save Our Foreshore, which is one of many groups trying to stop marina developments all over Australia. McCourt describes several marina projects in North Queensland as in trouble, unable to find financiers.

"There is clearly no demonstrated need for more marina berths here even prior to this economic crash", McCourt said.

Just another excuse for mushrooming sub-urban developments

Generally these marina developments are part of a less obvious scheme to raise the price of land around the marinas, by selling off lots for housing near by, taking advantage of roads and ammenities paid for by councils, levied on local residents.

Australians will recognise this ubiquitous design in this marine development residence

Often they are aimed at international buyers and immigrants. Developers float the romantic idea of marinas, promoting them as clever investments and these are sold down the line as overpriced packages to naive small-time investors or their funds.

The main money to be made is by those who have acquired land near-by and have managed to persuade governments to subdivide that land for housing, almost never a democratic decision that the locals approve. The marinas impact on local beaches by affecting sand deposit patterns; they commercialise and degrade peaceful local beaches and towns bringing a host of rules and problems where none previously existed.

Cruise these links

Here are some links to problem marinas elsewhere in the world:

http://www.wildcoast.net/mznews/archives/000118.html
http://www.mickoconnell.com/tag/main-drainage-project/
http://sostcb.org/media.php
http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/media-centre/news-releases/berowra-waters-marina-development-does-not-serve-public-interest
http://bayjournal.com.au/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=981&Itemid=43
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20081204052

Mr IAN COHEN [5.13 p.m.]: Rally Australia is promoting a car rally to be held in northern New South Wales this September and every other year until 2017. The rally will run through the Tweed and Kyogle shires of northern New South Wales. This event is yet to have its development application approved by Tweed Shire Council and Kyogle Council. The councils are awaiting the environmental assessment. This does not seem to deter the organisers, who are promoting it regardless. Repco Rally Australia General Manager, Gary Upson, told the media that organisers were continuing with planning "on the assumption that approval would be given". Given the area through which the rally is planned to travel and the negative environmental impact it may have, I am surprised at his assumption. The confidence with which this rally is being promoted by its organisers as a done deal should ring alarm bells.

The General Manager of Tweed Shire Council, Mike Rayner, is a member of the board of Rally Australia, yet Tweed council does not seem to see this as a conflict of interest, even when the development application for the rally is still to be approved, despite ratepayers' disapproval. Mike Rayner's role with the Repco Rally appears to be a significant non-pecuniary interest and Tweed Shire Council's own code of conduct should preclude his involvement in the rally. Tweed Shire Council has only recently been through the Daly inquiry, resulting in the sacking of its councillors who were seen to be acting in the interests of property developers. In the wake of the Daly inquiry, the people of the Tweed shire are trying to rebuild confidence in their local council, and the role of Mike Rayner is seriously undermining this. In the interests of transparency and propriety, Mike Rayner should be asked to step down from his position on the rally board.

The proposed rally track route has been recognised as an official designated area under the National Landscapes Scheme and named Australia's Green Cauldron. It is an internationally renowned biodiversity hot spot­one of only three in Australia and one of 17 in the world. It is a totally inappropriate place for a high-speed car race. How could anyone believe it is a good idea to hold a car rally through heavily forested tracks and dirt roads, including a national park where horse riding is not even permitted? I am receiving a lot of information from local people about the rally going through the habitats of threatened or protected species. Some 100 vulnerable species of wildlife and 23 endangered species in the Tweed area will be placed at greater risk as a result of the rally, which would coincide with the breeding season of many species.

The level of disruption this event is likely to cause is not acceptable. Jack Bayliss Park on the foreshore at Marine Parade, Kingscliff, is due to be upgraded to become a service pit for the competing rally cars. Sections of the park will be fenced off and the grass removed to allow installation of a temporary gravel surface. This upgrade, due to cost approximately $265,000, is being funded by money provided by a Federal Government grant for community infrastructure. This is hardly a venture for the community, given the real infrastructure needs of regional New South Wales. What will happen to this park after the event? Will it be despoiled every two years for the rally?

We are not allowed to know how much money Events New South Wales is contributing to this event­it is held to be commercial in confidence­but the destruction of Jack Bayliss Park is being done using Federal funds. Rally Australia Pty Ltd is a public company with shareholders. Why does it require taxpayers' money to bolster its activities, especially when they involve despoiling the beautiful Far North Coast? If this event is going to make money for the area, as its organisers keep trumpeting, why does it need public funding? I doubt the claims by organisers that the rally will boost the local economy. Mark McGowan, the former Western Australia Minister for Tourism, withdrew Western Australia's support for the Repco rally. In Parliament he said: $6 million for one single event that returns $1.60 for every dollar invested by the State, when the average return is about $8 for every dollar invested by the State, is not a good return on investment.

When this man was interviewed on ABC television he clearly indicated that there were better ways to invest taxpayers' money. He felt that the returns were insufficient. At the time he also commented on the environmental degradation that such a rally would cause in Western Australia. In this case the environment is much more sensitive. The Green Cauldron, as this Government has called it, is a significant area. Environmentally, the rally will be a potential disaster. Another significant issue that arises with this event is copycat driving. There is a proven correlation between interest in motor racing and the risky driving behaviours of young male drivers. I would be interested to know how much the New South Wales Government's "Speeding. No one thinks big of you" campaign is costing. Surely it is counterproductive to have Events New South Wales funding an event that so glaringly contradicts the messages of the anti-speeding campaign.

A horde of cars careering through native habitats and quiet residential areas for the profit of Repco Rally is out of keeping with these times of austerity. New South Wales is making a mistake in supporting the Repco Rally. The people of the North Coast do not want it, and it should not go ahead. I am reminded that a terrible car accident involving young people occurred just around the corner from where I live at Broken Head, not that far from the proposed rally route. The roads in far northern New South Wales could perhaps cope with professional drivers participating in a rally but not with copycat driving by young people. Such an event would result in deaths on these roads. I ask the Government to reconsider any support for this event.

See also: No Rally group web site, Kyogle KRATER "No Rally, thank you!" group web site.

The Queensland Government's Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan, far from achieving its lofty claimed goals of "protect(ing) and enhanc(ing) the quality of life", landscape values, biodiversity and natural assets of the region, will, instead, turn even much of that region into an economically depressed, crowded and ecologically unsustainable slum for no better purpose than to keep profits flowing into the pockets of developers who largely bankroll the ruling Queensland Labor Party.

An earlier unfinished draft of submission was mistakenly published on 17 Mar 09.

Dr. Jane N. O'Sullivan
Chelmer Qld

Draft SEQ Regional Plan Submission
Department of Infrastructure and Planning
Reply Paid 15009
City East Qld 4002

General comments

The current draft SEQ Regional Plan 2009-2031 (the Plan) is a travesty against the people of South East Queensland. It should be withdrawn, and a new process undertaken which addresses its shortcomings.

• It does not achieve its own stated goals. It does not "protect and enhance the quality of life", landscape values, biodiversity and natural assets of the region, but accelerates the development processes which have demonstrably undermined them to date. It fails to acknowledge fundamental conflicts between stated goals (such as biodiversity preservation and population growth) nor does it provide any process or guidelines for resolving such conflicts.
• It fails to achieve key elements of a regional plan, required under the Integrated Planning Act S.2.5A.11, to identify key regional environmental, economic and cultural resources to be preserved, maintained or developed, and define how that is to be achieved.
• It conflicts with the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. The goal, core objectives and guiding principles of this strategy should be integral to the Plan. Instead, its regulatory provisions directly undermine existing controls that defend these principles.
• It ignores the findings of the State of the Region Report for SEQ (2008), which showed biodiversity loss and climate change impacts as grave problems in the region. It makes only token attempts to reduce the intensity of pressures known to be exacerbating these vulnerabilities, while significantly increasing their scale. The outcome will certainly be increased biodiversity loss, greater greenhouse gas emissions and greater vulnerability to climate change impacts.
• It pre-empts the findings of a number of studies and policies currently underway, thus failing to integrate their conclusions, and limiting capacity to incorporate changes that may be recommended by these processes. These include SEQ Natural Resource Management, Water Strategy, Rural Futures Strategy, Biodiversity Value Assessments, Climate Change Response, Peak Oil Response, and the SEQ Infrastructure Plan and Programs.
• It undermines a core component of quality of life, namely the self-determination of communities through open and equitable democratic processes.
  • The Plan limits and overrides capacity of local councils to control development.
  • It compromises the Desired Environmental Outcomes of local government planning schemes.
  • It increases discretionary power of the Minister for Planning to gazette areas for any level of development without opportunity for community consultation or appeal.
  • It increases the scope of landholder rights of use without referral or environmental impact assessment, on land outside the urban footprint.
  • Importantly, it fails to provide complete and balanced data on both the resource base and the impacts of the proposed development, to enable informed public response.

All these travesties are done in the name of one single goal, that of incorporating an additional 1.6 Million people into SE Queensland.

If that growth were inevitable, the best that could be said of the Plan is that it is an attempt at damage mitigation, dressed up (deceitfully) as progress.

However, neither the inevitability nor the costs and benefits of this population growth have been explored.

