(We) can do better

Macedon Ranges Residents' Association of Victoria writes: Who is measuring what Melbourne 2030 produces? E.g. dwelling growth v population growth, occupancy rates, location of development and relevance to need/demand, type of development v impacts on existing character and values, suburbanization of rural areas, etc. Terms of Reference for the Melbourne 2030 audit include a requirement for recommendations on appropriate mechanisms for monitoring implementation of Melbourne 2030. The group has undertaken a broad review of 2006 census results to get a “snapshot” of trends for Victoria, Melbourne metro area, and “fringe” Shires, at a municipality level. Key Trends Unoccupied Dwellings Do you know there were 216,000 unoccupied dwellings in Victoria on census night, 120,000 in Melbourne? That unoccupied dwellings increased as a percentage of all private dwellings between 2001 and 2006? Some places had vacancy rates over 40% (e.g. Queenscliffe (+50%), Bass Coast (47.7%), Surf Coast (43.7%), yet all also had relatively high levels of new dwellings: +52, +2,778 and +1,723 respectively. Negative Population Growth, Rampant Dwelling Growth Banyule lost 224 people, gained 829 households, gained 1,468 dwellings and had 2,737 unoccupied dwellings. Moonee Valley lost 193 people, gained 208 households and 1,023 dwellings, with 3,286 unoccupied dwellings. Queenscliffe lost 148 people and 14 households, yet had 52 additional dwellings and a 50.2% vacancy rate. Mis-Match Between Household Growth And Dwelling Growth Common occurrence. Small household increases, large dwelling increases, larger vacancy rates. For example, Bayside gained +2,185 people but only 264 new households, had 95 fewer lone person households, 913 more dwellings and 3,235 unoccupied dwellings. Baw Baw had 892 new households, 1,321 new dwellings and 1,874 unoccupied dwellings. Over-60s Grew But Nowhere Near Projected Rates - Over-Estimated In Almost All Municipalities DSE projections have driven a boom in “unit” development that has caused existing residents a lot of pain. Some places we think of as having booming young family growth also have high over-60s growth (e.g. Whittlesea, where over-60s growth equated to a third of total population growth). Reductions In Lone Person Households Bayside lost 95, Boroondara lost 618, Stonnington lost 333. Other municipalities had reduced percentages of LPH e.g Port Phillip, Whitehorse. Yet projections simply assume all places are the same. Are We Really Supposed To Rely On Victoria In Future Projections? They are based on what has been happening, not what should happen. Broadest assumptions are used to produce projections – not specific to each municipality – rural and metro get the same assumptions, and pressure for the same outcomes. Projections are not influenced by policy but end up becoming policy in their own right. DSE projections drive development, are pushed down our throats as justification for bad development – over-development, and the wrong sort of development. E.g. 28 square, two storey “units” on 300 square metres to accommodate “old” people. Post 2006 census, DSE seems ready to absorb yet another 630,000 people[6] into the next projections, without questioning whether Melbourne can accommodate more. Developers are driving policy and outcomes While Melbourne 2030 and other planning policy is creating plenty of new dwellings (+171,000 in Victoria), many are either not affordable, not what people want, or simply second dwellings that aren’t accommodating population growth. Do we in fact have a glut of (unusable) housing in a time of claimed housing shortages? Developers are deciding what is built, where, when and at what cost, supported by government and the system. Much of what they produce is over-priced, top end (“gold tap”) elitist, in expensive locations, or cheaper and more profitable greenfields development that is too quickly filling up Melbourne’s reserve of vacant residential land – wherever the highest profit potential beckons. What happens after 2030? Melbourne 2030 is delivering profits to developers, but wholesale pain to the wider community. Developers’ investments are protected, but not the investments of people affected by bad development. Developers will no doubt now be lobbying for yet more planning rules to be thrown out and more land to be opened up. A much more considered response is needed. What happens when Mc Mansion homeowners walk away from homes they can’t afford – who buys their house, and where do they live? Have we created a generation with debts they may never repay? Add to that a new baby boom as well as the old, climate change, infrastructure deficiencies, and increasingly, social unsustainability. Ordinary people and some planning experts have been telling government that Melbourne 2030 and the VPPs aren’t working. They are right. It’s well past time for the government to listen at least equally to the community and experts, not just developers, and to really get to the bottom of what’s happening under Melbourne 2030. Sheila Newman, Land-use Planning Sociologist: The above was a slightly edited excerpt from a cracking dissection of the notorious Victorian planning document, Melbourne 2030, by the Macedon Ranges Residents' Association (Victoria). This comes from their submission for their Meeting with Victorian Planning and Community Development Minister Justin Madden at 8 Nicholson St., East Melbourne on the 16 August, 2007.

Media Release 21 August 2007 The Southern Cross Independent Candidate for Wide Bay, Cate Molloy, today slammed Warren Truss for reportedly seeking to engage India in a Free Trade Agreement. "Again, Warren Truss seems intent on destroying the livelihood of Australian farmers, and seeing Australian businesses and jobs disappearing overseas," said Cate Molloy. "Truss has once again abandoned the bush," she said. "We need Fair Trade Agreements, not so-called Free Trade Agreements with high powered economies driven by cheap labour," said Ms Molloy. "Once again, the bush will suffer. India is highly protective of its agricultural sector, while Truss and Howard seem intent on destroying our own," said Cate. "How can we compete with slave labour?" she asked. "It's about time, we were protective of our Australian farmers, Australian businesses and Australian workers," said Cate Molloy. Enquiries Cate Molloy, Independent Candidate for Wide Bay, Peregian Beach Qld 4573 07 54483784 0408729499 0407114729

Greeens Media Release 20/08/07 Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has made a monumental blunder in giving draft approval to Gunns' polluting pulp mill in the absence of the information he needs to determine whether it was ever even possible to protect the environment from its poisons, Greens' Senator Christine Milne said today. "The marine life of Bass Strait and its rich fishery deserve better than political brinkmanship, and they will get it at the ballot box. "Malcolm Turnbull is the country's Minister for the Environment, not the Minister for facilitating Gunns. The campaign to protect Tasmania's environment and clean, green future now lies in the hands of the community and will be fought all the way to the Federal poll, here in Tasmania and in marginal seats across the country. "Minister Turnbull has put the cart before the horse. What justification can he possibly have for throwing the Precautionary Principle overboard and giving draft approval to a project when he admits he doesn't know what impact the toxic effluent will have on Bass Strait? "If the Minister was serious about his environmental responsibility he would have stopped the clock on the EPBC Act assessment until he had the information he needed from the Chief Scientist, and from the hydrodynamic modelling. Instead, he gave approval anyway to reassure the development-at-any-cost forest industry that he is on side. "The Minister should have conducted a full environmental impact assessment with public hearings because he has known all along that Gunns' preliminary documentation was shonky and inadequate, and did not satisfy the original assessment process under the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC). "It's an insult to the community to be offered the opportunity to comment after he has already given the green light to the project, albeit with conditions "Crocodile tears about the limited nature of the Commonwealth's powers are disingenuous. The Minister was happy to push through changes to the EPBC Act last year which prohibited him from assessing the impact on Tasmania's native forests of thirty years of Gunns' logging to feed its pulp mill. "Far from being over, the pulp mill debate is set to rage from now to Election day as the community makes all State and Federal members aware of how strongly it feels about selling out the environment for the benefit of narrow, sectional interests," Senator Milne said. For More Information: Cassy O'Connor Email: cassey.o'conner|AT|aph.com.au Phone: 0400 628 939

Smashing Capitalism

by Barbara Ehrenreich

Somewhere in the Hamptons a high-roller is cursing his cleaning lady and shaking his fists at the lawn guys. The American poor, who are usually tactful enough to remain invisible to the multi-millionaire class, suddenly leaped onto the scene and started smashing the global financial system. Incredibly enough, this may be the first case in history in which the downtrodden manage to bring down an unfair economic system without going to the trouble of a revolution.

