Watch highlights of the Surf Coast Energy Group Forum. The issues of population, climate change and pressures on our bio-diversity are addressed. Kelvin Thomson attended, Prof Ian Lowe was a speaker and the audience was large and varied.
There is very little 'social housing' available around Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula, yet Council has suggested these people could be relocated to Mornington - in an entirely different community! Assuming that such accommodation can even be found - there or anywhere else. Despite no clear justification for a car park, Council is stubbornly insisting on continuing with the eviction.
As park resident Kevin explains below, the Cabin Park provides its residents with a supportive, caring community, which they may not have the benefit of with other 'social housing' options.
|
|
Mayor Cr Sandra Mayer and Councillors
Frankston City Council
PO Box 490
Frankston Vic 3199
That Frankston Council recognises the valuable contribution of the Seaford
beach Cabin Park, and support its ongoing contribution to affordable
housing in the municipality:
Council should support the retention of the Cabin Park ownership and operation
in its present form;
Even if the land-swap goes ahead, the arrangement in which the Frankston
Council leases the public land to the Cabin Park should continue, so
that the current operation is maintained;
Council should take up the offer by the owner to legally commit to the site
being a cabin park for a minimum 10 years;
Council should not consider resuming the Crown land for any other purpose at
least until such time as it undertakes its Lone Persons Households
Strategy and other substantial measures to address the affordability
and homelessness issues identified in the Frankston Planning Scheme and
the Frankston Housing Strategy.
If Council determines to proceed with the land swap and build a car-park,
it should strongly support the owner in his representations to the DEPI
regarding use (lease or purchase) of the small slice of land that would
be required to save approximately 20 units;
If the Council determines to build a car-park then it should (as it proposes)
engage professionals to undertake a 'closure protocol' to find
appropriate alternative local accommodation for residents, particularly
for families with children at local schools, people who work locally,
and long term residents who identify Seaford as their home.
Accommodation options at caravan parks down the Peninsula should not be
seen as an adequate solution to the housing needs of residents. It
should also set aside any deadline for eviction to ensure that
residents are given the best possible opportunity to find appropriate
alternative accommodation.
We look forward to your response and to future correspondence with
Council regarding affordable housing.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information
concerning this issue.
Yours sincerely, On behalf of the joint Working Group on “Homelessness”
|
David Moloney, Chairman, St Anne’s Parish Social Justice Group |
Noel M Tudball B.Bus, Chairman, Seaford Community Committee |
(NB Image of cabin park sign derived from one taken by Derrick den Hollander. Reused without permission.
"7.30 has acknowledged your concern and agrees it was inaccurate for the program to state as fact that flight MH17 was shot down by “Pro-Russian militia” and “Russian backed rebels”. The program understands the cause of that incident remains unresolved and is the subject of ongoing investigation." (ABC Corporate Affairs). After David Macilwain, candobetter.net author and 7.30 Report viewer, complained, the ABC has made editorial changes to a report entitled, "Tony Abbott promises to ‘shirtfront’ Putin at G20 Summit." Mr MacIlwain's complaint appears under this ABC response. This is a positive response from the ABC since the kind of unfounded bellicose reporting that MacIlwain complained about is helping to move the world rapidly towards another world war. The ABC can help the world by reporting truthfully and respectfully. (Also published by AMRIS at https://susandirgham.wordpress.com/abc730-editorial-correction-mr-bill-shorten-president-putin-and-mh17/
From: ABC Corporate_Affairs5
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:30 PM
To: (Mr David MacIlwain)
Subject: 7.30
Dear Mr Macilwain
Thank you for your email regarding the 7.30 story Tony Abbott promises to “shirtfront” Putin at G20 Summit.
Your concerns have been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. We have considered your concerns, reviewed the report and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy.
7.30 has acknowledged your concern and agrees it was inaccurate for the program to state as fact that flight MH17 was shot down by “Pro-Russian militia” and “Russian backed rebels”. The program understands the cause of that incident remains unresolved and is the subject of ongoing investigation.
The program has amended the online transcript of the report and posted an editor’s note alerting its audience to the error. The error has also been acknowledged on the Corporation’s online corrections and clarifications page.
The ABC Code of Practice is available online at the attached link;
http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CodeofPractice2013.pdf
Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue the matter with the Australian Communications and Media Authority http://www.acma.gov.au
Tue, 2014-10-14 22:25 — david macilwain
David Macilwain again complains to the ABC about their uncritical recycling of propaganda about the MH17 aircraft downing. He also expresses his disgust at the posturings of Tony Abbott with regard to the G20 and Vladimir Putin, based on this propaganda.
Dear 7.30 and ABC current affairs presenters,
I have sent the email below to ABC complaints, and copy it here for your information:
I am seriously disturbed by the handling of Tony Abbott's outrageous insults and allegations against Vladimir Putin today, by 7.30 reporter/presenters.
According to the transcript, Leigh Sales said:
...'since the shooting down of Malaysian flight MH17 over Ukraine by pro-Russian militia'....
Subsequently Sabra Lane repeated this in her own words:
...'after Malaysian flight MH17 was shot down by Russian-backed rebels over Ukraine'...
This allegation, presented as unchallenged fact by both presenters, is not merely only an allegation, but one which is entirely false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile, even one somehow fired mistakenly by separatists. At the same time there is ample evidence from multiple sources that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter plane, with or without Western collusion.
Compounding Abbott's mendacity, and sheer idiot bravado in seeking to confront Putin, is the fact that all government leaders and intelligence agencies involved in the Ukraine conflict are aware of the truth - it is simply not possible that they could not be.
If the ABC is capable of asking itself a question and not taking the answer from other Western media sources or 'Coalition' governments, it should ask why we have not seen the US satellite data from Eastern Ukraine, that Russia has been demanding since July? We know it exists, and it would demonstrate conclusively the nature of the projectile that brought down MH17. What possible motive could the US have for not releasing it?
It is to be hoped that before Putin graces Australia with his presence, someone with more sense than our punch-drunk PM will have a little word in Abbott’s ear; the truth about the atrocity in Ukraine WILL come out, and he will need to be thinking about all the lies that he has told about our actions in Ukraine before they catch up with him.
The ABC would be as well to do the same.
(To shed some light on what actually happened on July 17th, a most comprehensive investigation and report was produced by a group of Russian engineers recently, covering both the technical details of all possible munitions responsible, and the wider implications and political context. Their conclusion is one now accepted by most impartial observers, and merely awaits confirmation pending release of US satellite data and information from the Kiev control tower seized by Ukrainian secret service on July 17th.)
While the possible involvement of Western agencies in downing MH17 is an atrocity of unbelievable proportion, the clear ‘innocence’ of separatist forces in this crime is what concerns us here - our behaviour and sanctions policy towards Russia being based on a presumption of their guilt.
Please download the 28 page report from this site.
with regards, David Macilwain,
Here the beautiful and intelligent Sophie Shevarnadze of RT interviews Malcolm Fraser about why he thinks Australia should distance itself from the United States and his fears that we are being dragged to the edge of a third world war. Fraser may have helped stuff up our democracy by replacing Gough Whitlam, but he seems to be trying to make things better these days. Article includes transcript from the original interview, of which the URL is http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/208155-pacific-region-us-china/
The pinnacle of political power is slowly changing its homestead, moving eastwards to the Pacific, with the region becoming more and more vital within global matters; and U.S. is pushing itself actively into the regional scene, spurring rising rivalry between America and China. What future holds for the Pacific region? What is at stake between Washington and Beijing? And how’s the political games in the East change the balance of power in Europe? We speak to former Prime Minister of Australia on these questions. Malcolm Fraser is on Sophie&Co today.
Follow @SophieCo_RT
Sophie Shevarnadze: Malcolm Fraser, former PM of Australia, welcome to the program, it’s great to have you with us. Now, we start from this summit. Australian prime minister Tony Abbott promised to shirt-front Russia’s Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit. Canadian prime minister Harper posted as saying strong words to Putin during their meeting. Now, this states – they don’t play that big of a role in the crisis, and I mean the Ukrainian crisis. They don’t really decide much in it, so why the hostility? Is it a show for the voters at home?
Malcolm Fraser: It’s really a show for people at home, and it’s a show for people at home because a number of Australians were on that Malaysian aircraft. I figure it’s just a continuing saga of the way the West has allowed relations with Russia to deteriorate over many years, not just over the current problems over Ukraine or relating to the Crimea, but certainly Australia and Canada can’t influence the outcome whatever happens with Crimea at all.
SS: The way I see this summit is also about solving things and diplomacy; western press says that Russia presumably got a cold shoulder at the G20 summit, so does this that the Western diplomacy ran out of things to say if it has to resort to snaps?
MF: I think that civility is enormously important between leaders and if you’re going to get anywhere and to make progress you treat other leaders – especially people with whom you might disagree – with civility, because unless you do so relations are only going to become more difficult and I regret the welcome that President Putin received or some might say did not receive because he was not welcomed by senior members of the government . As head of Russia, a great and proud nation, he should certainly been treated with respect while on Australian soil by Australian leaders, and also by other countries, by other people, who happened to be guests of Australia during the course of this particular meeting. To take steps to sideline president Putin, to try and repeat views of opposition to or threatening sanctions, or increase of sanctions against Russia – I think that’s the wrong way to handle this kind of issue, and especially, I have that view because along with Dr. Kissinger of the U.S., professor John Mearsheimer from Chicago University and a numbers of others I believe that the West is significantly responsible for the problems in the Crimea.
SS: Australia introduced sanctions against Russia’s oil, gas, financial and defence sectors. What is for Australia, what is it aiming for?
MF: Australia would be aiming for whatever the U.S. is aiming for. We would have introduced sanctions because the U.S. has introduced sanctions, not because of any particular, separate, Australian interest.
SS: But, also, the economic isolation, especially in the case of sanctions, is supposed to be against the norms of international trade – and I mean, as they can only be introduced via the UN. Is economic isolation of Russia even possible?
MF: Well, I don’t really believe it’s possible, because Russia is a large, powerful and diverse country. There are many countries who will not participate in the imposition of sanctions in relation to Russia. But Australia would have taken this course because the Australian government believes that if the U.S. wants to do something, it will do it. It’s as simple as that. I happen to disagree with that view, because the U.S. is not the font of all wisdom, there are a number of things where Australia has national interest, which are quite different from the national interest of the U.S., and we need to assert our own independence much more strongly than we, in fact, do.
SS: I want to talk a little bit about China. China’s a big partner for Australia, I mean the two have signed a landmark Free Trade agreement after the G20. Are China’s growing ties with Russia something that Australia and its Western allies should be worried about?
MF: Well, I’m certainly not worried about that, whether America is worried about it or not – I wouldn’t be too sure, but I suspect that America doesn’t like this development. China has always been against foreign strategic entanglements, it has done it’s own things, it has often worked for a good relationship with as many countries as possible, but it does not want a military partnership, if you like, with other countries. If NATO and America persist with their policies in relation to Russia, then I believe, that might well force China and Russia closer and closer together. The recent agreement about, I think, a gas pipeline, recent agreement about fast train between Moscow and Beijing are the examples of these two very great countries cooperating in decisive and practical ways. The sanctions that have been imposed by the U.S. and other Western countries are bound to stimulate even closer cooperation between Russia and China.
SS: Now, the U.S. wants a Trans-Pacific partnership which would actually leave China out, while China wants a broader free trade area of the Asia-Pacific. Excluding China is simply impossible, what do you think?
MF: China can’t be excluded because of the size of its economy, because even though people point to slowing growth in China, it is still growing at 7% a year, and if it had not been for that, many-many countries not only in Asia but throughout the West also, would have experienced much more difficult time during the recent recession, that recent recession in Europe would have been very much greater. So, in many ways, China has been a focal point for stability and for economic progress, and I believe it would continue to be so. It’s worth noting, I think, that China has never been an imperial power, the way many European countries have been imperial powers, and the way the U.S. and Japan have sought to be imperial powers. I’m not fearful of Chinese military aggression, I do not believe it is going to occur, unless unreasonably provoked, for example, by provocative actions which, if they are going to come, would be more likely to come from japan than any other country.
SS: I want to talk a little bit more about the Trans-Pacific partnership which is being criticised in the U.S. and the terms of negotiations aren’t easily understandable for the public. Do you feel its to Australia’s advantage to be part of it?
MF: You’ve hit the nail on the head. The details of that agreement had not been published, there’s been no public discussion and there’s one aspect which I’m told is in the arrangement, which I hope will not be: and that is that it would give major corporations the power to sue governments, and this could indeed inhibit, lessen the capacity of governments to adjust policies in appropriate ways in future years. I mean, if, for example, resource companies came into Australia on one basis, and then the government sought to establish more equitable tax arrangements – then, if the Trans-Pacific partnership allows that corporation to sue the Australian government, to say “No, you can’t alter this tax arrangements, it got to stay as it was in the beginning” – well then that’s something that I would totally oppose.
SS: Now, the U.S. and China have a major economic relationship. At the same time, we’re seeing a massive Washington’s military build-up in the Pacific. What kind of a Chinese threat is the U.S. preparing against? And, also, is it going to involve Australia as well?
MF: China’s economic influence, and let’s face it, military influence grows, because its military expenditure is very-very small, compared to the U.S., but it has been rising. It is inevitable that they would want to develop a navy and an offshore navy. The Americas have said at times “China will destroy freedom of the seas”, but this makes no sense! Two thirds of China’s own trade goes through the Eastern-South China sea, and trade is a two-way business: both parties through a trade deal presumably benefit - or it wouldn’t take place. And so, I think, there’s a lot of emotion or paranoia or plain fear on the part of the Americans for the military buildup in the Western-Pacific. Last time I was in China, Chinese leaders were saying to me “you know, America has two policies. One - discussion, strategic and economic dialogue, and that seems to go well, but then they have a policy of military buildup, in which America believes, and too often, when America has not been able to achieve what it wants by diplomatic means it turns to military solution. And those military solutions have generally been failures”
SS: Now, you co-authored a book called “Dangerous Allies” about the parallels of an Australian-U.S. partnership. Why is the U.S., in your eyes, a dangerous ally to Australia?
MF: Because since the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been a supreme military power without restraint. When both superpowers existed, each restrained the other in very real ways. Now America being number one is unrestrained. In addition to that, the ideas of American exceptionalism, a nation endowed by God, better than any other, more exceptional than any other, what America does is right, because America does it - and these words, if not exact, are words of an American former diplomat, who wrote an article, published a year or two ago, saying that American exceptionalism dooms American foreign policy. Well, if the country has that attitude, it doesn’t listen enough to other countries, to the concerns of a countries, and it does not read or understand the history or the culture of those other countries. In those circumstances a sensible agreement is very difficult to achieve. Now, America being number one, wants to remain number one. Since the fall of the Soviet Union…
SS: Sorry to interrupt, but here’s what I’m thinking. I’m thinking you’re saying “America is number one, wants to remain number one, and all the allies that it has right now are unthinking or not even capable of ending their ties on U.S. dependance”. Who would protect Australia for example, if they were to end their ties with America?
MF: But do we need protection?
SS: I don’t know, you tell me. Is Australia capable of ending its ties with America?
MF: We are capable of it, we could do it, and if we want to re-establish our own sovereignty, our own sense of independence, we need to do it. We will need to spend more money on defence, because now we only spend one and a half percent of GNP on defence, we would probably need to spend three percent - which is not massive, many countries spend more. The reason for this change in Australia is that through all the years of a Cold War, while on many things we did follow America, we did not have to. We could have said “no” and that would have been believable. But now because there’s an American Task Force stationed on Australian land in Darwin, a task force which could deploy anywhere across Western Pacific, and also because of change in weapons and communications technologies in Pine Gap, technical, highly sophisticated facility - it is not only a defensive facility, it is also in many ways an offensive facility, having a role in aiming and targeting of modern weapons systems. This means that if we did not want to follow America into a conflict, and America were using those forces from Darwin and the facilities of Pine Gap, it would be difficult for an Australian PM to be believed.