In the first instance, it is important to acknowledge the extent to which the Plan itself acts to attract more population. Land releases, removal of regulatory barriers, and the commitment of State Government to fund the infrastructure requirements of new residents (through the Metropolitan Development Program), all fuel the rate of growth. It is argued that these things are needed to improve housing affordability, but in fact they do the opposite by fueling property speculation. [DRO 8, Policy 8.4.1: the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy is misguided and entrenches outdated patterns of urban sprawl and socioeconomic stratification.]

Secondly, it must be noted that there are no new sources of funding identified in the Plan. The ideals of good urban planning and infrastructure espoused in the Plan are not new, but to date funding has not been adequate to achieve these goals. There is no basis to expect that an increased rate of demand growth will make the provision of good services any easier than it has been in the past.

Part B: regional vision and strategic directions

"The regional vision for SEQ is a future that is sustainable, affordable, prosperous, liveable and resilient to climate change."

If the Plan, as currently drafted, were to take effect, NOT ONE of those criteria would be greater in 2031 than today.

It is noted that no comparative adjectives are used in the vision statement. Communities may indeed be described as safe, healthy, accessible and inclusive, depending on what you are comparing them with. The document avoids saying SEQ will be safer, healthier, more accessible, more inclusive, more affordable, more livable or more resilient to climate change. The authors know that these objectives cannot be delivered. This entire section is an exercise in weasel words.

The strategic directions do claim that the plan intends to create a more sustainable future. However, there is no doubt that the 2031 SEQ envisaged will consume more energy and water than the current SEQ. Only aspirational reference is made of improved building standards to reduce energy requirements and withstand extreme weather events [DRO 1: Policy 1.3.5 and Program 1.4.5], but no evidence is given that these gains will off-set the increase in dwelling number. Little attempt is made to restrict development on low-lying coastal plains or forest fringe areas at increasing risk of bushfire, indeed several such areas are inappropriately included in the urban footprint.

Perverted Economic Priorities

Anna Bligh has said that population growth is needed to maintain jobs in the building sector_#main-fn1">1. This irrational statement is on a par with Maurice Iemma's claim (in relation to climate change response) that there is no point saving the environment if doing it harms the economy. Both show an alarming lack of understanding of the extent to which our quality of life depends on our natural resource base.

If the Premier wants to preserve these jobs, we could employ people to dig holes and fill them in again. This would have equal benefit to existing Queenslanders (none but the salaries involved), and far less adverse impact. It would be cheaper than the publicly funded infrastructure needed to service the extra dwellings. But if completely futile activity is an improvement on current proposals, it's easy to see that we could achieve a far better outcome employing the same people to implement the changes we need to transform into a low-carbon economy. We need green jobs, replacing unsustainable activities, not brown jobs adding to them.

In other words, the proposed population trajectory is part of a model of economic development for the region, which is inherently unsustainable. It places construction as a priority focus, to the detriment of tourism (through crowding and degradation of our natural attractions), manufacturing (through uneconomic land values and increased costs of services), and the cost of living and quality of life (reversing the stated intention of economic growth). I do not need to justify the statement that population growth is unsustainable. All sensible people agree that there must be a limit to the number of people we can accommodate in the region, and that quality of life will erode as we approach that limit. That the limit is near if not surpassed, and that quality of life is already eroding through overdevelopment, is apparent to all. There can be no doubt that climate change will further reduce the region's carrying capacity. Therefore, to increase our economic dependence on the growth process, knowing that it must soon end, is foolhardy. It is the antithesis of "sustainable economic development".

What is it that the planners are aiming to create? What is the vision for SEQ's future? The only constant offered seems to be the rate of change. The Plan gives an idea of what the region might look like with 4 million people, but what about 6 million? Or 10 million? Such numbers are only a few decades away at current growth rates. What will be our legacy in 200 years? [DRO 1 and DRO 2 are oxymoronic and incompatible with the scale and style of growth proposed. These objectives can only be conceived with a steady-state future in mind, but the Plan offers no route towards population stability.]

However, limits to growth seem to be far from the minds of both politicians and media. We are frequently invited to celebrate that Queensland's growth has surpassed Victoria's, or that we will soon be Australia's second biggest State. I cannot help being reminded of Yertle the Turtle.

It is not difficult to see how the Premier has come to this perspective. The property industry has the ear of government, because they fund both main political parties. It is up to informed citizens to protest at this corruption of public interest in the name of short-sighted private interests. I make this submission in the spirit of such protest, but also to propose that there are achievable alternatives, both in process and outcome.

The Costs of Growth

Both State and Federal Governments champion the importance of population growth for our economic progress. However, they fail to relate the resulting growth in GDP to per capita wealth.

The Productivity Commission's 2006 research report, Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth_#main-fn2">2 modeled a 50% increase in skilled immigration, and found that, while GDP increased 4.6% over 21 years (a small proportion of the expected GDP growth), per capita income increased only 0.71% (about 0.03% per annum). Most of the gain accrued to the skilled migrants themselves and to capital owners, and the effect on incomes of existing residents was negative. The report further commented that a range of impacts on living standards and environment are also likely, but these were not economically quantifiable. It left open to the reader to interpret whether the net effect on wealth and wellbeing was positive or negative.

A further omission from this GDP-based analysis is the fact that a considerable proportion of the economic activity in a growing population does not enrich the current population, but is undertaken on behalf of future population at a cost to the current population. For a stable population, the same quality of life could be delivered for a lower per capita GDP.

Increased costs are most easily quantified in the areas of skills and infrastructure.

Skills shortages have been used as a primary argument for the need for high immigration levels. However, immigration is more likely to have exacerbated than relieved skills shortages. Consider that in a stable population, post-secondary training in trades and professions is needed to replace retiring skilled workers. Assuming an average working life in the order of 33 years for each skilled worker, the annual graduation needs to be around 3% of the total workforce in each skill area. In a growing population, graduations also have to grow the total workforce (not the population of graduates) proportionally. For Australia's current growth rate of 1.8% per annum, graduate requirements increase from 3% to 4.8% of the workforce: a 60% higher training burden than in a stable population. Over the past decade, as Australian population growth has increased, spending on higher education has not increased to accommodate this extra burden. It is little wonder that skills shortages have intensified. Immigration may have alleviated shortages in selected areas, but has increased them across the board. Stabilizing population would make a far more cost-effective contribution to aligning training capacity with training needs.

The working life of individual items of infrastructure may vary over a wider range than that of people, but a similar average of about 33 years is plausible, if conservative. The longer the actual lifespan, the greater the extra burden from growth. Therefore, a similar or greater increase in the total infrastructure burden exists, as a result of our rate of population growth. Given that growth requires us to replace still-functional infrastructure with higher capacity versions, the cost may be even higher.

In Queensland, the growth rate is much higher than the national average. At 2.5% annual growth, the increase in infrastructure and training burden is likely to be in the order of 85% higher than a stable population.

If public expenditure does not increase to cover the burden of our increased growth rate, then the capacity of public facilities and services cannot keep pace with the increased demands on them. We do not stand still -- we rapidly go backwards, eroding quality of life particularly for the most vulnerable, who rely most on public services. This is exactly what we have witnessed in Queensland, in health, education, transport, water, and other services. It is a direct consequence of our growth. Yet growth is pursued as the solution.

It is very difficult to estimate the exact cost of infrastructure for each additional person. Government does not collate and publish appropriate data. A colleague of mine attempted to make such an estimate, and arrived at a figure in the order of $200,000. This is not implausible: a cost of $2 Billion to provide all the facilities for 10,000 people, including schools and universities, hospitals and health clinics, roads, sewage, water supply, electricity generation, storm water management, recreational facilities, offices and equipment for public servants and publicly funded NGOs, port and rail infrastructure, waste transfer stations, public transport rolling stock etc. If the Government wants to dispute this figure, I welcome it to do the accounting and publish the actual cost.

Imagine if the State were to levy each additional dwelling with a fee of $427,000, to cover the increased infrastructure for 2.14 people (the average household size anticipated in the Plan). Would people still be flocking to our region?

However, by not doing this, the Government is levying each of its existing tax payers to subsidize the newcomers. That this levy is unaffordable is demonstrated by the crises in our hospitals, schools, water and transport systems. Our tax base is overstretched. But the Government contrives to hide this cost from us all.

The Plan has acknowledged the particular challenge of broadhectare infrastructure provision [DRO 10], and states that "contributions may be achieved through other mechanisms such as third party financing". This is extremely worrying. Privatization of public infrastructure, especially when this provides a monopoly, has failed to deliver public benefit wherever it has been used. It should be explicitly ruled out as part of the Plan. Instead, the affordability of infrastructure should feed back to regulate the rate of growth we can afford.

It may be argued that the State Government does not control our national immigration policy, and the consequent inflow of people to SEQ. Yet no attempt has been made by the State to challenge it. Instead, the Queensland Government has acted to suppress the choice of local councils to cap their populations. If the State Government were to point out to the Federal Government that each additional Queenslander costs it $200,000, and suggest that extra tax revenue is essential to cover this, it is unlikely that the current immigration policy would be sustained.