First they stopped paying their mortgages, a move in which they were joined by many financially stretched middle class folks, though the poor definitely led the way. All right, these were trick mortgages, many of them designed to be unaffordable within two years of signing the contract. There were "NINJA" loans, for example, awarded to people with "no income, no job or assets." Conservative columnist Niall Fergusen laments the low levels of "economic literacy" that allowed people to be exploited by sub-prime loans. Why didn't these low-income folks get lawyers to go over the fine print? And don't they have personal financial advisors anyway?

Then, in a diabolically clever move, the poor--a category which now roughly coincides with the working class--stopped shopping. Both Wal-Mart and Home Depot announced disappointing second quarter performances, plunging the market into another Arctic-style meltdown. H. Lee Scott, CEO of the low-wage Wal-Mart empire, admitted with admirable sensitivity, that "it's no secret that many customers are running out of money at the end of the month."

I wish I could report that the current attack on capitalism represents a deliberate strategy on the part of the poor, that there have been secret meetings in break rooms and parking lots around the country, where cell leaders issued instructions like, "You, Vinny--don't make any mortgage payment this month. And Caroline, forget that back-to-school shopping, OK?" But all the evidence suggests that the current crisis is something the high-rollers brought down on themselves.

When, for example, the largest private employer in America, which is Wal-Mart, starts experiencing a shortage of customers, it needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror. About a century ago, Henry Ford realized that his company would only prosper if his own workers earned enough to buy Fords. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, never seemed to figure out that its cruelly low wages would eventually curtail its own growth, even at the company's famously discounted prices.

The sad truth is that people earning Wal-Mart-level wages tend to favor the fashions available at the Salvation Army. Nor do they have much use for Wal-Mart's other departments, such as Electronics, Lawn and Garden, and Pharmacy.

It gets worse though. While with one hand the high-rollers, H. Lee Scott among them, squeezed the American worker's wages, the other hand was reaching out with the tempting offer of credit. In fact, easy credit became the American substitute for decent wages. Once you worked for your money, but now you were supposed to pay for it. Once you could count on earning enough to save for a home. Now you'll never earn that much, but, as the lenders were saying--heh, heh--do we have a mortgage
for you!

Pay day loans, rent-to-buy furniture and exorbitant credit card interest rates for the poor were just the beginning. In its May 21st cover story on " The Poverty Business," Business Week documented the stampede, in just the last few years, to lend money to the people who could least afford to pay the interest: Buy your dream home! Refinance your house! Take on a car loan even if your credit rating sucks! Financiamos a Todos! Somehow, no one bothered to figure out where the poor were going to get the money to pay for all the money they were being offered.

Personally, I prefer my revolutions to be a little more pro-active. There should be marches and rallies, banners and sit-ins, possibly a nice color theme like red or orange. Certainly, there should be a vision of what you intend to replace the bad old system with--European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?

Global capitalism will survive the current credit crisis; already, the government has rushed in to soothe the feverish markets. But in the long term, a system that depends on extracting every last cent from the poor cannot hope for a healthy prognosis. Who would have thought that foreclosures in Stockton and Cleveland would roil the markets of London and Shanghai? The poor have risen up and spoken; only it sounds less like a shout of protest than a low, strangled, cry of pain.

1. Population growth and Melbourne 2030

Melbourne and outer areas do not have the option of stabilizing in any way as population growth is programmed into our future. In 2002 The Bracks Government and other stakeholders held a 'summit' in Melbourne to discuss the need or otherwise of a population policy. The then Premier, Mr. Steve Bracks, in his keynote introduction pre-empted the outcome of the conference yet to happen! He made the absolute assumption that experts would converge on the desirability of increasing Victoria's population. Many in the audience had huge reservations and objections to this path mainly on the grounds of environmental sustainability.

Melbourne 2030 is about a commitment to social engineering in the form of forced population growth.

2. Victorian Government's role in affecting the rate of population growth.

Excluding net increase from international and interstate migration, Victoria's population is increasing by more than 30,000 p.a. It will be more than this with the current baby boom. This fact should be well known, but it is not.

In the year to March 2006, the additional increase from net overseas migration was 37,068 . The total increase in Victoria's population annually is in excess of 60,000 people. The Victorian government has given itself a role in affecting this number. One way it achieves this is via its $6 million skilled migration strategy which includes international and domestic marketing (see www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au).

In the 12 months to March 2006, there were 65,700 extra Victorians, or in other words, an additional Ballarat.

The Victorian Government is not a passive recipient of population growth. It actively seeks it. Victoria only needs radical planning because it has very high population growth by western standards, of which more than half is not through natural increase.

3. Consultation with the Victorian people regarding population growth and Melbourne 2030.

Many people have told me that Victorians were not consulted on Melbourne 2030.... but we were. Glossy books and pamphlets were delivered in all letter boxes with invitations to attend public meetings which were facilitated to funnel ideas from the public to the master of ceremonies at each meeting. People were separated onto tables of about 8 people each and if there was sufficient volume of opinion of a particular aspect of Melbourne's future on any one table then that idea got up and was promoted to the end distillation of ideas. The underlying assumption however was that growth was inevitable rather than a political decision. The politics and policies of engineering growth remained outside the discussion and slow or no growth were not presented as options.

There was goodwill and cooperation at the meeting I attended in Moorabbin as people enthusiastically put forward their priorities apparently thinking they were having a significant say in the Melbourne which was being shaped for future generations.

I suggest that the audit of Melbourne 2030 must seek the attitudes of Victorians to the politics of population growth and to population growth itself. Adequate consultation thereto would rely on good information about what planning decisions are necessitated by population growth - in terms of amenity, environment and economic well-being of the average citizen.

4. Information re Melbourne 2030 and Population growth from the Victorian Government.

Please make clear in public statements what is actually happening to us. It is a fact that adverse changes are occurring very rapidly to our surroundings and many people express bewilderment over this. They look at housing estates covering what used to be farmland and ask "where are all the people coming from?"