SS: Talking about cooperation between Australia and the U.S., now Australia is already sending help in the fight against ISIS. The U.S. wants your country to increase troops on the ground. Will Australia agree to that?
MF: It probably will, but it shouldn’t, because unless countries from the region - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates, Turkey, take ISIS seriously, the West bombing of ISIS - Americans, Australians and others - you’re not going to win it from the air. You’re not going to win without tens of thousands of troops on the ground, and if local countries are not taking ISIS seriously, thinking that it can be won by Western forces is total mythology. You cannot impose an order in the MIddle East by Western arms and Western armies. So, president Obama should not have acted and began his bombing campaign, unless he had a commitment especially from countries wealthy and powerful, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, that they would provide ground troops to enable the fight against ISIS to be consummated successfully. So, just using aircraft and bombs is not going to be a solution, and certainly for Australia and America, whether Australia sends a few more troops or not will be irrelevant to the final outcome. The local countries are not taking what’s happening in region seriously, and, therefore, for America to do so, for Australia to do so, makes no sense whatsoever because we cannot succeed.
SS: President Obama has several times highlighted Russia as one of the top threats to the world along with ISIS. What do you think - is Russia really a menace to global security?
MF: I believe that since the fall of the Soviet Union that Russia’s historic importance and historic relationships have been very much belittled. I think American presidents did not understand the history of Central or Eastern Europe. If they had, they would have never supported the movement of NATO as a military organization to the very boundaries of Russia. From my perspective what president Putin did over in Crimea is understandable, because if the Crimea does one day join NATO, Secretary-General then writes to Russia, and says “remove those military facilities on the Crimea, they are not compatible with NATO policy” - then, that to me, would have been a declaration of war if I was Russian, because those bases are of historic importance to Russia - outlets to the Black Sea, to the Mediterranean, etc. No Russian government would accede to such a request. Therefore, making sure that Crimea returned to Russia - which probably should never have left - was perhaps averting much larger and potentially, much, much more dangerous problem between Russia and NATO. Instead of understanding that, the West had roundly castigated president Putin and Russia, but they’ve made a lot of the criticism very personal, which does not help, and so, moving NATO east was like saying to Russia...well, it was really exhibiting the spirit of Versailles after the First World War, rather than spirit of generosity in the Marshall plan which was demonstrated after the Second World War. Why with the fall of the Soviet Union, when the West was in the sense victorious, did the West want to revert to the spirit of Versailles , which had been proved to be such an absolute disaster for everyone, victors and for vanquished over a longer term? This is why professor John Mearsheimer wrote an article, published in America just a few months ago, why the West must take responsibility for what’s happening in the Ukraine. The West looks at what’s happened today, they look at today’s facts - they don’t look at the history that has contributed to the current situation. They don’t look to the motivations of the other countries, and especially they had not looked to the motivations, as I believe, of Russia - and that makes it much more difficult to see a final and peaceful outcome, that may in the end now lead to a division of the Ukraine, if that might be a solution, but I suspect in those circumstances America would still seek to impose continuing sanctions on Russia.
SS: When you spoke about NATO, NATO’s new rapid response force is planned to be headquartered in Poland. What should Russia do? Just ignore new NATO bases on its borders?
MF: Well, Russia should not do very much, it should not say very much. President Putin has spoken less on all of these discussions than any other leaders - I think that has been sensible; it should try and get the West to understand Russian motivation and purposes, but surely, America and NATO are not so foolish to take steps that will provoke another war.
SS: Thank you very much for this interview, we were talking to Malcolm Fraser, former PM of Australia. We were talking about China’s increasing role in Asia-Pacific and in the world, also talking about cooperation and partnership between America and Australia. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, we will see you next time.
Watch an old reporter turned politician do a few rounds in the ring with skilled Russian interviewer, Oksana Boyko of RT. Oksana gives him his head initially and he struts predictably, but things get interesting later, particularly on the issue of Australia's role and responsibility for the mess in the Middle East and Syria. (Bob Carr was a recent foreign affairs minister for Australia.) For me, it was fascinating listening to Carr's 'justifications'. Could a grown-up really believe this stuff? Who knows when Western leaders may really be called to account for their removal of order and warmongering in the Middle East. I wonder if this troubles them, if they lie awake at night going over their stories.
Original site of this video is http://rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/207171-g20-summit-international-relations/
Save our Suburb's Planning Survey exposes some fascinating trends among independents and small parties on population policy. I have put together some data on Victorian candidates for this coming election with regard to the population question on the poll plus any remarks. This was a late night operation and some candidates' remarks were partly obscured in the copy I made. Some Greens said they were in favour of such a policy, but I note that their own policy has for years avoided mentioning immigration and places the issue at a vague global level. It is well-known that this is a contentious issue with the Greens and that members and candidates tend to get punished for mentioning it and every attempt at workable local policy is suffocated from the top. Two Labor candidates - amazingly - said they were in favour of the policy. Note that the responses to the whole questionnaire are available here: http://sos.asn.au/vic/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/141117-Planning-Survey-of-Candidates-RO.xlsx UPDATE: As the survey is updated every 48 hours to include candidate responses, It might be best to use these links: Trend results and Individual candidate responses
Here is the question candidates were asked in the SOS poll, to which 35 had responded positively by 21 November 2014:
"While ensuring that human rights are protected, would you support wider public debate on a stable population policy for Victoria in order to address ecological sustainability, as well as infrastructure and employment impacts?"
Candidates who said they were in favour of such a policy were:
Australian Cyclists Party (All regions)
Voice for the West (Altona, Broadmeadows, Essendon, Footscray, Koroit, Melbourne, Melton, Niddrie, St Albans, Sunbury, Sydenham, Tarneeit, Werribee, Williamstown.
John Rinaldi, Independent, for Broadmeadows.
Calre LeServe, Independent for Bass.
Nigel Hicks, Independent for Murray Plains.
Lynette Bell, Rise Up Australia for East Bendigo
Christopher Byrne, Independent for Eltham.
Peter Gardney, Climate Emergency, Gippsland East.
Robert Anderson, Independent for Hastings.
Matt DeLeon, Independent for Melton.
Jordan Crook, Save the Planet Party for Monbulk.
Dr Eleonora Lullone, Animal Justice Party, Prahran.
Alan Menadue, Independent: Anti GST, Anti-Privatisation of Social ... for Prahran.
Tom Keel, Independent for City Living of Richmond.
Michael Challinger, Independent opposing selling off of public assets ... for Ringwood.
Jamie Overend, Animal Justice Party for South Barwon.
Safwat Ali, Independent for Tarneit.
Thomas Di Parma, Independent for reducing congestion, crime... for Thomastown.
Brenton Edgecombe, Animal Justice Party for Eastern Metropolitan.
Voice for the West for Western Metropolitan, Western Victoria, Northern Metropolitan
Maria McLaverty, Animal justice Party for Northern Metropolitcan.
Bruce Poon, Animal Justice Party for Northern Metropolitan.
Andy Meddick, Animal Justice Party for Western Victoria.
James Purcell, Vote 1 Local, for Western Victoria.
Joel Martin, Independent, Return TAFE and uni to the Yarra Valley, for Croydon.
Most people aware of population politics know that the Greens always support the Liberal Party and the Labor Party's big population policies and their policy is mostly a vague one about 'global' population.
Bill Pemberton of the Greens Box Hill, responded with "Yes," and stood out from his fellows by adding the following remark, courageous for a Green:
"Although a Federal issue 2000 people a week coming to live in Melbourne is unsustainable."
Daniel Caffrey of the Greens for Morewell, also responded "Yes."
Bruce Lindsay, Greens, Geelong also responded "Yes."
Rod May, Greens for Ripon, also responded "Yes."
Steven Merriel, Greens for Oakleigh, also responded "Yes."
Danel Caffrey, Greens for Morwell, also responded "Yes."
Paul Kennedy, Greens Ivanhoe, also responded "Yes."
Clem Stanyon, Greens, for Bundoora, also responded "Yes."
Steve Hosing, Labor Hastings. This is exceptional for a Labor candidate!
Ian Spencer, Australian Labor Party for South East Metropolitan. This is exceptional for a Labor candidate!
Sean Brocklehurst, Socialist Alliance for Pascoe Vale is typically opposed to a democratic population policy and has written remarks to that effect, also relying on the old racists posing as ecologists argument to discredit the validity of the issue.
Population numbers are now a democratic issue because the two big parties and the Greens are colluding to push extreme population growth. People will vote against population growth if given the opportunity because it is causing a decline in urban lifestyle. Some of the problems it is causing is severe competition for schooling, hospitals, housing and places on public transport. People are upset by the destruction of established built environment to keep pace with this imposed population growth. If we were able to achieve zero population growth over time and reduce our per capita consumption, we would use less coal, possibly even stop needing to use it and we would never need to turn on the desal plant. It's a no-brainer really.
Steven Armstrong is running in Albert Park as an independent. He is, however, supported by Sustainable Population Party, which, because it is federally registered, cannot run a candidate in a state election. Steven was a federal candidate for Sustainable Population Partyc in the last federal elections.
He says that he is running in regard to Sustainable Population Party because it would be a pity to let opportunity go by. He can offer some democratic choice to the people of Albert Park over the population issue. He can exercise the mechanisms of the party to find out what's possible when they concentrate their efforts on one electorate.
Steven thinks that people might vote for him due to their awareness of the symptoms of population growth. He gives a few examples:
There is a decline in standard of urban lifestyle:
- You can't get on tram or train in the morning.
- If you want to go from Albert Park to visit someone in Northcote, it takes an hour to get there on a Saturday afternoon. - People can't get their children into school.
- One in three houses needs to be knocked down and replaced by dual occupancy.
- It worries people to see houses knocked down.
He says that, in Elwood high density happened in 1960s and 70s but that process is starting again and will proceed throughout the electorate. Population growth presents an issue of democracy in that Greens, ALP and Libs are all colluding in pushing extreme population growth. The populace don't have a choice except in electorates where the Sustainable Population Party runs a candidate.
He would like to hold the balance of power in a parliament and hold the government to carry out wishes of people with respect to population growth. He could then advocate for zero population growth. If he could achieve that, then any new infrastructure would represent an improvement in our lives rather than a desperate attempt to catch up with growing population. Our quality of life would improve.
He would like the future to be similar to that period in Australian history when successive generations enjoyed a better standard of living than the previous one. He observes that that process has stopped and gone into reverse. He says that we need to get it back to how it used to be. With zero population growth, this would be a place where people enjoyed enough space in the inner city parks, where they could get transport around the city, where the level of health care was not swamped by immigration and where housing was once more affordable.
Steven says,
"If population stabilised and per capita use of the environment decreased in energy, space and waste production, then our environment would improve greatly. We would never ever have to turn on the desalination plant. We would not use more coal; we would use less of it. We may even be able to stop using it completely. So the environment would benefit greatly from a stable population."
“Every week, groups like ours receive calls from distressed residents, appalled at the conduct of planning in Victoria. People expect clear planning rules, integrity in governance and decisions in the long term public interest. Instead we have a rampant culture of secrecy and non disclosure, conflicts of interest, a perception of favoured access and undue influence, and a risk and perception of corruption.” - Ann Birrell, Vice President of Save Our Suburbs. SOS conducted a survey of Victoria's election candidates on associated matters and found 90 per cent and more support for planning reform. Candobetter.net's editors note that 54% supported wider population debate for a stable population on ecological grounds. The full questionnaire is to be found at https://www.surveymonkey.net/results/SM-9PF3VJPL/ Over 80% of respondents admitted to thinking that Victorians are unhappy about the way Melbourne is developing. Latest update on individual candidate responses can be found on a spreadsheet here: http://sos.asn.au/vic/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/141117-Planning-Survey-of-Candidates-RO.xlsx
A survey of Victoria’s election candidates has found overwhelming support for planning reform across the state and across the political spectrum:
- Over 90% support political donations reform
- Over 90% think that the Planning Minister should publish advice relied on and reasons for decisions
- Over 95% say we need to improve transparency, accountability and integrity
The survey was conducted by Save Our Suburbs and supported by 18 other community groups, representing thousands of concerned Victorians. The results were released on the SOS website today.
"The purpose of the survey is to draw candidates' attention to key planning issues and to provide information for voters.” said Ann Birrell, Vice President of Save Our Suburbs.
“Every week, groups like ours receive calls from distressed residents, appalled at the conduct of planning in Victoria. People expect clear planning rules, integrity in governance and decisions in the long term public interest.
“Instead we have a rampant culture of secrecy and non disclosure, conflicts of interest, a perception of favoured access and undue influence, and a risk and perception of corruption.”
“Candidates from all backgrounds share our concern that planning is out of control in Victoria, from urban to rural electorates and from the far left to the far right of politics.“
“Once in Government both the Liberals and the ALP have a track record of continuing to deregulate our planning and governance system, in complete disregard for the long term public interest of Victorians.
"As a result, we are about to see a fourth Victorian Government lose office.” concluded Ann Birrell.
Live trend results: https://www.surveymonkey.net/results/SM-9PF3VJPL/
Latest update of individual responses: Planning Survey of Candidates November 2014 RO
Link to SOS Report and full Results: http://sos.asn.a
Groups supporting the Survey include:
Save Our Suburbs, Green Wedges Coalition, Protectors of Public Lands, Planning Backlash, Public Transport Users Association, Ratepayers Victoria Inc., Save Albert Park, Yarra River keepers Association, Docklands Community Association, Residents Against Inappropriate Development in Doncaster, Fitzroy Residents Association, West of Elgar Residents Association, East Enders, Western Region Environment Centre, Appropriate Development for Boronia Group, Darebin Appropriate Development Association, Citizens for a Liveable Melbourne, Moreland Planning Action Group
Source: Save Our Suburbs Media Release 17 November 2104
Craig Thomson, Greens candidate for Nepean, is an indigenous vegetation expert and rehabilitator who works mostly on the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria, Australia. When he heard that the outgoing Liberal Government had quasi locked-in a private public development of hot mineral baths with a 50 yr lease in Victoria's Point Nepean National Park, on the day that government went into caretaker mode, he was horrified. This short video was made very quickly before the election black out in the hope of educating people about the value of Point Nepean National Park, of all public lands, and the need to preserve it for ourselves, our children and our indigenous animal and plants. Craig, who is a candidate for the Greens in this election (Victorian Elections November 2014) is also a wildlife rescuer with Animalia. He is a kind and inspiring man with a love for plants, animals, fairness and his community. In this film we also catch glimpses of his daughters, Eve and Rose, who Craig cares for as a single parent.
An old mate of mine and his son are doing their bit to promote awareness of climate change. Good on them. They arranged a presentation and invited an audience of around 100 people. The focus was on what WE could each do to reduce emissions. The direct link between population growth and climate change was not identified as a key issue.
Examples of storm impacts in the Philippines and acidification of the sea had been provided to explain the impacts of climate change and carbon dioxide. I provided the following supportive comments afterwards:
"I learnt a few things. The 4 million left homeless in the Philippines would have been 2.7 million if their population hadn't grown 50% in the previous 20 years.
The sea has already lost 90% of its fish, and that is caused by the same force as climate change. Acidification and over fishing are caused by population growth. All new oil and gas projects have design lives of 30 to 70 years. It's unlikely they will be abandoned before those lives end. But the number built to meet expanding demand can be immediately be impacted by family planning.
Can't overcome the sense of absurdity associated with deconstructing the environmental argument in this way. The population issue is no more challenging than emissions. It's just a different part of the same problem.
Seems to me that if you go to the effort of creating awareness of sustainability in the form of climate, why wouldn't you also mention the driving force behind both GDP growth and environmental destruction? The US economy has been driven by population growth for over 100 years. In 1962 there was one Wal-Mart. Now there are 8500 of them all selling fish. There are no cod left off Newfoundland.
As I have always sincerely believed; half an argument is like no argument because the big picture problem can't be solved with half a solution!"