Part D8: smart growth

Urban Footprint and Urban Infill

The Plan purports to "manage" growth, through defined additions to the urban footprint, and a focus on "smart" infill development to achieve compact urban development, in theory reducing car dependence by concentrating growth close to public transport nodes and employment opportunities.

In practice, these claims fall short of the spin.

The attraction of broadhectare development over infill is that it is cheaper for developers. However, this is because the State (i.e. the existing tax payers) subsidizes the development with the provision of public infrastructure and services. For the State, infill development is cheaper up to a point, as it is cheaper to increase the capacity of existing services than to duplicate them in new locations. This cost of broadhectare development is acknowledged in the Plan, and mechanisms for planning the infrastructure are discussed. However, it is not apparent how better planning will actually deliver better infrastructure, when we are unable to fund our current infrastructure needs.

The main area for broadhectare development, the western corridor, has little to recommend it for either residence or business. If it was a desirable location, it would have developed already. It is chosen only as the area least likely to arouse significant protest. Its existing residents enjoy spacious semirural settings, to off-set their not-yet-too-onerous commuting costs. These values will be lost by the proposed density of development. Forcing new growth into this area will create a new slum. Mostly, those with the least options will choose to live there. Goodness knows what level of public funding will be needed to build desirable public facilities and subsidize the establishment of local businesses, in a probably futile attempt to prevent the area turning into a low-socioeconomic enclave. This has not been costed as part of the Plan. [DRO 8: Policy 8.4.1: note that the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy specifically directs low-cost housing to new broadhectare developments where they have least access to services.]

Would Sydney, with the benefit of hindsight, choose to add a Western Sydney, with all its socioeconomic problems, if it could possibly be avoided? Brisbane is now at that point in history, about to launch into a massive project to create our own Western socioeconomic millstone.

The claim that the new areas will "accommodate appropriate employment capacities" ignores the drivers of population growth into the region [Policy 8.2.4]. People come for employment opportunities in existing areas. They look for housing in outer suburbs because of its affordability, availability or utility compared with housing closer to their employment. The jobs that are likely to be created in the neighbourhood are only a fraction of the suburb's economy: the people needed to service the new population. They illustrate the multiplier effect of population growth, and this effect is greater in more disbursed outer suburbs than in higher density areas, as the latter have greater economies of scale for service provision.

It is unclear how the Plan proposes to influence the proportion of infill to broadhectare. One must assume that the projection of 44% infill is only an extrapolation of current rates of subdivision. It is implied that this is an optimal rate, to achieve "smart development". However, if infill is acknowledged to provide lower environmental impacts, the best way to encourage it is to limit the release of broadhectare land. This is not proposed. On the contrary, the rate of land release is to be accelerated.

As for urban infill, the impression is given that most development will be high-density housing around transport and employment nodes [Policy 8.1.1]. But the Plan contains no effective measures to ensure this happens. It may only serve to encourage local councils to lift density limits around those nodes. A recently published study from Monash University_#main-fn3">3 demonstrated that similar intentions in the Melbourne 2030 plan have not been realized in the City of Monash. Instead they observed that "redevelopment proposals are more opportunistic than systemic" and "activity centres are not the magnet for high density development as originally envisaged by the Melbourne 2030 policy". They conclude:

"The City of Monash infill pattern resulting is one mapped as a dispersed pattern of dual occupancy and unit development. The resulting redevelopment is thus unlikely to deliver many benefits of the type most sought under the Melbourne 2030 planning scheme. Rather, the existing pattern of transport within established suburbia, which involves a heavy reliance on the private car, will be adopted by those living in the new infill developments."

The only way the Government could implement the sort of "smart development" outlined in the Plan, would be by compulsorily acquiring extensive areas of land at the transport nodes, and commissioning their redevelopment. Not such an unattractive proposition, when compared with the cost of servicing new broadhectare developments. Perhaps politicians fear local protest -- from voters less expendable than those in the Mary Valley. Yet, if done well, the outcome is likely to be far better than the continuation of pragmatic infill, with its accompanying loss of green space, increased local traffic and heat island effect. It may be an effective way to achieve affordable housing with adequate mobility for the elderly to sustain independent living. Public transport proximity commands a premium in the real estate market, so if development at the nodes is left to developers, it will target the high end of the market, in direct competition with detached housing, rather than providing small units at affordable prices.

Of course, it would be immensely unpopular with developers and land speculators, who receive an enormous windfall benefit when height or density restrictions are lifted. If high density development could only be built on State-acquired land, it would take a lot of heat out of the property market, and improve housing affordability far more than the release of broadhectare land.

There has been some recent media debate, particularly in Melbourne, about proposals to build "up instead of out"._#main-fn4">4 Note that this is not what I am suggesting, although there are elements in common. The aim of redeveloped precincts would be to limit the impact of urban infill on the surrounding leafy suburban streets by providing for unavoidable growth in an orderly way, as well as providing less car-dependent housing options and ensuring affordable housing is near transport and services. This strategy will only provide a sustainable solution in the context of transitioning to a stable population. It is not intended as the first stage of a cancerous growth that would spread across the urban landscape, but a way of giving a viable focal point to neighbourhoods and achieving a housing mix better suited to our future demographic profile. Building height should be limited to a walkable 5 levels, and open spaces should be traffic free. The style would be more like old European town centres, rather than the towering and alienating unit developments hemmed in by busy roads, that are beginning to surround Brisbane city [see photographs on p 5 and 13 of Part E].

Policies 8.7.1 and 8.7.3 favour street-frontage retail development rather than enclosed malls. This is regressive and results in traffic-dominated public spaces. Internationally, the most successful centres combine open malls (traffic-free streets) with enclosed malls containing or adjoining rail stations.

[DRO 12] There also needs to be a far greater integration of programs. If car dependence is to be reduced, new high density housing units should be encouraged not to accommodate cars. A limited number of car park spaces might be available for hire . However, for people to choose not only to commute without a car, but to not own a car, is a difficult choice in our current system. Numerous international examples offer alternatives to remedy this difficulty. In Switzerland, the railways run a car pool system, where subscribers can pick up a car at most railway stations, and use it for a nominated time. The fee is modest, and compares favorably with owning a car for infrequent use. Clients can secure their booking by mobile phone, and this locks the car to any but their personal access card. I have recently learned that such car pool systems have been established in Sydney and Melbourne, but have been impeded in Brisbane due to refusal of the Council to provide dedicated parking space for the pool cars. Bus routes need to offer far more local neighbourhood access, and routes between the main radial corridors rather than forcing clients to go via the city. Also in Switzerland, in neighbourhoods where it is not economic to run frequent regular bus routes, buses can be booked with 20 minutes notice, to take clients door-to-door, via other pick-ups as needed. The fee is a standard bus fee, much more attractive than a taxi but still cheaper for the municipality than running low-occupancy routes. Thus bus drivers and their clients are free to negotiate their own schedule and routes.

The Queensland petrol rebate constitutes a perverse incentive, acting against emissions reductions. In place of the rebate, the State should provide a no-fault road trauma compensation scheme and end compulsory third-party insurance by indemnifying licensed drivers from third-party claims. The current scheme, in which every vehicle owner is required to have a separate insurance policy individually negotiated with an insurer but providing identical cover, is entirely unnecessary, a honey-pot for insurance providers, and a significant further stress for road trauma victims facing the complications and expense of making claims. Insurance is a means of risk-spreading, but the aggregate risk to the State is relatively predictable and does not need spreading. Importantly, the State would receive the benefit of increasing road safety and reducing road use. The value to the average driver, and the cost to the State, would be similar to the petrol rebate, but those who drive less would be rewarded. [This would be a State-wide initiative, but is relevant to the demand-management goals of the Regional Plan -- D10.3]

Bicycles have even lower environmental impact than public transport, and have added advantages of freedom from routes and schedules, and promoting healthy exercise. However, personal safety of cyclists on our congested roads forms a major deterrent for many people from taking up cycling. If this is to be remedied, much more serious efforts need to be made to balance cycle and car priorities on our roads. The on-road cycle lanes currently used do not provide sufficient connectivity for commuter routes, and do not significantly improve safety for cyclists. They tend to encourage cyclists to ride too close to parked cars, putting them at greater risk of car door incidents. All parking should be removed from on-road cycle lanes. Off-road bikeways need to be designed for commuters, who wish to travel at efficient speeds, rather than the winding and out-of-the-way recreational routes that currently dominate Brisbane's off-road cycle paths. Queensland driving licence tests should incorporate questions relating to cyclists' rights to share roads, and expected etiquette and safety measures for cars to respond to cyclists. [Currently the Plan has no substantive policies to support bicycle use. Policy 12.2.2 does not address the existing barriers to cycling as a means of transport.]

Despite the Plan's intention to promote sustainable travel options [Policy 12.2.2 and 12.2.3], it is difficult to see how these options can flourish in a landscape increasingly congested with cars. Increasing population density through either pragmatic infill or broadhectare sprawl will increase traffic volumes, with a positive feedback effect that roads become less friendly to active transport, and people choose cars instead. A partial solution is to restrict car access to activity centres, offering park-and-ride options instead. But without limiting population growth, reclaiming the streets from the car will be an uphill battle.