We have a longstanding approximately 2:1 birth to death ratio which means our population is growing without any immigration. On 15 August 2005, the then Premier of Victoria Mr. Bracks told the Melbourne Jon Faine morning show audience that in Victoria we had a naturally decreasing population and that deaths exceeded births. I wrote to the Premier asking him where he got his figures from and told him that the reverse was true. He never replied to my letter and as far as I know never corrected this misinformation.

5. Effects of population growth

Most new settlers in Victoria go to Melbourne. Melbourne is full. Extra population puts pressure on land, there is pressure to intensify development. "Opportunistic infilling," (Dr Bob Birrell's expression) occurs in random fashion as houses come up for sale and private buyers are out-bid by developers.

There is pressure on public land. It is lost to the public (e.g. Royal Park lost 20 ha to private development plus 85 million cash) Trees and open space are taken from both private and public spheres including gardens, parks, reserves and roadsides.

Urban consolidation is not enough to accommodate the current level of population growth. This growth puts pressure on the outer areas, on wildlife, on open space. Melbourne 2030 standards are applied in what are essentially country areas, resulting in dense developments often unpopular with incumbent residents.

Wildlife - development occurs in areas inhabited by wildlife with an ensuing conflict over territory between humans and animals. This is often only managed when brought to the attention when locals complain vigorously to the authorities. It is never resolved in favour of the animals. They always lose. e.g. Somerton kangaroos.

We ask for a wildlife assessment to be done before any development takes place and for all planning to incorporate wildlife corridors in cooperation with the Coalition for Wildlife corridors - see http://www.awpc.org.au/newsite/documents/proposal_to_link.pdf

Water - we don't have enough for current needs. Melbourne 2030 and population growth exacerbate this situation. Any savings we make will be consumed by population growth.
Pressure on house prices is increasingly caused by population growth, in which demand exceeds supply. This causes prices to rise as we have observed particularly over the last decade, when we have had very high immigration.

Recommendations:

1. A real effort to keep the public accurately informed of demographic changes in all relevant government documents and public statements. Make information clear so as not to confuse or obscure data.
3. 2. Seek public opinion on the underlying assumption, that we must boost our population. Does population boosting benefit the majority and, if so, in what ways? What are the negatives? How to they weigh up?
4. Real Estate spokespeople now connect house prices with population growth when speaking publicly. Government should do likewise.
5. Planning policy puts economic growth above environmental concerns. This needs to be redressed. Planning policy must take in the Precautionary Principle where growth compromises our environment.
6. High density living in the outer areas of Melbourne which are poorly served by public transport leaves communities vulnerable to being marooned in terms of basic requirements and transport by declining oil affordability / availability. In addition, tiny lot sizes remove most opportunity for self sufficiency in food provision. To remedy this the Government should make zoning changes. R1 allows very small lots in regional towns and outer suburbs (with potential for higher population density than in Singapore and Berlin). We need to keep outer suburbs open and spacious. SPA suggest a new Residential zone 3 with a minium of lot sizes at 500 square metres and above, plus minimum permeable area of 50% per lot.
7. More space for large trees in inner and outer suburbs is essential to maintain transpiration and microclimate, and to keep temperatures down. In the past 150 years increases in population and activities have impacted thermodynamically to raise city temperatures. (For instance snow rarely falls in cities anymore).
8. The expected effects of oil depletion should be taken into account in planning- i.e. the layout of the city and suburbs, transport needs for commuting and provision, delivery of food and degree of opportunity for self-sufficiency.

Jill Quirk
President, SPA Victoria
with Sheila Newman, Vice President, SPA Victoria

Media Release

Thursday 16 August 2007

The Coalition Government has exposed its hypocrisy on council amalgamations with its current attack on the Queensland Government according to Independent Member for Calare, Peter Andren.

"When I took a delegation of local mayors to Canberra several years ago to see then Local Government Minister Wilson Tuckey, he was enthusiastic about the need for mergers of councils," Mr Andren said.

"Evans, Oberon and Bathurst Councils were then facing amalgamation and he voiced strong support for amalgamations in the interests of better council management.

"Both Liberal and Labor Governments have never backed away from such policy.

"The Prime Minister talks of giving people a say in the process. How come the limited public input into the recent federal electorate boundary changes was largely ignored, especially from people strongly opposed to the ridiculous boundaries for the new Calare?

"There are no referendums for state or federal boundary changes, why the concern over local government boundaries determined by the same commission process?

"This is pure unadulterated election year populism from a government that is philosophically at one with any state labor Government in wanting to wind down local government to a more politically controllable entity.

"I personally oppose council amalgamations unless there are overwhelming financial reasons that will benefit ratepayers. But the major parties are as one in their desire to reduce local people power.

"Wilson Tuckey proved that when he was federal Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government," Mr Andren said.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie and his Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser have forgotten the meaning of the word 'democracy'. Mayors who consult with their own constituents over the question of the abolition of their local governments face instant dismissal. These provisions were added to the legislation, which forces many Queensland local councils to amalgamate with neighbouring councils, at the last minute when the legislation was rushed through in the early hours of Friday 10 August.

At least two councillors intend to defy these laws and proceed with these ballots nonetheless. These include Mayor Donna Stewart of Warroo shire and Mayor John Brent of Boonah Shire. Both Boonah and Warroo shires are to be abolished under the Queensland local government 'reforms'.

According to Brisbane's (pro-amalgamation) Courier Mail newspaper of 11 August:

A DEFIANT southwest Queensland council is poised to become the first sacked for organising a vote under tough new amalgamation laws.

Warroo Shire Council, which will merge with four other councils around Roma under the reforms, has indicated it will count votes already received from a survey at a meeting on Tuesday.

"It's a survey, but I'm willing to take the consequences regardless," Mayor Donna Stewart said.

"This is an attack on the democratic right of the people to have a say."

Housing minister Andrew Fraser has taken his extraordinary threats against the people of Queensland one step further by threatening to dismiss councillors who count votes for ballots that have already been sent out. The Courier Mail reported:

But the State Government warned councils not to proceed with any counting, even if survey ballots had been sent out. A dozen councils, including Tambo and Ilfracombe, are pressing ahead with the referendums.

Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser was not impressed, warning any counting or collating would attract instant dismissal.

"Obviously, they can't stop the mail arriving but they need to take no further action that proceeds with the poll in any way," Mr Fraser said.

Please send messages of support for Boonah Shire Mayor John Brent to mayor|AT|boonah qld gov au and for Warroo Shire Mayor Donna Stewart to donna_s1|AT|bigpond com and let Andrew Fraser and Peter Beattie know of your objections to their dicatatorial behaviour. Their e-mail addresses are respectively ThePremier|AT|premiers qld gov au and lgps|AT|ministerial qld gov au.