As an ironic footnote to this story, the Wal-Mart Syndrome is my definition of what happens when economic growth driven by population growth goes to ridiculous extremes. As Russell Brand has explained, the six Wal-Mart heirs have wealth equal to the total wealth of the US's 185 million poorest citizens. Population growth was a driving force behind the creation of that massive inequity.
As I sat listening to the climate change presentation I was aware that many of the baby boomers in the audience were multi-millionaires who were born at the right time in the right place. These days you only need to have bought 4 houses with borrowed money 30 years ago to be worth more than $10 million.
So these fortunate wealthy epitomise the Wal-Mart Syndrome. The population growth that drove their relatively easy path to wealth has actually dispossessed future generations of similar opportunities. In the context of the climate change debate I am more convinced than ever that those who choose to disconnect the climate change (emissions management) debate from its Siamese twin population growth are living in exactly the state of denial that climate change activists think exists amongst those they are trying to enlist to their cause.
"half an argument is like no argument".......and that is why nothing is happening. WE can do nothing if we deny the most important half of the scientific reality; Exponential Population Growth and Australia's leading role in this debacle.
On Wednesday and today, Thursday, alert residents and campaigners opposed to the East West Link warned us that a team of surveyors were marking out trees for removal in the vicinity of the proposed tunnel entrance in Royal Park West as well as in the areas of Royal Park near Brens Drive and in the State Netball and Hockey Centre. It was reported that on the escarpment alone 80 trees were marked for destruction. The surveyors stopped work this afternoon and drove off in a convoy.
Yesterday the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc and the Royal Park Protection Group Inc.sought legal advice and our lawyer has now written to Linking Melbourne Authority and Lend Lease, the company leading the East West Connect consortium. It was pointed out that the Minister for Planning’s decision to approve the first stage of the East West Link project is the subject of judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court and that we understand that the matter is listed for hearing commencing mid-December 2014. Given that proceedings are imminent, we pointed out that we consider it premature for the contractor to be marking any tree for removal at this time. We asked that Linking Melbourne Authority and Lend Lease undertake that all works in Royal Park will cease pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
If any anti EW Link campaigners undertake checks in west Royal Park to see if further work is being undertaken, can you only observe and document the work? We feel that any blockade or protest at this stage might be counter productive. Can people leave the markings of the surveyors as evidence of the work started? Also if you can be careful to respect the indigenous vegetation area in west Royal Park and not disturb the habitat of White's Skink?
We will keep you posted!
Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.Inc. and
Spokesperson for the Royal Park Protection Group Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052
Mobile: 0408022408
The “new” plan sets a target of capturing 333 minke whales annually as part of a 12-year-long research effort "to achieve conservation of [Antarctic marine ecosystem] resources while pursuing their sustainable utilization and to understand and predict the effects of factors such as climate change."
Japan needs to have more "sampling" of whale demographic data, so they must kill more widely and extend their illegal whaling program!
"After giving serious scientific consideration, it has been concluded that age data at the annual scale can be obtained only through lethal sampling methods, and thus lethal methods need to be employed under this program," the plan said.
Wildlife is protected in the Antarctic, and the “sustainable utilization” is illegal! How is the word “sustainable” measurable when whales are intelligent, peaceful, and social marine mammals with high intrinsic value.
(A whale and a calf being loaded aboard a factory ship, the Nisshin Maru. The sign above the slipway reads, "Legal research under the ICRW")
Japan needs to have more "sampling" of whale demographic data, so they must kill more widely and extend their illegal whaling program!
Thanks to inactive governments, and ineffective politicians who've failed over and over again to directly end Japan's criminal and illegal commercial whaling. It's the science of absurdity, a pretence of “science” when it's really killing protected species and an environmentally sensitive, protected zone- the Antarctic.
This "research" is about promoting commercial whaling, not science or conservation!
Ostensibly Japan aims to obtain more precise information on minkes should the moratorium on commercial whaling ever be lifted and a quota system re-introduced, and to investigate the Antarctic marine ecosystem. So, in case the moratorium is lifted, they killing will will finally be legal and they will be ready to lift their "research" veil and start fully-authorised legal whaling in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary.
Wrongs need to be nipped in the bud, not allowed to fester and give criminals greater audacity and confidence! Inaction is as good as endorsement of crimes. The International Court of Justice condemned Japan's illegal whaling, but that hasn't stopped the whaling. Japan is just using the "research whaling" loophole to an even greater extent, to keep it within the limits of the ban.
Despite initially committing to respect the World's International Court of Justice's judgement, the Government of Japan and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe days later announced a sort of “back-to-front about-face,” defiantly declaring that Japan would return to whale killing around Antarctica after a one-year – with a new research plan and rationale!
Despite the new rationale, it's actually still thinly disguised commercial whaling, that they want or need to kill whales, develop the research plan and rationale later and then ignore international institutions and processes that might impede your “scientific slaughter”.
"This is is the same tired old plan to kill whales under the guise of scientific research," Mr Kindleysides of the Australian Marine Conservation Society said. "Prime Minister Tony Abbott must tell Japan this is not acceptable."
The amount of whale meat stockpiled for lack of buyers has nearly doubled over 10 years, even as anti-whaling protests helped drive catches to record lows. More than 2,300 minke whales worth of meat is sitting in freezers while whalers still plan to catch another 1,300 whales per year. Japanese have lost their appetite for whale meat!
The only reason for Japan's insistence on using harpoons on the Antarctic's majestic whales is to continue their warrior heritage and defy the West, and ensure they have a global export market in whale meat while the rest of the overpopulated world suffers from food insecurity!
It’s a matter of territorial rights, and infiltration of what they see as an international resource. The Antarctic is an open sea that everyone is entitled to its rich resources - and Japan is ensuring their presence and their "right" to it's riches.
The Age: Japan to expand it's Antarctic whaling area
In the latest report, Australian scientists will work with international scientists who helped the International Court of Justice find the previous Japanese program illegal. Surely such a thin scientific facade will easily exposed?
The Federal Government is not the sole responsible for Australia's planned and economic immigration; in fact the States seem to be leading it. State governments and political parties tend to try to mislead Australians on this very issue, so I felt it was time to write an article. Now is the time to head to your local member's office and ask him or her what he or she is going to do about this. If you don't get a sensible answer, vote small parties before Lib, Lab or Green.
Your most telling examples of how the States impact on immigration are the State migration websites. The States 'nominate' migrants. I think the Feds just pretend to 'vet ' them. In Victoria it is www.liveinvictoria.gov.com.au, in WA www.migration.wa.gov.au/, South Australia, https://www.migration.sa.gov.au; in Queensland, migration.qld.gov.au/, ACT: www.canberrayourfuture.com.au/, Northern Territory: www.australiasnorthernterritory.com.au/; Tasmania, www.migration.tas.gov.au/
And there are the national pages: www.immi.gov.au/Work/Pages/Work.aspx
The States pressure the Federal government for immigration. They organise to redefine areas of the states as regions in need of migration. Jeff Kennett managed to reverse Victoria's negative population growth in the 1990s in part by doing this. He made it possible for rural people to sponsor nephews and other distant relatives as immigrants because they were places in need of migration for workers etc. I think following on from him, State governments around Australia did things like make their CBDs 'regions in need of immigration'. Note that on the NT site above, for instance, there is a display that explains that it is a "designated area Migration Agreement".
The States are in charge of land, water and power. They earn money from land-sales through stamp duties and rely a great deal on this. The political parties are invested in land, development and finance (including banks) as well and States have institutions which facilitate private investment in public land for property development. It is all quite incestuous.
The States also earn money from private public development, over our protests. How many of you knew that "Places Victoria" is actually the Victorian Government's public-private property development arm, and that it is a payed up member of the Property Council of Australia - which heads up the Australian growth lobby. And, for those who care about the homeless, the Department of Human Services, Office of Housing, is also a member. Truly, in the land of the not so lucky anymore, the foxes are credentialled chicken guardians.
(By Jane Dreaper Health correspondent, BBC News) The new easy-to-use contraceptive device will be available to women in poorer countries for just $1. The new easy-to-use contraceptive device will be available to women in poorer countries for just $1. An agreement has been signed which will make contraceptive injections available to women in 69 of the world's poorest countries. It is an injection - but not as you know it. The special device, with a smaller needle and no traditional syringe, will be sold at just $1 a unit. An agreement - signed in the past few days - will make the new way of giving contraceptive injections available to women in 69 of the world's poorest countries. The deal has been reached between the Gates Foundation, the drug company Pfizer and the Children's Investment Fund Foundation. Previously the technology has been used for giving hepatitis B jabs in Indonesia. Burkina Faso was the first country to use it for contraception.
The special device, with a smaller needle and no traditional syringe, will be sold at just $1 a unit.
An agreement - signed in the past few days - will make the new way of giving contraceptive injections available to women in 69 of the world's poorest countries.
The deal has been reached between the Gates Foundation, the drug company Pfizer and the Children's Investment Fund Foundation.
Previously the technology has been used for giving hepatitis B jabs in Indonesia. Burkina Faso was the first country to use it for contraception.
Soré is using contraception for the first time and decides the new device is the best option for her.
Soré Néimatou, 20, has a boyfriend, and is visiting a family planning clinic in the capital Ouagadougou.
"I don't want to get pregnant," she says. "I want to get married first."
She has never used contraception before, and is given a choice of methods. She opts for the new injection - called Sayana Press.
'More acceptable'
The pre-packaged device means there is no need for health workers to prepare a syringe.
The new device's all-in-one design avoids the need to prepare a syringe.
The drug is dispensed by simply squeezing a plastic bubble, giving Soré the protection she wants for three months.
Thanks to the design, which is called Uniject, there is no risk of spillages or dosing errors, and because the device cannot be re-used, it cuts out the risk of infection due to needle-sharing.
The simplicity of the device means health workers can be trained more quickly too - a vital consideration for developing countries.
Kadidia Diallo, the midwife who helped Soré, says the device is more acceptable for women in rural areas.
She said: "Normally for injections you have to put them in someone's bottom, or the top of their leg, but with this - you use the arm.
"That's an advantage for women living in the bush. Many women don't come forward for injections if they have to pull their dresses up - but this is more discreet."
Injectables
In early trials women reported less pain at the injection site than with conventional jabs, too.
Rahimata wants to become an English translator, and is keen to avoid getting pregnant and disrupting her studies.
18-year-old Rahimata Tiendrébéogo also uses the new device.
She wants to go to university to study English and has seen too many of her friends get pregnant - especially the poorer ones.
"It's not good for people to have babies so young because they are students…they don't have money or the means to bring up children.
"I'm independent and I want to be responsible."
A lack of contraception in sub-Saharan Africa remains a problem.
Almost a quarter of women of child-bearing age in Burkina Faso would like to plan their families by getting pregnant when they want to. Women there have six children on average.
Although the proportion of women using contraception in Africa has doubled in the past two decades - to 26% - it is much harder to obtain for women who are poor, uneducated or living in a rural area.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 222m women in developing countries would like to delay or stop conception, but are not currently using any form of contraception.
Injectable contraceptives are a widely-used family planning method among women in developing countries, where the lifetime risk for death due to a maternal cause can be as high as one in 15.
The next countries to start using Sayana Press are Niger, Senegal and Uganda.
The launch comes after many years of work at Path, the organisation behind the design of the device - and money from international donors.
Health workers in Niger are being trained how to use Sayana Press.
A Path spokeswoman, Sara Tifft, told BBC News: "Burkina Faso was one of four countries identified for this initial pilot introduction, as an outgrowth of the 2012 Family Planning Summit in London."
The summit was co-hosted by the UK government.
International Development Secretary, Justine Greening, said: "Access to modern, safe and reliable family planning methods is vital.
"Without the ability to choose for themselves when they have children and how many they have, women lose the opportunity to participate fully in their economies and societies."
The makers of Sayana Press hope that one day it could even be used by women to inject themselves with contraception at home
The Group of 20 (G20) is meeting in Brisbane this week to discuss the global economy. William Bourke says we should focus less on the GDP and instead look at real progress indicators like high employment, a diverse economic base and sustainable resource management.
At the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting in February, Australia’s Treasurer Joe Hockey pleaded with participating nations to increase their aggregate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2 per cent per annum. GDP growth will again top the billing at this week’s G20 Leaders' Summit in Brisbane.
But few if any commentators have paused to ask a simple question: What does GDP growth provide for ordinary citizens?
GDP is the primary indicator used by governments and media to gauge the health of a country's economy. It represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period. But there are serious problems with this indicator. GDP theory not only presumes an impossible world of unlimited resources – such as forests, oil, fish stocks, arable land and water – it counts many negative elements as positive contributions. For example, did you know that both cancer and a car crash can increase GDP? They both demand goods and services.
Another major weakness in GDP is that the depletion of our non-renewable environmental resources such as minerals and natural gas is counted as a positive, instead of a negative as is required in proper accounting standards (via depreciation).
It is also improper that the headline GDP figure does not account for population growth. If GDP grows at (say) .3 per cent in a quarter, but population growth is .5 per cent, we are going backwards on the GDP scale. During the GFC Australia had a per capita recession, with negative per capita GDP over two consecutive quarters. But only one or two economists mentioned this, and the myth still exists that Australia has had over 20 years of unbroken ‘growth’. Even today population growth is well over half the rate of aggregate GDP. At the very least we should be reporting GDP per capita.
The bottom line with Joe’s aggregate GDP growth obsession is that he’s forgotten to ask whether ordinary citizens are actually happier. GDP is a useful measure of economic activity, but it doesn’t measure human wellbeing or happiness, or equality.
In a step towards true social justice, we need to redefine ‘growth’ in our finite world. Not just for our sake, but for future generations. If we are to secure a prosperous economy, healthy environment and better quality of life, growth must focus on quality, not quantity. At present, who could argue that Australia’s economy, environment or quality of life are heading in the right direction? Under the current political duopoly, we're getting much bigger, without getting better.
Australia’s economic prosperity does not depend on the GDP statistic. In fact, GDP is a side-show. It would be more accurate to say that our economic prosperity is underpinned by three key pillars:
1. Investment in better education and skills training to improve job security, workforce participation and innovation
2. Encouragement of a diverse range of productive industries and
3. Maintenance of our natural economic advantage via careful management of food, water, energy and mineral resources.
This third point is often overlooked in economic terms, and like the others, is undermined by rapid population growth. Rapid population growth acts as a disincentive for local training and education, and skews scarce economic investment into relatively unproductive city-building assets, like high-rise apartments.
We should not obsess over Joe’s arbitrary GDP target. In fact we should ignore it and focus on genuine progress indicators. If we achieve high employment, a diverse economic base, and sustainable resource management, GDP will take care of itself. We can be better without getting bigger.
William Bourke is President of the federally registered Sustainable Population Party.
What is a normal response from an environment minister to a straight question to a matter that alarms about 80% of Australians, as even self-styled demographer, Bernard Salt of KPMG admits? [1] Mr Kelvin Thomson, ALP member for Wills, asked Greg Hunt, the Liberal Government Minister for the Environment, whether the Government would consider adopting a stable population policy to avoid new infrastructure imperatives. Minister Hunt responded bluntly that "the answer to the honourable member's question was: No."[2]
Mr Hunt does not seem like much of a Minister for the Environment. And he does not appear to have much interest in democracy. This is the second time he has flouted the public right to accountable policy this year. See also, "Environment Minister Greg Hunt speaks fluent nonsense to Kelvin Thomson on population".
This refusal is particularly flagrant when his own state (Victoria) has recently had two events which resulted in resounding calls for a referendum on halting population growth. These were, "The Big Population Debate", organised by Mary Drost of Planning Backlash on 13 October 2014 and "Must Melbourne Keep Growing", organised by Jill Quirk of Sustainable Population Australia and Victoria First on 14 June 2014.
Before an audience of around 280 people, Mary Drost, Convener of Planning Backlash, commenting that "We the people have never been asked if we wanted a big population," obtained from Kelvin Thomson and Lord Mayor Robert Doyle that they were in favour of a referendum on population growth.