There are many fine sentiments expressed in the Plan, but they lack a realistic means of achievement, and avoid quantitative goals or benchmarks. Clearly the Plan is not written with the intention of achieving best outcomes for SE Queensland's people. It is a plan written to deliver maximum benefit to developers.

Recommendations

I have no illusions that the following suggestions will be embraced by State Government. However, I wish to make the point that there are realistic, affordable alternatives to the pragmatic, developer-driven growth rush that we currently endure.

1. [Part B] Acknowledge openly that additional population threatens the biodiversity and quality of life in South East Queensland. Emphasize that the plan's aim is to minimize the negative impacts of growth, and to ensure that the process of accommodating growth does not attract growth. Outline the steps the State Government intends to take to reduce immigration to the region, and explain the benefit that such reduction will yield by freeing up revenue to enhance quality of existing services and facilities.
2. [Part C] Provide an accurate inventory of natural resources, including natural vegetation on both public and private land, and truthful incidence mapping of endangered species (unlike the convenient omissions of known koala habitat from the koala distribution in the current Plan). Map areas of impact from various possible (explicitly and quantitatively defined) scenarios of sea level rise, increased coastal storm intensity and increased bushfire risk, and define and justify the boundary of acceptable development to limit future climate change vulnerability. Remove areas of climate change vulnerability and remaining natural vegetation from the urban footprint, removing any current development entitlement on them. Recognize the exceptional ecological and productive value of the red soils of Redlands and the Sunshine Coast Hinterland, and prevent further urban development on them.
3. [Part D8] Prohibit further subdivision of private land. Redevelopment of double-title blocks, and intensification on blocks within designated zones, would continue.
4. [Part D8] Increase the mandatory environmental standards for new buildings to at least a 5 star rating, mandate minimum proportions of roof to be oriented for solar and water collection (I suggest at least 50% of roof area for solar, more for water), and limit new high-density development to a walkable 5 levels to remove residential dependence on lifts and to ensure open spaces between buildings enjoy sunshine and vegetation.
5. [Part F] Reinforce local council powers to prohibit development on land of environmental significance, and to dictate the standard of impact assessment required on development applications. Do not allow developers to bypass council requirements by claiming they are stalling tactics.
6. [Part D12] Do not support further road capacity expansion projects. Road development should focus on improving safety and efficiency, and better accommodating buses and small, low speed vehicles (including bicycles, but possibly accommodating next-generation light electric vehicles). Congestion should be allowed to motivate people to opt out of private car use. Rather than increasing capacity, it could be controlled via a congestion tax which increases this motivation (if carefully designed to avoid inequitable impacts, and only after provision of realistic public transport alternatives).
7. [Part D12] Extend the metropolitan rail network to Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast activity centres. Extend the Ferny Grove_#main-fn5">5 and Cleveland lines to Samford and Redlands respectively, and create a spur from Oxley to the south-west suburbs. Provide regular passenger services Open the Exhibition line for regular use, with a station providing access to the Royal Brisbane Hospital precinct (in terms of car-kilometers saved per dollar spent, this would rate very highly).
8. [Part D12] Provide for innovative transport options such as car pooling, on-call buses, and school buses that provide a realistic option for parents by accepting responsible custody of children and designing routes annually based on addresses of enrolled children, to pick up children within a block from their home.
9. [Part D8] Acquire substantial areas of land precincts around selected suburban public transport nodes, for the purpose of redeveloping activity centres and meeting housing demand in an orderly way that avoids property speculation and population pull-factors. Apart from limited intensification on existing titles, aim for all new housing to be in walking distance of an activity centre and transport node. Precincts could be up to 400m radius, but could be staged to transition existing services and businesses to new accommodation, and may incorporate heritage features to be preserved. Tender for precinct redevelopment under best-practice standards of environmental impact, energy efficiency and social equity. Developments should combine residential, commercial and recreational functions, with traffic-free open spaces. They should not aim to provide expansive prestige accommodation, in competition with detached housing, but cater specifically for singles and couples, leaving surrounding detached housing for the larger households it serves best. Housing for people with restricted mobility should be prioritized. The sale price of units need not pay for the entire development, as it would include components that would have otherwise been publicly funded in the form of infrastructure to broadhectare subdivisions and suburban centre renewal projects. So it should be possible to provide relatively affordable housing and viable commercial rents. Such projects would attract prestigious international design bids, and would put Brisbane on the map in terms of sustainable urban design.

My proposal may be seen as authoritarian, even socialist, among free-market thinkers. I do not mean to argue against the role of private capital in a stable, well-balanced society, in which the sum of private interests approximates to public interest. However, when faced with the need for a substantial transition, requiring remodeling of many of our societal systems to accommodate peak oil and climate change, severe conflicts arise between vested private interests and long-term public interest. In such a situation, government needs to take a greater role, in controlling resources and shaping development in the public interest. This is a strategy for transition, not a socialist manifesto.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan. I sincerely hope that its next iteration is substantially improved, as a result of this consultation process.

Jane O'Sullivan

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Qld-govt-rejects-population-cap/2007/04/22/1177180460654.html.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ Productivity Commission 2006. Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ Phan T, Peterson J and Chandra S, 2008. Urban Infill: extent and implications in the City of Monash. People and Place 16(4), 23-31.

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ The proposal from Jason Black, president of the Planning Institute of Australia's Victorian division, has probably been sensationalized in its media coverage, such as Peter Familari's article "Planning expert says Melbourne must destroy leafy eastern suburbs" in the Herald Sun, 29 April 2009.

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ This is a good suggestion, but for this to happen, built-up residential blocks that occupy land immediately adjacent to Ferney Grove Station over which the extension railway line would have to be built would have to be bought and the houses demolished. How such an astonishingly irresponsible decision as to allow such land to be built upon was arrived at would be very interesting to learn.

In August 2008 the Tweed Shire administrators, as one of their last decisions while running the Council, decided to provide financial and other support to Repco Rally Australia (RRA) for their proposed car rally in the Tweed Valley. Recently, the details of that decision are being rewritten by newly elected councillors and the General Manager.

The Administrators decided to provide support as follows:

• $120,000 per event (every second year);
• office accommodation for 4 people for 18 months (RRA to be responsible for operating costs); and
• free use of council workshops to conduct pre-race and post-race scrutineering of rally cars.

They also authorised the General Manager (who later joined the board of directors of RRA) to negotiate additional "in-kind" support.

How can the CEO of the Council also sit on the board of a private company seeking to lodge a development application?

This decision, and his taking up the position, raises (in the minds of many reasonable local residents) a conflict of interest. How can the CEO of the Council also sit on the board of a private company seeking to lodge a development application?

Anyway, back to the main point of this message.

Up till 2008, a classic car race event called Speed on Tweed was run in the centre of Murwillumbah each September. Due to loss of sponsorship, 2008 was the last running of this event.

Some in the Council are now claiming that the $120,000 given to RRA (with no stated accountability or reporting requirements) was actually given to them for Speed on Tweed. This version might (only might mind you) be more believable had the local daily newspaper not run a denial from RRA (Tweed Daily News 17/4/09) that there was any agreement that they would sponsor Speed on Tweed.

The only publicly available information about the contributions by Council towards RRA is the resolution of the August 2008 Council meeting. The minutes of that discussion have not been publicly released. These discussions should have been made publicly available from the start rather than being buried in a shroud of secrecy.

Anyway, the deal to sponsor Speed on Tweed is now signed and sealed. And I believe it will be used to pressure that Council to approve the DA for the rally.

This whole sorry saga raises several questions of ethics and due process.

1. If, and it is a very big if, the money was given to RRA to support Speed on Tweed - BUT that fact was not made public then the Council has "played favourites". Its decision (and the hiding of it) gave a negotiating advantage to RRA in its discussions with the organisers of Speed on Tweed.
2. If the money was really for Speed on Tweed, why did the Council not announce that fact when they decided to give the money (with NO CONDITIONS) to RRA?

Maybe it's time the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) or the Ombudsman was involved?

What you can do:

1. Contact Tweed Shire Council and insist that:
   • the General Manager, Mike Rayner, be required to resign his position as a director of Repco Rally Australia because of the conflict of interest it creates;
   • Repco Rally Australia be required to account for the spending of the $120,000 given to it by Council;
2. Come to No Rally Group meetings. For more information contact no.rally[AT]yahoo.com;
3. Attend protest at 2pm, 28 May at Knox Park, Murwillumbah.

Out of six councillors, only two voted against the DA in spite of massive opposition from local residents who had a long list of complaints. They were Councillor Katie Milne and Barry Longland. Over 500 submissions were received by council. In the Land and Environment Court hearing, 100 people spoke against it and only 1 for it. In spite of this the Commissioner approved it.

Although an Environmental Impact Statement was done some time ago, it was shelved. The advice given in the EIS was not acted upon by the developer, and instead a forest of rare and endangered species of trees (including teak and red cedar) where koalas once lived was clearcut. This clearcutting was done before the DA was approved. I wonder what the Ombudsman would say about all this?