Update, 16 August 07

Queensland Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser has since backed away from his previous threat to dismiss Councils who counted votes about shire amalgamations. ABC news on 16 August reported that Warroo Shire residents had unanimously opposed the amalgamation,

The Howard Government passed legislation that will close the rolls for new voters at 8.00pm on the night the Federal election is called. Previously, voters had a week to register to vote. Last election, the Electoral Commission received a total of 423,975 enrolment cards in that week; 78,816 of those were new enrolments. Many 18-year-olds will miss out on the chance to register under this new legislation. You can check your enrolment with the AEC online. To download an enrolment form, right click here and select 'save link as...'. To help with the call to overturn the legislation please sign a petition at www.getup.org.au.

This page has been adapted from a Micro$oft Word document located on the www.localdemocracy.com.au web site.

When Hanlon introduced the Queensland Local Government Act in 1936 he spoke proudly of the ability his Labor government would give small local governments in Queensland - to legislate in their own right. This was revolutionary, he noted, and the way forward. Democratic representation and effective powers in relevant areas were localised and embedded in responsible, independent local governments.

Interestingly, the 1936 legislation did not amalgamate towns or reduce the number of shires from 124 to 74 as had been recommended by the 1928 Royal Commission. Nor did it build upon the Greater Brisbane model of 1924 which saw an amalgamation of two cities, six towns and ten shires. Why in only twelve years had the model been reversed?

The history of this troubled amalgamation and of the "greaterisation" push in the Labor party are fascinating. Whatever the earlier dream, by 1936 the Labor state government had to deal with serious problems in amalgamated Brisbane, as had the earlier Moore government.

Disturbed by the "inefficiency, extravagance and malpractice of the Labor council", the State legislated to control budgeting and financial reporting in Brisbane. Politically committed to providing public works, or infrastructure in today's terms, without increasing rates the amalgamated council had resorted to cooking the books.

A "true deficit of sixty six thousand pounds" was "converted to a surplus of one hundred and twenty thousand pounds by not charging depreciation and renewals against the city fund". Today that would be a multimillion dollar fraud. These men, it seems, did not start off with evil intent. Rather they appear caught between an inappropriate structure and the impossible task they set themselves.

The push for sewerage and city roads in a low tax amalgamated city cost Brisbane dearly. While other Australian cities were progressively sewered, Brisbane had to wait for three decades, Clem Jones' Labor and sufficient financial capacity.

Ever since, the Auditor General has kept close watch on local government finances. Local governments have generally acted responsibly, with state interventions when they have not. As demonstrated in Perspectives on July 24, local governments today are in generally reasonable financial shape, and are not playing the accounting tricks of the earlier amalgamated Brisbane.

In an era when Queenslanders and their new nation were struggling through the long Great Depression they looked with pride to Melba, Phar Lap, Bradman and other Australian inspirations that helped them hope beyond their immediate troubles. The Depression and War eventually passed - but the costs of amalgamation lingered in poor Brisbane.

The current state government push to ridicule this period by perversely using its inspirations aroused my curiosity. Laverty's chapter on "Greater Brisbane and Local Government" in "Labor in Power" edited by Murphy and others sheds much light, the quotes being drawn from it. Those with a greater knowledge of history would be aware of such things, but the rest of us may need to do a little catching up and reflect on the lessons of history.

It took less than a decade for Labor's earlier experiment with grand amalgamation to fail. Might we not learn from our own history and save our selves needless expense and pain incurred from obsessively following a grand but fundamentally flawed idea?

Written on 1 August 07 by Dr Mark McGovern. Dr McGovern is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Economics and Finance at Queensland University of Technology.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

MEDIA RELEASE

Sunday 5 August 2007

On Wednesday morning last 1 August 2007, contractors moved into the Catani Gardens in St Kilda and, ignoring a community picket, proceeded to strip off access chutes on the metal 'possum exclusion bands' high up on the Canary Island Palms, thus effectively stranding about twenty possums asleep in the crowns of the trees. This meant that, come night time, the possums would be unable to get down the trees to feed and so would be condemned to starve to death or die of dehydration. If, in desperation, they jumped from a great height they could be killed or badly injured. Likely as not, once on the ground with no place to hide (since most trees are now banded) they would fall victim to dog attack, human cruelty or road kill.

Members and friends of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) called a commercial wildlife rescue service to come to the Gardens to work out how the stranded possums could be rescued. Council refused to engage him and deferred making a decision. On Wednesday night PPL VIC members confirmed that there were, indeed, numbers of desperate possums trapped possible 15 metres or so up in the trees, above the bands.

Next morning, on Thursday 2 August, Council stepped in and ordered Parks officers to inspect the treetops, thus proving us right that there were possums trapped there. Contractors then reinstalled the metal chutes on the trees to allow possums access to the ground and food that night. Had PPL VIC not intervened then Council would have simply left the possums to die stranded in the treetops.

Julianne Bell PPL VIC Secretary comments: "Last year Port Phillip Mayor Janet Bolitho announced that Council had employed a consultant to work out a 'humane' way to exterminate the tiny colony of possums, supposedly guilty of chewing palm fronds and damaging trees. In our opinion installation of the consultant's Heath Robinson contraptions, consisting of a unique arrangement of monster steel bands with access chutes and traps, has proved a major bureaucratic bungle being vastly expensive, completely unnecessary and exceptionally cruel. Also in our view the project is illegal under the Wildlife Protection Act 1975 and possibly under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985. The Mayor and Councillors may imagine that the trapped possums are spirited away and euthanased quietly. But ASU members have recently refused to handle possums and local vets have denied any involvement. The tragedy is that while Melbourne City Council promotes possum spotting tours in the Fitzroy and Treasury Gardens, Port Phillip Council is attempting to exterminate the Catani Gardens possums, which draw hundreds if not thousands of tourists a year."

Lucy Fairley, a British tourist (name and details can be supplied) wants to be on record as saying: "As a holidaymaker from England, I was thrilled to read in my guide about feeding possums in Melbourne's parks. My daughter and I visited a number of parks at dusk and finally struck lucky in Catani Gardens. There were a handful of lively and almost tame possums - they even let us stroke them; it was the highlight of my holiday. I was struck dumb when I learnt of the council's eradication plans; how they had already killed a number of possums and were on the point of rounding up and murdering these last few, defenceless animals. I am outraged - I cannot believe in such barbarous and short-sighted behaviour. Just to think of the tourist potential the council were ignoring - they should be writing to guide books to publicise their asset, instead of persecuting these beautiful animals... I, for one, would find Melbourne a far less attractive place to visit without this compelling attraction and my estimation of Australians (certainly of council officers) would be significantly reduced if the possums were to be exterminated."

Note that Tourism Minister Tim Holding has declined an invitation to visit the Catani Gardens and over the past few months has been, reportedly, too busy to meet PPL VIC representatives.

Media contact:
Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (PPL VIC)
www.protectorsofpubliclandsvic.com
03 98184114 or mobile 0408022408 or
Jill Quirk (PPL VIC) on 03 95097429 or 040 09742927.