At the equally packed auditorium at the Hawthorne Arts Centre Chandelier Room for the Must Melbourne Keep Growing event, Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Land, read a motion for a plebiscite on population growth, which was also passed unanimously.
"That this meeting calls on the Victorian government to convene a scientifically based Victorian conference on what constitutes a long term environmentally sustainable population for Victoria, with reference to the Victorian State of the environment reports of 2008 and 2013 indicating environmental damage from current population levels."
Then again, maybe Minister Hunt is simply afraid to open his mouth on the subject. Especially to Mr Thomson, who is awfully well informed about it. At the Big Population Debate, we saw a remarkably courageous or foolhardy Lord Mayor of Melbourne's fire go out like a doused squib at the first encounter with intelligent argument on the subject. Then again, he could have prepared better. Or could he?
It was the Victorian environmentalist, Jill Quirk, who remarked, not so long ago, "I dare anyone to argue the benefits of population growth to ordinary Australians without mentioning cappuccino or using the word 'vibrant'. Indeed, Lord Mayor Doyle returned again and again to the accessibility of a good cup of coffee in contemporary overpopulated Melbourne. Although no-one can actually remember him using the word 'vibrant' - he might have slipped one in somewhere as his arguments grew progressively harder to decipher.
[1] Bernard Salt in Straightening out bananas 2010, who is in the business of trying to persuade Australians to embrace the population jugganaut, admits freely to colleagues in the Property Council of Australia that if you polled Australians on 'big Australia' 80% would come back against it.
[2] Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, House of Representatives Question No. 0103:
Mr Thomson asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing on 13 May 2014:
Will the Government consider adopting a stable population policy to avoid new infrastructure imperatives?
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. [Dated 25 July 2014]
Professional growth spruiker, Bernard Salt of KPMG, says that 80% of Australia does not want population growth. ("Straightening out Bananas", Property Council Congress, 2011) So how come we are being swamped?
There is a theory to explain how unpopular and costly policies survive in a 'democracy' when the benefits are focused among a few people who can organise to protect those benefits, whereas the costs are diffused among many people thus difficult to recognise and organise against. This theory explains why 80 % of Australia does not want population growth for good reasons like the cost of housing and the wrecking of the environment, but we still have it because the Growth Lobby makes billions of dollars (not just millions) out of it. (See Chapter 5 of Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence.)
The cartoon illustrates this, as an organised and wealthy rent-collecting Growth Lobby Inc. swoops with a helicopter, while people look around them, confused about what’s happening.
Australia is a country which rewards the speculator over the worker and saver, evidenced by tax concessions for those who take out margin loans or who can gear property priced well above what sound "Return on Investment" calculations would value the house at. Favourable treatment to the speculator class creates a "sheltered workshop" investment environment, where the state protects so called 'mum and dad' investors from the consequences of poor decisions, shields them from risk and moulds outcomes so that investment according to the advice of spivs and political backers appears to pay off. At the moment, the share market rally after the August/September correction is offering the potential for some easy profits, which for the investor willing to take a little risk, can be increased significantly by borrowing money to increase holdings during this time.Recently, the US Federal Reserve has stopped Quantitative Easing, which at least for now turns the tap off the easy credit keeping the markets afloat and asset prices high. The market reaction was rather optimistic, which many neoliberal economists pin to belief in an economic recovery. Others attribute this to over exuberance and over valuation, which is likely the more accurate assessment. There is no recovery and we are back to pre-GFC conditions, markets writing checks the economy can't cash. However, as long as one can see further than the rest of the market (which isn't all that far), then one can bail out before the big correction. A future GFC style crash (which will likely be given a novel name in an attempt to disassociate it from the issues which caused the last one) seems to be on the cards, but the critical question is 'when?'. Perhaps not for another year or two, or maybe three, but it is appearing likely we are past the halfway mark for this post GFC run. Australia won't escape this time.
The Signals
China: China is, at least from the Australian viewpoint, one of the biggest indicators that market sentiment in our country has a southwards swing ordained. We have hitched our wagon to China, based on the belief that China will lead the "Asian Century". The "Asian Century" was a misleading term, as at best it only included a handful of East Asian nations. The idea that China would be the future powerhouse of Australia isn't new. It is the 30 year old idea that Japan would be the new and upcoming powerhouse exhumed, reanimated and seen to by a mortuary cosmetologist. China is most likely to stall and stagnate as it approaches economic equivalence of the US, and there is evidence that China is already doing so. Coal and electricity consumption is dropping, growth is slowing and debt ratios are rising. China has long overbuilt but lacked a plan, at least one visible to the outside world. A quasi-communist, closed, centrally run economy cannot make capitalism work. The Chinese property market is in bubble territory and also in trouble as prices are falling, and some are predicting a crash. More likely, China will wind down and then face a prolonged period of stagnation which will lead to decay. As it does so, it will be in no position to keep Australia afloat with its diminishing demand for commodities, and greater control of money, often dirty and corrupt, flowing out of China into global property markets.
There is another reason to cast doubt on the idea that China will be the 21st century mover and shaker. It is because China is now outside of the historical context in which it has always sat. China has always fascinated the West by its scale, its size, and its potential for power, and at the same time, underwhelmed the West by its comparative lack of influence in shaping and developing the modern world. The 21st century will be no exception. Unfortunately, Australia has built its economy on ideology which isn't based on observation, but hope, and has overestimated, greatly, the ability and savvy of the Chinese. They are as dumb as we are.
This is likely to play out with international investors downgrading Australia's economic status well before Australians pick up on what is happening. Many Australians will simply repeat that we ARE different, and it is the rest of the world which is wrong, not us. The fact that Australia was lucky during the last GFC will be used More clued in Australians will therefore have to look abroad for an indication as to the health of our economy. It will provide a very noticeable early warning indicator of coming economic trouble here.
Tightening Credit:
The end of quantitative easing should see an eventual rise in the low emergency interest rates, but the US fed is keeping rates low for the timebeing. Quantitative Easing can keep interest rates low, which allows people to enter larger levels of debt. A mainstream economist may view this as a positive, but such economic positions are rarely put into context. We must ask, if people have access to low interest credit, what are they doing with it?
The answer, in the US as it is in Australia, isn't national infrastructure, a space program, nation building, revolutionary new industry or politics, or investment in ideas, but in bidding up assets. We have had 6 years of emergency low interest rates, punishing depositors and rewarding borrowers, but to what effect? What is to show for these few trillions of dollars the US Fed has pumped? What is to show for the billions borrowed in Australia? The answer is an economy barely better, if at all than that when we started. The ASX still hasn't reached its 2006 high. High unemployment, loss of manufacturing capability, unaffordable housing and a population still hamstrung by debt. The fundamental issues which caused the last GFC weren't addressed and still exist. Low interest rates have been squandered in the same manner that the mining boom was. Rather than used to de-leverage, reduce debt and allow the housing market to slowly deflate, further leveraging, speculation and borrowing took place instead. Interest rate rises may still be some months away, but they will be one of the catalysts sparking the next correction. For 6 years, low rates has meant 6 years of property purchases, some being 'interest only' loans, calculated at historically low rates. Interest rate rises will see many new entrants into the market underwater. The lower the interest rate, the worse the impact of a rate rise.
Consider one who borrows at 8% and their rate increased by 1% to 9%. This is a 12.5% increase in the interest bill, significant but potentially manageable. Now, consider someone who borrowed at 4% and has their rate increased by 1% to 5%. This is a 25% increase in the interest bill, somewhat more significant. The lower the rate, the greater the impact of each rise. The Reserve Bank of Australia HAD to keep rates low, as it has backed itself into a corner. The RBA must be pulling its hair out, being unable to raise the rate and risk economic trouble, but seeing the low interest rates used to fuel a bubble. Recently, even they have warned of a housing bubble, and if THEY are warning about it, we can surmise it means we may be closing in on the end.
A decrease, or tightening of the availability of credit should be seen as the economies death rattle. The appearance of a problem of credit availability, similar to the "Credit Crunch", but likely called something completely different, will indicate that time is short. Australia will however keep rates as low as it can, for as long as it can. A rate rise isn't imminent, but external pressures may force it up sometime next year. We can also expect to see a share market rally, although a weaker one compared to years prior, continue. Our economy is fuelled by credit, and contraction of the supply of credit will have a significant impact.
Political Stagnation:
Political ossification, the entrenchment of political duopolies is a somewhat overlooked, but external cause, of economic weakness. Since the 1980's, a neoliberal and demonstrably failed economic view has been shaping the West's, and by extension much of the worlds thoughts when it comes to economics. Since the 80's at least, there has been no social revolution, no change in the political class, and those in politics are converging in ideas rather than evolving. The US is now facing another Clinton, Hillary as a candidate, after two Bush's, an indicator that politics in the US is turning to a dynastic system rather than a meritocratic one.
The spectrum of worthy contrary opinions is being narrowed, and political opposition means more and more a droll contest for power, than contest of fundamental beliefs. Belief systems become most broken when unchallenged, and the lack of challenge means less awareness of mistakes, of error. The fall of civilisations is often accompanied by a minority ruling for the benefit of a minority, which doesn't adapt to change or necessity. Ask yourself, can our democratic system ever hope to push any true change, and a shift in world-view or reappraisal of the function of the economy or nation? If not, then a repeat of recent same mistakes is guaranteed.
This is made worse by the fact that we only believe in the spirit, if even that, not the capability of the very systems we promote and lionise. Democracy, equality, diversity and freedom are mere slogans, ideas we push on others, but we don't believe ourselves when put to the test. The fact that in times of crisis, we limit, rather than expand on these principles, belies the deep seated lack of faith we have in the ideals we punish others for being sceptical of. Is this a lack of faith in the ideas themselves, or lack of belief in our ability to make these ideas work? If we aren't willing to use the very tools and ideologies which we claim bring society out of darkness and prosperity, to give prosperity to ourselves, what do we use in place? The answer appears to be "nothing".
Parasite class over the producer class:
There have always been people who live off the backs of others, but one has to ask, is our economy geared towards them, or the producers? Economies run on the production of goods and services which are of value and of use to people. Without these, there is nothing at all to back the paper wealth of high land prices, high stock prices or the billions and trillions of dollars worth of funny money flowing through the economy. Wealth is realised upon its use to purchase, but what do we make that can be purchased? If our houses go up in price, what will be produced to purchase with that money?
The fact that our tax system favours speculators who use other peoples money to gamble on asset prices over workers and small business owners is a symptom of a problem, and that problem is a broken economic model. This model diverts wealth away from producing that we need and want, and towards unproductive economic activity based on quasi-religious economic and spiritual beliefs. Our current financial parasitic class have the cost, insight and usefulness of priestly classes in days gone by.
Complacency:
Perhaps the most appropriate term to describe the general attitude towards economic trouble in Australia is utter complacency, which should concern those wanting an economically prosperous future. A secure future never arrives carried by complacency and apathy.
Housing Market:
Australian housing "market", if one could call it such, is without a doubt a bubble, and also very risky to those entering it.
Australians believe that the price is based on fundamentals, but in reality it is based on a massive amount of interference, including
All these push up prices and all are the result of market intervention. Thousands of Australians are investing in asset prices which are only what they are due to active and continuing management. How long can the government afford to keep this up? How long can interest rates remain so low and immigration so high? The government has backed itself into a position where it has to do something, but can't because so many people have put money into this artificially supported market. Yet this is what Australians have banked on to fund their retirement. Those who supply money to our media, and financially support our sell out politicians need to be seen as espousing sound investment schemes and advice. The government and the media have a vested interest in making the fundamentally unsound investment principles of those who support them appear to work. Hence the requirement for manipulation.
There are two ways this may play out. Firstly, the government will continue to intervene more and more to keep the market inflated, despite rising unemployment, poor balance of trade and increasing degradation of the international economy by liquidating the Australian way of life towards third world levels, to ensure the small minority of big player investors maintain their unrealistic and unwarranted returns. Or secondly, the Australian economy will enter a prolonged period of stagnation or a recession, most likely caused by external influences and the market will correct in the most uncomfortable manner. The warning that the housing boom has for us, is contained within the pundits overenthusiastic attitude, the neglect of other economic sectors, the disregard of the economic benefits that affordable and equitable housing bring (which outweigh those that asset price rises bring), the willingness to believe in shonky economics over sound nation management and the baffling willingness for Australians to sacrifice the future of future generations for equity today, a sign of decayed culture.
It would seem that Australia may be exceptional, due to the narrow political world which exists, in that Australia will work against all forces calling for a resolution to the problem. Therefore, either Australia's property market will correct due to an external financial shock, or it won't correct, and standards of living will rapidly decline. Either way, future investment in this country is looking poor. Time will tell.
I have often expressed concern in the last few years that my baby boomer generation has pursued policies such as rapid population growth which have damaged the chances of the next generation. Recently I have referred to the Axis of Financial Evil confronting our children – student debt, job insecurity, and housing unaffordability.
Support for this concern comes from a report released yesterday by the Foundation for Young Australians. The report expressly says that today's young people face very different prospects from their parents: higher unemployment, large education debts and even larger housing debts, which will put home ownership out of the reach of many.
We are experiencing a new baby boom. Foundation Chief Executive Jan Owen says that over the next forty years Australia will experience a 50 per cent increase in the number of young people, who will rise from the present 4.3 million under the age of 24 to 6.3 million under the age of 24, making it the largest cohort of young people Australia has ever had.
But today's young people graduating from University will start their careers with over $24,000 more in student debt than their parents. Over 25 per cent of young people who do gain qualifications do not use those qualifications in their job. They are taking on three times as much debt as their parents did to buy their first home – houses are six times more expensive than they were in 1985. More than 38 percent of 18 to 24 year olds are overweight.
Jan Owen says we have a situation where the next generation could be worse off in many areas, and that we have a shrinking window of opportunity to ensure young people don't become the first generation of Australians to do worse than their forbears.
Kelvin Thomson is the ALP federal Member of Parliament for Wills Electorate.
This article was originally published on his blogspot on 11 November 2014.
Inside find links to some interesting articles on the current situation in Syria and international opinion.
2. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: "Stealing Palestine: Who dragged Palestinians into Syria's conflict?" by Sharmine Narwani, Nov 11 2014 http://rt.com/op-edge/203907-
6.."How a Libyan City joined the Islamic State", by Maggie Michael 9 Nov 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
There is now a long record of interventions in foreign countries that have been followed by floods of refugees. For Ethiopia modern development began at the end of the 19th century. In a recently recirculated 2008 article, Irish journalist, Kevin Myers wrote despairingly of Ethiopia's overpopulation and the hopelessness of giving more aid. "By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million; the equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly Protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley." Myers grimly anticipates a massive overflow of emigrants with poorly nourished brains to Ireland, to America, to Australia.[1] So, why is Ethiopia in such a mess? Was it always thus?
I think that Ethiopia's problems go back to the end of the 19th century and were caused by industrialisation and furthered by 'development aid' in the cause of more industrialisation.
In the late 19th century Ethiopia's population was only 4 or 5 million, when Mennilik II began 'modernisation'.
After Mennilik's modernisation programs, which included massive land 'reforms' (enclosures), Ethiopia's population climbed to 10 million. In 1950, as development continued, the population climbed to 18.3 million. In 2010 it is 83 million and climbing rapidly still.
What changed?
Ethiopia is one of the oldest sites of human civilisation and international trade. It had a variety of populations within, mostly rural, including hill tribes who farmed using ploughs. The various tribal populations mostly kept to their traditional areas and were sustainable within them, although for a long time there have been conflicts between adjacent states and an ancient slave trade along certain routes.
In the late 19th century there were massive land 'reforms':
The land 'reforms' coincided with dispossession and 'integration' of clans and tribes with Mennelik II who was influenced by Russian imperialists. Thrown off their land - particularly those on the plains, the people drifted to the cities, which were growing as agriculture was industrialised and roads and electricity were installed.