Ironically, the four councillors who voted in favour of the DA all stood on a green platform at the last elections.

Local residents spoke eloquently and with great passion enumerating the many reasons why they opposed it. The main argument was the size of the village for the location. How ludicrous to have 130 three storey units, 250 houses, a 100-bed backpacker and 100-bed motel and 50 assorted shops in a remote area with a pub.

By far the most important concern was the very real possibility of effluent going into the Tweed River which is the town's drinking water, in the event of heavy rainfall and a failed filtration system. This would be a key issue not only for humans but for endangered species such as the Giant Barred frog who live in the vicinity.

How unrealistic to restrict future Nightcap residents to only half the amount of water that people in the town of Murwillumbah use. This will force the council to truck water in to parched residents at Nightcap village and who will pay for this? Ratepayers, people who are already unhappy with recent rate increases.

A predicted 4,500 extra car movements per day on narrow, winding, country roads will slow down locals’ day, make it even more dangerous for them to enter Kyogle Road from rural properties whose entry may not be obvious, increase road kill, road accidents, vehicle pollution and in general detract from the village atmosphere Uki and local residents so enjoy. Locals can kiss goodbye their magnificent view of the stars illuminating a pitch-black night sky.

Not only was no EIS study presented, but also no aboriginal heritage study. According to a local water diviner, Peter Symmons, there is an aboriginal curse on the land due to a massacre that occurred some centuries ago that whoever lives on the land will receive the curse.

The four councillors who voted in favour of the DA - Dot Holdom, Kevin Skinner, Warren Polglaze and Phil Youngblutt - with at times bored looks on their faces, not even paying attention to speakers, were chided by one speaker for their rudeness. Several speakers complained that they had better things to do with their time than address council, who is appears to be serving the needs of developers ahead of the people who elected them.

Courageous green councillor Katie Milne, made a motion to reject the DA, reminding the other councillors how they stood on a green voting platform and their need to listen to the wishes of the people along with all the very valid complaints presented. Her motion was seconded by Cr Barry Longland. However they were outnumbered by the other four pro-development councillors.

On announcement of the vote in favour of the DA, the gallery broke into a near brawl, as residents yelled at the top of their voices their extreme anger and disappointment.

A number of amendments were made among which was a clause to require of the developer a $200,000 bank guarantee until 100 premises have been connected to the sewage treatment system to ensure the system is maintained. But then what happens after the 100th premise is sold and the rains begin in earnest to flood the area, as it is well known to do. Why doesn't the guarantee stay in place? Not that money will solve the problem of flooded sewage overflowing into the Tweed!

Strangely enough, according to a reliable source, the developer's original vision was to have composting toilets and a maximum of 450 people but both were rejected by council who forced him to have the current unsatisfactory sewage system and 1,000 residents, both requirements of which have raised the most objections by the community.

Tonight’s decision clearly shows us in the Tweed Shire there is no democracy – most of the councillors do not appear to care what people want. Logical deduction suggests that their actions must be motivated by concerns other than democratic representation. Residents also have grave concerns about the role played in advising and decision-making by General Manager Mike Rayner based on his appointment as Director on the board of Repco Rally Australia.

The role of Council General Manager, Mike Rayner, seems obscure to the residents. He has authority and influence over councillors and staff by virtue of his position as manager, yet he has no personal duty to represent the electorate, albeit, as a public servant. Residents feel he should be demonstrably above all vested interest, both political and pecuniary, as clearly stated in the Council Code of Conduct. The residents are concerned that they have little information about how Rayner affects decisions or where he stands on them, particularly since his primary duty is to his employers rather than to the political concerns of local residents.

After the extraordinary meeting deciding the DA on Nightcap Village, people in the community feel it's time to sack this council including Mike Rayner, and keep only the two councillors serving the people – Crs Katie Milne and Barry Longland. And this time, change the laws so that previously sacked councillors and general manager will be ineligible to run for office.

See also: "Raceway through the Rainforest. Paradise lost!" of 19 Apr 09, "Kyogle residents fight World Rally motor race" of 7 Mar 09 and other articles about fight by Tweed and Kyogle residents against World Car Rally.

Article written by Catherine Manning

I am not a prude, but my children have a right to childhood

I am not a prude. (I know, it's a shame that women have to clarify that point before commenting on pornography, but just before you grab your keyboard to type a response, I am not opposed to adults accessing legal pornography.) What I am opposed to, is children being exposed to pornographic images in milk bars, service stations and newsagents.

We have a great local store. The vendor takes the time to serve the children of our community one by one as they choose their lollies the 'old fashioned way', and as if they're making the biggest decision they'll ever make in their lives. My kids look forward to their once a week treat, and I enjoy helping to foster what I think will one day be a positive childhood memory.
However, last week as I stood waiting for an order with my four year old son, I noticed at children's eye level two magazines with almost naked, unnaturally busty, spread legged, pubeless 'women', faces with parted glossy lips wantonly staring out as they pull down their knickers, just beside the icecream freezer right in front of us. With headlines such as 'Fit to F*#K', World's Oldest Porn Star', 'Keep on F*#king','Porn star goes down on chopper pilot's chopper', etc., there wasn't much left to the imagination. (hey, if you're freaking out reading this, imagine how I felt with my child in tow.)

Does the right to make money cancel out my children's rights?

I spoke with the storekeeper about this, and although he understood my concerns, his job was to make money. In fact, he informed me that many of his clients, the truckies passing through who park out the front of our primary school, actually think he should stock more of the 'hardcore stuff'. (gee, that's comforting I say as I push my stomach back down from the back of my throat....). Apparently, according to the storekeeper, less offensive magazines such as Ralph and FMH do come covered, but these two, which have progressively become more explicit, have escaped the same censorship. Therefore, the storekeeper (and anyone else) can have these magazines sitting anywhere in their shop and as in our case, right between the lollies and icecreams about half a metre from the floor. (Have an icecream kids, and would you like porn with that?)

Our children are victims of pornography

Our children are victims of pornography. They are being exposed to images of a sexual nature long before they can comprehend their meaning, but these images make an impression. It tells boys what to expect of girls and tells girls how they should act. We have a society full of girls and young women with eating disorders and serious body image problems, and a fast growing cosmetic surgery industry (which cashes in unashamedly on those with body image issues). We have what seems like an 'epidemic' of paedophilia, with more and more men accessing sexual images of children. The news is full of stories about footballers physically and sexually assaulting women, yet society still allows our kids to be brainwashed with pornographic images at an early age.

I'd like to know that when my kids go in to the local store for a bag of lollies or some milk, that they are safe and not exposed to things they shouldn't and wouldn't see at home. Sadly, I've come to learn it's something I shouldn't 'expect', but surely it's not too much to ask.

About the author:

This article is by Catherine Manning, President of the Southern Victorian Community Action Group Inc, and the newly formed Cardinia Township Association, and an ordinary parent/citizen concerned about the future for our children, in this case, the impacts of inappropriate exposure to pornography.

Brigitte Bardot at the beginning of her long campaign. Source:http://www.gala.fr

Europe bans seal-hunt products

The European Parliament adopted today a compromise proposed by the European Commission and Council, banning the "products derived from seals from the market."

All the same, products arising from 'traditional hunting by Inuits and other indigenous communities and which contribute to their subsistence' escape this ban. Another exception is selling, on a non-commercial basis, 'sub products of hunting which have been conducted with the sole objective of sustainable management of marine resources' - « sous-produits de la chasse conduite dans le seul objectif d’une gestion durable des ressources marines ». [Ed and translator: I have no idea what these sub products might refer to.]

Close to victory on behalf of seals. Source: Brigitte Bardot Foundation site

For Christophe Marie, Director of the Brigitte Bardot Foundation's Office of Animal protection, "This is a victory over barbarity, an historic decision going much further than the European banning of 1983 which only targeted import of furs from two species of seal, aged less than two weeks old. The European Community decision is legitimate because it responds, on the one hand, to the expectations of european citizens and, on the other hand, to the objectives of an action plan for the well-being of animals which institutes new European policy in the area.'

(The address for the English language version of the site is http://www.fondationbrigittebardot.fr/site/fbb_a.php?Id=74 At time of report the European ban on seal-products news had not been translated into English.)

Call to Canadians

The European decision could relaunch the national debate about allowing the biggest massacre of marine mammels in the world to continue. The Brigitte Bardot Foundation supports Ontario Senator, Mac Harb, who submitted, last March, a legal project aiming to 'ban commercial fishing of seals in Canadian fishing waters and cease granting licences to commercially fish seals. To support his legal project, the senator points out that 'the costs, economic and other, of this activity exceed the slim gains from this moribund industry' which costs Canadian taxpayers dearly.

At the news of the vote, Brigitte Bardot said she was very moved by the European decision. "It is the outcome of an exhausting battle, relentlessly fought for more than 30 years. This vote clearly means that we can no longer accept the unacceptable, whether it concern seal massacres on iceflows or Eared Seals in Namibia. It is urgent to put down our weapons, and to learn to protect and not to destroy the different species which people this planet."

Report translated by Sheila Newman from La Fondation Brigitte Bardot

Call to Australians (from Candobetter editor)

It is humbling to contemplate the work of this woman and others like her, who are able to see and fight against injustices and cruelties which most of us have entirely closed our minds and eyes to. It is inspiring to realise that, in Europe, the wildlife warriors seem to be winning. In Australia, to the contrary, the portrayal and the treatment of indigenous animals seems alarmingly to be getting worse. As candobetter's pages attest, however, wildlife warriors have not given up. Australia's kangaroo-meat industry is the biggest massacre of an animal on land, just as the harp-seal massacres, conducted on ice-flows, are the biggest kills of a marine animal.

Bardot's Foundation also carries news of Australian, Jenny Bryant, who saves koalas down on the Mornington Peninsula, almost unknown in Australia.

Senseless slaughter of Victoria's Old Growth..another Brumby legacy for Victoria.
29 April, 2009: Loggers have desperately chainsawed magnificent stands of ancient Australian Eucalypts along Bungywarr Creek in East Gippsland as woodchips, allowing our natural heritage to be sold out to the Japanese for a dispicable $2.50 per tonne!

Senseless slaughter of Victoria's Old Growth..another Brumby legacy for Victoria

29 April, 2009: The result of senseless logging at iconic Bungywarr Creek, far East Gippsland. Loggers have desperately chainsawed magnificent stands of ancient Australian Eucalypts along Bungywarr Creek in East Gippsland as the woodchips, allowing our natural heritage to be sold out to the Japanese for a despicable $2.50 per tonne!

“Two protesters are ‘flying’ a platform located thirty metres up in the tree canopy”.. "this platform is cabled off to four logging machines, immobilizing them.”

First blockaded in 1994, Old Growth at Bungywarr Creek has been targeted by loggers ever since. Premier John Brumby simply cannot be trusted with Victoria's natural heritage.

“Victoria's water reality and a growing population”

Come and hear

Dr. Ernest Healy

Senior research fellow in the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University who will present new research into fundamental considerations and constraints in the fast growing city of Melbourne including the potential capacity and limits of our rail network and of our most basic necessity- water.

At the

Sustainable Population Australia

(Victorian branch)

Annual General Meeting

Saturday May 16th 2009 at 2.00p.m.

North Melbourne Library (Upstairs)

66 Errol St, North Melbourne 3051
All welcome!

How to get there

Melways Reference: 2A J10
Car: On street parking (meters)
Tram: 57 from Flinders St. Station up Elizabeth Street.

Contact: Jill Quirk President Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian Branch)

Tel 03 95097429 mobile: 0409742927

[email protected]

Ed. Consider joining SPA Victoria and helping President Quirk in the massive and urgent task of overturning Victoria's politically engineered and undemocratic population growth.

Ed. This article is adapted (with insertion of headings) from the introduction at www.savethepines.net This reserve is located at the top of the Mornington Peninsula, which extends south of Melbourne like a boot. Until Jeff Kennet became Premier of Victoria, this area was zoned rural. With his arrival it was rezoned into 'Greater Melbourne' and thus became targeted for continuous urbanisation. There is a video of the freeway route & landscape at the bottom of this article.

Brumby to bulldoze tollway through Pines

Premier Brumby has announced his intention to bulldoze the Peninsula Link Freeway through the centre of Frankston’s 220 hectare Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve. He pre-empted the “Independent” Panel report reviewing the South and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority’s Environment Effect Statement thus wasting $5m of taxpayers money and thousands of hours of submitters time.

This land was recommended by Victorian bureaucrats in 1993 for reservation as a National Park. They also recommended that Vicroads remove the road reservation.

Vital for wildlife corridor to save Peninsula species

This is the closest place to Melbourne where the endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot and other endangered species survive in the wild. It’s also the closest place in Melbourne’s South and South East where Swamp Wallabies, Echidnas, Koalas and other iconic Australian species roam freely.

The Department of Environment and Sustainability said “The potential impact of the proposed bypass may cause the local extinction of this species.” This advice was repeated to the EES Panel by many experts including the Government’s ecological consultant.

In 1995, the Minister for Conservation (Mark Birrel) advised Parliament that “This is the most botanically significant reserve in south-eastern Melbourne.”

214 Regionally significant flora

Parks Victoria advise that two hundred and eighteen flora species recorded in the Reserve are considered to be regionally significant within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion. Land abutting the Reserve’s edge was the last place the Frankston Spider Orchid was found in the Peninsula’s north. It numbers now fewer than 40 plants in the wild.

Alternatives not being considered

There are alternatives. If fly-over’s could be built over Burke, Toorak and Tooronga Roads, then so to can Cranbourne road be overpassed and the delays alleviated.

Mark Birrel’s statement followed 20 years of public controversy regarding successive proposals to subdivide and quarry this land. The issue first came to media prominence in 1975 when a group of residents hoisted the Eureka flag and claimed the land for Frankston residents.

The time has come to reclaim this land.

The time has come to reclaim this land.

But there is more.

Most precious reserves sacrificed to unnecessary urban expansion

The 20 odd kilometer swath cut into the landscape from Carrum Downs will destroy an extraordinarily rare patch of herb rich grassy wetland. DSE says it can’t be replaced. The road will plough through 60% of the Belvedere Reserve in Seaford, the Pobblebonk/Willow Reserve and the Wittenberg Reserves in Langwarrin, destroy a pristine remnant at the heritage listed Westerfield property and bisect precious farmland the length of the Moorooduc Plain.

Help us save this priceless landscape and species that are our Australian heritage.

The www.savethepines.net asks readers to "Please contact your local member and Federal Minister Garrett to voice your opposition."

All around Australia, indeed all around the world, towns are fighting against having huge costly marinas foisted on their communities and much loved beaches. It is about time that someone founded an international anti-marina association to coordinate democratic movements against unsustainable business proposals for locally unwanted marinas .

Below we reproduce correspondence between the Frankston Beach Association Inc to the Hon. Justice Madden MLC, who is Victoria’s current Minister for Planning. It was the latest in Frankston community’s attempt to make itself heard in a more than 30 year battle to prevent a marina from being forced upon the community. The letter was a response to nine dot-points made by the Minister in an attempt to justify the [many times reproposed] marina in question. Ed.

"Frankston Beach Association Inc.
Preserving the beach for all to use"

www.vicnet.net.au/~fbainc
Registration Number - A0031686R ABN - 68 874 762 644 Secretary: Graeme Lyell, 2A Fenton Crescent, South Frankston, 3199 Tel: (03) 9783 7445

1st March, 2009
Hon. Justin Madden, MLC
Minister for Planning,
8, Nicholson Street,
East Melbourne, Vic 3002.
Dear Minister,

Proposed C50 Frankston Planning Scheme Amendment relating to a marina at Olivers Hill

The Committee of the Frankston Beach Association (FBA) wish to thank you for your correspondence of the 30 January 2009, responding to our letter of 19 December 2008 and our submission of 17 December 2008 commenting, (at the invitation of the Frankston Council) on the proposed Frankston C50 Planning Scheme Amendment.

Detail of your correspondence was conveyed to us by Mr. Alistair Harkness, MP. A copy of this January 30 correspondence is attached for your reference.[1]

The Frankston Beach Association is puzzled and disappointed with the statements made in the nine points in your correspondence, responding to our 17 December 2008 Submission relating to the proposed C50 Amendment.

None of the 'nine points' in your correspondence, directly address the financial, environmental and social concerns and issues that we have clearly detailed in our Submission of 17 December 2008.

Rather, these 'nine points' appear to be a clumsy attempt by the three Authorities referred to in your correspondence, ie., Frankston Council, the DSE and Tourism Victoria, to justify their support for a grossly enlarged Marina at Olivers Hill, by falsely suggesting that their support is consistent with the previous EES and Advisory Panels' and Ministers' 'Recommendations'.

Is the Minister aware that the 'nine points' in several instances are inaccurate and misleading and appear designed to obfuscate important facts?

We briefly comment below, on each of these 'nine points'.

Point 1.

Justin Madden MLC wrote: “The concept of a safe boat harbour at Olivers Hill, Frankston has been actively supported by Council, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Tourism Victoria and the boating industry.”

Since the formation of the FBA in 1982, no member of the Public has advised that they are in favour of providing a marina at Olivers Hill, at the cost of destroying the Frankston Beach and Daveys Bay.

Why are Frankston Council, the DSE and Tourism Victoria controversially wanting to develop a grossly enlarged marina, significantly larger than the one currently approved and larger than the Frankston CBD, with a diameter twice the length of Frankston Pier, that:

i. On the advice of seven eminent scientists and coastal engineers will likely destroy Frankston Beach and cause Daveys Bay to silt up? and

ii. Is more than twice the size required to accommodate the boating and retail, commercial and industrial activities prescribed by the proposed C50 Amendment?

The activities proposed in the C50 Amendment can adequately be accommodated in the 15.8 hectare marina area currently approved.

Why are these Authorities pursuing a development for which no credible cost analysis or financial viability studies have been made public, no environmental studies have been undertaken and which directly conflicts with and contravenes the financial, environmental and social parameters and standards established by the past Planning Processes?