The article below was adapted from a post made to Online Opinion in response to an article "An end to big fish in small, shallow ponds" by Dr Paul Reynolds, Lecturer in Australian Politics and Australian Political behaviour at the University of Queensland

The argument in favour of forced amalgamations has been comprehensively demolished by, amongst others, Professor Brian Dollery of the University of New England in an interview on ABC Radio National's Bush Telegraph of 31 July (transcript not available but audio file can be downloaded from web site for another three weeks). In an article "Counting the Merger Costs" (see below) printed in the Courier Mail on the same day, he demonstrtated that the report from the the Local Government Reform Commission was seriously flawed.

He noted that the Local Government 'Reform' Commission handed down its conclusion just two months after submissions were closed on 25 May.

"In other words, we are expected to believe that in a mere two months it was able to consider tens of thousands of pages of submissions, carefully weigh in the evidence and deliver sound policy advice. ...

"It is hardly surprising that the final report is seriously deficient in several respects."

These include:

• no evaluation of the costs of alternative courses of action,
• No attempt to determine the costs attached to amalgamation and the implementation of structural reform (admitted on page 38, chapter 3 of the report)
• No account taken of experiences of amalgamation in Victoria, South Australia or Victoria, nor evidence from Canada, nor the 2007 Lyons report into British local Government.

Professor Dollery concludes :

"Evidence-free policy-making of this kind is alarming. State Government politicians should ask themselves a simple question before embarking on a potentially destructive forced amalgamation program.

"Why do financial problems persist in other Australian states that have already compulsorily amalgamated local councils if amalgamation is indeed a silver bullet for all the ills of local government?"

For further information, visit www.une.edu.au/clg, www.localdemocracy.com.au, www.friendsofnoosa.com.au, /NoForcedAmalgamations

Deborah Tabart, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Koala Foundation has written to the Queensland Environment Minister (see below) asking the the status of Koalas in the South East Queensland bio-region be upgraded from their current listing of 'vulnerable' to 'endangered' as a result of the alarming recent increase of Koala deaths. Deborah Tabart wrote:

In Redland Shire alone a total of 362 koalas were taken into care, only 96 animals appear to have survived. A shocking 73.5% death rate. What is more disturbing from these statistics is that the deaths appear to be mainly disease related, which is clearly an indication of stress, which could well be caused by habitat loss. Although many blame cars and dogs as a primary cause of koala deaths, these statistics indicate that those deaths were minor, compared to the diseased animals. This is a disturbing trend.

The letter concluded:

Given these high death rates, it is hard to imagine that koala births in the Redland's Shire are outweighing the deaths, a sure sign of impending localised extinction.

I call on you to immediately upgrade the koala listing to Endangered and give South-East Queensland's koalas a better chance for survival.

Human population growth driving Koalas to extinction

The underlying driver which threatens the Koala with extinction has been the population growth deliberately encouraged by successive Queensland Governments. Since 1974, Queensland's total population has more than doubled from 2 million in 1974 to well over 4 million today. So, it should be little wonder that with their habitats encroached upon by residential estates, roads, industrial estates, quarries, power lines and other infrastructure that the numbers of Koalas and other Australian native wildlife has declined steeply.

Yet, in spite of this, the growing water shortages, the strains on electricity generation, traffic congestion and the overall decline in the quality of life for the human residents of Queensland, the Queensland Government persists with its reckless policy of encouragement of population growth. The latest episode in this saga are to be the planned Work, Live and Play in Queensland" expositions in Sydney from 17-19 August and in Melbourne from 5-7 August. This is to in order to fulfil the plans of the Queensland Government decreed in its 2004 South East Queensland Regional Plan to cram another 1 million into South East Queensland alone by 2026, presumably to suit the property development sector, which funds the Labor Party even more generously than the trade unions.

Unless this population growth is stopped the fight to save the Koala, as well as to preserve what quality is left in the lives of ordinary Queenslanders is doomed.

What you can do

• Write to Lindy Nelson-Carr Queensland Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism to support the Australian Koala Foundation's call to have the Koala listed as 'endangered' in South East Queensland. (E-mail EandM|AT|ministerial qld gov au or see below for phone numbers or postal address.)
• Become a supporter of the Australian Koala Foundation
• Join the Australian Wildlife Protection Council at www.awpc.org.au/newsite/join.php
• Participate in protests by the 'People Power' group against over development in Redland shire. To Contact the 'People Power' group e-mail people_power |AT| hotmail . com. (For further information visit /SaveMountCotton)
• Contact the Queensland Government and demand an end to their policy of encouraging population growth
• Contact the Commonwealth Government and demand an end to their policy of population
  growth through:
  • High immigration (currently at an unofficial, but real, record annual rate of 300,000 up from 68,000 in 1996 - see Ross Gittins' article "Backscratching at a National Level" of 12 June in the Sydney Morning Herald
  • Treasurer Peter Costello's $3,000 baby bonus
• Vote against politicians who fail to protect Australian wildlife or who encourage population growth
• Set up an account on this site, if you do not already have one, by visiting /user/registerso that you can contribute your knowledge and ideas. (You may still post comments anonymously but you may have to await the approval of the site administrator, before they are published.)

The people of Queensland should resist amalgamation at all costs. I've seen first hand the local loss of community power following the Kennett years when he decided to amalgamate many Victorian shires. My own little shire of Grenville was taken over during this process to be absorbed into the Golden Plains Shire despite our protests and a street march. Kennett was, it seemed, tarred with the same disregard for our shire's citizens as is John Howard with Australians in general. In fact, pigheadedness and self promoting agenda appear to be the hallmark of Liberal policy. What we have today is a huge shire that covers a massive area, reaching from Haddon in the North down as far as the outskirts of Geelong. Since Geelong has been subject to a major housing boom the same as many other areas of the State, it comes as no surprise that the Golden Plains Shire is one of the fastest growing shires in Victoria and although it claims to have the lowest rates of any of the major shires, those same rates go up every year. When we were under the Grenville Shire, very ordinary citizens ran it in unison with their fellow residents. Things got done and rates were kept very low despite the fact that Grenville had it's own road maintenance crew and machinery. Since we've fallen under the banner of the Golden Plains Shire, we've had a reduction in some services and unwanted town projects thrust upon us by a shire well out of touch with residents desires. Big money has entered the Golden Plains Shire and the untouchable attitude that goes with the money. People in smaller communities no longer have the power to decide what's best for them. Instead, the shire forces major changes which in the end can only benefit land developers and the shire coffers as rates rise to meet the demands of these changes. To the people of Queensland, I urge you to fight amalgamation with all your might. Keep what is yours and do not let the dark forces of money and power ruin all you hold dear. There's lots of opportunity for smaller shires to ensure a bright future for it's fellow citizens, but amalgamation provides opportunity only for big business and greedy land developers. Note: This was originally posted as a comment to another article.