This process destroyed local self-government and sustainable local economies where there was probably still men's and women's land, and marriage opportunities would have been kept low through kinship rules that limited approved spouses, [2], with late menarche the rule, and low fertility through local traditional birth control practices, including contraception, spousal non-cohabitation, abstinence, delay of coitus [3] and co-operative breeding [4] (where people live in an extended family around a principal fertile couple, taking the roles of servants, aunts, aunties).
As happened in the Netherlands and in Britain,[5] local populations were disorganised by classes that got control of the food production and government and, lacking the land that had once brought them independence, they were obliged to move to new settlements, with only their labour to sell. This is the kind of system where women and children become slaves to their husbands, fathers, uncles and brothers.
Irrigation was put in place and former grazing ranges were intensively cultivated, which required dispossessing the peoples that had led sustainable lives there for millenia, without overpopulation. Malaria became a huge problem, indicative of land-disturbance and new population movements.[6]
In the 1970s there were more huge land reforms.
In the 1980s there were mass government resettlements.
The 'reform' has not stopped. It has accelerated.[7]
It is not difficult to find many accounts of how foreign aid assisted in all these 'modernisation' projects that led to the dispossession of the peoples of Ethiopia and the surrounding regions and to the current overpopulation problem and enslavement of women, for which more 'development' continues to be recommended, under the malignant pretext that overpopulation was Ethiopia's eternal burden.
What is in it for the countries driving more 'development' in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Egypt etc? One of the major reasons for foreign powers to maintain these countries in disorder is so that the foreign powers can continue to dominate the surrounding region with military forces, supposedly to safeguard international investments. The pretence is that these African countries and all those around the Red Sea and to the North of Syria need international aid and management, however it is clear to anyone aware of the petroleum in this region that Ethiopia could be a source of primary wealth, as it was for other reasons in Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman times. [8]
Australians rightly complain that their country is overpopulated.[9] They also rightly complain that refugee and asylum-seeker numbers are adding to this problem. But they fail to link these problems to the wars the Australian government backs in the regions where the asylum seekers come from. Australia, like the United States in the film, Mother of 7 Billion,[10] adds over-consumption to its overpopulation problem. To maintain our commodity production and our importation of new residents to keep our land-sales up, we rely on huge amounts of petroleum and one of the most important sources of petroleum is the region bordered by the Land of Punt.
If Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan had maintained their efficient local economies, there would be no excuse for foreign troops and corporations to be in the region, but Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan would probably all be wealthy through association with the oil producing countries.
Instead the oil producing countries and the regions buffering them are in constant state of flux, overpopulation, poverty, and war and the foreign powers actually rule the region. We hear of Somalian pirates, trying to get control of the oil, but we call our own pirates 'peace keepers'.
[1] Kevin Myers, "Somalia is not a humanitarian disaster," The Irish Independent, 2008
[2] Fertility opportunities would have been kept low through kinship rules requiring endogamous marriages that reflected the local environment with up to 8 degrees of incest avoidance and other variations that greatly decreased mating opportunities. See Sheila Newman, Development, Territory, Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2013.
Details of the wide variety of these kinship impediments to marriage and fertility in Ethiopia can be found in Siegbert Uhlig, (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: He-N, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, 2007, pp. 55, 405-406, cited by hbdchick at https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/tag/exogamy/. Although the afore-cited Encyclopaedia states that being unmarried is not an option in Ethiopia, this is contradicted by the presence of extended families. "The extended family arrangement is frequently found among Ethiopian families since children, male or female, who have married continue to live with their family. In some cases, unmarried aunts, uncles, cousins and even close family friends continue to dwell with the nuclear family. " http://www.africa-expert.com/ethiopia/family-and-housing/ ftp://ftp.cgiar.org/ifpri/ElizabethB/Ethiopia%20papers/diFalco_Bulte_2013.pdf,
Mhairi A. Gibson and Eshetu Gurmu, "Land inheritance establishes sibling competition for marriage and reproduction in rural Ethiopia"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3038728/#!po=21.4286: "We use rich anthropological, demographic, and socioeconomic data from five traditional rural villages in Ethiopia (Table S1), where wealth remains positively correlated with reproductive success (characteristic of preindustrial societies)."
Another likely indication of earlier prevalence of local birth control methods would be family-size trends in older women who may have had more links to traditional villages. The results varied according to tribal origins as well as religion. A survey in 1986 showed that childlessness varied from 20% to 3% in the earliest cohorts (women aged 59 or older) compared to 12% to 2% in the most recent cohorts (women aged 30-39). Although much of this was attributed to successful treatment of sexually transmitted diseases the article concludes that there is more to it than that.- See more at: http://www.popline.org/node/372469#sthash.OatvN3Yl.dpuf
[3] John Knowles (Lead author), Report, "History of Birth Control Methods," Katharine Dexter McCormick Library and the Education Division of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 2012, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2613/9611/6275/History_of_BC_Methods.pdf
[4] Cooperative breeding is similar to the extended families described (which existed in most pre-WW2 societies) in note [2] Traditional Ethiopian societies were comparable to traditional European ones in many ways, so I don't mean for the following references to imply that they were all hunter-gatherers, However, for some modern evolutionary research of the phenomenon in terms of inclusive benefits etc in human societies, see, for instance, Smaldino, Paul E., Newson, Lesley, Schank, Jeffrey C., Richerson, Peter J., "Simulating the Evolution of the Human Family: Cooperative Breeding Increases in Harsh Environments," http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080753 and Hill, Kim, and Hurtado, A. Magdalena, "Cooperative breeding in South American hunter–gatherers, " School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, PO Box 872402, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402, USA, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/08/18/rspb.2009.1061.full.pdf+html
[5a] Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law 2: Land-tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014.
[6] David N. Weil, "The Impact of Malaria on African Development over the Longue Durée,"
Brown University and NBERhttp://www.indiana.edu/~econdept/workshops/Fall_2010_Papers/Malaria_and_Early_African_Development.pdf: "The current geographic distribution of malaria impact may not accurately represent the historical burden of the disease. Packard (2007) gives numerous examples of how human activity has changed the intensity of malaria. Clearing forests and introducing irrigation often produces the marshy environment needed for breeding of Anopheles mosquitoes. When large tracts of land are consolidated and controlled by a small number of landowners, people living on these lands are often deprived of the tools for properly tending to it and for avoiding malaria infection. This problem is exacerbated when seasonal labor is used, as migrants may come from non-malarious zones and lack immunity, then return to these zones carrying malaria with them. As for Africa, he notes that “while climate and the presence of highly efficient vectors contributed to the persistence of malaria, conditions of production played an equal if not greater role." Webb (2008) similarly describes how the introduction of agriculture led to malaria endemicity in lowlands throughout the Eurasian landmass. Population density is also important to the nature of malaria burden. Packard argues that in the African contexts, low population densities associated with mobile hunter-gatherer populations would have been unable to support the P. Falciparum infection because of the speed with which the disease exits or kills the human host. The emergence of Anopheles gambiae is also believed to closely associated with the development of agriculture. For all these reasons, the current distribution of malaria in Africa today is potentially a poor proxy for the historical distribution." See also malaria references in Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law 2: Land Tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014.
[7] "Ethiopia, 30 years after the famine," by David Smith (23 October 2014). "Three decades after images that shocked the world, country has become darling of the global development community – and the scourge of the human rights lobby." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/22/-sp-ethiopia-30-years-famine-human-rights
[8] "This is pure common-sense commercial logic,” ... “There are numerous discoveries along the East African Rift in other nations and also it ends basically in Yemen, which is a known oil-bearing territory." "http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-21/gazprombank-s-gpb-global-signs-oil-exploration-deal-in-ethiopia.html; Ogaden Basin in Ethiopia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_Basin; "Africa's next Frontier - Ethiopia?" http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Africas-Next-Oil-Frontier-Ethiopia.html]
[9] And some of us can see that the same thing is happening here, with 'development' as has happened to Ethiopia.
[10] I spoke at a screening of Mother of 7 billion in 2013 and was uncomfortable at some of the assumptions made in the film. Most difficult for me was the assumption that Ethiopians had always had huge families. There was seemingly no inkling that Ethiopia had ever been anything except poor and overpopulated - of the sudden leap from 4 million to 83 million. When one considers Ethiopia's remarkably long and impressive history, this is quite an oversight. It was because of this film that I started writing an article on Ethiopia's long and different past, but it has taken me until today to get this short version up.
Almost half of Australia's terrestrial ecosystems are threatened, 85 per cent of its rivers have been modified and twice as many Australians die from air pollution annually than road accidents, according to a report on the state of the country's environment.
42 environmental growth have cooperated to bring us this damning report, and hopefully will be a wake-up call that we are living beyond our means, and must change.
SMH: Australia's environment is going backwards
Places you Love . One cannot ignore the irony of the title of the report, that we "love" these unique Australian places, that many of us hold dear to us from childhood, holidays and where we live, but also destroy with wanton cruelty and reckless haste.
The introduction to this report states that:
More than 85% of rivers in Australia have been modified due to irrigation, dams other development pressures.
Of the sixty-eight zones of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s most significant agricultural region, only one zone is rated in good health. Thirty-eight zones are rated in poor health and twenty-one in very poor health.
Ongoing impacts of development and disturbance and the projected impacts of climate change will result in further decline of freshwater resources. Almost one-third of the 851 nationally important wetlands in Australia do not have adequate water supply or flow to maintain their health.
It's an abysmal state of affairs, similar to the wreckage and mess left by the punters and party-goers after Melbourne Cup day at Flemington!
The party is over, and there's few people cleaning up the "mess" of environmental devastation!
Places You Love is landmark survey of Australia’s environment – our rivers, energy, climate, food, forests, waste and pollution, land management, oceans and reefs.
We will likely see four degrees of warming by the end of this century.
Two degrees of climate warming will likely mean the loss of most coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef, 80% of freshwater wetlands from Kakadu National Park, and Queensland’s tropical forests.
More than 3,000 Australians die each year from air-pollution-related illness, nearly twice the national road toll.
Each Australian family contributes enough rubbish each year to fill a three-bedroom house from floor to ceiling, and the total amount of waste generated in the future is projected to increase.
Since 1985 more than half of the coral cover of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost. Remaining coral cover is predicted to be lost with two degrees warming through climate change. Ocean acidification, a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions, is poised to change marine ecosystems profoundly by increasing dissolved CO2 and decreasing ocean pH, carbonate ion concentration, and calcium carbonate mineral saturation state worldwide.
Invasive species have significantly contributed to extinctions in most regions of Australia,including more than 40 native mammals, birds and frogs.
We cleared an average of 1 million hectares of native vegetation per year between 2000 and 2010. At least 50% of all wetlands in Australia have been drained, filled or destroyed.
1259 plants, 396 animals and 67 ecological communities are listed as threatened by the Australian Government.
Destruction and fragmentation of habitats are major factors in the global decline of species, the modification of native plant and animal communities and the alteration of ecosystem functions. We are a leading nation when it comes to extinction, and our unique species that have had millions of years to adapt to our fragile existence on a variable and harsh landscape are being wiped out in record levels.
(image: CSIRO - soil erosion)
Of an original 235 million hectares of Australia’s forests and woodlands, 44% or about 104 million hectares have been cleared since European settlement. 36% was cleared before 1972 and 5% after 1972 – representing 85.7 million and 11.5 million hectares respectively
The clearing has been offset by the regrowth of 2.9% of the original cleared area.
In the absence of clearing, forest and woodland losses are presumed to be due to causes such as fire, drought or disease like die-back. Non-clearing losses have accounted for 5% of the area changed in the last 20 years.
Of the 50.5% of forests and woodlands that have not been cleared or lost due to non-clearing events, 20.5% were converted to non-forest at some point after 1972 and are therefore in disturbed condition.
By 2100, Australian population is projected to be between 42 and 70 million people. Total consumption per person in Australia is one of the highest in the world, and is projected to increase by up to 27% by 2030, with far-reaching impacts on nature including biodiversity, land use, climate and water.
By 2050, energy consumption in Australia is projected to increase by around 21%, with only 14% coming from renewable sources.
As you read through the data you will see our natural world is struggling to sustain itself. Nature is in decline and the natural beauty of Australia is under threat.
Firstly, in Australia we have neither a comprehensive picture of the health of nature, nor a complete understanding of the impacts of any decline in nature on our own wellbeing. We may be intellectually and technologically the most "advanced" and highly evolved species on the planet, but we must be the most retarded species when it comes to being aware of our own impacts on our life-supporting habitats for ourselves, and other species in our ecosystems.
Second, our institutions, globally and in Australia, are not optimized to address the increasingly complex and and the importance of adopting broader definitions of integrated challenges arising at the interface of social, sustainable wellbeing as a frame for effectively valuing
economic, technological and environmental concerns5. and protecting nature.
Human intellect remains myopic and shallow when it comes to the health of the environment, and our own spaceship Earth! Our governments' and institutions' tunnel-vision, based on short-term greed and economic benefits rather than long term strategies for living sustainably, and within Nature's limits.
Third, our understanding and definition of human wellbeing may be far too narrow. Some people and groups may be doing extraordinary things for nature, inspiring us all to better value and protect what we have, but they remain voices in the wilderness, on the peripheral, not in the mainstream. Animal species may impact on their environment, but not so that it can't spring back and recover! Humans, on the other hand, seem to incapable of limiting their desire to take more than they can, and it's justified by "economic growth", greed, traditions and culture!
Finally, the term ‘sustainability’ is used far too loosely in regard to humanity’s impact on nature. Depending on the context, it is often not measured, is poor. The word is too subjective, vague, and has been over-used and has become an oxymoron. The word has been stuck on almost any implementation or institution, including human growth, and thus a contradiction!
"The most influential driving forces on nature are population growth and developments in the needs and activities of individuals, as expressed through material extraction and consumption. Population is projected to grow up to 42-70 million by 2100.”
So, our dying ecosystems, and diminishing natural resources, will be deliberately further stretched by governments tweaking our population growth through high and unsustainable rates of immigration! It expecting a moribund body, in the throes of death, forced to keep breaking stones and climb mountains!
Our population is projected to increase to between 36.8 million and 48.3 million in 2061, and reach between 42.4 million and 70.1 million in 2101 (Figure 3)33. The projected development of infrastructure (e.g. housing, transport, water supply, energy, communications) strongly correlates with anticipated population growth, reflecting the longstanding pattern of association among these variables. Of course, the report does not mention that our population growth is not due to natural growth, of births over deaths, but due to a bipartisan policy of "big Australia", high rates of net overseas immigration, and housing - a major industry in Australia!
To add to the slow death of our environment, the pain will be exacerbated by Australia consuming more resources per person than most
other nations on Earth. We consume about 35 tonnes per person per year. By contrast, an emerging nation like India consumes about 5 tonnes per person, while the US and 2.5 Japan consume about 28 tonnes.
The report concludes that while there is currently no long-term plan for the future sustainable development of Australian society, there is a growing movement of passionate and active communities across Australia, taking action to ensure their own futures.
These actions are collaborative, innovative and proactive, and gathering momentum by the day.
However, these groups passionate for change and for our nation's environment are usually sidelined, or marginalized, due to our limited democratic system, and an economic model based on capitalistic growth, and short-term gain at the cost of the welfare of future generations of all species. The "party" is over, and Australia's growth-based economy based on increasing consumerism must end - or we wreck the land that gives us food, water, sustenance, functioning ecosystems, and all that we "love" about our country!
(image: CSIRO Salinity affected land )
Glen Klatovsky – Director was National Campaigner for The Wilderness Society, leading the campaign to stop a gas hub at James Price Point. Glen was the Carbon Business Manager for Greening Australia. He was also Director, Advocacy for WWF-Australia.