Point 2.

Justin Madden MLC wrote: "Olivers Hill has undergone a comprehensive planning assessment including an Environmental Effects Statement, Planning Scheme Amendments and Ministerial Assessments."

This point states that Olivers Hill has undergone a comprehensive planning assessment and refers to the 1999 EES and the 2003 Planning and Advisory Committee Panel Reports, and the two Ministers' Assessments in 2000 and 2003.

This statement falsely suggests that the recommendations and standards prescribed in these Reports and Assessments are continuing to be adhered to.

In reality, Frankston Council, DSE and Tourism Victoria are paying little more than tokenism to these recommendations and through the proposed C50 amendment they are arbitrarily rejecting and disregarding many of the financial, environmental and social standards and recommendations prescribed in the Panel Reports and Ministers' Assessments.

Does the Minister accept that such conduct by these authorities is deceptive and misleading and makes a mockery of the State Planning Process?

Point 3.

Justin Madden MLC wrote: "The Frankston Planning Scheme was amended in 2003 to facilitate the provision of a safe boat harbour at Olivers Hill."

The Frankston Planning Scheme was amended in 2003 to facilitate the provision of a 15.8 ha marina including a reclamation area of 5.8 ha.

The development and operation of this marina was subject to compliance with the Recommendations of the 1999 EES Panel Report and 2000 Minister's Assessment and the 2003 Panel Report and Minister's Assessment.

Point 4.

Justin Madden MLC wrote: "The Environmental Effects Statement (EES) assessed the impacts of rezoning 35 hectares of land and sea to a Special Use Zone for use as a safe boat harbour. The revised model proposed by Council encompasses 22 hectares and is still within the parameters initially tested by the EES."

This statement is totally incorrect and misleading.

The 1999 Environmental Effects Statement (EES) did not assess the impacts of rezoning 35 hectare of land and sea to a Special Use Zone.

The EES assessed two areas for a marina development ie., one of 6.6 hectare (option 2) and one of 15.4 hectare (option 3). The EES did not assess any specific area for rezoning to either a Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) or a Special Use Zone (SUZ).

The 2003 C15 Panel of Inquiry and Advisory Panel assessed the impacts of a 15.8 hectare marina within a 35 hectare PPRZ. The Panel recommended that a SUZ would be more appropriate than the proposed PPRZ .

Within the 35 hectare SUZ, the Panel and Minister approved a marina of 15.8 hectare including 5.8 hectare of reclaimed land, the development of which was subject to specified detailed recommendations, parameters and standards being complied with.
The proposed C50 Amendment increases the size of the marina from 15.8 hectare to 22 hectare. We ask the Minister, why increase the size of the marina? (seepoints 5 and 7)

Point 5.

Justin Madden MLC wrote: "In 2006, Frankston City Council completed a cost analysis for a preferred development model. The revised model identified more land to be reclaimed, a larger breakwater to increase the number of berths, the introduction of dry boat storage, an increase in parking provision, short term accommodation and increases to floor area for boat repairs and for retail purposes."

No credible cost analysis has been made public for the larger 22 hectare marina.

Contrary to the current Planning Scheme, no size limit has been specified in the proposed C50 amendment, on the amount of land that can be reclaimed.

As less than half the 22 hectare marina is required to accommodate both the prescribed 330 marina berths and the permitted commercial, retail and industrial activities including the stacked dry boat storage and 60 berth hotel, what additional activities are intended for the remaining unused area? (See points 4 and 7).

Point 6.

Justin Madden MLC wrote: "Council’s revised model contains dry boat storage and an increased commercial area. The current planning controls in the Frankston Planning scheme do not facilitate these elements. Therefore an amendment to the Frankston Planning Scheme would be required to accommodate these changes."

Council's revised model, described by the proposed C50 Amendment, contradicts and conflicts with the environmental, financial and social recommendations and standards determined by the 1999 EES and the 2003 Planning and Advisory Committee Panel Reports, and the two Ministers' Assessments in 2000 and 2003.

Point 7.

Justin Madden MLC wrote: "In May 2007, Council adopted a preferred development model for a safe boat harbour. I referred this model to the Priority Development Panel (PDP) for advice and evaluation."

The proposed C50 model recommended by the Priority Development Panel, differs from the 'Preferred Development Model' adopted by Council in 2007, following advice from their financial advisors, by removing the upper limit to the reclamation area.

With very high breakwater construction costs, no developer will build a larger marina than one required for the permitted activities, unless expecting the permitted activities to be further expanded.

What additional activities do Council, DSE and Tourism Victoria intend for the extra land inside the larger breakwaters? Will additional activities be offered and permitted as inducement to a developer? Will these activities include residential housing and more commercial, retail and industrial development? Will they also include an entertainment complex?

Has the Minister been advised of and considered these implications?

Point 8.

Justin Madden MLC wrote: "The PDP worked closely with key stakeholders, Frankston City Council, the Frankston Design Panel and representatives of the State Government including the DSE and Parks Victoria. Advice was sought on a number of issues including the environmental sustainability of the proposal. The Frankston Beach Association was also invited to make a submission during the process."

The Key Stakeholders were nominated by Council. In total they numbered approximately 13 organizations and 8 individuals.
Does the Minister consider this miniscule amount of community consultation adequate and appropriate in a community of approximately 150,000 persons, where many residents and visitors use the beach throughout the year, when the proposed marina is putting Frankston beach at risk?

The statement is made in this point that, 'Advice was sought on a number of issues including the environmental sustainability of the proposal'. This statement is meaningless. Who was invited to give this advice, when was the advice sought and on what part of the proposed marina development did the advice relate to?

Was advice sought on the effect of the marina on the Frankston Beach and Daveys Bay? No environmental studies to determine the effects of the marina on these assets have been undertaken.

Insufficient data is available on which to undertake these studies and data over a period of more than one year is required.
Are such flippant statements relating to environmental standards acceptable to the Planning Minister?

Point 9

Justin Madden MLC wrote: "Frankston City Council will seek tenders from private industry to fund the construction of a safe boat harbour. State Government funding for public infrastructure through the DSE and Vic Roads Asset Management Program for slope stabilization at Olivers Hill and funding for boat ramps through the Boating Facilities Grants through Marine Safety Victoria may be made available."

The funding advice made in this point is contradictory to the funding information approved by Council and proposed to be placed in the Tender Documents.

Council's information in the proposed tender documents commits the Government to all public infrastructure funding, including Public Boat Ramps, and car parking and trailer parking and five boat launching ramps together with stabilization of Olivers Hill.

Is the Minister satisfied that Frankston Council has the authority to make this financial commitment on behalf of the Government, when development costs have not been determined?

Is the Minister aware that contrary to the current Planning Scheme requirements the proposed C50 Amendment fails to require the proponent to be financially responsible for beach restoration, sand bypassing and maintenance dredging costs?

Is the Minister aware that construction costs may be more than $150 million and more than half these construction costs, plus future costs associated with beach restoration, sand bypassing and maintenance dredging will be to the account of the Government, unless the C50 Amendment and Tender documents are changed from those proposed in the C50 Amendment?

Are Frankston Council, the DSE and Tourism Victoria being open with the Government and the Public with respect to the issues raised above?

Summary.

Frankston Beach Association continues to harbour grave concerns as to the financial, environmental and social probity of this proposed development. Our main concerns relate to safeguarding Frankston Beach and Daveys Bay for the present and future use of residents and visitors to Frankston City.

A small number of self-interested parties continue to perversely push ahead with a so-called iconic development that will put Frankston on the map. This proposed development is flawed, and if it fails, the Frankston community will pay the price.
We are currently witnessing the financial failure of iconic developments world wide. The community of Frankston can ill afford a financial, environmental and social disaster on their doorstep at this time.

We respectfully request that our concerns carefully detailed in our 'Comments and Review of the proposed Frankston C50 Planning Scheme Amendment' dated 17 December 2008, be individually and properly considered and be factually responded to.

Yours sincerely,
Graeme Lyell
Secretary Frankston Beach Association Inc.

[1] Ed. Attached was this document from Justin Madden, from which I have transcribed the nine dot points corresponding to the responses of the Frankston Beach Association.

A Stonington Council resident and Yarra Valley Water 'customer' (can you be a 'customer' if you have no choice in the matter? What about a 'serf'?) writes to us:

"Dear Candobetter,

I have just opened a Yarra Valley Water brochure which came with the last account. The account tells me I use over 500 litres water per day with no-one else in the house,where the dishwasher is not used, the car is not washed the lawn is not watered, the washing is done rarely (and when it is rinsing water is carried in buckets to the parched garden), the toilet is flushed as little as possible,and there are no leaks. Yarra Valley insist their meters never run fast so that usage figure is correct and I am asked to reduce this usage to 155 litres per day.

How can I do this without seriously compromising health and hygiene?!!

As far as I know Yarra Valley Water is a private company that bills me for water. It is one of many . It is not a council. Water used to be supplied by the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works- but I think there have been a few incarnations scince then and to do it justice I would need to do some research. Not sure what the reponsibility is of Yara Valley Water."