The more I observed the conflicts between Howard and Bracks over water, the more I thought they were about votes and not water. I honestly cannot see why anyone who cared about safeguarding water for Australia would give more water to irrigators and take it from dryland farmers. This is what happened in the Victorian Government's push for piping in the Wimmera Mallee, replacing seasonal gravity-fed channels one hundred years old with expensive, cumbersome, motor-pumped pvc closed pipes, forcing farmers to bulldoze their dams and to lay expensive infrastructure for the privilege of receiving very expensive water which has been arguably taken from them to buy votes from irrigators who were also encouraged to farm even more intensively - feedlot pig farms, dairy farms and vinyards. Let's face it; the irrigated parts of the MDB are the most densely populated areas of inland rural Australia and water for irrigators is a handle on a substantial voting population. In contrast the dryland farmers, albeit far more sustainable even though broad acre, are too thin on the ground to matter to Bracks or Howard. So, is this about water? Yes, but only about branding water with a party name and the face of particular politicians. I thought that Howard was masterfully crafty in his sudden withdrawal from the Snowy Hydro privatisation plan, leaving Bracks, so to speak, high, dry and irrigation vote-less. It was eerily like watching the road-runner outrace the coyote, yet again - with Bracks the coyote and Howard the road-runner. I guess that is part of the reason that Bracks would be furious this time. Apparently the VFF suddenly decided to go National. The farmers followed. And then ...did Bracks resign or was he persuaded to resign? And what about Thwaites? I'm only sorry that I missed the detail. I have looked in vain for articles which would analyse what really happened. I certainly cannot credit Bracks or Thwaites with any sincere desire to actually guarantee hydration to Victoria. I have watched them side with big money (Pratt's piping; desalination; overpopulation, taking water from the Golburn to sprinking on the new suburbs their mates the property developers are building in every big country town) for too long. It is truly sickening to listen to both Federal and State politicians carrying on about precious water for future generations etc with their hands over the places where their hearts would be if they had hearts, when anyone can see that they are leading a stampede of salivating nabobs who are dying for full commodification to take place so that they can buy up the water and wait for the inflation and scarcity which is already arising with climate change, continuing population growth, and more intensification of agriculture. With a merchant banker in charge of water - Turnbull - we just know they are going to get what they want and the rest of us are all in really big trouble. Trading water separate from land is a terrible idea, but I am horribly sure that Turnbull will come up with much worse. He only seems to deal in really bad ideas - like schemes to assist banks to get more land from the same amount of mortgages. I wish we could all wake up and find that this was all a bad dream and that we 21st century Australians really are all too evolved to allow Australia to go the same way as treeless waterless Greece, Rome, Egypt, China ... Neutrino

In relation to Rogers scenario or "peak oil" arriving in 2020, a few points need to be considered.

People are beginning to wake up to the prospect that the end of cheap oil will mean a massive shift in the way we live and do business. From my experience, most believe that "peak oil" as it's more commonly known, will arrive sometime around 2035. That notion is probably due to the propaganda put out by the oil industry itself, yet many of the people I speak with seem to brush off even that outside date as being of little importance. They say things such as....."That's years away." "We don't have to worry because by then, "they" will have introduced different technology." Nobody seems quite sure just who "they" are, but I'm assuming "they" are world leading scientists who can twist and bend to laws of physics to suit themselves, not to mention the ever greedier consumers.

But, how far away is 2020?

Now, lets look at the date 2020. What's so special about 2020? One very simple issue that people don't seem to be aware of is the fact that 2020 is just 12 years and 5 months away from this time of writing. The other factor concerning 2020 is that it's a date arrived at by Roger Bezdek himself by his own reckoning and whilst I don't doubt Roger's expertise in the area of peak oil, predicting the exact date of peak oil is practically impossible. For all we know, it may well be with us right now and I believe we're already seeing the first birth pangs of this new era.

... or 2035?

As to the general consensus of the date 2035. That's a bit further away, approximately 27 years and 5 months. Considering that any new technology requires a lead-in time of around 20 years to become established, what and where is this "new technology?" We need it today if it's going to be throughly implemented by 2035, but it's simply not on the horizon and for very good reasons. It all comes back to the laws of thermodynamics, physics and a constant supply of natural resources and currently, there's nothing that can match the energy derived from once abundant cheap oil. It's doubtful there ever will be. People talk about the ever elusive Electric Vehicle, but nobody realises the sheer magnitude of swapping the entire motor vehicle fleet over to electric. It's simply not possible! Batteries are the problem. There's simply not enough lead in the entire world to make the billions of batteries required. Even if there was, it would take more fossil fuel to make them than would be saved by going EV. Same with Lithium. Great for mobile phones, but it doesn't exist in sufficient mineable quantities to build all those billions of batteries.

Governments must act now to make the necessary changes

What we do require, is a Government willing to recognise the looming crisis and shift from rampant capitalism to organised power-down. Will it happen? I must say, as an Australian citizen, I remain very pessimistic on that front. The Australian Federal Government is firmly bound to International market forces and is in reality only a puppet of the huge American conglomerates and corporations. Eventually they will have to make hard choices, but by then it will be too late.

The time to act is now, if indeed it's not too late already. Some, who celebrated as they watched 1999 slide gracefully into the year 2000, are now wondering just where the last seven and a half years went. With so many cheap "toys" made from once abundant cheap oil and lives filled with distractions, time does not stand still and indeed seems to fly by faster every year. It won't seem like any time at all until 2020 and even 2035 arrives on our calenders. Will life then be a lot different to how we experience it today? The answer is yes! My only hope is that for most of us, it won't be unbearable.

Death of Democracy in Queensland Australian Greens Lead Senate Candidate for Queensland, Larissa Waters said today's recommendations from the Local Government Reform Commission would be the death of Local Government democracy and is demanding the Beattie Government reject them. "Under these reform proposals, Queensland would have 726 fewer Councillors, almost sixty percent less than it currently has. Less representatives means less representation. This report is bad for democracy," said Ms Waters. "By abolishing wards and divisions in councils, the commission would also make it harder for members of the community who want to run for election as Councillors - unless they have the funds to run a shire-wide campaign." "This recommendation favours rich candidates or those backed by wealthy political parties, and locks out ordinary members of the community from participating in our political processes." "Sunshine Coast residents will be particularly outraged by the proposal to amalgamate Noosa Council with Caloundra and Maroochy." "Noosa folk have been successfully resisting development pressure for years, but this amalgamation would see Noosa become the next Gold Coast, flying in the face of the wishes of its residents." "This review was sprung on Queenslanders yet almost 50,000 people felt strongly enough to lodge submissions with the commission." "The Greens call on Premier Beattie and his Local Government Minister to reject these recommendations and instead call a referendum to hear from the people what they want for their Shires - it' called democracy. "Many of the proposed amalgamations will mean the local character of regional towns will be swallowed up and ignored. For example, residents in the Central Queensland community of Bauhinia in Dauringa shire would be forced to travel 214 kilometers to Emerald to see a local council meeting, their Mayor or their Councillors." "In many areas these amalgamations will lead to job losses and downgrading of services, in a sector which currently employs 37,000 Queenslanders. This could be the death knell for some bush towns." Ms Waters is relieved that most Aboriginal Councils have not been recommended for amalgamation. For any Aboriginal Councils experiencing difficulty, she supports recommendation 17 of the report, that the State Government assists Indigenous Councils to improve their expertise and capacity. For more information: Larissa Waters Australian Greens Lead Senate Candidate for Queensland larissa.waters |AT| qld.greens.org.au