Susan Dirgham describes herself as a peace activist. Her peace activism dates back to her involvement in the anti-Vietnam war movement when she became aware that lies were being told to promote the War, when even apparently well-intentioned people could believe these lies and spread them. She writes, "And at that time, in the US especially, it required informed, courageous individuals in the media, in churches and academia to challenge those lies in order for there to be peace. And in the countries of Indo-China, an extraordinary level of courage and resilience was needed to survive war. To sow sectarian hatred, to damn a person or a group of people or even another nation only takes a few stories, repeated over a period of time by people in positions of influence and then accepted as a truth." Susan identifies a formula for writing [propaganda] on the conflict in Syria. It is to invoke the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government as if this were established fact and to "Damn Assad and the Alawites and your article has a good chance of getting published even if you know virtually nothing." She gives the example of a Waleed Aly article doing just this, ironically just a week after the presidential election in Syria when there was a truly exceptional voter turnout and the president received overwhelming endorsement by Syrians. At the end of her speech, Susan warns that if Syria falls the danger of World War Three will be acute. Susan's highly informative and moving speech was delivered at a Social Policy Connections Public Forum at The Study Centre, Yarra Theological Union, on 6 November. The speech was filmed and we hope to be able to link to the film soon.Susan expressed gratitude for the opportunity to speak about ‘secular’ Syria, as she discovered it, as an English teacher who lived there for several years. She said, "It’s a chance to bring attention to the people of Syria, the peace-loving people of Syria, who have been largely ignored by our media."
Pictures of Syrian women .
Syria is a secular country. But secularism is expressed differently in different countries, so what does this mean in Syria’s case?
Like Australia, in Syria, there is freedom of religion. It is fair to say all religions co-exist side by side harmoniously.
And the state does not favour any particular religion, even though one religion (Islam) is predominant.
This means that the holy days of both Islam and Christianity are national holidays. (On one of my visits to Damascus, Christmas and an Eid festival almost coincided, so the colourful decorations hanging in the souqs that year were for both Muslims and Christians.)
There are no religious schools in the Syria I knew. There is religious instruction in schools, and one national text book for Muslim students and another for Christian students. (We are not speaking about areas controlled by IS or other insurgents.)
Syria is the Syrian Arab Republic. It is not an Islamic state, so there are no religious police, for example.
If pressure is put on people to practise a particular religion, for example for people to attend a church or mosque regularly, or for women to wear a hijab, this pressure comes from the family or the communities they live in rather than the government (or clerics with political power at a national level. )
However, the constitution does stipulate that the president must be Muslim.
The position of women can tell you a lot about a society. At least half of my students at the British Council were women, many of them career women: lawyers, doctors, teachers, scientists, businesswomen or public servants.
One of my students worked for the Ministry of Health. She was a single mother and got around in an old VW Beetle. Her ambition was to be the Minister for Health, not an impossible dream as there are quite a few women in the Syrian parliament. As she didn’t wear a hijab, I had no idea what her religion was.
Unless there was pressure from family or community, as noted, women were free to dress as they chose.
In my classes there were very stylishly dressed women who gave no indication of their faith from their dress. One young doctor explained to me that her mother didn’t wear a hijab, but she chose to when she was 17 as it helped her feel closer to God and also it made her life easier when she walked past the lads on her way to the bus.
Women in Syria are free to wear the hijab to work, to university and to school, if they choose. I understand television presenters and journalists were not allowed to show any sign of their religion, so they couldn’t wear a hijab or a crucifix.
In regards to the niqab (the veil covering the face), there were restrictions on teachers wearing it. Some of the early demonstrations in 2011 were in protest against these restrictions.
A good friend in Syria was an unmarried high school teacher. In public, she wore the traditional white hijab and long coat that many Damascus women wear. Whenever I went out with her, I was always impressed by the way she approached waiters, shopkeepers or policemen, for example. It was always with confidence, directness, and with a smile. There was dignity in the way she spoke to them and in their response. This was the normal accepted way of communicating in Damascus, that I witnessed.
As a woman I knew not to be friendly to a stranger on the street, but I could have a pleasant conversation with the man in the corner shop when I went to buy tissues or beer. (I rarely bought beer, but alcohol was available at some corner shops.)
It could be said women in Syria have equal rights and basically the same opportunities as men, so it is a very progressive Middle Eastern society. However, there is religious conservatism in Syria, but I didn’t view this negatively; I didn’t judge it. I certainly didn’t think it was time conservatives woke up and took on so-called modern attitudes. Syria is a diverse society and this is one of the great delights of it. Its diversity enriches it.
One of my friends, a single woman, a highly competent career woman who wore western style clothes, rented a house in a conservative part of Damascus, in an old quarter, so there were narrow lanes, and neighbours would know neighbours. Friends visited her, including male colleagues. There may have been neighbours who condemned her, but generally she felt welcomed and embraced within that community. When I visited her, I didn’t feel there were prying, judgemental eyes watching us.
When I went to live in Syria, I took some prints to have framed for the walls of the flat I rented. One of them was a painting of a nude woman by Matisse. I went to get it framed, but the shopkeeper seemed genuinely shy when he saw the print. He immediately turned it over so he didn’t have to look at it. He measured it, then gave it back to my husband and me. He made the frame, but we had to put the picture in it. There was nothing aggressive about his response; again he wasn’t judgemental. There was warmth and friendliness in our interaction, as there almost invariably was in shops. This is an example of the conservatism, which was just another accepted way of looking at life, at religion.
I arrived in Damascus towards the end of 2003 when it was rare to see married couples holding hands. However, in 2010 on a visit, there were groups of young couples, joyfully holding hands. It was wonderful to see. Social freedoms which brought joy in people’s lives were increasing.
(I am speaking now about the Syria I knew before the crisis) Questioning someone about their religion was generally frowned upon. It was a subject you dealt with sensitively and with respect, if you dealt with it at all.
I believe that this gave the people one of the most precious freedoms anyone can have, namely the freedom to approach others in your society – no matter what their religious or ethnic background – with an open heart.
It reflects a basic Australian democratic belief: respect for every person. It is an easy belief to put on paper, but it is not something that automatically manifests in a society.
One day, I was in a taxi in heavy traffic near the old city of Damascus. The taxi driver gave room for a man on a bicycle, and the bicycle rider, a middle-aged man, smiled and blew him a kiss. Random acts of kindness between strangers were an accepted part of life in Syria. I felt that to be kind was being Syrian, and being true to your faith, whatever it was. Love was in the air in the Syria I knew.
From living in Syria, I learnt that Islam doesn’t just have two main sects, namely Sunni and Shi’a. It also has many shades and expressions. There are different religious legal schools, for example, which present different interpretations of sharia law. Also, Islam in Syria has its roots in Sufi Islam that goes back many centuries, while Islam in Saudi Arabia, for example, mostly references the Wahhabi school of Islam, which is much younger and much more exclusive. It developed close links with the Saudi royal family, now at the centre of power in Saudi Arabia, so it is deeply involved in politics.
In Syria, you can find a range of responses to Islam, from the women who chose not to wear a hijab to the Syrians who came back from working in Gulf countries with a harsher version of Islam than that of their family and friends. But Ramadan and the Eid festivals brought Syrian Muslims together. It was unusual for a Syrian Muslim not to fast or celebrate Eid.
I would like to draw attention to the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheik Hassoun. In reports these days, he is probably simply described as an Assad supporter. No indication is given of his complexity. But to understand him can help us understand secular Syria.
Sheik Hassoun is a rather charismatic religious leader, who expressed what have been called ‘controversial statements’ on a visit to Germany in 2007.
He apparently said he follows all sects of Islam. He said, “I am Sunni in practise, Shiite in allegiance. My roots are Salafi, and my purity is Sufi”. He said there is no contradiction in being both Sunni and Shite.
He also stated that most so-called ‘holy wars’ were waged for political, or non-religious, purposes.
For Sheik Hassoun, praying in a church or a synagogue is like praying in a mosque because, he pointed out, “they are all houses of God”. He also expressed respect for the Former Supreme Guide of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, whose sermons he heard in Damascus as a child at the Umayyad Mosque.
In 2011, the Grand Mufti’s son, a university student, was assassinated by rebels, and the Grand Mufti gave a moving speech at his son’s funeral in the Umayyad Mosque. Not long after, the Grand Mufti also attended a service in a church for his son and for Sari Saoud, a young Christian boy who had been shot and killed in Homs by so-called rebels.
I’d like to say a few things about the Umayyad Mosque - the main mosque in Damascus. Firstly, it is open to everyone, tourists and worshippers, believers and non-believers, though it is still used as a house of worship. Children feel very much at home in it. The mosque is on the site of what was once a temple to a pagan god, and then it became a temple to the Roman God, Jupiter. Later a Byzantine cathedral was established on the site, and for some years, the site held both the cathedral and a mosque. It is a reminder that Damascus is an ancient city; in fact, it is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. One of the mosque’s three minarets is called the Jesus Minaret – it’s believed Jesus will descend from it at the end of the world. In 2002, Pope John Paul visited the Umayyad Mosque - the first time a pope had ever walked into a mosque. The elderly imam of the Mosque, Sheik Buti, a highly regarded Islamic scholar who used to speak on Syrian TV every Friday, was killed in a suicide bomb attack early last year - 48 of his students died with him.
This is the Syria I lived in and visited. If love is a muscle, it got plenty of exercise in Syria.
Many things drew people together to make them Syrian. Syrians grow up to be very proud of their country – its landscape, its music, its poets and orators, its monuments and ruins, its independence, its principled stands on the international stage, its heroes and its history. And the various faiths were an integral part of the whole.
Syrians are very patriotic, but not at all aggressively so.
I do not mean to romanticize Syria, though I found it a romantic place to live. Like any country, it has its ugly side. There is certainly corruption. It has prisons, there is torture, there are humiliations, there is sexual harassment, there is child abuse, family violence, some honor killings etc. There are human struggles greater than most Australians face. But it is not Australia, which is well away from the troubles of the world. Syria exists at the heart of the Middle East. Even when I lived there it was a country in a war zone, in a very volatile region. And its neighbours’ responses to the enormous challenges they faced were at least as limited, if not more so. (For example, Turkey, a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has more journalists in prison than any other country.)
But the Syria I knew was a society brought together by the respect and helpfulness people generally offered to others. The heart-to-heart connections they established, even if it was just during a simple transaction in a shop.
It is a secular country, but in essence a very devout country. The call to prayer was always a part of your day, and on Sundays the church bells would ring.
The essence of religion - love - is in the air you breathe in Syria.
Only once in one uncomfortable conversation with a taxi driver did I hear a Syrian linking political and religious views in an aggressive way, and he wasn’t happy with Australia because of our role in the Iraq war.
Ed Husain, one of my colleagues at the British Council, had been an Islamist in Britain before going to study and teach in Syria. He wrote that in Syria,
”...There was no sense of religious zealotry or grandstanding in the name of God.....Syrians… did not wear their Islam on their sleeves. They did not need to. In a Muslim country they did not have to show they were Muslims... the Christian community did not need to illustrate their faith in public either. (p225 The Islamist)”
Just as Australia would be, Syria is a country worthy of defending.
I describe myself as a peace activist. My peace activism dates back to my involvement in the anti-Vietnam war movement when I became aware that lies were being told to promote the War, when even apparently well-intentioned people could believe these lies and spread them.
And at that time, in the US especially, it required informed, courageous individuals in the media, in churches and academia to challenge those lies in order for there to be peace. And in the countries of Indo-China, an extraordinary level of courage and resilience was needed to survive war.
So I developed some understanding of peace activism, propaganda and war. But also, I grew up in the 1950s and 60s, so I was aware of ugly sectarian tension in Australia. Protestant kids and Catholic kids used to throw stones at each other. One of my uncles walked out of a job interview when he was questioned about his religion.
I understand how easy it is to sow the seeds of hate and distrust in even easy-going Australians.
And the story of Lindy Chamberlain is a reminder of how easy it is for falsehoods to be spread and generally accepted as fact. Based on rumours and media reports and a botched investigation, people were sure Lindy had killed her baby.
To sow sectarian hatred, to damn a person or a group of people or even another nation only takes a few stories, repeated over a period of time by people in positions of influence and then accepted as a truth. Social media, images and videos online have made it easier than ever before to spread false and misleading information.
Time constraints, circumstances and media bias don’t allow the rigorous investigation needed to establish the truth.
Consequently, most Australians believe that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people in a Damascus suburb on 21 August 2013. They have seen the shocking images showing victims of the alleged chemical attack, and they have heard the US Secretary of State and other politicians declare Assad guilty. They have read articles by respected commentators agreeing with the politicians. For example, radio and TV presenter Waleed Aly wrote in the AGE on June 12 2014 that in Syria,
“a ruler every bit as brutal as Saddam Hussein, is presently in the process of enacting mass violence against his own people. This is a ruler who has merrily danced across what Barack Obama declared to be his “red line” by using chemical weapons against them, proving that this red line didn’t signify much.”
In the West, this claim has been repeated so often that it is accepted as fact. And it would be possible for someone who is unfamiliar with Syria to present it in an article. In writing on the conflict in Syria, there is a formula. Damn Assad and the Alawites and your article has a good chance of getting published even if you know virtually nothing.
But well-regarded impartial experts have challenged the mainstream telling of the story of the chemical attack. For example, Ted Postol, a physicist at MIT has written a lengthy report which concludes that the Assad government most likely wasn’t responsible for the chemical attack. The veteran American journalist Seymour Hersh has written articles coming to much the same conclusion, based on interviews with people in the US intelligence community.
The chemical attack and other alleged massacres that are yet to be seriously investigated remain as reference points for politicians and commentators and the general public in the west. They effectively silence dissenting voices because to challenge them risks being labelled an “Assad apologist”. And so the campaign to destroy secular Syria can continue.
Ironically, Waleed Aly’s comment about Assad being as brutal as Saddam Hussein was written just a week after the presidential election in Syria when there was reportedly a large voter turnout and the president received overwhelming support.
Would a majority of Syrian people participate in an election and vote for a president who was allegedly killing them?
From the beginning of the crisis, the sectarian lines of the ‘revolution’ were drawn. One of the chants heard in anti-government demonstrations was “Christians to Beirut; Alawites to their graves”.
When even such a chilling call for genocide was noted in the western press, it was generally almost legitimized by sectarian descriptions of the conflict; the most often repeated one being ‘an Alawite regime is oppressing the Sunni majority’.
In fact, the Syrian government is dominated by Sunnis – the vice-presidents and the PM are Sunnis. Most key ministers are Sunni, for example, the ministers for defence, for foreign affairs, for the interior, for justice. Ali Mamlouk, a key intelligence advisor to the president, is Sunni. (He is the brother of a former landlady of mine.)
Sectarian hatred presented as political commentary has been sanctioned. We should realize by now that we can all eventually be victims of this.
I do not pretend to be an expert on Syria. The real experts are the people of Syria, those living the nightmare of war. Syria has about the same population as Australia, so we would understand that you need to hear many different voices before you have a fair understanding of the views of 23 million people. And you would definitely want to hear the voices of people who do not speak in sectarian terms. We must assume they are the majority in Syria. We must assume the majority of Syrians want peace and reconciliation and normality for themselves, their children and their children’s children, as we would.
However, a small but very vocal percentage of Syrians (in Syria and in the Syrian diaspora) want the war in Syria to continue. The lines are clear for them. It is the ‘revolution’ or the ‘regime’, and Assad has to go. (If ‘the regime’ is the secular state, millions of Syrians support it, depend on its institutions, and support the army that defends it.)
Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, someone who has been described as the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood, said on Al-Jazeera toward the end of 2011, “If it is necessary to kill one third of the Syrian population to get rid of the heretical regime, it is OK”. Sheik Qaradawi was effectively condoning the killing of 7 million people.
It has been reported recently that 40,400 Syrian soldiers have been killed defending what Qaradawi describes as a heretical regime. It is mainly a conscript army so it would reflect the make-up of the Syrian society and most would be Sunni Muslims - the Minister for Defence is a Sunni Muslim. (No doubt Sunni Syrian soldiers defending their secular country have been beheaded by Sunni jihadists from secular countries.)