Firstly, we see that the Victorian Government has succeeded in completely confusing this constituent. Yarra Valley Water is actually owned by the Victorian Government, but it has been corporatised with the effect of distancing responsibility and removing the Government from direct accountability to the electorate. It is as if Melbourne Water is still in the same location but has changed the name of the street so that it can no longer be found.

Our correspondent goes on to describe the literature she has received promoting this affront to democracy, hygiene and tax-payer affordability. Due to the government's corporatisation of water-distribution in conjunction with forcing a massive increase in consumers (via population growth without the consent of the community) prices are going up - well most first graders could do that sum.

Page 1 of the brochure, "Preparing for our future", has a picture of a little blond girl, laptop on lap, eucalypts in the background.

Page 2 of the Brochure has this large heading:

"Helping Melbourne to grow"

and continues in bold- "average bill to increase by about $35 per quarter"

Underneath the paragraph reads:

"While the price increase is absolutely necessary, we understand that it will have an impact on some of our customers. [Note the dishonest gloss: it must have an 'impact' on all of their customers, and more and more as the financial depression bites.] We will provide information to help you prepare your household for higher bills and we are committed to ensuring that the average water bill will no more than double over the 5 year period between July 2008 and July 2013,consistent with previous commitments by the state government....."

And, on the last page:

Heading

"Why do prices need to rise?

continues:

"The increased prices will pay for essential projects to increase Melbourne's water supplies, service new growth and protect the environment..."

A little further down:

Preparing for the future

"The price increase will also help us to build extensive new water and sewerage infrastructure to service Melbourne's rapid growth, (our correspondent's emphasis) including provision of major water recycling projects while maintaining and renewing the existing infrastructure.

The big question:

Why didn't Yarra Valley Water (a corporation owned by Victoria) inform these residents that the State Government was pushing population growth upon them and that these exponential price rises would be the consequences if growth were not stopped? And that the only alternative would be to decrease water-use to below normally acceptable or possible levels in an every more densely populated urban environment?

I am sure that Yarra Valley Water would have answers and excuses for not discussing these questions in depth, but only ones which would reinforce Victorians' loss of self-government and control over vital resources.

State Government has moral and civic duty to indemnify constituents

The State Government has failed their duty to adequately inform, consult and represent Melbourne people about its responsibility for Victoria's aggressive demographic growth policy and the consequences of this to cost of living for the electorate. The Government thus a moral and civic duty to indemnify constituents against higher charges. There is no way that Yarra Water can guarantee that prices will not double again... and again... and again... after the five year period it guarantees them for. And, doubling the price of water, even once, is totally unacceptable. In fact, part of Yarra Valley Water's brief is that it

"(f) Must manage its business operations to maintain the long-term financial viability for the Licensee".

How can it do this without constantly raising prices as Melbourne's population constantly rises?

Why did the Victorian Government corporatise Melbourne Water into commercial parcels like Yarra Valley Water? One theory is that the Government intends to sell these corporate bodies off to public shareholders, as happened with Telstra. It is nigh impossible to exert real control over corporations, as we learned in a high court decision on the Wheat Board, See "Justice Michael Kirby on Why Privatisation is wrong"so the prospect of marketing water to a captive population which has no choice but to purchase it will be very attractive to the psychopaths who are buying up and privatising water all over the world.

Maud Barlowe, who leads a global grass-roots network against erosion of basic rights by governments colluding in the commercialisation and inflation of water prices through induced scarcity (via forced population growth, for instance), warns that:

...the global corporate cartel that I worried about when I wrote my first book, Blue Gold has come to pass, and water is being more and more corporately controlled. Now we all know about the delivery of water by these big utilities, Suez, Vivendi, or Veolia, and that continues apace and of course bottled water which is an enormous industry.

But the one that kind of was newer to me was the creation of a massive new water reuse technology which is being heavily heavily funded by governments, particularly by US and European governments, which I think is going to be a disincentive to enact water protection laws or to enforce water protection laws because we’re building a massive international industry to clean water up and there is going to be trade and environmental services so-called, through the WTO and GATS (General Agreement on Trade and Services) around water technology cleanup. And I envisage a world in 20 years when we’ve dried out so much of the planet and all of the oceans are ringed by massive desalination plants, run by nuclear power. That’s not in my head. That’s coming. That’s for sure. Those plans are there. Which is terribly polluting, a horrible, polluting, energy intensive industry. And that people—rich people—will buy bottled water from the few remote, clean places left on earth or take it from the corporations from clouds—literally that technology is being developed—while millions and millions more die. This is just the future that I can see unless we start to change course so that the ecological crisis, the human rights crisis, and the corporate control are just absolutely so clear to me."

Source: Video: Maude Barlow: Water Stress

by Mark Simpson

Surrender Democracy now

Surrender Australia to overpopulation now, argues "demographer" and investment spotter Bernard Salt, rather than have China lean on us later to take in its millions! (Australian, April 30th, "No room to be smug as population peaks").

What a wonderful combination of long-term cowardice and short-term business convenience!
What a failure of democracy to have a business-man given the spurious authority of the press to manufacture such appalling opinion, which will be read all around the world.

Mr Salt and Mr Murdoch might just as well send personal invitations to the Chinese, telling them to come here. Of course the Chinese would not last very long, and neither would we. We are already running out of water and soil, as Bernard Salt well knows.

The hell with Anzac, eh?

No wonder young Australians flock to the War Memorial on Anzac day, to commemorate their WWII grandparents who thought Australia was worth defending against the Japanese superpower, even when the odds seemed overwhelming.

And Salt's argument is demographic nonsense. Pushing Australia's population to 34 million, as he advocates, would take us way beyond the 23 million that the Australian Academy of Science told the Keating government should be our limit. The extra 11 million people, even if every one was a Chinese immigrant, would make negligible difference to China's vast population and is unlikely ever to be a major policy objective of the China's government.

Article written by Mark Simpson

See also: "Bernard Salt, Murdoch media insult the memory of Second World War Australians" of 2 Apr 10, "Invasion victory ensured by complacency" in The Australian of 1 Apr 10, "No room to be smug as population peaks" in The Australian of 30 Apr 09, "Working man's vegetable plot under threat again" of 22 Apr 08.

The first case of H1N1 swine flu virus was discovered in a North Carolina factory farm in 1998, not in Mexico. Within months of the 1998 emergence, the virus showed up in Texas, Minnesota, and Iowa.

Dr. Robert Webster, one of the world’s leading experts of flu virus evolution, blames the emergence of the 1998 virus on the “recently evolving intensive farming practice in the USA, of raising pigs and poultry in adjacent sheds with the same staff,” a practice he calls “unsound.”

Influenza in pigs is closely correlated with pig density,” said a European Commission-funded researcher studying the situation in Europe.

Given massive concentrations of farm animals within which to mutate, these new swine flu viruses in North America seem to be on an evolutionary fast track, jumping between species at an unprecedented rate. Changes in animal husbandry, including increased vaccination, may be spurring this evolutionary surge after years of stability, according to science writer Bernice Wuethrich in Washington DC.

Is Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork packer and hog producer, linked to the outbreak?

Hundreds of industrial-scale hog facilities that have sprung up around Mexico in recent years, and the thousands of people employed inside the crowded, pathogen-filled confinement buildings and processing plants.

Cheaper labour costs and a desire to enter the Latin American market are drawing more industrialized agriculture to Mexico all the time, wiping out smaller, traditional farms, which now account for only a small portion of swine production in Mexico.

Smithfield operates massive hog-raising operations Perote, Mexico, in the state of Vera Cruz, where the outbreak originated. The operations, grouped under a Smithfield subsidiary called Granjas Carroll, raise 950,000 hogs per year, according to the company Web site www.granjascarroll.com.

The Mexico City daily La Jornada has also made the link. According to the newspaper, the Mexican health agency IMSS has acknowledged that the orginal carrier for the flu could be the “clouds of flies” that multiply in the Smithfield subsidiary’s manure lagoons. Residents [of Perote] believed the outbreak had been caused by contamination from pig breeding farms located in the area. They believed that the farms, operated by Granjas Carroll, polluted the atmosphere and local water bodies, which in turn led to the disease outbreak

According to residents, the company denied responsibility for the outbreak and attributed the cases to “flu.” However, a municipal health official stated that preliminary investigations indicated that the disease vector was a type of fly that reproduces in pig waste and that the outbreak was linked to the pig farms. It was unclear whether health officials had identified a suspected pathogen responsible for this outbreak".

Call it "intensive animal farming", "factory farming“, or "industrial farm animal production.” The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists prefers the term “confined animal feeding operations.”

No matter what you call it, it adds up to the same thing. Millions of animals are crowded together in inhumane conditions, causing "significant environmental threats and unacceptable health risks for workers, their neighbours and all the rest of us".

All farming should be organic and free-range. Any intensive livestock production can be challenged morally, biologically and on humane grounds. What is bad for animals ultimately is also bad for humans!

See also: The Worst Way of Farming in the New York Times of 31 May 08, Swine-flu outbreak linked to Smithfield Factory Farms in the Health Freedom Alliance blog of 25 Apr 09.