We need to be sure that a transfer of control over the Murray-Darling water is constitutional, Independent MP Tony Windsor said today. The Commonwealth may well need a referendum before it takes control of the Murray-Darling. He says the details of the federal government’s plan to take over the Murray-Darling Basin must be made public and the basin’s communities and irrigators must be consulted. Mr Windsor issued a joint statement with another key Independent, Peter Andren. “All the negotiation around the Howard Government’s $10 billion water plan has involved federal and state leaders, ministers and bureaucrats with no sign that the communities and irrigators who rely on the Murray-Darling will get a say,” Mr Windsor said. “My independent colleague, Peter Andren and I are calling on the federal and state governments to make the draft legislation and explanatory documentation available to the public with a view to launching an extensive community consultation process. “If the Commonwealth government is going to take over control of the Murray-Darling, with the agreement of the States, once Victoria gets on board, there are questions that need to be answered. "Section 100 of the constitution states: The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation. “So ‘the residents’ of a State have the same rights as their state governments when it comes to the regulation of water,” Mr Windsor said. Mr Andren believes that there is also questions of:

• How much authority is actually to be handed over by the states.
• How duplication of roles may occur and therefore duplication of costs to the taxpayer.

Mr Andren asks, “What are the Commonwealth’s plans for the allocation of water to the towns, irrigators, and to environmental flows? "How can anyone accept the federal government’s proposal without this information? He concluded, “This takeover requires extensive consultation for all the so-called stake holders in the Murray-Darling basin before anything is decided and the federal government must make the details of its plan publicly available. “The people of the basin must be confident that the Commonwealth is not just creating another layer of bureaucracy and that there will be sufficient checks and balances in place against the misuse of our precious water resources,” Mr Andren said. SOURCE: Breaking national news from Rural Press weekly agricultural papers, 24 July 2007 updated daily on FarmOnline.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating was totally wrong in his recent media comments condemning nationalism. A strong dose of nationalism is precisely what this country needs and has always needed. It is economic nationalism that urges Australians to buy Australian, to protect Australian farmers, workers, jobs and businesses. Nationalism prevents the sell-off of our true
icons such as Telstra and Qantas. Nationalism fires the bellies of our international sportspeople. Nationalism is needed to fend off Free (not Fair)-Trade agreements that eat like a cancer on our economy. We also need cultural nationalism to preserve our history and heritage. Finally we need political nationalism so we can stand tall and strong in the world and not
be sucked into foreign wars that we have no right to be involved in and only make us a target of terrorism. While the major parties only offer divisive politics pitting workers, farmers, businesspeople - all true Australians against each other, it's only independents that can unite and truly represent the people.

Cate Molloy,
Southern Cross Independent Candidate for Wide Bay
Peregian Beach, Queensland
ph 0754483784, 0408729499.

The Gold Coast Spit Open Space is again under threat of development with a Queensland Government proposal to build a maritime training simulator for shipping pilots on land adjacent to the sand-pumping jetty, even though it has no windows and no need to be located on the Spit.

Lois Levy, campaigner with Gecko - Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council, says that this latest proposal again demonstrates Government unwillingness to listen the community's clearly expressed desire for no development north of Seaworld.

"Once again it appears the Queensland Government is planning for a commercial use of The Spit parklands with this latest proposal. The Government just can’t seem to leave The Spit alone," said Ms Levy. "It must be retained as parkland for our growing population and these commercial uses can be placed elsewhere."

Curiously, the draft application by Department of Transport for the training simulator lists the facility as "community purposes" when it is clearly intended to be a commercial operation with paying students.

"Gecko members cannot understand why this simulator has to be built on parkland when the simulator part of it has no windows and can be built anywhere," said Ms Levy. "This makes us highly suspicious that it is the thin end of the wedge. The excuse that the training centre needs to be close to accommodation and public transport just doesn’t wash."

The proposal is for a 6.5 metre building consisting of three simulator 'drums', a foyer, administration, ablution facilities, briefing / lunch rooms, instructors’ room and storage and parking for 9 vehicles on an area of 980m2 of public land. It is intended to be open from 9 – 5 for 6 - 8 trainees per day and employ 3 - 4 full time staff.

"Given that the Gold Coast does not have any shipping pilots for its seaway, it is very strange that this expensive facility will be purpose built here rather than in the Port of Brisbane and for only 6 students," said Ms Levy.

"Is this the beginning of grander plans for a marine precinct?" asked Lois. "We will be seeking further information from the Department of Transport and will keep the community informed."

For further information contact:
Lois Levy, Gecko Campaigns Committee 0412-724-222

Also visit www.gecko.org.au, www.saveourspit.com

MEDIA STATEMENT 12 July 2007

The opinions of Cr Henry are not necessarily those of Redland Shire Council/

Division 3 Councillor Debra Henry is challenging the Mayor's dismissive remark that rapid population growth in the Redlands is 'bunkum' (Bayside Bulletin 10 July, p 2).

Labeling his comments as misleading, Cr Henry has called for him to "come clean on a growth rate that is putting environmental and social services under immense pressure".

"Comparisons with Ipswich, Caboolture and elsewhere are irrelevant. The people of the Redlands have persistently identified Redland's natural features and relaxed lifestyle as valued assets to maintain and enhance. But these are quite obviously being eroded by rapid growth" said Cr Henry.

Cr Henry is concerned that the Mayor remains fixated with growth and refuses to grasp the realities of the Shire's growth. "It's simple mathematics" she says "Even what appears to be a small percentage (2%) when applied to a large number, grows quickly".

"A two percent growth rate equates to a doubling in 35 years. With a population of 135,000 two percent growth means the Shire's population will increase by another 135,000 in 35 years. It is exponential growth and never before have we faced growth of this magnitude. The Mayor's refusal to acknowledge this is disturbing" Cr Henry said.

But she believes there is a questionable agenda behind the Mayor's dismissive remarks.

"The Local Growth Management Strategy (LGMS) recently passed 6-5 by this Council and now with State Government for approval is a planning document of the highest order. It will lock the Shire into high growth for the next two decades and with his cries of 'bunkum' it appears the Mayor is trying to detract from the significance of this document" said Cr Henry.

"If approved, the LGMS will result in at least another 60,000 people in the Redlands in less than 20 years. It will result in amendments to the Redland Planning Scheme and the State's SEQ Regional Plan. It will give legal rights of development, and compensation would apply should hindsight indicate the land zonings are inappropriate".

Cr Henry considers it ironic that some of the Councillors supporting the LGMS have lamented some land zonings at Mt Cotton, saying the decision made some 20 years ago locked us into approvals, no matter how inappropriate that decision is in hindsight.

"Let's learn from the past, and use some foresight here. We can negotiate levels of growth, and we don't have to commit vast tracts of land to non-negotiable development".