If Assad were to go, I don’t believe the Syrian army will drop its weapons and welcome insurgents, both local and foreign. They would be capitulating to the game plan of countries that want to destroy their state through the creation of sectarian hatred and divisions.
There is fear of a world war in the coming years. Because of our alliance with the US, Australia is involved in any preparations for such a war.
I grew up in a world in which the most powerful were Protestant white Anglo-Saxons, and their power was expressed through their language, English. We will have no world to live in if this situation continues.
To survive the 21st century, we must be loyal to the very best in us, the very best in our faith, whatever it might be, in our values and in our belief system. We must question narrow national and sectarian agendas and the lies and hypocrisy needed to support them. Our acceptance of lies can lead in the short term to the deaths of hundreds of thousands in other countries and in the long term jeopardise security and peace in Australia and throughout the world.
I believe, to a large extent, Syria holds the world in its hands. Our survival depends on its survival and its survival depends on people writing and speaking about Syria honestly, without slogans or labels.
Those who have a war agenda must be challenged. And the so-called revolution which aims to destroy secular Syria must be challenged.
The love, connectedness, and the diversity I felt and witnessed in Syria should be cherished not destroyed. Syrians say, “God will save Syria”. But God needs help.
6th November 2014
Susan Dirgham,
National Coordinator of “Australians for Mussalah (Reconciliation) in Syria”.
 |
At 2pm at the Glebe Town Hall, listen to guest speakers Jack Mundey, Jill Green of STEP, Tony Recsei of Save Our Suburbs & William Bourke of the Sustainable Population Party. They will ask:
|
Come along and ask your own questions.
Note that the United Nations is made up of many associate members, and this event includes the National Bank as a sponsor. I am publicising it because Katharine Betts will be speaking at it, and she has a good scientific approach to the issues around the concept of an 'aging population'. The notion of a 'demographic transition is also controversial.
United Nations Association of Australia (Victorian Division)
Sustainability Leadership Series
Join us at our upcoming seminar, entitled
Demographic
Transition: Addressing the economic and social impacts of an ageing population: Is there a silver lining? on Thursday 13th November in Melbourne.
Held in partnership with National Australia Bank as part of our
Sustainability Leadership Series, this seminar seeks to discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with an ageing society.
It will notably cover how the Australian government together with the corporate and civil society sectors are addressing the impacts of our ageing population on workforce participation and productivity, on our financial and welfare system, including on pensions,
and on the provision of aged care and other social services. It will also consider the issue of age discrimination, particularly in the workplace, and how to change business attitudes towards older people.
Keynote speaker
Guest speakers
Facilitator
Seminar details
Date: Thursday 13 November, 2014
Time: 1.30pm Registration/Networking, 2pm-5pm Seminar
Venue: Hosted by National Australia Bank, The Academy (The Bowl Room), 500 Bourke Street, Melbourne
Registration Fees: Please note all fees are inclusive of GST but do not include Trybooking service fee ($0.30).
Business/Government: $180
Non-profit/Academia: $140
UNAA Members: $140
Student: $50
Registration deadline: 5pm, Tuesday 11 November
First published 5 Nov 2014 on Voltaire Net. See also Kobane: the object of all lies (4/11/14).
 |
The Syrian conflict, from the perspective of Australian history: In 1942, Australia, with the help of its American allies led by President Franklin Roosevelt, prevented invasion by the Empire of Japan. Much of this was due to the preparedness of Australia's own defence forces, as described in "Armed and Ready" (1995) by A. T. Ross. |
However, had Australia, in 1942, faced what Syria has had to face since March 2011 – hordes of foreign terrorists, estimated to number as many as 250,000, operating from countries bordering Syria – Australia almost certainly would have been conquered.
Against the expectations of even many sympathetic to Syria, she has withstood invasion and defeated the terrorists.
But that endurance has come at a terrible cost. Some estimates put the cost so far to be as high as 195,000 dead, in addition to the wounded and terrible material destruction suffered by Syria.
No country, not even a country as resourceful as Syria, can indefinitely defend itself from invasion from territories embracing at least one third of the world's land mass. Unless Syria's friends within those countries can force their governments to end their support for the terrorists, Syria could well be defeated. The consequences for Syria could well be commensurate with the carnage and destruction endured by its neighbour Iraq since 1990.
Published 5 Nov 14 on Voltaire Net.
Since 18 July 2012, the beginning of the Nicaraguan-model war on Syria, fighters have flocked to the Levant from the entire Muslim world. According to the narrative spewed by the Atlanticist and Gulf media, it is all about spontaneous migration. The Guardian revealed that "A report by the UN security council finds that 15,000 people have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight alongside the Islamic State (Isis) and similar extremist groups. They come from more than 80 countries." [#fnEgw1" id="txtEgw1"> 1 ]
However, the Security Council does not itself draw up reports: it commissions them from the Secretary-General who, in turn, assigns the task to his representatives and committees. The newspaper did not reveal who authored the document in question. In all likelihood, the figures were provided by Peter Neumann, Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London. This scholar, whose research unit is sponsored by the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Israel) and who also serves as an expert for the George Soros Open Society Foundations, collected official figures from various sources except for those provided by two States directly concerned, Syria and Iraq. Neumann accompanied President Obama to the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council meeting on terrorism, last September. In London, he is assisted by Aaron Y. Zelin (also an expert at WINEP, the AIPAC think tank). In other words, the Guardian falsely presents the numbers as originating from a neutral international entity when, in fact, they came from experts with US and Israeli ties.
|
Professor Neumann's figures coincide with those put out by the US intelligence services. They are on average 12 to 16 times lower than those provided by the Syrian Arab Army. As already seen after the attacks of September 11, 2001 when several institutes were given grants to produce analyses on the danger of Al Qaeda, today we are witnessing a proliferation of research studies on the jihad in the Levant, based on the same sources, so as to consolidate the Atlanticist and Gulf discourse. |
 |
Professor Neumann claims that the Islamic State attacked Iraq, conquered a large swath of Jordanian territory and administered it with only 800 men. Then, always according to him, IS considerably beefed up its troops and manages to keep the US Coalition in check with less than 5 000 men.
If such estimates are patently absurd, it is just as difficult to verify those provided by the Syrian Arab Army which, in June 2014, put the number of foreign jihadists who entered the country over the past two years at 250,000. However, an on-the-spot check renders this figure not only plausible, but even probable.
For example, at the beginning of the war, fighters from Libya arrived in two contingents. The first one was made up of Libyans affiliated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG, Al-Qaeda in Libya). Their number was estimated to be at least 3 000, while Professor Neuman has only tallied 556 in three years. The second contingent consisted of 1 500 Afghans [#fnEgw2" id="txtEgw2"> 2 ], while Professor Neumann found only 23 in three years.
The Syrian Arab Army says that it incinerates the corpses of the jihadists it eliminates, except where it has established repatriation agreements with the countries of origin. Thus, Damascus has quietly organized in conjunction with the Emir Abdelkader Foundation the repatriation of the remains of more than a thousand Algerian jihadists, while Professor Neumann's figure is only 250.
This controversy is not innocent: for the past three years, the Atlanticist and Gulf States narrative is that Syria is in the throes of a domestic revolution, supported by some foreign jihadists, while the Syrian Arab Republic claims to be the target of an attack from abroad by jihadists who arrived in droves, supported by some Syrians.
However, the outcome of the presidential election on 3 June 2014 showed that the Atlanticist and Gulf narrative was false, as Bashar al-Assad garnered 88.7% of the votes from his fellow citizens.
#fnEgw1" id="fnEgw1">1. #txtEgw1">↑ "Foreign jihadists flocking to Iraq and Syria on 'unprecedented scale' – UN", Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian, 30 October 2014.
#fnEgw2" id="fnEgw2">2. #txtEgw2">↑ "CIA recruits 1,500 from Mazar-e-Sharif to fight in Libya", Azhar Masood, The Nation (Pakistan), 31 August 2011.
Speakers are Susan Day Dirgham, on “Valuing Secularism in Syria” and Fr Bruce Duncan, on “Peacemaking in Islamic traditions”. This is a Social Policy Connections Public Forum at The Study Centre, Yarra Theological Union. Best entry via 34 Bedford Street, Box Hill. The forum will go from 7:30pm - 9pm, Thursday 6 November.
Susan Dirgham has taught English to migrants and refugees at the La Trobe University Language Centre for 25 years. In 2003 she taught at the British Council in Damascus, where she remained for two years and has since visited Syria many times. In 2013 she joined an international peace delegation organised by Mother Agnes Mariam and headed by Mairead
Maguire, an Irish Peace Laureate.
As national co-ordinator of “Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria" (AMRIS), Susan writes about Syria and speaks at public meetings. She has extensive material on Syria in her blogs: http://australiansforreconciliationinsyria.org/ ; http://socratesandsyria.com/ ; http://taoismandsufis.wordpress.com/ and http://susandirgham.wordpress.com/
Bruce Duncan lectures in history and social ethics, including a unit, ‘Can war be just?’ which compares just war traditions in western and Islamic traditions.
The Study Centre, Yarra Theological Union,
Best entry via 34 Bedford Street, Box Hill
Refreshments available afterwards. An entry donation is welcome.
Sale also for second-hand books in history, philosophy, politics, theology etc. social policy connections
34 Bedford Street (PO Box 505) Box Hill Vic 3128 | 03 9890 1077; 0409 897 971
[email protected] | www.socialpolicyconnections.com.au
ABN 97 387 847 085
This article explores the unsustainable nature of globalisation. If all plant and animal species were transported and intermingled globally what remains of most natural ecosystems would be destroyed by exotic invasive species that meet no natural predators or other environmental constraints to keep them in check. Diverse outbreaks of overpopulation and annihilation would ensue and biodiversity would suffer irreparable damage. Sound familiar? Modern economic dogma plans it that way. Biodiversity relies on LACK of globalisation in order to exist.
Australia has put itself on a pedestal of unsustainable absurdity with its mass migration driven pro population growth, pro carbon tax agenda; and the flag bearer of this gross absurdity has been the ABC.
The ABC argues that science proves that climate change is occurring, but at the same time denies that science also proves that population growth will destroy humanity and its environment in a very short period of time.
In 1835 when Melbourne was first settled by the English invaders there were only a small number of local Aborigines. Now 179 years later in 2014 the population is 4.25 million. At the current rate of annual growth of 2.5%, in another 179 years Melbourne's population would be around 350 million. This puts the current rate of unsustainable growth into perspective.
Those such as Melbourne's Mayor Robert Doyle and the ABC who regard population growth as "inevitable" are like climate change deniers. They seek to deny reality as a deliberate strategy for doing nothing to change the status quo. They act like a man standing in an empty 12 foot deep swimming pool with concrete blocks tied to his legs. The pool is rapidly filling with water and all the man is worried about is the carbon concentration of the air he is breathing.
What is going on at the ABC? They think we should set an example of how to destroy a developed society for all the world's underdeveloped societies to follow. A bit like the developed world did with the carbon based economy in the 20th century. China, India and other developing countries are now all following that model.
The time for ending this fatalistic complacency is long overdue.
We have two choices. Use intelligence to plan for a sustainable future or deliberately support the destruction of both humanity and the global ecosystem which supports it.
Technological development has been allowed to advance without the associated social intelligence. The quintessential form of social intelligence for humankind is population control. One way or another it will happen. If we don't put plans in place for this to happen in each individual country it will not happen in any country. This is a domestic responsibility with global consequences. If population control isn't planned it will occur in an uncontrolled way. It will not be pleasant and the humanitarian and environmental consequences will be catastrophic. We can already predict this with a high degree of certainty.
If we allow economists to continue to use their half-witted strategies to advise Governments on nation-building there will be no happy ending.
Video and transcript inside This film, made for the conference exposes the lived experience of corrupt, stupid and lethal Victorian forest and fire management, despite and because of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. The name of the film, "Firebug Economy," comes from Jill Redwood's description of a desperate way of making money out of fires by people in the declining logging business. In the film Jill also talks about the low flammability of old growth forests and the horrible synergy of forest removal, wildlife loss, and global warming, greatly accelerated under Victoria's 'planned burns policy'. Government policy has been stealthily converting old growth forests into plantations. Is the final aim is to sell them for farmland and urban development as Victoria burns? Please come to the Pause and Review conference in Melbourne 9th Nov 2014 at Kindness House, 288 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy Melbourne. Starts 10am. Contact: Maryland Wilson 0417 148 501. Jill Redwood of Environment East Gippsland is famous for leading the first ever successful case by an environmental organisation against a government logging firm. In this film we find that the trees granted protection in the famous EEG court case against VicForests have since been vengefully felled. 
Speakers include:
Philip Ingamells Victorian National Parks Association
Speaker Bob Mc Donald Naturalist
Joel Wright - Indigenous speaker on traditional Aboriginal fire management.
Michelle Thomas - well-known wildlife rescuer and carer from Animalia shelter
Maryland Wilson (President of AWPC) will lead a discussion and Action Plan from 3-4pm
Jill Redwood: Well, we've always thought this, but a study that's just come out from the ANU and Melbourne Uni [Lindenmayer, McCarthy, Taylor, "Non-linear effects of stand age on fire severity," see also "Code of destruction Lindenmayer deplores Victoria's future forest policy][1] shows that where the logging regrowth grows back after total clearfell (which is the only method used around here, even though they might give it a different name of 'seed tree', is pretty well clearfell back to bare-earth burn. And then what comes up is like ... It's converted to a pulpwood farm, basically. You don't get your forest back. What you get back is a tree-crop, and it's perfectly suited for the woodchip industry because they like the nice young white straight uniform predictable trees.
So, where we used to have age-diversity, species diversity, ferns - you know, the different stratas in the forest - you just get the one species coming back, thick as hairs on a cat's back.
As well as very thick regrowth, that's very thick and very flammable, they compete with each other for light, nutrient and water, so you also get a lot of them die off, which are then - it's just like creating a tinderbox. One, of the dead wood to carry the fire and to burn really well, and then, all this young, oil-filled eucalypt foliage. And it's just like a funeral pyre - especially when it's around towns and communities. It really goes up like a bomb. Whereas you get your natural forest and you get your different strata in the forest. You get your canopy from the old growth - really high - very hard for that to carry a crown fire, as in the young forests that carry crown fires. You get the mid-story, you get the tree-fern understory that creates this microclimate, where there's always dampness, there's moss on logs - and it's just very fire-proof. Natural forest is fire-proof and there are a lot of lightening strikes actually hitting those areas and they never go anywhere. But you get a lightening strike on a ridge-top, or a regrowth forest, and it just goes like a bomb! The whole landscape, the hillside, wherever they log, it's drying it out and creating a different forest that's far more flammable.
[Following the 2009 Victorian bushfires, an inquiry came up with a policy for mandatory burning of 5% of Victoria's forests per annum - that's 100% in 20 years. See under "Land and fuel management", http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Assets/VBRC-Final-Report-Recommendations.pdf Recommendation 56: "The State fund and commit to implementing a long-term program of prescribed burning based on an annual rolling target of 5 per cent minimum of public land"]
The way I see what's happening with the government planned burns is it gives the community a false sense of security. They have to do something to look after people from big bad fires. It's actually climate change that's creating it, and the logging. Both of those together are a deadly combination.
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: According to some theories the logging is creating the climate change, certainly in the hinterlands. [Text insert reference in film after the interview to Gorshkov and Makarieva's Biotic Pump theory].
Jill RedwoodIt's a feedback loop that's just not going to end unless the government does something to say, 'Right, this is enough. Let's try to get it back to what it was. '
But what they're doing, as a 'solution', is saying, 'we need to burn to stop the burning'. What they're doing is taking out the natural fire-proofing of a forest. And that is all the little hoppers and scratchers and diggers, like the potoroos, the bandicoots, that turn over leaf litter. Lyrebirds. They can cover - turn over - about two and a half tons a year. Each lyrebird. So they're constantly making this compost out of the leaf-litter and twigs on the forest floor. The mosses, the funghi, the termites - all the insects! The moth-larvae that are actually evolved to eat dry gum leaves - not much else is. These are the things that, when they put a fire through, and say, 'Alright, we're safe now, it's all burnt!' They are destroying the very thing that can fire-proof a forest that's been working for millions of years.
[Leaf litter shown in film. It holds a lot of water, as well as nutrients and funghi, so is not flammable, but, as Jill quips, 'It's not flammable, but it's what the public are taught to fear'. If we leave the little animals in there, they will get rid of it; they'll turn it over and digest it and the funghi will eat through it. ]
So they're killing of the little animals, they're exposing them to predation by foxes. They're taking that layer out that shades the forest floor, that keeps the damp ness going. And, if anybody's ever made compost, they know you've got to keep moisture in it and you've got to have your little creepies and bacteria and everything working together to break down that leaf-litter and the twigs. And that's why the old growth forests won't burn. And up here, during the 2014 fires, we saw it roar through a lot of fairly dry open forest that's been logged. Soon as it hit Brown Mountain, it went out. They tried to burn it with - DEPI would try to burn [dog interrupts, barking] ... DEPI being the Department of Enviroment and Primary Industry. And, what they were doing is, not just - they weren't fighting the fire - they were just lighting more fire - and that's a whole other story. The way they managed these fires in [summer].
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: And their intention was to light a fire they could manage, which would mean that, by the time the wildfire got to it, it would run out of fuel? That's their theory?
Jill Redwood: It also created a lot of reall good overtime and bonuses. But... anyway...
Sheila Newman, Interviewer:Well, that's a valid thing to comment on.
Jill Redwood: Oh God, it is!
Sheila Newman, Interviewer:Because it's not like ....
Jill Redwood: And we dare not because, oh my God, you're questioning these brave fire-fighters? Well, I didn't see any fire-fighters actually front a fire with some water. They were just lighting fires, all the time, so the boundary was getting bigger and bigger. And that... You know, the bushfire, probably would have been 'this big' but the way DEPI were managing it, the government fire-fighters, they just kept lighting fires to try and burn back into it, and then they'd escape and jump [indicates fire jumping over boundary] and they'd have to bulldoze and light another fire. And I'm sure about half the size of this fire was due to government initiated bushfires, in the hottest period, in the dry summer.
We had the big one up in Deddick. They didn't jump on that. That was one they could have jumped on immediately. That's the one that got out of control. And they were sort of waiting for it to come out, which, in the mean time it got bigger and bigger, until February the 9th, when it was so big they couldn't do anything about it and it just sort of took out half of Tubbit, Bonang, Goongarah... We were surrounded by fires and that February the 9th, it just burned out the top end of Goongarah and took out so much forest. It just - it was so intense, there wasn't a green thing, a living thing left after it went through. And this is just for miles and miles. To that extent. Somebody said, that they could have got in there, the rappelle crews could have got in, there was actually a way to get in there with four wheel drives. They could have done something about that, but they didn't!
Cienwen Hickey (local wildlife activist): They don't use a strike team anymore, do they, as they used to.
Jill Redwood: No. It's all too dangerous, but - so they just wait for it to come out and make the fires bigger and bigger and bigger. And we, our volunteer fire-brigade here, had to go out at night and put out fires that DEPI had lit the night before, and went back home. You know, they've got bank hours, like nine to five.
Cienwen Hickey (local wildlife activist): Well, they knock off at five o'clock.
Jill Redwood: They're not patrolling at night. They're not doing work on fires at night when they could, when it's cooler, when it's damp and the air's got moisture in it...
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: Is this in the middle of a bushfire they go home at night?
Jill Redwood: They go home at night, and they leave it up to us volunteers - our CFA (Country Fire Authority) to go and patrol at night, at two in the morning, putting their fires out that got away. And then they come back in the morning at nine o'clock and light them all up again for the heat of the day.
(Jill wanted it on record that SOME staff did good and that SOME very strategic and small-scale burning might have been useful to reduce the fire impact on private land before the main blow-up day, but the rest is rightful criticism.)
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: So you're saying that old growth forest ultimately went up? What about the argument though, that old growth forest doesn't usually burn easily and, as we remove it, we're increasing climate change? It seems to me that it would be better to have more old growth forest, less logging, to reduce the speed of climate change, even - and the risk of any forest fires.
Jill Redwood: That's logical! And that's what all the science is saying. But the government would prefer to keep the logging industry making that money, a few jobs - I think there's forty jobs involved in East Gippsland - but we're still destroying what has the ability to moderate our climate and that is forest. They're carbon capture and storage units - you know - the best in the world that we've got is our forests. They're knockign them down and creating these - you know - smoke, just ... ash landscapes with nothing there.
So the more that they log, the more that the climate is actually heating up, the less carbon there is stored in the forest, the less temperature moderation [2] there is over the landscape - and of course our bushfires are going to get much worse.
In the past, there has been - you know, lightening strikes - yes, South East Australia does get a lot of lightening strikes. Historically that's always been the case. Pre-European, pre-Aboriginal.
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: Yet there were very big forests.
Jill Redwood: They were very big forests and they had that structure where, you know, there are all these fire-breaks in the landscape. All the wet gullies, the south-facing slopes. The forest that had a lot of thick undergrowth. Where it wasn't thick undergrowth that stopped that stopped that heat and wind driving fires through, in some areas, just naturally it would open out and become dry sort of grassy understory forest. And that's what a lot of the early settlers described. But it wasn't due to burning. It was due to lack of burning. And that's what a lot of the science is now picking up. And we're [Sarcastically] just saying, 'Oh, no, the Aborigines used to burn so we've got to do the same to be safe!'
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: Coming up this way we've observed in the areas that have been really badly burned piles of fallen logs and tree-litter piled up - obviously by bulldozers and things.
Jill Redwood: What they are - and I've actually questioned this, and I've formally tried to get an answer - What they're doing now they have this 'dangerous trees' policy because all of these trees that are left standing along tracks are 'dangerous'. They might just fall on cars at any moment. So they have to go right along the tracks and cut down every tree that might possibly fall. And I've got photos of ones that are solid as a rock, not any rot in them, not leaning, and they've cut them down. And when they cut them down, of course, where you would have had a tree with a green leafy head and a trunk, you now have this pile of ... It's a tinder-box, waiting to burn, you know. And along the side of the roads. Like, hang on, weren't you trying to make the roads safer? And all they've done is bulldoze all of these trees and tree-heads up along the side of the road. So now, if there's another fire that comes through, they're just going to be this massive big bonfires.
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: How long has that been going on for, this business of cutting them down because they're 'dangerous'?
Jill Redwood: We just had that down here the year before ... yeah, 2013 they started doing that - down along Martin's Creek. In that area. So all of these habitat trees - the ones that are really important for habitat - feed trees for gliders, you know, the nectar producing trees, they're the best - the oldest ones are the best - cut them all down because they're 'dangerous'.
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: Is there any idea - does anyone have any idea of what the governments - the successive governments - think they're doing with this area? Are they going to turn it into some plantation forest or, are they going to turn it into farmland? Or are they going to build appartments?
Jill Redwood: They're trying to turn it into plantations. That's what's been happening for the last forty years, it's conversion to plantations. But now the woodchip industry is starting to say, "Naw, we don't want those chips from South East Australia. Too far away. We'll get our woodchips from - you know - Vietnam - or somewhere else that's got the eucalypt plantations growing.
So now, DEPI, who's had this agenda to create this wonderful woodchip farm for the Asian woodchip market for forty years, it's starting to fall in a heap. So: 'God, we've got to keep ourselves relevant, somehow - I know! Fire economy! Yes!'
And they call it 'Red gold' now, and the people at Glenaladale ...
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: Fire economy?
Jill Redwood: Fire economy! You know, keep DEPI relevant?
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: So, how are they doing this? What does 'fire economy' mean?
Jill Redwood: Well, it keeps the people employed burning, cutting down trees, bulldozing tracks ...
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: Oh, to 'prevent' bushfires and trees falling on people?
Jill Redwood: And if there is a bushfire - 'You beauty! We've got a lot of, you know, extra income for this, and we could employ our mates on bulldozers at $3000 a day to push tracks and push trees over and - oh, I don't know - you know, it might not be any good, but we've got to keep 'em employed and -
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: You'd think they could employ a few of them as forest rangers, wouldn't you?
Jill Redwood: Oh! Putting in picnic tables and walking tracks maybe might be a better thing but, you know, a lot of these boys do love their matches. And, you know, you look at the profile of a pyromaniac and, my God, I reckon that a lot of them would be perfect for those boys in green overalls and driving around in [?] vehicles.
Jill Redwood: (Filmed standing by a huge fallen tree among several lining a fire track) All the way along here to our Brown Mountain forests - which was the test case in this court case - they have cut down every big tree along the way! There is no reason for it, other than -.
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: So these were the trees your court case [which was successful] was defending largely?
Jill Redwood: Yes!
Sheila Newman, Interviewer: They've all been cut down?
Jill Redwood: Yes! It's retribution. That's all it is. It's just absolute senseless destruction of giant big old trees.
Jill Redwood: (Back in home). I actually did a comparison between what's happening in the Amazon and what's happening in East Gippsland. And, relative to the area that we've got, and how much is being taken out each year, as clear-fell logs - clear-fell areas - it's pretty much on a par with the Amazon. It's just like ... East Gippsland is no better and here we are saying, 'World's best practice! It all grows back. All renewable!' It's not. It's bullshit! They are destroying what is irreplacable. Irreplacable! We have six hundred year old trees. We radiocarbon dated the wood from near the center of the tree. Six hundred year old trees! And it's just turned into this smokey, ashen landscape, and it goes of to - you know - Asian woodchip factories. If it was anywhere else in the world, they would be valuing these forests as something so rare. It would be the antiques of the natural world. And people would have to be paying big money to come and experience and stand amongst these giants and just be awestruck. But no - paper cups - throwaway paper!
[End transcript from short version of Firebug Economy film ("Pause and review wildlife and fire conf").]
[1]
"Code of Destruction - A look at Victoria's future forest policy":
This film Recommends the creation of a "Great Forest National Park", where there would be no logging.
Prof. David Lindenmayer is one of Australia's foremost environmental experts. Over 30 years David has undertaken one of the most comprehensive scientific studies of a forest landscape anywhere in the world. With over 35 scientists and 2,500 volunteers they have painstakingly measured and tracked the Victorian central highlands. Now the state government who manages that forest refuses to reference their study as it presents a conclusion they are unwilling to hear. Without intention - all Victorians putting at risk their water security, biodiversity and the extinction of their fauna emblem - the endangered Leadbeaters Possum.
[2] Regarding the expression 'temperature moderation', this is a reference to more discussion in the longer version of this interview, covering the heat island effect and the cooling effect of forests, (particularly mature ones with big trees) which is noticable to anyone entering them. So, it is not just carbon storage, but the transpirational effects of forests (getting rid of heat and water, but also storing water - keeping the balance) and their shade that is important.
First published 30 Oct 2014 by the Macedon Ranges Residents' Association (MRRA) on www.mrra.asn.au.
 |
(30/10/14 - SP) MRRA: If the government now thinks SPP8 – the policy it promised to retain – is so out-of-date, so old-fashioned, it's the fault of the government which has had 4 years to fix it, and honour its election promise to put it in place as State policy. Red Alerts Say No To Suburbia Noticeboard When elected in 2010, the State government promised to protect Macedon Ranges by reconfirming the 40 year policy – Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, Macedon Ranges and Surrounds – as State planning policy. |
Before, and many times since that election, the Minister for Planning has repeatedly publicly stated the government would deliver its promise and protect Macedon Ranges.
Last Tuesday (28/10/14), on ABC Radio 774 (Jon Faine show), the Minister for Planning revealed the State government will not keep its promise to protect Macedon Ranges with State policy unless it is re-elected at the State election, now four weeks away.
Listen to the Minister's response to a caller's questions by clicking on the link (starts at 21.57 minutes into the discussion):
https://soundcloud.com/774-abc-melbourne/matthew-guy-on-mornings-with-jon-faine-1 (right click and open in new tab)
The Minister additionally said (mirroring Macedon Ranges Council's argument) that Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 – Macedon Ranges and Surrounds (introduced by the the Hamer government in 1975) is out-of-date and old-fashioned. He said references obsolete planning schemes and policies, and it needs to be 'contemporised' – it couldn't be used in its current form as State policy.
Although Macedon Ranges Shire Council has produced a draft Localised Planning Statement which is not Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, and introduces different policy settings for the Shire, the Minister said Council had produced a document which fulfilled the government's commitment. He attributed the delay in introducing State policy to an "on-going blue" between the local community (i.e. MRRA) and Council, and pledged the State government would act as mediator in the next round of consultation, if re-elected, ensuring neither party took the lead.
When challenged that failure to deliver State policy and Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is a broken promise, he told the caller "you need to have a conversation with your Council instead of blaming others for your own fights".
At this late stage, for a government that vowed it would protect Macedon Ranges with Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 as State policy, to now say that policy isn't right, and blame the community for the government's failure to deliver, is a cowardly act, and deplorable.
The government has had four (4) years to get this right. Before the 2010 election, the government didn't say it would protect Macedon Ranges if re-elected for a second term. It didn't have issues with Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 when it promised to reinstate it as State policy, and only identifies these now, four weeks from the next election.
To anyone who has attended recent Council meetings, discussion of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 in terms of "old" and "old-fashioned" will sound familiar, as will the need to "contemporise" its language. Modern policy uses "encourage" and "limit" but Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is strong policy that says what it means using old-fashioned "shall" and "must" language. This policy, which fits on 2 double-sided A4 pages, has safeguarded Macedon Ranges for 40 years. It's the policy we were promised as State policy and, with such endorsement, can stand alone without reliance on other documents.
 |
 |
 |
The Minister says Council's Localised Planning Statement delivers the government's commitment. But it doesn't. It only "retains" about half of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8's policy, and then only applies that to an area not much more than a quarter of the existing Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 policy area, leaving Woodend, Gisborne, Riddells Creek, Romsey and Lancefield unprotected. SPP8 protects these towns and other areas, Council's LPS doesn't.
It is quite wrong for the government to shift responsibility for its failure to provide the protection it promised to a "blue" between Macedon Ranges Council and a single community group. Doing so fails to recognise that protecting Macedon Ranges and keeping it a rural Shire is a whole-of-community concern. It also overlooks the 3,000 signature petition calling for Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 to be reinstated as State policy handed to the (now) Minister in 2010; the recent 6,000 signature petition calling for Hanging Rock to be protected; and the +80% of 1,100 respondents to a recent survey who said the most important issue is protecting Macedon Ranges' environment and rural character. Any "blue" in this case should have been between a State government committed to Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, and a Council committed to getting rid of it. The State government instead appears to be favouring Council's position over the community's position.
Since Council adopted its deficient Localised Planning Statement on September 24, MRRA has made numerous requests to the Minister and local politicians for meetings and information about where the government stood on protection, the most recent on 27/10/14 to the Minister for Planning; Donna Petrovich (Liberal candidate for Macedon); and Amanda Millar, Wendy Lovell and Damian Drum (Liberal Upper House representatives for Northern Victoria Region).
From 24 September, Amanda Millar alone responded to MRRA but the information we sought was finally obtained, not by responses to our requests, but from ABC's radio call-in discussion. Two emails to Donna Petrovich requesting a meeting with her went unanswered. In contrast, Mary Anne Thomas (Labor candidate for Macedon) recently met with MRRA.
By breaking its promise, the government has failed the Macedon Ranges' and Victorian community, and opened the door for an already out-of-control Macedon Ranges Council to approve all manner of new development that permanently damages Macedon Ranges' environment and landscape. Council's confidence in having such endorsement is already evident in its latest proposal to carve up the south of this Shire into 4ha and 2ha lots and, without the State policy protection the government pledged, it won't stop there.
Recent comments