Cr Henry, who has posted an "e-Petition" relating to the LGMS on www.parliament.qld.gov.au added that the Mayor's "flippant response to a serious situation, is a hindrance to democracy and a threat to sustainability".

Debra Henry
Councillor Division 3
Cleveland South - Thornlands
Redland Shire Council
crdebrah |AT| redland.qld.gov.au
07 38298618
0439 914631

Media Release
Wednesday, 11 July 2007

South East Queensland residents are using World Population Day, 11th July, to urge the Queensland Government to reverse the over-allocation of land and resources committed to development in the region.

According to the South East Queensland Branch of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), concerned citizens are sending an appeal to the Premier that the Local Growth Management Strategies required under the SEQ Plan be delayed until biodiversity, climate change, natural resources, ecological services and quality of life issues are addressed.

"The government has committed South East Queensland to a level of development that will destroy its biodiversity," said a spokesman for the South East Queensland branch. "We are destroying our natural environment, both through the use of land for housing and infrastructure and through the consumption of natural resources, such as water and building materials."

"Quarries are already having an enormous impact on SEQ's biodiversity, destroying koala habitat and rare and threatened species; and with the increasing demand for building materials we will see even greater destruction," he said. "If the Environmental Protection Agency allows quarrying in 'of concern' regional ecosystems - those types of forests that are already down to less than 30% of their original cover - we will see massive losses of this region's species diversity."

"The South East Queensland Regional Plan was based on high projections and planning from the early 1990's, with little regard for the natural assets of the area," said the spokesman. "The Queensland Government has mapped almost all the vegetation left in the Region as being of state and regional significance for biodiversity, yet it has failed to protect this biodiversity from housing, tourism, rural industry and other impacts."

"We are asking that a moratorium be imposed until the over-allocation of South East Queensland land for development is reversed and sustainable outcomes are guaranteed," he said.

For more information about this important issue:

   Sheila Davis, Secretary, SPA-SEQ, Mob: 0423 305478

Citizens arrest

Tackling climate change is now a worldwide crusade - so what's stopping campaigners driving its simplest solution?

David Nicholson-Lord

Wednesday July 11, 2007

The Guardian

The simplest truths are sometimes the hardest to recognise. This month, according to the UN, world population will reach 6.7 billion, en route to a newly revised global total of 9.2 billion by 2050. The latest housing forecasts for England predict that we will need about 5m more homes in the next two decades. The economist Jeffrey Sachs devoted this spring's Reith lectures to a planet "bursting at the seams". And the most recent Social Trends analysis from the Office for National Statistics painted a picture of a Britain driven mad by overcrowding. Meanwhile, Gaia scientist James Lovelock has been warning about ecological collapse and world resources able to support only 500 million people, with many extra millions driven to take refuge in the UK.

In the midst of all these alarms is a very quiet place where the green lobby should be talking about human population growth. Today has been designated World Population Day by the UN, but you will not see any of the big environment and development groups mounting a campaign on population. Indeed, you will be lucky if they even mention the P-word. Earlier this year, Nafis Sadik, former director of the UN's population fund, berated such non-governmental organisations for being more concerned with fundraising than advocacy. Their silence on population, she observed, was "deafening".

Mainstream concern

So why isn't the green movement talking about population any more? In its early days, back in the 60s and 70s, population growth was a mainstream concern. Groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (FoE), WWF and Oxfam took well-publicised positions on population issues - endorsing the Stop at Two (children) slogan, supporting zero population growth and publishing reports with titles such as Already Too Many (Oxfam). These days, Greenpeace declares that population is "not an issue for us" and describes it as "a factor [in] but not one of the drivers of" environmental problems.

FOE last year tried to answer some "common questions" on the subject, including: "Why isn't Friends of the Earth tackling population growth?" Oxfam, which as recently as 1994 published a report entitled World Population: The Biggest Problem of All, now does not list it among the dozen or so "issues we work on", and nor does it figure in the "What you can do" section of WWF's One Planet Living campaign.

The green lobby's main argument is that numbers do not matter so much - it is how we live and consume that counts. FoE even remarks that "it is unhelpful to enter into a debate about numbers. The key issue is the need for the government to implement policies that respect environmental limits, whatever the population of the UK". It is a statement that seems to treat population and environmental limits as entirely separate subjects.

There are two powerful counter-arguments to this. One is common sense: that consumption and numbers matter and that if a consumer is absent - that is, unborn - then so is his or her consumption. The second is the weight of evidence. Sir David King, the government's chief scientist, told a parliamentary inquiry last year: "It is self-evident that the massive growth in the human population through the 20th century has had more impact on biodiversity than any other single factor."

The increase in global population over the next 40 years, for example, is roughly what the entire world population was in 1950. The UK, currently around 61 million people, is on course for 71 million by 2074, by which time England's densities will have outstripped those of South Korea, which, by some measures, is currently the world's second most crowded country - second only to Bangladesh.

The Optimum Population Trust today publishes a new report, Youthquake, that warns - echoing Lovelock - that environmental degradation caused by the number of humans may force more governments to follow China's lead and introduce compulsory limits on family size.

Many suspect other motives for the green lobby's neglect of the population issue. It is a sensitive subject, bound up with issues on which the progressive left, which most environmental groups identify with, has developed a defensive intellectual reflex. These include race and immigration - the latter accounts for more than 80% of forecast UK population growth, for example - reproductive choice, human rights and gender equality. Calls for population restraint can easily be portrayed as "anti-people" - surely people are part of "the solution"? It is far easier to ignore the whole subject; let somebody else - or nobody - deal with it.

Verbal contortions

This often involves intriguing verbal contortions. The 70s organisation Population Countdown, having morphed into Population Concern, in 2003 rechristened itself as Interact Worldwide - under its former name, consultants told it, its funders, and future, would dry up.

Faced with escalating forecasts of housing need - one recent government projection says we will need 11m more households in the UK by 2050, an increase of over 40% - the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) proclaims itself in favour of "development that protects the countryside and the environment" and ignores the fact that the main cause of forecast housing growth, responsible for 59% of the total, is population increase.

So why does the CPRE not campaign on the issue that poses the greatest threat to rural England? "If we did," says Shaun Spiers, CPRE's chief executive, "it appears unlikely that our actions would have any effect on population growth, and that would lay us open to the charge of misusing our charitable funds."

How to categorise such reactions? Pragmatism? Cowardice? Sensible tactics? Or an overdose of organisational self-preservation? Whatever the reason, it is infectious - the media (and politicians) take many of their awareness cues from NGOs so the silence on population becomes society-wide. As a result, family size is seen as an exercise in individual lifestyle choice: few people consider the consequences for the planet of their fertility decisions. That means fertility rates in the UK rise, and the population keeps on growing.

· David Nicholson-Lord is an environmental writer and research associate for the Optimum Population Trust. The Youthquake report is available at optimumpopulation.org

· David Nicholson-Lord is an environmental writer and research associate for the Optimum Population Trust. The Youthquake report is available at optimumpopulation.org

· Email your comments to society |AT| guardian.co.uk. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication"