(We) can do better

Good news, but they still haven't got the technique quite right.

Source of this photo and comment is unknown but will be acknowledge if the original author lets us know.

Australia has mandated a relatively steady average compound annual population growth of 1.6+% since 1901 combined with a relatively steady average compound annual GDP growth of 3.2+% since 1901. Inside I criticise Australia's most recent so-called Population inquiry, conducted by Tony Burke. Relatedly, I also ask you to sign a petition for a new population inquiry, which you can quickly find here: Australia requires a public inquiry to determine a basis for the optimum rate of population growth

I am asking readers to forward the petition because it cannot grow if it is not forwarded.

Why do we need an optimum population inquiry for Australia?

Any multi-national industrial company uses risk assessment techniques similar to those defined in the Australian government's WorkSafe Safety Assessment for a Major Hazard Facility.

Safety of personnel is the highest priority for such global corporations. Safety assessments are performed based on the reality of the finite resources an organisation has available to manage and implement its business strategy.

Risk assessments typically rate a particular risk based on both the likelihood of it occurring and the consequence. Where a Risk Assessment confirms that there is a catastrophic consequence (ie loss of life) and a high likelihood of that outcome (for example infant mortality in the developing world), then implementing mitigation measures would be deemed obligatory.

This is exactly the situation a country would find itself in if its population growth policy could clearly be demonstrated to reduce its ability to provide foreign aid for such mitigation measures.

A related question is: Why is Australia experiencing increasing public and private sector debt even with rapidly increasing population and manic exploitation of every natural resource that mining, oil and gas and farming operations can feasibly develop? Why also has the number of unemployed increased at a compound rate of 2.3% per annum over the last decade? Is rapid population growth a root cause of both of these outcomes?

From a macro perspective, if analysis of the rate of population growth in Australia showed that the cost of each additional Australian for the Australian economy is reducing Australia's profitability (for example due to increasing national debt) then it would follow that this is indirectly responsible for the loss of life of many people each year in the developing world, due to our reduced capacity to pay for foreign aid.

The environment is finite and this is a zero sum "game". The more pigs at the Australian trough gorging on excess, the more people die in the developing world?

This is one good reason why we need a Public Inquiry. There are many more; as outlined below.

Critique of Australia's most recent inquiry into population

See below my critique of Australia's most recent failed inquiry into population, as conducted by Tony Burke, a recent minister for Sustainability and Environment with the Gillard Government. The history of Burke's inquiry, readers may remember, followed on Gillard's remarks about not being keen on a big population. Gillard went on to preside over a continuing expansion of Australia's immigration program and this report sank without a trace.

My responses to Tony Burke's remarks highlight what appears to be an attempt to prop up a pro-growth status quo argument in denial of the facts, which continues a sad tradition of intellectual dishonesty in Australian government on the matter of population policy:

Tony Burke's severely blinkered inquiry

Extract from: Tony Burke, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Sustainable Australia –Sustainable Communities; A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia (2011)

My comments in Italic Bold:

Box 3 – Why Australia does not have a population target

A number of submissions to the public consultation phase called for the Government to set a population target. Indeed, public discussion over the past 40 years has periodically called for a population ‘target’ to be set. The pressure to provide such a target is often based on a belief that there must be a measurable, finite limit to the capacity of the country to provide resources for its population. These debates have often been fuelled by the publication of possible projected population trends.

There are many aspects of population growth, such as changes in fertility rates, longevity, or emigration, that we cannot accurately predict nor directly control, especially beyond the immediate future.

Good points, but a long term average "target" has been achieved, whether by accident or by GDP chasing. That target has been 1.6+% compound average annual growth and has been tracked over the decades since 1901. 60% of population growth is currently due to net migration; which could possibly be modified to target a lower rate of growth. See http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3421. The target is currently to double population every 40 years; forever. This is not realistic.

Further, governments have limited practical tools through which they can influence population. Immigration is the most direct lever, but this is still limited in practicality (for example, migration from New Zealand, or the movement of Australians overseas or returning home). The adoption of a population target would also limit the use of the migration program as a policy lever to address emerging skills gaps and labour shortages.

Good points; but another argument for doing nothing? Skills gaps are driven by demand, which is driven significantly by government policy on population growth. Roughly half of GDP growth is attributable to the direct consequences of population growth – which also dilutes GDP per capita while lowering quality of life in a rapidly degrading environment. Rapid population growth is accompanied by rapid growth in the number of unemployed. The growth rate of unemployed over the last decade has been 2.3% per annum – far faster than population growth. So what is causing this social problem?

It is clear that any perceived ‘optimum’ population is likely to change in the future due to changes in the way resources are used and developments in technology. Such developments may, for example, facilitate an increased water supply, greater yields in food production, and increasing take-up of alternative, renewable energy. As we strive for greater efficiency in consumption of resources, it follows that a larger number of people could be supported for the same consumption.

The future is endless. A relevant question is how long Australia wishes humanity to survive here and globally? The optimum population is clearly a stable population, because growth cannot continue indefinitely. By practicing a policy of extreme growth, the time available to develop technological solutions to the massive negative impacts of rapid growth is exponentially reduced. There is no way to double population every 40 years indefinitely – regardless of the extent of improved resource use and technological development. This creates a blueprint for an inherently unsustainable society - which is what we are now experiencing.

Improvements in urban planning and technology in the future also have the potential to change the way we live and work, reducing the external costs of population growth currently being experienced, such as traffic congestion. Hence, it is more useful for governments, businesses and communities to focus on ways of improving our wellbeing, protecting our environment and making better use of the resources we have, rather than trying to determine an absolute limit to our population and focussing efforts on restricting growth in order to not exceed this ‘limit’.

This is partly true, but there are limits. It doesn't make sense to propose that solutions can be developed to accommodate endless growth without addressing the potential for moderating the primary driver of this rapid growth (aka population growth). Chaotic expansion is not preferable to disciplined improvement.

Since the 1970s, all population inquiries sponsored by Australian governments have rejected the notion of a population target or national carrying capacity. Mandated population targets would typically be arbitrary, and impossible to deliver in practice.

Australia has effectively mandated a long term average annual population growth of 1.6+% since 1901 combined with a long term average annual GDP growth of 3.2+% since 1901.[1]This proposition is not supported by the actual track record, which shows relatively steady adherence to consistent rapid long term growth targets.

In addition, setting such a target has the potential to distract attention from addressing the challenges presented by other aspects of population change, including location, age and skill composition.

Many of the distractions in Australia today are CAUSED by the rapid rate of population growth…….!

Population projections are illustrations of what the population might look like, on the basis of various assumptions about mortality, fertility and migration. These are generally based on past trends, and at best should be seen only as rough guides to the direction of current population movement. For example, if assumptions about fertility do not eventuate, then projections are likely to be quite different to actual population numbers, particularly in the medium to long-term.

This is arguably absurd in light of the relatively steady long term population growth trends already achieved by Australia and the potential for variable migration during a transition to more moderate rates of growth………

So, rather than setting a target, the central objective of this Strategy is to lay the platform for a more sustainable Australia. In contrast to relying on long term projections, this can be better achieved by managing the impacts of all aspects of our current population, closely monitoring migration levels, and using population projections for the short to medium term to plan and prepare for our population’s needs in the future.

There has been a consistent "target" since 1901. The problem is that this target is clearly far too high by developed world (or any other) standards, and therefore requires critical review. This document is paying lip service to the task at hand rather than recognising the need for performing ongoing comprehensive review that ensures we are on the right track.......... It is an oxymoron to talk about sustainability in the context of a population growth rate comparable to those of the most underdeveloped and environmentally degraded developing-world dictatorships on earth.

NOTES

[1] All the global growth rates are from the CIA World Factbook. All data on OECD population and GDP growth rates were from this source and were compared to actual ABS data for 2012.

The following email emerged after Christopher (Kit) James was approached once again to contribute to Environment Victoria's funds. Exasperated, he scrawled on the back of the request that he would not be contributing until Environment Victoria began to campaign against population growth in Victoria. Note that we are on course for 70million people at the end of the century unless Victorians and Australians combine to resist this awful fate. How can Environment Victoria claim to be effective in the face of this rate of human population growth?

From: Kelly O'shanassy, CEO, Environment Victoria

Date: 3 December 2013 3:52:46 PM AEDT
To: Christopher James
Subject: Population issues

Dear Christopher - I received your note regarding population threats and Environment Victoria's role in population campaigning. I appreciate your thoughts.

Environment Victoria absolutely recognises that the human population has an unsustainable impact on the earth and that infinite growth on a finite planet is physically impossible. We also recognise that the ever rising population, and consumption of natural resources, and the pollution subsequently produced, has put the world into ecological overshoot. And with population and consumption rates continuing to increase, that overshoot will spiral out of control. All of this is our public position listed in our Charter to Safeguard Victoria's Environment. Click here to read our Charter on our website.

In our Charter, we use ecological footprint as a measure of the impact of humans on the planet. The ecological footprint is an internationally recognised indicator that calculates humanity's demand on nature. It is a product of the population and the consumption patterns of that population. Victoria's ecological footprint is three times higher than the world average. The research shows this is largely due to our polluting energy supply and the way we produce and consume the food we eat and the goods and services we buy. Of course, it is also effected by the population.

In our Charter, we set a goal to reduce Victoria's ecological footprint by 25 percent by 2020 and to sustainable levels by 2050. While these goals are big, they are what's necessary and we have never shied away from a problem just because its hard.

[candobetter.net editor: The problem is not just 'hard'; the goal is an absurdity with the current population increases. Where has Ms O'Shanassy been living, we wonder? Is Environment Victoria a professional false-flag environment organisation?]

Of course, Environment Victoria will not be able to achieve these goals alone.

Like our planet, Environment Victoria has limited resources and we focus our efforts on the things we can influence and where we can create the biggest outcome for Victoria's environment. We are currently undertaking research on how Environment Victoria can campaign to reduce Victoria's ecological footprint. This already includes a focus on transitioning from coal to clean energy but it may also focus on other issues, such as advocacy for a clean economy or advocacy for sustainable food production and use. We have discussed whether we should run a sustainable population campaign and have come to the conclusion that a state based organisation would be unable to have a big enough impact on population growth. Population policies are set at the national and international level and is a global issue. The solutions involve the empowerment of women and cover numerous human rights issues of which we are not the experts. So while we publicly recognise that population is a problem and that a stable global population is essential for any kind of sustainable future, we have a responsibility to campaign in areas where we can make a difference.

I hope this provides some clarity for you. I fully understand if you wish to direct your donations to an organisation that does run population campaigns but I hope you will continue to see the value in the unique and essential campaigns we do run here at Environment Victoria, that aim to make the biggest possible difference to our environment by 2020.

Thank you so much for your generous support and I'm always happy to chat about our work.

Best regards

Kelly O'Shanassy
CEO
Environment Victoria

ttp://www.environmentvictoria.org.au

DIRECT: (03) 9341 8119 MOBILE: 0421 054 402
RECEPTION: (03) 9341 8100 FAX: (03) 9341 8199
STREET ADDRESS: Level 2, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053
POST: PO Box 12575, A'Beckett Street, Carlton, Victoria 8006

Do you really need to print me?
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Chair of the Plan Melbourne Committee, Professor Roz Hansen, has been quoted saying that the government is spending $6 billion to $8 billion on a road solution that belongs in the 1960s or 1970s and that ‘it is not smart, innovative or progressive thinking’. She is thus now in step with majority opinion among Melbourne's community groups. Attendance at the protest today was representitive of the broader community, comprising many members of important community groups, plus the Greens, Opposition politicians, and local government figures. Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands Vic, has been battling to protect one of Melbourne's most important public parks, Royal Park, since 1996, in particuar from the regularly recurring attempts of successive Victorian governments to build the East West Link which would destroy what remains of Royal Park. This is an affront to democracy and would be the theft of one of Mebourne's greatest assets.

High Noon for Napthine

The event took place today on Melbourne's Parliament House steps at 12 noon. Master of ceremonies, Rod Quantock introduced the main speakers - Jackie Fristacky, Mayor of Yarra, Jan Chantry, Mayor of Moonee Ponds, Tony Morton, president Public Transport Users' Association, Richard Foster, Melbourne City councillor, Greg Barber, Leader , Greens Party Victoria MP, Richard Wynne Shadow Minister for Public Transport , Brian Tee, Shadow Minister for Planning , Joe Edwards,West Parkville resident, Keith Fitzgerald, Collingwood resident. Members of community groups announced future events regarding the East West Link campaign.

Motion carried and taken to Parliament House

The following resolution, addressed to the Premier of Victoria Denis Napthine:

"That this rally wishes to convey to you our total opposition to the East West Link Toll Road project and our support for funding instead of desperately needed public transport projects namely - the Melbourne Metro and the Doncaster, Rowville, and Airport Rail Lines" moved by Julianne Bell and seconded by Rod Quantock was carried unanimously and the message was relayed to staff at Parliament House.

Stop the Tunnel - Snap protest at Parliament

Thursday 12 December is a significant day in the ongoing battle over the East West Link Toll Road for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc (PPL VIC) to host the snap protest. It is the last day of the sitting of Parliament before it goes into recess and is our last chance to point out again to the Government the folly of proceeding with the project which will signify damage to the environment, reduction of Royal Park to Ground Zero, heritage desecration, destruction of residential amenity and reckless expenditure of $8b on a mammoth roads project - the biggest in Victorian history. In addition it is D-Day for public submissions on the Comprehensive Impact Statement on the East West Link.

The protest kicked off at 12:15 pm on the steps of Parliament and heard from Members of Parliament (ALP and Greens), the Mayors of the Cities of Yarra and Moonee Valley and a number of Councillors plus of course the resident, protest and community groups who have led the great tide of opposition to the East West Link and have been advocating for public transport, notably the Doncaster Rail Link. The Public Transport Users’ Association spoke on their latest campaign “Public Transport not Traffic.”

Julianne Bell

Julianne Bell, the Secretary of PPL VIC commented as follows:

“News today reports that the Government’s own advisory Committee on “Plan Melbourne”, the new blue print for the city for 40 years, has resigned after having denounced the East West Road Link.

The Chair of the Committee Professor Roz Hansen is quoted in the media as saying that government was spending $6 billion to $8 billion on a road solution that belonged in the 1960s or 1970s and that ‘it is not smart, innovative or progressive thinking’.

A large group of representatives of community organisations were at the City of Melbourne meeting on Tuesday night and actually heard her full, electrifying speech. This is reflective of the lack of confidence in the East- West Link project being expressed right across Melbourne. ”

Public left in the dark to make submissions

The community is having difficulty trying to write submissions on the C.I.S of the East West Link as, to date, planning for the project appears to have been undertaken on the run so the community does not know its full impact and information has only been released by slow drip. The Linking Melbourne Authority even added another off ramp – the Ormond Road off ramp – just 2 weeks ago which will affect residences in Ascot Vale and overshadow Essendon Community Gardens.

No mandate, no democracy

Community groups continue to point out that the Napthine Government has no mandate for this tollway as the Liberal Government went to the last election on a public transport platform, including promises to build the Doncaster Rail. The rally will present Premier Napthine with resolutions from the meeting which will undoubtedly include the demand “Stop The Tunnel” and “Trains Not Toll Roads”.

You can watch Possum Wars on IView now at http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/78473727Every night around Australia, thousands of cute little native possums scamper across city rooftops seeking food and shelter in the great urban indoors that has tragically replaced the vast nurturing Australian forests. Forced out of their bush habitats by clearing and development, these brave marsupials must compete with noisy, destructive humans to survive in urban environments. "And when possums and people fight for real estate it’s war! Possum Wars lifts the lid on the private world of Australia’s most unwanted marsupial and its battle to survive in the big city." (ABC promotion for "Possum Wars," on Sunday, 15 December 2013)

Possum Activism

Readers of candobetter.net will be familiar with the possum wars at Catani Gardens and elsewhere in Victoria. Animal Active campaigner, Rheya Linden, features in this documentary on urban possums. She has long been a negotiator on behalf of possums with various councils.

Please ask that the woman who drowned a possum be prosecuted

By the way, advance information about this film, says that there is a human in it who boasts about drowning a possum. The name of this woman is not given out, but I am told that the RSPCA knows it. Do us a favour, write to the RSPCA, mentioning this film, and demand that they prosecute this woman for cruelty. If she is not prosecuted then people will watch this film and think that it is okay to do terrible things to possums. They might even get the idea that it is a good idea. Humans can be very dumb.

Some editorial advice for the ABC

As a possum insider, or an inside possum, (See my earlier article: "Living with humans - A possum responds to "Living with wild animals") I must say that the promoters of this ABC documentary are not doing us possums a favour with the following description as it was originally:

"Every night around Australia, thousands of native possums scamper across city rooftops in an endless quest for food and shelter. Forced out of their bush habitats by clearing and development, these mischievous marsupials swarm into cities where their raucous noise and destructive appetites bring them few friends. And when possums and people fight for real estate it’s war! Possum Wars lifts the lid on the private world of Australia’s most unwanted marsupial and its battle to survive in the big city." (ABC promotion for "Possum Wars," on Sunday, 15 December 2013).

Let's stand back and look at those statements objectively, shall we? In fact, let's look at the whole thing from a possum's perspective, high up in a tree, looking down at a bunch of urban humans at a BBQ, especially around Christmas. "Raucous noise and destructive appetites," describes these loud fatties to a T. No-one beats the human race for destructive appetites. Humans are so far to the forefront of fish depletion, forest destruction and noise creation that no other creature stands a chance in any competition with humans. Apart from some exceptions, they don't play fair with the rest of us. As for noise - have you tried to sleep up a telegraph pole by a road lately? It's impossible, yet, in some places, those are the only trees available, dead and strung with dangerous wires.

A final remark about noise. We possums are often lambasted for running loudly on roofs and whooping and wailing when we're feeling sexy or on nights of full moons. Humans claim not to be able to stand this. I am sure, however, that if we paid money to go into nightclubs and do the same thing, they would encourage our nocturnal celebrations. The bottom line with humans is, "Does it make money?" If it doesn't, then they want to replace it with something that does. Possums are not a commercial venture; they are a part of Life. We are pure. Our songs are not for sale. Our dances are not for copying. We're holding out for principles.

Once our beautiful banshee songs used to ring out so that we could find each other in the vast quiet of endless forests. Today we have to yell out even louder over the traffic noise to let each other know where we are. Bring back the forests, I say. Get rid of the houses. Australians used to live in modest bark huts and they didn't bother much more than we did with clothes. We got along then. Why can't this lot be more tolerant?

Please remember to write to the RSPCA asking that the woman who drowned the possum be prosecuted.

Pura Vida! as they say in Costa Rica (where they also have possums.)

The Australian College of Mental Health Nurses (ACMHN) joins the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ (RANZCP) in condemning the recent announcement by Queensland Health to introduce ‘lock-up’ security measures to all adult mental health hospital inpatient facilities in Queensland, and the expansion of the use of ankle bracelets.

This week, Queensland Health ordered the State’s 16 mental health inpatient facilities to be secured, and a new ‘locked-door’ policy to be adopted effective 15 December 2013.

“We fully understand the need for safety and security, but a decision to lock all mental health units, as a knee jerk reaction to address issues of absconding, is a retrograde and draconian solution. It seems that no consideration has been given to the rights of those who are voluntarily admitted for treatment and care”, says Adjunct Associate Professor Kim Ryan, CEO of the ACMHN.

“We need to be working towards a mental health system that supports people with mental illness to live rich and meaningful lives. The Newman government can’t cut costs and pare back services, and not expect there to be a consequence. The cost of installing locks and electronic security could be better spent providing more support and staffing to the units”, said Adj. Assoc. Prof Ryan.

“We also need to continue to address stigma associated with mental health issues; the media surrounding the decision by Queensland Health has inferred that all people with mental health issues are a risk to themselves or others – this is simply not the case”, Adj. Assoc. Prof. Ryan said.

Dr Murray Patton, President of the RANZCP, says these plans go against the principles of least restrictive care.

“For patients, being locked into a ward is affiliated with more anger, irritation and depression, hardly the goals of the mental health system”.

The RANZCP is calling on Dr Michael Cleary, Queensland Health's deputy director-general who ordered the security upgrade, to reverse this decision and establish a process of consultation with the mental health units regarding the actions being taken to address incidents of absconding.

See update and details at http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3591Community groups have received the news of an apparent backflip on East West link. Is there some democracy left in Melbourne after all? REMINDER - NO TUNNEL Snap Protest at 12 noon for a 12:15 pm start TODAY Thursday 12 December 2013 on the steps of Parliament!

(1) State Planning Committee on "Plan Melbourne" Resigns Over East West Link

PPL VIC and other community group representatives were stunned to hear Ms Roz Hansen's denunciation of the East West Link at the Future Melbourne (Transport) Committee Meeting on the City of Melbourne's submission on the Comprehensive Impact Statement on the East West Link on Tuesday night. The Lord Mayor seemed taken aback. After the meeting I asked Ms Hansen for the speech and she said that it should be on Council records but to get back to her if it was not available. I am determined to obtain it as is an excellent statement.

(2) Kelvin Thomson's Speech in Federal Parliament on the East West Link on 10 December 2013

Please see Kelvin’s speech delivered to the Parliament last night on the East West Link. Please feel free to distribute it through your networks.

Kelvin Thomson Parliamentary speech on East West Link 11 December 2013

(3) REMINDER - NO TUNNEL Snap Protest at 12 noon for a 12:15 pm start TODAY Thursday next 12 December 2013 on the steps of Parliament!

Please send an apology if you can't attend and also messages of support if a representative of your group cannot attend. See you there!

Source: Julianne Bell Protectors of Public Lands VIC Inc.

Expansion at Abbot Point coal terminal can proceed following the Environment Minister's approval of the dredging project. There are some "strict" conditions on when and how much can be dredged. There is "protection" for flora and fauna.

Three million tonnes of dredge spoil will be dumped offshore. He has also approved of the LNG facility on Curtis Island. This is supposed to reignite our resource industries. Conservation groups are angry that Mr Greg Hunt has approved these developments

.

Community campaigns against the expansion of Abbot Point

Mainstream media reports about Abbot Point

The people of Western Sydney have been betrayed by the NSW Government after it was revealed (see bottom of page) they issued Lend Lease a licence that will allow the removal of all the Emus from the controversial former ADI Site. Despite years of protests by locals and their supporters further afield (see ADI site history on candobetter.net ), the 1535 hectare former Australian Defence Industries Site is now owned by Lend Lease which is developing 5400 houses. 900 hectares of the site, the future home of the Emus and Kangaroos, is meant to become a Regional Park.

“For nearly a decade all levels of government, specifically the NSW Government, have stated that Emus and Kangaroos would be retained within the proposed Regional Park. So this is a major betrayal to the people of Western Sydney” said Geoff Brown President of the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance and who led the ADI Residents Action Groups fight to save the ADI Site.

Lendlease and Penrith Council go back on word to keep emus on site

“The NSW Government had previously said Emus and Kangaroos would remain within the proposed Wianamatta Regional Park. Their own Masterplan for the Wianamatta Regional Park states retaining a sustainable population of Kangaroos and Emus as a desired outcome. Lend Lease's own Macrofauna Management Plan (A plan they had to come up with due to conditions applied by the NSW Government) states: It is part of the vision for this plan that eastern grey kangaroos and emus will be present in the SMP in the long term. Penrith Council in its submissions on the future of Macrofauna within the Regional Park talked of the creation of viewing areas so that Emus and Kangaroos could be seen by the public visiting the Regional Park.”

Sad news - you cannot trust developers or development oriented councils

“This is very sad news especially to those people whose homes backed onto the ADI Site are and were visited daily by the Emus that roamed the fence lines. To many they would have been like pets. I myself lived on this fence line for many years and have fond memories of Emu families visiting. I also filmed a father Emu leading about 8 tiny chicks as they wondered through the bushland.”

“This is what happens when a developer is left in charge of managing a proposed 900 ha Regional Park and its flora and fauna. 11 years ago the NSW Government and Lend Lease signed the legally binding St Marys Development Agreement that included an obligation for Lend Lease to transfer ownership of the Regional Park to the NSW Government as soon as possible. 11 years later and only about 63 hectares of the 900 hectares is in NSW Government ownership. What's going on?”

You can't trust a developer oriented State Government either

“Serious questions need to asked of Robyn Parker the NSW Environment Minister about this betrayal, the issuing of the licence and why 11 years after the St Marys Development Agreement was signed Lend Lease still owns about 835 hectares of the promised 900 hectare Regional Park.”

State parks were able to manage emus; how come Lend Lease cannot?

“The only reason these Emus are being evicted from their home of 50 years is because of Lend Leases mismanagement. One would assume that if the entire 900 hectare Regional Park was under the ownership and management of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service that 27 Emus would not be a problem to manage. There was never any major issues with Emus escaping until the ADI Site was sold to Lend Lease in the mid 2000's. Lend Leases primary focus has been on generating massive profits from their adjoining housing development than properly implementing their management plans for the sites animals and vegetation.”

“Lend Lease should tell us exactly where the Emus are to be sent so that any questions about their ongoing welfare can be properly addressed. What happens if there are young chicks at foot?”

Download NSW Government Wianamatta Regional Park Management Plan here and Macrofauna Management Plan here search the pdfs using keyword retained

Comments Geoff Brown 0431 222602

www.wsca.org.au

Lend Leases statement

In accordance with the provisions of Section 127 National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has issued a licence to Maryland Development Company to relocate emus located at the former ADI site to specified localities within NSW.

§ The reason for the relocation of the emus is due to the increasing incidents of vandalism by the public to the boundary fence of the site.

§ Emus will be relocated 3-4 birds at a time to ensure their welfare and safety. They will be accompanied by a vet at all times.

§ The 2013 census indicates a total of 27 emus live on the St Marys Property.

§ Recipient sites have been selected in NSW that have native Australian bushland habitats and the necessary infrastructure in place to allow safe, careful and humane handling of emus.

Lend Lease Regional Development Manager, Arthur Ilias said:

“There has been a growing need to relocate the emus to a remote and safe location as a result of an increase in incidents of vandalism to the boundary fence. This vandalism has allowed emus to enter on to public roads where they are a hazard to both themselves and the public.”

“A fully accredited and experienced Vet will supervise all capture and transport and will ensure animal welfare is addressed and maintained throughout all aspects of the relocation process.”

If you would like to speak to National Parks and Wildlife I suggest you contact Roger Bell 9995 6484

The numbers of endangered Carnaby's Black-Cockatoos has plunged across Darling Range jarrah forest roosts in the past year, according to new data released by BirdLife Australia. For other candobetter.net stories about the plight of the West Australian Black Cockatoo going back to 2008 see: Black Cockatoo.

[This article was originally published as anonymous comment Alarm at falling cocky numbers]

Carnaby's black-cockatoos are found only in Western Australia and are one of only two species of white-tailed black-cockatoo found anywhere in the world. The other is Baudin's blackcockatoo. Both of these species are unique to southwest Australia.

The outlook for the birds remains bleak, the group said, as vital habitat continued to be destroyed, forcing the birds to roost in more densely populated areas north of Perth. BirdLife Australia threatened cockatoos project manager Matt Fossey said it was not just native bushland being cleared for development that was causing a loss of habitat for the cockatoos. "With Perth's rapid expansion, greater protection and management of critical Carnaby's habitat is essential for them to survive in an urban environment."

Alarm at falling cocky numbers

How is any wildlife meant to survive if their habitat keeps being cleared? They may has well be hunted down and shot then die slowly from lack of food and protective habitats. Australia has the worst extinction record of modern times, and all the policies to protect the environment comes to nil. Humans are wrecking Australia with impunity.

15 year old Bindi Irwin, daughter of wildlife warrior Steve Irwin, has recently accepted the position of Youth Ambassador for Sustainable Population Australia. Conservationists are facing the awful toll of wildlife against human economic and population growth drives. She has integrity, intelligence and will be a great ambassador across all age groups to speak about humanity's destructive and explosive population growth and the consequential decline of precious biodiversity.

Republlished from Global Research TV

Essentially, open source software is software that allows users to inspect, change and share the source code of the program. Instead of passive consumers of a program, users become part of a community to which they can choose to contribute if they are capable and inclined. The difference from everyday consumer culture, where shoppers simply line up to buy products that are already in their final form, and it is almost never expected that shoppers will actually try to open up or modify those products.

Find out more about the open source idea and how it is transforming human interaction in this week's GRTV Backgrounder.

This article is about how parents should not use their status as an escape route from political participation, but should step up that participation. Katie observes that there is a tendency to opt out with the arrival of children amongst the middle classes, which have important capacity for political effectiveness. The author wonders how parents can fail to be motivated as the world they came into is disappearing before their children's eyes.

Some statements from people who attended the first Victoria First meeting to organise against overpopulation and destruction of our environment.

Most of my friends are parents and many of them grandparents. They are inclined to show pictures of their grandchildren to each other on their on their smart phones when they meet, particularly if it is after a few months’ interval. They all say that each other's grandchildren are “gorgeous” and they relate the cute things that their own grandchildren do and say. But it is really is a case of “you need to have been there!” (to appreciate it).

There was about a 15 year phase when one group of friends talked a lot about where the children would go to primary school, secondary school and then what they would do after school etc. I would encounter this conversational theme repeatedly at dinners, at book groups, theatre and opera nights and sporting outings. Obviously these things are of great interest to people but it seemed that, what we as adults gathered together in the particular situation had in common or could continue to have in common was often subsumed by the need to relate what the next generation in each case was doing.

Meanwhile Rome burned

Do the childless tend to be more politically engaged?

The fact that most people I know have children or grandchildren is because most people do have children! The childless are in the minority. There are of course hundreds of notable parents amongst environmental warriors. But are there more childless people proportionally who are concerned about the world the children of the future will inherit than there are concerned parents in the general population? The only person at a recent dinner I attended who expressed to me a concern about the environment and population growth was a friend who has no children. Her concern was about the mess we are leaving for future generations. Her concern was really for other people’s children and grandchildren.

I have noticed that the more people focus on their children as food for conversation, the less they direct their conversation at what’s happening in the political or environmental arena. What is taking place in our local political and environment profoundly affects the future, the world of our children and grandchildren and is what we really we need to focus on as adults.

I am concerned about what is being left for all of us. Never before has the notion of “now” been more important. Our environment, our heritage is being ripped apart before our eyes. It is hard to know and comprehend the extent of what is happening. We gain glimpses in the media about the unraveling of our natural heritage- about logging and the threat to Victoria’s state emblem, the Leadbeater’s possum, about the ruin of Bastion Point, Malacoota, about the threats of local industry to the Great Barrier Reef etc. This knowledge is on a drip feed from the main media so we have time to recover from each disturbing revelation. It’s hard to take the destructive process in all at once and it would be overwhelming to many if they could.

A new agenda for parent get-togethers

I don’t criticize people for being vitally interested in the lives and personalities of their children and grandchildren, but when adults get together with other adults, it is a pity if the time is frittered away and wasted. For us “grown –ups” there is really no time to lose in being childish about children. Many of us used to play with dolls and we don’t any more. Maybe every social gathering needs to turn from a desultory gathering of amiable cronies, to an awareness and consciousness raising “happening” * ! Functioning adults need to lift their game. Our population in Australia is being undermined, overcrowded and robbed through an avaricious quest for monetary gain, exploited from all the jewels of our collective natural and cultural heritage. Those who want to squeeze every last ounce of profit from the beauty of our land before the proverbial “goose who laid the golden egg” expires do not care about the goose at all! They will go looking for another one and leave us with nothing but a dead goose. Adults, be on guard about this theft.

One would need to do quite a sophisticated scientific survey to find out if my casual observations of the apparent blithe nonchalance of many of the parents and grandparents of my acquaintance have any application to the population at large. Even if they don’t, it seems that lots of laid back parents and grandparents need to assert themselves as adults if we are to have any hope of saving the situation. I believe, that not only will they be more fulfilled if and when they do , they will really be doing something for those “gorgeous “ children they love and will be fulfilling their rightful role as elders in the community.

*archaic term from the hippy era.

Update, 17 Dec 2013 : UN's Syria "Aid" Appeal is Bid to Relieve Trapped Terrorists by Tony Cartalucci. Ottawa, (SANA) - Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib said that the international media is involved in hiding the facts and incidents taking place in Syria such as sending mercenaries and Takfiri gunmen to fight beside the armed terrorist groups. This article originally was published on 8 Dec 2013 by the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).

During a gathering organized by Solidarity Group with Syria n cooperation with Syrian-Canadian Association in Ottawa, Mother Agnes, mother superior of St. James Monastery in Qara, screened images and footages at St. Paul University clarifying the reality of events in Syria.

She stressed that the Syrian people are always able to reach a solution formula provided that they are let alone without foreign interference, yet the problem lies in those mercenaries who came only to kill and sabotage.

Mother Agnes stressed the importance of dialogue and the need for renouncing violence and concentrating on the role of national reconciliation.

Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) is delighted to announce that Bindi Irwin has accepted its invitation to be its Youth Ambassador. Bindi is the daughter of the original Wildlife Warrior and conservationist Steve Irwin. Bindi, 15, who has inherited her father’s love of animals, is an actress and television presenter who calls the Sunshine Coast’s iconic Australia Zoo home.

National president of SPA, Ms Jenny Goldie, says earlier in the year Bindi wrote an essay as part of Secretary Hillary Clinton's endangered species initiative.

In responding to the request to say why she had devoted her life to wildlife conservation, Bindi had written:

"I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wants to talk about. This problem is our ever expanding human population. We are experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction right now. Keep in mind that the previous five were caused by things like asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions."

Ms Goldie says that the US State Department clearly did not approve and sent it back to Bindi, heavily edited with references to population cut. Bindi rejected the changes and duly withdrew it.

“This took great intelligence, courage and wisdom,” says Ms Goldie.

“Bindi has since made further references to discuss the issue of our ever expanding population indicating she is clearly committed to making a difference.”

Ms Goldie says Bindi understands the link between growth in population and habitat decline. Retention of quality and quantity of habitat is essential for other species’ health and survival.

Ms Goldie says it is hard to imagine anyone better than Bindi to be its Youth Ambassador.

Further information: Jenny Goldie 0401 921 453; Luke Reavley (Australia Zoo) 0419 643 509

Published on Wednesday 23 October, 2013 on http://www.brimbank.vic.gov.au/News_Updates/Media_Releases_2013/October_2013/Proposed_sale_of_land_at_93_Furlong_Road_Cairnlea

Council is seeking community feedback for a proposed sale of a 1.925 hectare plot of vacant land at 93 Furlong Road, Cairnlea.

Chair of Brimbank Administrators John Watson said the land was an ideal opportunity to invest in Brimbank as the rapidly growing centre of the West.

“The land, which is in a Mixed Use Zone, has been vacant for a long time; a potential sale presents a great opportunity for appropriate development of the site,” Mr Watson said.

“The purchase and sale of appropriate properties is part of Council ensuring it has the right facilities in the right places at the right time to meet the needs of residents.

“Selling land which is surplus to community needs is an important part of Council’s long-term financial management of the City.”

The site is identified as a site for incremental development in Council’s Home and Housed strategy – which allows for low-scale and low to medium density residential development.

Council undertook a thorough assessment of 93 Furlong Road and found that the area is well serviced with community facilities, so will be an attractive site to a prospective buyer.

Council’s original intent for this plot in 2000 was for the possible development of a civic centre/municipal building.

In February this year, it was decided that the site of the Sunshine Library was the preferred location for a new Library, Community and Civic Centre.

Council cannot and will not sell any land without a full public process of consultation. The first stage of the statutory process that any Council is required to comply with is for Council to publicly signal its intent to sell this land, and then begin the public process to ensure that residents have an opportunity to comment on the proposed sale so Council has all the information prior to making a decision to sell the land.

Council has also appointed a Committee including two Brimbank Administrators (Chair of Brimbank Administrators John Watson and Brimbank Administrator Jane Nathan) to hear any public submissions that are received before a decision can be taken in the matter.

In accordance with a recommendation endorsed at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 22 October 2013 Council will now publicly advertise its intention to sell the land.

Interested residents can make a written submission to Council about the sale of the land.

Nelson Mandela is dead and, despite his immense charisma, intellect, capability and courage, Africa remains poor, divided, overpopulated and spectacularly unhealthy. In her monumental book, The Shock Doctrine, Penguin, 2007, Naomi Klein told how economists got control of the details of the revolution during handover negotiations, blinded revolutionaries with their sophistry, and tied it up in red tape. They actually returned the management of the central bank to its apartheid boss. This article is an excerpt from pp200-204 of the chapter in The Shock Doctrine entitled, 'Democracy born in chains.' The greatest loss to the African Revolution was that by the time Mandela rose to power, his government no longer had the right to redistribute land - which is the essence of revolutionary government.

"[...] the de Klerk government had a twofold strategy. First, drawing on the ascendant Washington consensus that there was now only one way to run an economy, it portrayed key sectors of economic decision making - such as trade policy and the central bank - as 'technical' or 'administrative.' Then it used a wide range of new policy tools - international trade agreements, innovations in constitutional law and structural adjustment programs - to hand control of those power centers to supposedly impartial experts, economists and officials from the IMF, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the National Party - anyone except the liberation fighters from the ANC. It was a strategy of balkanization, not of the country's geography (as de Klerk had originally attempted) but of its economy.

This plan was successfully executed under the noses of ANC leaders, who were naturally preoccupied with winning the battle to control Parliament. In the process, the ANC failed to protect itself against a far more insidious strategy - in essence, an elaborate insurance plan against the economic clauses in the Freedom Charter every becoming law in South Africa. "The people shall govern!" would soon become a reality, but the sphere over which they would govern was shrinking fast.

While these tense negotiations between adversaries were unfolding, the ANC was also busily preparing within its own ranks for the day when it would take office. Teams of ANC economists and lawyers formed working groups charged with figuring out exactly how to turn the general promises of the Freedom Charter - for housing amenities and health care - into practical policies. The most ambitious of these plans was Make Democracy Work, an economic blueprint for South Africa's post apartheid future, written while the high-level negotiations were taking place. What the party loyalists didn't know at the time was that while they were hatching their ambitious plans, the negotiating team was accepting concessions at the bargaining table that would make their implementation a practical impossibility. "It was dead before it was even launched," the economist Vishnu Padayachee told me of Make Democracy Work. By the time the draft was complete, "there was a new ball game."

[...]

"We were caught completely off guard," recalled Padayachee, now in his early fifties. He had done his graduate studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He knew that at the time, even among free-market economists in the U.S., central bank independence was considered a fringe idea, a pet policy of a handful of Chicago School ideologues who believed that central banks should be run as sovereign republics within states, out of reach of the meddling hands of elected lawmakers. For Padayachee and his colleagues, who strongly believed that monetary policy needed to serve the new government's 'big goals of growth, employment and redistribution,' the ANC's position was a no-brainer: "There was not going to be an independent central bank in South Africa."

Padayachee and a colleague stayed up all night writing a paper that gave the negotiating team the arguments it needed to resist this curveball from the national Party. If the central bank (in South Africa called the Reserve Bank) was run separately from the rest of the government, it could restrict the ANC's ability to keep the promises in the Freedom Charter. Besides, if the central bank was not accountable to the ANC government, to whom, exactly, would it be accountable? The IMF? The Johannesburg Stock Exchange? Obviously, the National Party was trying to find a backdoor way to hold on to power even after it lost the elections - a strategy that needed to be resisted at all costs. "They were locking in as much as possible," Padayachee recalled. "That was a clear part of the agenda."

Padayachee faxed the paper in the morning and didn't hear back for weeks. "Then, when we asked what happened, we were told, "Well, we gave that one up'." Not only would the central bank be run as an autonomous entity within the South African state, with its independence enshrined in the new constitution, but it would be headed by the same man who ran it under apartheid, Chris Stals. It wasn't just the central bank that the ANC had given up: in another major concession, Derek Keyes, the white finance minister under apartheid, would also remain in his post - much as the finance ministers and central bank heads from Argentina's dictatorship somehow managed to get their jobs back under democracy. The New York Times praised Keyes as "the country ranking apostle of low-spending business-friendly government."

Until that point, Padayachee said, "we were still buoyant, because, my God, this was a revolutionary struggle; at least there' be something to come out of it." When he learned that the central bank and the treasury would be run by their old apartheid bosses, it meant "everything would be lost in terms of economic transformation." When I asked him whether he thought the negotiators realised how much they had lost, after some hesitation, he replied, "Frankly, no." It was simple horse-trading: "In the negotiations, something had to be given, and our side gave those things - I’ll give you this, you give me that."

From Padayachee's point of view, none of this happened because of some grand betrayal on the part of ANC leaders but simply because they were out-maneuvered on a series of issues that seemed less than crucial at the time - but turned out to hold South Africa's lasting liberation in the balance.

What happened in those negotiations is that the ANC found itself caught in a new kind of web, one made of arcane rules and regulations, all designed to confine and constrain the power of elected leaders. As the web descended on the country, only a few people even noticed it was there, but when the new government came to power and tried to move freely, to give its voters the tangible benefits of liberation they expected and thought they had voted for, the strands of the web tightened and the administration discovered that its powers were tightly bound. Patrick Bond, who worked as an economic adviser in Mandela's office during the first years of ANC rule, recalls that the in-house quip was "Hey, we've got the state, where's the power?" As the new government attempted to make tangible the dreams of the Freedom Charter, it discovered that power was elsewhere.

Want to redistribute land? Impossible - at the last minute, the negotiators agreed to add a clause to the new constitution that protects all private property, making land reform virtually impossible. Want to create jobs for millions of unemployed workers? Can't - hundreds of factories were actually about to lose because the ANC had signed on to the GATT, the precursor to the World Trade Organisation, which made it illegal to subsidise the auto plants and textile factories. Want to get free AIDS drugs to the townships, where the disease is spreading with terrifying speed? That violates an intellectual property rights commitment under the WTO, which the ANC joined with no public debate as a continuation of the GATT. Need money to build more and larger houses for the poor and to bring free electricity to the townships? Sorry - the budget is being eaten up servicing the massive debt, passed on quietly by the apartheid government. Print more money? Tell that to the apartheid-era head of the central bank. Free water for all? Not likely. The World Bank, with its large in-country contingent of economists, researchers and trainers (a self-proclaimed "Knowledge Bank"), is making private-sector partnerships the service norm. Want to impose currency controls to guard against wild speculation? That would violate the $850 million IMF deal, signed, conveniently enough right before the elections. Raise the minimum wage to close the apartheid income gap? Nope. The IMF deal promises 'wage restraint.' And don't even think about ignoring these commitments - any change will be regarded as evidence of dangerous national untrustworthiness, a lack of commitment to 'reform' an absence of a 'rules-based system.' All of which will lead to currency crashes, aid cuts and capital flight. The bottom line was that South Africa was free but simultaneously captured; each one of these arcane acronyms represented a different thread in the web that pinned down the limbs of the new government.

A long time antiapartheid activist, Rassool Snyman, described the trap to me in stark terms. "They never freed us. They only took the chain from around our neck and put it on our ankles." Yasmin Sooka, a prominent South African human rights activist, told me that the transition 'was business saying, 'We'll keep everything and you [the ANC] will rule in name ... You can have political power, you can have the facade of governing, but the real governance will take place somewhere else. It was a process of infantilization that is common to so-called transitional countries - new governments are, in effect, given keys to the house but not the combination to the safe."

Jill Quirk of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), Victorian and Tasmanian Branch, writes about the many problems of Plan Melbourne. Indeed there are so many problems that it is crazy to go ahead. But most of us realize that the Planners and Ministers behind Plan Melbourne intend to just go on driving bulldozers until something bigger stops them or they run out of oil. There is no plan B and so no room to listen to comment. This is a real problem for the rest of us because we live here.

Welcome. I always worried about population but I believed the demographers who said it would take care of itself. They were wrong, so I stopped listening to them. I kicked off a national debate about this issue in 2009. The points I made were about endangered species, climate change, traffic, housing, and the cost of living and the problems of Australia at 36 million. In 2010 there was movement - from the Greens, the Liberals, Kevin Rudd at Easter establishing a Population Minister, and Julia Gillard renouncing Big Australia. The election came and went, but there was no action. I don't know why Julia never delivered on this - I personally think she might still be PM today if she had.

In political debate people are very frightened about being called racist or xenophobic. This is true of Prime Ministers and also of the people who live in our street. Yes there are racists out there, it's a pity, but it's true. But the use of the term racism has become a new kind of McCarthyism, used to stifle debate. Just as there were communists in the 1950s, but the fear of communists was used in an hysterical way to shut down and discredit and attack all kinds of political ideas that the McCarthyists disliked, so too now we see the name calling used to stifle and shut down debate on things we desperately need to debate.

How do we counter this?

It's not easy, but

1. We need to point out that Australia already is a multi-racial society - one quarter born overseas, one half with one or both parents born overseas. The bird has flown. No-one is trying to maintain Australia as a white Anglo Saxon outpost of the British Empire - it can't be done, and I haven't come across anyone who is trying.

2. As a consequence of this, our actions will assist, and are intended to assist, Victorians of all backgrounds. For example Broadmeadows has double digit unemployment. Many unemployed people in Broadmeadows are of Turkish background. They are entitled to our consideration, rather than running migrant worker programs that stuff up their ability to find work.

3. We need to point out that if talking about population makes us racists, we are in pretty good company. People don't usually think of Dr Martin Luther King as a white supremacist. What did he have to say about population? “Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is solvable by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of billions who are its victims".

And people wouldn't ordinarily think of David Suzuki as a puppet or fellow traveller of Pauline Hanson. What did he have to say about population? Dr Suzuki said “of course human numbers are at the very core of our crisis.

The explosive rate of growth simply can't continue". And while we're at it, let me point out a few more. - John Stuart Mill, the great nineteenth century philosopher said " solitude, in the sense of being often alone, is essential to any depth of meditation or of character, and solitude in the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for the individual, but which society could ill do without. Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature... Every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out, and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow without being eradicated as a weed in the name of improved agriculture".

Former US President Bill Clinton told the United Nations in 1993 that “to ensure a healthier and more abundant world, we simply must slow the world's explosive growth in population". And his Vice-President, Al Gore, said. Quote “I consider the dramatic growth in the world's population to be the greatest challenge currently facing the environment. ... He said the "effects of this rapid increase are felt around the globe. Starvation, deforestation and lack of clean water are just some of the problems".

4. Finally, on issue of racism, we just have to toughen up a bit and accept that it will happen, and that if we're going to win, we can't run away from this issue just because people will call us names. There are people out there who will look you in the eye and put their hand on their heart and swear black and blue that they are progressives, that they are left of centre, but they will not touch population because they are scared of being called names.

This is very ironic, given that the most common characteristic I find in the people who I have come across in my work on the population issue is compassion.Many of you are motivated by compassion for the environment, by compassion for other living creatures. You do not think it is alright to trample species after species into extinction on our relentless growth path. Others are motivated by compassion for the poor of the world, and feel deeply about the plight of the poor and the great disparity of wealth between globally rich and poor. You see population growth as the great obstacle to lifting the poor out of poverty.

It is ironic in the extreme, therefore, that we have a couple of agents provocateur out there accusing us of trying to hijack the environmental movement, when we are the most fair dinkum environmentalists you'll find. I defy anyone to challenge the environmental credentials of Jacques Cousteau, who has devoted his entire life to marine conservation.

Cousteau said. "We must alert and organize the world's people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises - exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources”. He says “Over consumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today".

I defy anyone to challenge the environmental credentials of Captain Paul Watson, the Founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who has spent his life risking injury and imprisonment to harass Japanese whalers.

He says quote “the accusation that a stand to reduce immigration is racist is music to the ears to those who profit from the cheap labour of immigrants. They are the same people who love to see environmentalists make fools of themselves. And there is no environmentalist more foolish than one who refuses to confront the fact that uncontrolled human population growth is the number one cause of the world's increasing environmental problems”.

And does anyone think Sir David Attenborough, with a lifetime behind him of educating and advocating for the protection of our rainforests and other wilderness areas, a bogus environmentalist? David Attenborough has described global population increase as frightening, and said the following. “I've seen wildlife under mounting human pressure all over the world and it's not just from human economy or technology - behind every threat is the frightening explosion in human numbers. ". He said " I've never seen a problem that wouldn't be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more".

Well I am not scared of being called names. I don't enjoy it, but I dislike a whole lot more the fact that instead of the optimistic view I had of political progress when I was young, that we were getting better at looking after the environment and had learned from our mistakes, that we were going to stamp out global hunger and poverty, that we would stop going to war, that in fact we are going backwards. On the Environment, war, waste, terrorism, global poverty, extreme weather etc.

And I dislike more the fact that this has happened during my political career and that I have been quite unable to stop it. Being an MP is a great opportunity and privilege, and with my remaining time as an MP I want to do everything I can to turn this around.

I want to put forward an alternative, a smart alternative, to the direction we are going now, which I absolutely believe is the wrong direction. At the heart of this smart alternative is the idea of stewardship. I got the word from my sister Jaquie. She is a strong Christian, whereas I don't have any religious beliefs. But you will have heard the phrase, we don't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children, and I think that it is spot on. We don't own the place, we have the privilege of managing it for a while. And I have regularly finished speeches by saying that we have an obligation to hand down to our children and grandchildren a world in as good a condition as the one our parents and grandparents left to us.

I think stewardship is a good word to express this fundamentally crucial idea. I've decided I like it better than sustainability.

You could fill libraries with the work done on sustainability, and properly understood it is indeed a powerful and useful idea, but sadly it has been so used and abused and prostituted, including by the forces of darkness, that it has become an Alice in Wonderland word - you know, when I use a word it means whatever I choose it to mean, so nowadays pretty meaningless. So when you hear the word sustainability in future, substitute for it the word stewardship - I find it works pretty well.

The second thing about my smart alternative is that it is very mainstream or middle of the road. I believe in giving the voters what they want. People who believe in giving the voters what they want are, again, at risk of being called names - for example, populist. But the people who scream populist are essentially trying to fool us into supporting ideas that are not in our own best interests. The people who scream populist reveal a basic contempt for the people and their ideas, and a lack of respect for democracy. Again, if we are going to succeed, we have to be strong enough to put up with a bit of name calling. Because population is not about race, it is about stewardship.

Some people will think my ideas radical, because they are very different from the path we are on at the moment. Some will think them conservative, because they place a lot of value on our heritage and value the past and are sceptical about the changes that are happening in our world. Indeed I often think my ideas are more conservative than the Liberal Party, better for workers than is the Labor Party, and better for the environment than are the Greens. But at their heart is giving the voters what they want, not what some billionaire or their media puppets think is good for them.

And another element of my ideas, again consistent with giving people a genuine say, is making things as small, and local, and self-sufficient, as we can be. Globalization has helped a lot of people, but it's also harmed plenty, and in the world of the future we will be better off retaining as much independence and self-reliance and self-sufficiency as we can.

And given that, and because we have to start somewhere, I want to focus on Victoria First. Victoria has a greater population increase each year that any other state or territory, driven by having the largest migration intake.

What on earth is the value of this?

We are told the big increase in Australia's migrant worker programs is to meet the needs of the mining boom, and to find workers for remote and inhospitable parts of Australia that locals won't live in. That's the myth.
The reality is that more people come to Victoria than anywhere else, and that Victoria ends up with all the problems associated with this rapid population growth - Melbourne grows by 200 per day, 1500 per week, 75000 per annum. In my view Melbourne and Victoria is the archetypal example of the folly of rapid population growth, and for me as Melbourne and Victorian born and bred, it is exactly the place to start a fight back and push back against this foolishness and short-sightedness.

So what is Victoria First going to do? There are many things we could do, but first and foremost we have to grow. You probably know that exponential growth is behind the population problems the world has. But I want us to make exponential growth work for us.

How will we grow?

Of course any and all suggestions to do this are welcome. I need and value your assistance in this mighty enterprise. But my ideas are as follows. First, enjoy the summer. I love the Australian way of life. The warm summer nights, the caravan parks by the beach ( not sand overshadowed by high rise) the cricket on TV. I want to save that, not spoil it. So have a rest and enjoy the summer. But I do want you to do three things over the summer.

First, join. It costs $10. But this is not about money. It's about your time and your energy and your various abilities. If you don't join today, please take a membership form and join later.
Second, take one or more of the takeaways, speeches etc. on the table and read them one day when you're sunning yourself somewhere.

And third, when you have those family or office or neighbourhood get togethers, or you're down the beach or up on the Murray River talking to someone in the tent next to you, get them gently, GENTLY - don't ram it down their throats, no-one likes being lectured - onto the topic of population and stewardship. And somewhere, in your family, or your workplace, or your street, or your holiday spot, find someone else who will join up.

If you all join up, and the people who are apologies who've told me they'll join up join up, we'll start with over 100. But by February 1st next year, let's make it 200. If everyone here finds one other person in the next two months, we'll have that.
And with 200 people we can letterbox a Federal electorate. Now it's up to me to find the money and get the leaflets printed - all help gratefully received! But it's up to me to accomplish that. And of course not everyone can letterbox, but I'm hoping that in your elaborate network and complicated circle of obligations and favours given and received that you can find someone to do that for you.

And if we can do this every month or couple of months next year we could build up to 1000 by the end of the year. They might prove to be very easy, or it might prove too ambitious, but it is a target, a goal.

And then the year after that, we will use our 1000 members to build up to 10000. Because then we will be taken seriously. We could have a rally now, but we will be ignored, almost certainly by media and certainly by governments. And even with a membership of 1000, in a state of several million we will still be ignored and overlooked. But if we have 10,000, and can turn out half of them to a rally outside Parliament House or the Melbourne Town Hall or the Property Council - then they will listen to us.

Of course we can support and be involved in campaigns which reinforce our message. A few meters from here they want to build a freeway through Royal Park and over what's left of the Moonee Ponds Creek.

It's a disgrace. Let's fight that. And my Council, Moreland, has released draft Planning Zones, or daft Planning Zones, that would enable high rise to move right through beautiful single story detached dwelling suburbs like Brunswick West, Pascoe Vale and Oak Park. Let's fight that.

And I'm up for innovative ideas on spreading the message. Use social media, of course. And taking our leaflets and membership application forms to places where people are feeling the sharp end of population growth - CBD car parks for motorists who've been stuck in traffic jams, Council meetings and VCAT hearings where residents are being done over by developers, universities, where students are facing ferocious competition in the job market, maybe auctions where young people are missing out on a home of their own, senior citizens clubs where older people struggle to pay the bills for our infrastructure expansion.

We need to find the people who are suffering from rapid population growth, support them, and recruit them.

CONCLUSION Edward Kennedy's speeches were undoubtedly some of the finest of the twentieth century, and everyone knows two passages from his speech about his second assassinated brother Robert, - ' my brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, but be remembered as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it. And secondly, "some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were, and say why not?

But before he said those things in this most memorable of speeches he said the following.

"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe".

I believe that as well. My fellow Victorians, it is time we went out and found ourselves some companions in this little corner of the globe.

All over the world right wing 'think tanks' will be commemorating the work of economist Ronald Coase, who died on the second of September this year (2013) at the age of 102. Unfortunately his work has been used as an excuse to marginalise civil and human rights by making it legally acceptable for the interests of big business and the wealthy to over-rule everyone else’s financial, social and environmental interests. Coase's work is largely responsible for many of the problems of democracy, overpopulation and overdevelopment that are ruining more and more peoples' lives and freedom today. Many of its lesser supporters are naive followers of fashion and don't really understand what they are losing through their innocent embrace of 'efficiency' any more, perhaps, than did the followers of Chairman Mao's 'Great Leap Forward'. (This article is based on an extract from Sheila Newman's forthcoming book, Demography, Territory, Law 2: Land-tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, probably early 2014.)

Industrial Capitalism has become a normative ethic in Britain and Anglophone societies. It has been conflated and massaged to fit a political idea that it represents a positive evolutionary development which is inevitable in human societies unless artificially or accidentally blocked. From this stems the notion of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ societies, promoted almost without question in schools, churches and mainstream media. The presumption about the ‘developing’ societies (which were generally stable non-industrialised ones prior to the disruption of industrial development with or without colonization[1]) is that they were deprived and ‘stunted’. Industrial development in such a construction is presented as a form of normalization; a restoration to health and a normal growth curve. From this view it becomes ‘normal’ to ‘develop’ into an industrial capitalist society. Social costs are minimized in a kind of “Coasian” equation (see citation below) where all changes which increase available capital are treated as a positive benefit to the whole society. This logic justifies almost anything which will assist that transformation, notably changes to the land-tenure or property-law system. [2]

“In the eighteenth century, when the British economy entered an unparalleled era of expansion, Britain’s Parliament began operating according to Coasian principles and reorganized property rights en masse. In the nineteenth century, when most common-law doctrines reached their modern form, doctrines of equity (enforced through the Chancery Court) dominated the conveyance of land. These doctrines were designed to protect beneficial interests, not to maximize productivity. Efficiency became a dominant doctrine in the English legal system only after Parliamentary intervention.”(Bogart and Richardson, p.7)[3]

Coasian economic theory was originated by Ronald H. Coase in “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 144, 1960. The theory assigns value arbitrarily, according to the highest dollar profit probability. It takes no heed of non-monetary values and therefore is unresponsive to social cost or individual equity. [4]

To the inhuman 'invisible hand', is attributed the responsibility and authority for the impacts of such decisions. But there is no redress against the ‘invisible hand’. As Block points out below, referring to property law: “Whatever the judge decided would endure; there could be no opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange” [after the decision was made].

“And what was the advice to the judiciary which emanated from this new outlook? Judges were to rule in such a way as to maximize the value of economic activity. Under a zero transactions cost regime, it really wouldn't matter -as far as the allocation of resources was concerned - which of two disputatious parties received the rights in question. If they were given to the person who valued them more, well and good. If not, the loser would be able to pay off the winner so as to enjoy their use. But in the real world of significant transactions costs, in contrast, the juridical determination was absolutely crucial. Whatever the judge decided would endure; there could be no opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange, ex post.” (Block: Property Rights: A Reply to Demsetz, p.63)

The impact on civil society has been enormous. No human value, no environmental value may prevail over a financial win. This is a recipe for corporate dominance. Block makes this clear:

“From these deliberations emerged, especially in the writings of his followers, the ‘Coasian’ public policy recommendation. The jurist must ignore tradition, property rights, ownership, and the niceties of Lockean homesteading theory upon which all were based, and instead make his award solely in order to maximize wealth. That is, he should find in favor of the disputant who values the rights in question more strongly; the one who, had he lost the court battle in the zero transactions cost world, would have successfully bribed the winner. [5]

NOTES

[1]
Newman, Sheila, Demography, Territory, Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2013.

[2] Block, Walter, 1995. “Ethics, Efficiency, Coasian Property Rights, and Psychic Income: A Reply to Demsetz,” in The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.8, No. 2 (1995): 61-125, ISSN 0889-3047, http://miawa.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae8_2_4.pdf: “In this new view, property rights became the handmaiden of so called economic efficiency. The very determination of private property became dependent on cost considerations. Another way to put this is that in the pre-Coasian days, property rights were exogenous to economics. Thanks to Coase and his followers (Demsetz 1966, 1967; Posner 1986; Landes 1971, 1973, 1979),' this is no longer true. Now, if anything, economics is the independent variable; property rights have become indigenous on it.’ It is an indication of the ideological nature of the Nobel Prize of Economic Sciences that Ronald Coase (1910-2nd September 2013) won it in 1991 for work which has been used to argue for the primacy of economic ‘efficiency’ over social organisation in transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy. His work has been used as an excuse to marginalise civil and human rights by making it legally acceptable for the interests of big business and the wealthy to over-rule everyone else’s financial, social and environmental interests. In other words, all conflicts can be resolved through money and if what you want to conserve does not make money, then if someone wants to destroy it to make money, then they will have that right. It is obvious that natural amenity, wildlife, houses with gardens, decent working conditions – anything that stands in the way of someone making more money – must fall away before the Coasian bulldozer. The theory does not stand up to natural science, the laws of thermodynamics and ecology, however it has been co-opted into everything from international aid and development to local planning.

[3] Bogart and Richardson, 2008, “Making Property Productive: Reorganizing Rights to Real and Equitable Estates in Britain, 1660 to 1830, NBER Working Paper No. 14107
Issued in June 2008. National Bureau of Economic Resarch, Cambridge, MA., p.2 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14107

[4] “Even mere preferability, let alone legal justice, runs into problems of interpersonal comparisons of utility. As we have seen, there is no warrant, anywhere within the corpus of value-free economics, for us to compare the utilities of one group of people-e.g., "worshippers" with another, "cancer patients'-and to claim that one outweighs the other.” Block, Walter, 1995, op.cit.

[5] Block, Walter, 1995, op.cit.

"Populate and reap rewards," was Monday's editorial (2 December 2013) in the Australian Financial Review. Its flimsy self-serving logic provides a curious contrast to Kelvin Thomson's superb speech on the same topic to a full auditorium of concerned citizens on Sunday. (The speech is embedded in this article.) Where Thomson has reacted to the news that population growth is completely out of control by attempting to help people to organise against the growth pushing forces who seek to benefit financially from overpopulation, the editorial in the Financial Review is cynical in its enjoinder to exploit those problems for elite gain.

Click here for Kelvin Thomson's speech about Victoria First and our population problem.

Orwellian AFR Editorial

In this editorial, Fairfax news markets overpopulation in a sinister fashion. It distorts economic principles. It views the economy only from the angle of the very rich, but doesn't bother to warn the uninitiated that that is its perspective.

It minimises the projections to 53.6 million by 2101, rather than the even worse likelihood of 70m by the end of the century. (See http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3560.)

The editorial talks rot about the dangers of a 'stagnant' population, taking a gratuitous swipe at Julia Gillard's initially unfavorable attitude to big populations.

It pretends that a small population causes inflation, when inflation is actually created by demand, i.e. more people wanting finite or fixed goods and resources.

The rationale appears to be a belief in endless economies of scale making everything cheaper, however this is contradicted by the reality, which is diseconomies of scale. These the editorial ignores because that is what big business is able to profit from at everyone else's expense. Hence Victoria and other states' problems with huge infrastructure projects that trample democracy and trash natural and social ammenity, like the East-West link.

Shameless

The editorial shamelessly promotes the idea that a small population would harm the 'national housing wealth' - which it fails to admit is a product of just the inflation it pretends would result from a smaller population, as well as a recipe for homelessness and housing stress. The rising cost or 'value' of housing is a direct result of rising demand related to population growth. Fairfax (like Murdoch) should declare its dependency on the real estate market to its readers.[1]

The editorial fear-mongers by relating the possibility of housing prices coming down to loss of returns on superannuation, shares and savings, but fails to factor in how lower housing prices would cause lower cost of living, making it much cheaper to live. We would not need inflated returns on investment.

What manufacturing?

It claims, nonsensically, that we would lose manufacturing to bigger populations overseas. A sane response would be, "What manufacturing?" When there were 7 million people here we had a thriving manufacturing sector, which has actually declined to almost nothing during the precise period that successive Australian governments have been engineering population growth through mass immigration. The rising cost of land, power and other resources, like water, drives up all costs of manufacturing. Wages must be higher for people to be able to afford these costs and businesses must also pay those costs. These are direct results of population growth.

The only kinds of business that can survive in this environment are huge corporations, such as transnational banks, mining, agribusiness, infrastructure and property developers. These corporate entities survive and 'prosper' because they actually own most of the resources, assets, and utilities that cost the rest of us - wage earners and small business - so much. But these are the only kinds of economic entities that really interest the elite agenda.

What is this editorialist smoking?

It is as if the editorialist is drunk, or believes that his/her audience is, as he/she strings outlandishly contradictory assertions together. For instance, the article maintains, on the one hand, that we need a huge population, but then bases this on the idea that Australia will "prosper as a supplier of minerals, energy, food, specialised manufacturing and professional services" to growing middle classes in Asia. That is not a description of the kind of economy that needs a lot of workers. Mining, utilities, industrialised agriculture and professional services are sectors with low ratios of workers to product.

This statement is bizarre:

"Instead, the striking successive increases in population projections since 2003 reflect the advent of Australia's China boom since that time, and subsequently the broadening of the opportunities through our so-called Asian century."

It can only be due to the lack of media diversity in Australia that this kind of intellectual foaming at the mouth can get published.

The editorialist insists: "A wealthier nation in turn will attract more people both to produce these export-oriented goods and services and to supply services to a more prosperous (and ageing) domestic population."

Note that more immigrants means bigger faster-aging cohorts,[2] but that seems to be what the Murdoch Press and its cronies really want: more expensive problems to market expensive 'solutions' to the rest of us.

The editorialist raves on, like the Queen in Alice: "This provides the chance for the Australia concept as we know it - a western outpost at the foot of Asia embodying the best of British-American Enlightenment concepts such as the rule of law, an open society and a vigorous meritocratic democracy - to fortify our security through increased national wealth that will sustain a healthy defence force and underpin our diplomatic and trading efforts."

What democracy?

What democracy? We have super-corrupt governments at every level of our society.

As Ted Mack recently commented in his brilliant Henry Parkes Oration [emphases added]:

"The fundamental problems of our system of government have not seriously ever been addressed since Federation. These problems can be summarised as the level of over-government. The obsolescence of the constitutional relationships between the three levels of government. The two party “winner-take-all” executive domination of parliament and the associated corrupted voting systems. The domination of the political system and public service by the two private unregulated political parties and their largely self regulated access to the public treasury. Almost a total absence in the school system and for new citizens of any education concerning the three levels of government, their function and voting systems."

"Big business is implacably opposed to more democracy. It wants more centralisation of power. It currently employs more than 600 registered lobbyists in Canberra and spends millions of dollars to subvert democracy. Big media is always constrained by its owners' interests. Since the Second World War there has been a growth of corporate propaganda to protect corporate power against democracy."

"The 2010-13 Federal Parliament saw the major parties virtually eliminate any real form of democratic debate substituting little but character assassination of opponents. It was a three-year election campaign of personal abuse and fear mongering. It was debased even further with aggressive bullying by the media and special interests at unprecedented levels. The same period saw both state and federal governments pandering to special interests allowing massive increases in the promotion of gambling and alcohol. Pandering to the development and mining industries and the seemingly endless privatisation of public assets often creating private monopolies, continued irrespective of public opinion." - Ted Mack, Henry Parkes Oration 2013 [3]

Perseverative demographic policy

The Australian Press's 'Asianisation obsession seems to be code for a big population - of any origin. Not just a big population, but for population growth at frightening levels never previously imagined, rightly feared by those already here.

I liked what Aung San Suu Kyi had to say about this systematic legalised mass invasion, which many won't criticise for fear they will be called racist, even though it is the massive numbers rather than their origin that is so frightening:

“I’d also like to remind you that you are unique and you do not have to go all Asian,” she said. "I understand that this is a trend of Australia today – to try to become ‘Asianised’ as it were. “You are special because you are a unique combination of the east and the west. “I hope and pray that Australia will … make an example of the possibility of genuine unity and diversity.” [4]

As Kelvin Thomson says, the bird has flown; we are already a multi-racial society. No-one I know is trying to make us British again. We do not have to work to make Australia multicultural. It already is.[5]

Push for overpopulation and authoritarian government in Australia

The editorial rightly says that "Immigration will be the major driver of this fresh population growth." As our population grows the fertility opportunites increase so that high immigration finds its echo in a rising birth rate overall. We are now facing the loss of control over population growth that India still faces and which caused China to bring in the one-child policy. At the same time we are looking at a decline in energy resources that power the world's economy. We are on a collision course of overpopulation with dwindling resources. And the press is applauding.

Although the huge volumes of mass migration that are now in train threaten to impoverish Australia's environment and most of its people, by far the most immediate threat they pose is their ability to atomise our social organisation through displacement and induced competition for scarce resources and opportunities. Our vulnerability in this is already apparent in the lack of public participation in government or independent grass-roots movements among our young. Without the social organisation that we once grew up with, along the lines of family, clan and neighborhood communication, we will increasingly become isolated overworked commuters, forced to observe the rules of a manufactured consensus such as we can read today in this intellectually and morally corrupt editorial in the Financial Review.

The editorial gives no quarter to democracy on this issue. It concludes with this understatement:

"It will be hard work to accommodate a bigger population. Sydney in particular, where 40 per cent of the population already live in apartments, and which is playing catch-up with road, airport and rail capacity, will need to be better managed. Tony Abbott's promise to be the infrastructure prime minister, with improvements in financing, regulation, incentives, and demand triggers, could not have been better timed."

Under these demographically explosive terms, Australia has as much chance of catching up on its infrastructure needs as the Phillipines and its democracy is similarly doomed.

There is one new hope: Join Kelvin Thomson's "Victoria First" NGO, which is helping Australians to organise against overpopulation. Contact Kelvin's office to know more at http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/

NOTES

[1] "The reverse takeover of Fairfax’s high-value classifieds business Domain by glossy real estate upstart Metro Media Publishing is complete after Antony Catalano was appointed Domain’s CEO this morning. Property Observer's sister publication Crikey can reveal that Catalano, a former Fairfax executive, will seize the reins of the Domain group following Fairfax CEO Greg Hywood’s decision in March to spin the booming business unit out as a standalone entity. There is now frenzied speculation that Hywood and Fairfax will end up floating Domain to prop up shaky revenues elsewhere in the business. Alternatively, Hywood could sell all of Fairfax’s flailing publishing and broadcast assets and retain Domain with Catalano at the helm." Andrew Crook, "Catalano appointed CEO of Fairfax’s Domain,"
Tuesday, 19 November 2013 http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/news/catalano-appointed-ceo-of-fairfaxs-domain/2013111866435

[2] Because immigrants arrive in Australia after they are born they are always older than people born here, thus contribute to an older population. In fact they are usually of working age or quite mature, and will often bring out their elderly parents. That has quite a bubble effect on our demographic pyramid. See, for instance, http://candobetter.net/?q=node/1986
[3] The Henry Parkes Oration 2013, The State of the Federation, presented by Ted Mack, Sir Henry Parkes Memorial School, http://www.parkesfoundation.org.au/HPoration2013.pdf
[4] "Aung San Suu Kyi awarded honorary doctorate from ANU"
[5] Paraphase from Kelvin Thomson's speech launching Victoria First. See video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL4e0swBntg&feature=player_embedded

Venue
NIDA Parade Theatres
NIDA (National Institute of Dramatic Art)
215 Anzac Parade
Kensington NSW 2033

Date & Time
Wed 11 Dec 2013 9:00am

Some special prices for students of $30 + bf (this includes catering for the day) on offer. They must go through this link
The School of Mathematics and Statistics at UNSW is hosting a Symposium on the Limits to Growth on the 11th of December. This event is the final event of the UNESCO Year of the Mathematics of Planet Earth. It would be greatly appreciated if you could please pass this message around to any students or staff that may be interested.

This is a limited time offer and these tickets will not be available from Wednesday the 4th of December.

Key themes

What is the impact of climate change on the economy (and society as a whole)
What is the best measure of the economy? GDP or something else?
How can mathematical models influence policy makers in this area?
How will an ageing, stagnant population affect the economy?

Keynote Speakers

Professor Graciela Chichilnisky: Professor of Economics, Columbia University, architect of the carbon credit emissions trading market underlying the Kyoto Protocol.

Graeme Maxton: Economist, Fellow of the International Club of Rome, author of The End of Progress.

Professor Jørgen Randers: Professor of Climate Strategy, BI Norwegian Business School, co-author of Limits to Growth and author of 2052.

Professor Peter Victor: Professor in Environmental Studies, York University, author of Managing without Growth.
Ross Gittins AM: Economics Editor, Sydney Morning Herald.

Peter Cosier: Director, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

Professor Clive Hamilton AM FRSA: Professor of Public Ethics, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, author of Growth Fetish.

Peter Harper: Deputy Australian Statistician for the Population, Labour and Social Statistics Group at the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Chair of the UN Committee of Experts on Environmental Economic Accounting.

Ken Henry AC: Economist, Former Secretary of the Department of Treasury.

This article is sourced from Protectors of Public Land Victoria. It is about the need to make submissions on East West Link at this point in process. Whilst she acknowledges the public lack of confidence in the process, Julianne Bell of the grass-roots but heavy hitting Protectors of Public Land Vic Inc. argues that making submissions is still important. She has supplied templates here to help submitters avoid the absurdity of reading hundreds of pages before submitting. Find at the end of the article: PPL VIC: East West Link (1) Template Statement to Assist Making Submissions on the Comprehensive Impact Statement on the East West Link (2) Cover Sheet to Accompany Submission 4.

Dear Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. members and friends,

Here is the State Government spiel which reads that it has

"appointed an assessment committee under Sections 35 and 235 of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to assess the Comprehensive Impact Statement for the East West Link (Eastern Section) Project and to make recommendations to the Minister for Planning whether or not to grant any applicable approval required for the project to be developed and if so to recommend appropriate conditions for applicable approvals."

Public submissions are being called for on the Comprehensive Impact Statement and have to be in keeping with the Government's "scoping directions". The closing date is C.O.B 12 December 2013.

In order to help you make sense of this process and to avoid your having to digest mountains of literature, we are sending you a template statement on the Comprehensive Impact Statement which you can simply sign and send off or develop as you see fit. You might want to add some additional comments. Be sure to fill out the Cover Sheet. You can send your submission by email or by snail mail. Many thanks to staff in the Office of Greens Federal Member for Melbourne Adam Bandt who developed the statement. (We added to some sections.)

While many regard the "consultation" process over the East West Link as a sham, we consider that it is imperative that Victorians deluge the State Government with objections to the East West Link in the form of submissions to this enquiry. In 2008 over 2,600 people make submissions to the Eddington Review on the then Government's proposal for Mark I of the East West Link. (Many submissions were on proforma.) As you may know the East West Link was "deleted" from the Brumby Government's 2008 Transport Plan.We were told that "people power" was a factor in the decision.

More bad news re the East West Link. We have confirmation that a 700 metre section across Royal Park will be open cut (and cover later - if ever); that the excavated spoil will be trucked out of Royal Park to fill up quarry sites in Keilor; and that CityLink will be widened on the west side taking out parklands, gardens, sports fields and a playground in the municipality of Moonee Valley.

We urge you not only to make a submission but if you belong to a group, please send on this request to your members.

Download the templates here (word docs):

- Submission to Comprehensive Impact Statement on the East West Link November 2013(1).doc
- East-West-Link-Submission-Coversheet-301013.doc

Regards

Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052

NOTES

Thanks to Bernard Flinn for the Video giving graphic information on the proposed development.

Victoria First is a new organisation to promote democratic empowerment over the size of Victoria's population. It was launched today by Kelvin Thomson, Labor MP for the Wills electorate in Victoria. Victoria is a state in Australia that is at the center of the elite push for a huge population, which is projected to go from 17m in 1994 to 37.5 million by 2050, and possibly 70 million by 2100. Currently immigration contributes 60% + to annual population growth in Australia. Membership forms for Victoria First inside.

This first film of Kelvin Thomson's Victoria First launch speech is the first of several records of this event. Other films will be uploaded of interviews, discussion, election and question time.

Download Membership application form for Victoria First here

Already, infrastructure and services are failing to keep up. In the wake of the population tsunami inflicted on Australia by a runaway power elite in parliament and the press, nature is being paved over with unique fauna in danger of disappearing forever. Homelessness is a new feature of Victorian society. Suicide rates and drug use are climbing. Industrial conditions and wages are declining. There are weekly protests in front of parliament over loss of self-government in the suburbs. Many of these protests are led by women representing community groups. The mainstream media reports little of this, but Kelvin Thomson seems to have picked up on it. Julianne Bell, the force behind Protectors of Public Lands Inc. and Jill Quirk, President of the Victorian and Tasmanian branches of Sustainable Population Australia hold the offices of Secretary and Assistant secretary to Victoria First. This is a reflection of Kelvin's trust and respect for them. The vice President is Michael Bayliss, who ran for the Stable Population Party this year and the President is, of course, Kelvin Thomson .

Kelvin Thomson seems to be the only politician in Australia who chooses to represent the environmental and democratic interests of Australians in the face of the Growth Lobby. See more detail at http://candobetter.net/?q=GrowthLobby and http://candobetter.net/?q=taxonomy/te

Film 2.Kelvin Thomson Victoria First incorporation 1Dec 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhFbwNJ8Dk4&feature=player_detailpage

This film documents the Elections, Resolutions, and Incorporation of Victoria First.

By Brian McGavin, UK-based writer and analyst. 2013

Burning the candle at both ends
Today there is a ‘Silent Crisis’ in our midst. The crisis, still largely unrecognised, is potentially greater than all the other problems that transfix our policy makers.

For many decades now there has been a wilful blindness in recognising that relentless human population growth is one of the pre-eminent problems we face. A problem that is driving the astonishing growth of fossil fuel use and its depletion, climate warming, bio-diversity loss, the growing shortage of fresh water to meet human needs - and as a consequence of these changes - the prospect that agriculture will be unable to produce enough food to feed us.

Our children our facing a hugely challenging future. We are already feeling the changes – declining real wages, soaring commodity and energy prices, growing infra-structure pressures and overcrowding, driven by unsustainable population growth. Add to this a now faltering global economy based on the impossibility of endless growth and debt, with politicians throwing billions in taxpayers' money around to feed ‘business as usual’. This will need to be radically rethought to keep our complex society functioning.

In most countries today existing populations are not living environmentally sustainably, yet even if the UN’s assumption of birth-rate decline in developing countries happens, global population will rise to over 9.6 billion by 2050. Less reported is that if current birth rates persist, the United Nations Population Division warned in October 2011, that the world's population could more than double to over 15 billion in the lifetime of many people alive today.

In Africa, the UN admits that it won’t meet key Millennium Development Goals. Many countries in Africa already have massive unemployment and not enough food. How will they provide all the schools, jobs, hospitals and food to sustain populations that are set to more than double and in some cases triple in size in less than 40 years?

Governments will be struggling with millions of unemployed and hungry people attracted to violence and extremism. Look at the problems already in our news in countries like Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali, Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan – all countries on food aid, with exploding populations and increasingly scarce resources, who export surplus people to North America, Europe and Australia – yet population growth is barely mentioned!

In a few years, we face major oil energy decline as global demand outstrips supply.

A huge problem is most alternative energy sources are poor net energy performers.

Professor John Beddington, former UK Chief Scientist, warned in March 2009 that: “Our food reserves are at a 50-year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water. They are dramatic problems, and they are all intimately connected.”

You can try reducing consumption all you want, but when you keep adding 100 million and another 100 million, you simply drive every human to a lower and lower standard of living. You cannot escape that reality.

Saving the planet and greenwash

Most environmental organisations tell us that ‘if only we each reduced our environmental demand, population growth would not be a problem’. But our economic system based on growth is driving us in the opposite direction. Even if all the efficiency and renewable alternatives could be implemented the savings would be quickly wasted if populations continue to grow.

Demographic impacts were discussed sensibly back in the 1970s but since then a combination of political blindness and political correctness, an alliance of ill-informed religious dogmatists and an economic doctrine of 'out with limits', has undermined common sense and political backbone.

Climate change is heard, but many people, not least politicians, are in profound ignorance of the huge challenges we now face, nearly all linked to the relentless rise in human numbers and diminishing resources. Aiding and abetting this is a celebrity and sport obsessed media that cheers endless growth to prosperity and drowns out wider coverage on key issues impacting on our future.

Why would we think it better to create energy shortages, resource shortages, lowered quality of life, a housing crisis, lowered standard of living, more air pollution, grid-locked traffic, bio-diversity loss, and many more calamities caused by ever increasing population pressures?

If governments won’t talk population, then they are not serious about cutting emissions, managing the water supply, managing food supplies, and a secure quality of life for our people.

It is not a question of ‘either or’ and who needs to act. We are in this together. Rich nations are consuming too much and populations continue to rise. Legitimate aspirations to raise living standards in high population countries like China and India are consuming ever-more resources. In many developing countries with acute water and food shortages, populations are projected to double or triple in size within 40 years – driving social unrest and migration on a massive scale.

There are several key challenges we have to talk about and face. In particular, ensuring development aid from donor countries delivers fully accessible and properly funded reproductive health care for all, along with equal access to education for girls and women. In many countries there are still barriers to this. We also have to start incentivising welfare systems to encourage fewer births rather than more and aim for balanced migration.

Moral values?

Some people believe they have a right to have as many children as they want, whether they can look after them or not and fail to understand or just ignore the consequences of growing populations. Many commentators wilfully promote an ever-larger population in the name of freedom of choice and growth. There will be precious little choice left if we go on multiplying with no thought for the future.

Others claim their religion for actions that impact on others: Have large families "in the name of God" ; Over-consuming resources? "God will provide” - so we don't need to think about the consequences; and when the day of reckoning and collapse arrives - "It is God's will" – an opt-out from moral responsibility.

We have higher intellect to understand the consequences of our actions. Do we plan for a secure and better life or do we carry on blindly toward a minefield of lethal limits?

Rights come with responsibilities. Society has a right to expect its citizens to act in ways that do not endanger others. We still have a choice. The world badly needs a grown-up, rational discussion on population - without blame, abuse and hysteria.

Our children will not thank us for being driven to an abyss.

The media’s treatment of the recent tragedy of migrants drowning off the Italian island of Lampedusa was predictable. Whenever a local population—whether it be in Greece, Italy, or elsewhere—is inundated with a flood of refugees, a standard news template is applied.

The formula is to convert a broad social calamity into a heart-rending human-interest story that will provoke an emotional response trumping any sober analysis. The intended message is clear. Any number of refugees have an unreserved right to be accommodated by the host society, at whatever the cost.

And the host society and its politicians have an unequivocal moral obligation to meet migrants’ demands, notwithstanding the burdens of preserving a tattered social safety net in the midst of austerity measures and high unemployment in many Mediterranean countries.

Then we discover that most have fled in the night within a day of being landed on the Italian mainland and being offered six months accommodation, according to Rome Social Services. Many are though to be heading for the more generous benefit cultures in Northern Europe.

The fate of the Lampedusan boat people is tragic, but do the media and politicians seriously think that Europe can take in the populations of Eritrea and sub-Saharan Africa? Where and when will the line be drawn? Do not Europeans—indeed, any people—have the moral right to set limits to their generosity or to husband resources for the primary use of their own citizens?

These are the issues that so many journalists never raise. Apparently the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the BBC and many others do not acknowledge limits and refugees have rights. That is what we have been told and that is what many of us have come to believe.

Thus it is possible for an indigenous population to see its own displacement as a necessary and vital exercise in humanity, "diversity,” "tolerance,” "pluralism," and democracy rather blatant colonization. In many primary schools in the UK now, virtually 100 per cent of pupils are of foreign origin, where many translators are being hired at public expense to maintain communications in the classroom.

On CBC radio, for example, in a discussion with a French author who expressed concern about growing Islamification of Europe, it was possible for the CBC interviewer to say, without fear of challenge that "we" in Canada are proud of our great diversity of religions and cultures. The multicultural experiment has been a big success. Like the audience, he had lived in the CBC Matrix for so long that he could no longer distinguish between the reality of grassroots concern and the virtual reality that he and others have synthesized over time.

In October and November 2013 the BBC and the UK’s Channel 4 News, did several reports looking at the plight of 'migrant workers looking for a better life' in Athens, southern Italy and Sodertalje - a town south of Stockholm, where the Swedish government's 'remarkable humanity and generous welfare system' has enabled 1000's of immigrants to move in and soon be granted Swedish citizenship.

The Channel 4 news reporter, Matt Frei, noted that they didn't come across any white people while in the town. No mention was made of the views of indigenous Swedes to this social onslaught or whether it was a good policy for Sweden. In the cities of Oslo and Malmo crime rates and attacks on women have gone up significantly. None of this is covered by the international media. The would-be migrants are hardly ever referred to as illegals - always the positive term 'migrant workers', proffering a sense of legitimacy.

Now the Swedish government wants to spread the burden more fairly, pushing other EU countries to take their 'fair share' of this Swedish generosity to would be immigrants. The tone politically and in the media is to unquestioningly accept this continual pressure on the EU, Canada and elsewhere to accept its humanitarian duty, never questioning how this is increasing home grown terrorist threats, food insecurity and infrastructure pressures. It is blatant one-sidedness by a supposedly balanced media.

The migration of Europeans to North America and Australia in the 19th and early 20th century took place in a less crowded world, but large-scale migration now raises vital social, environmental and economic questions about where the world is going and how we deliver reform and a better life for people wherever they are born.

By Tim Murray and Brian McGavin

Please help spread the word on this Animal Liberation petition.
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/bing-lee-stop-the-offer-of-a-free-turk
ey-with-fridge-or-freezer-purchase. It relates to Animal Liberation's expose earlier this year at an Inghams turkey slaughterhouse where turkeys were beaten repeatedly.

Lateline Report with video footage (Text below)

Lateline Report transcript

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 20/03/2013
Reporter: Michael Vincent

Animal Liberation has obtained video footage of workers apparently bashing and kicking turkeys at a major poultry processor on the outskirts of Sydney.

Transcript TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Police are being asked to investigate video footage that appears to show repeated acts of animal cruelty at a major poultry processor on the outskirts of Sydney.

The video, showing some workers bashing and repeatedly kicking turkeys, was obtained by Animal Liberation at an Inghams plant.

And a warning: there are some graphic and disturbing images. This exclusive report from Michael Vincent and producer Sashka Koloff.

MICHAEL VINCENT, REPORTER: For two weeks hidden cameras tracked workers as they took turkeys from crates and shackled them before they were stunned and slaughtered

A fallen bird is kicked. Then kneed. Distressed, it flaps about helplessly and is kicked again.

The bird's distress appears to bring joy to this worker.

Finally the bird is picked up and slammed onto the floor and bashed into the cages four times.

A co-worker observes without intervening.

And then a final act of cruelty: the turkey is repeatedly stomped on until it is still.

This is just one incident from two weeks of covert filming at Inghams' turkey processing plant in Sydney's south-west.

Here, another bird is bashed and kneed.

On another day, a bird is kicked five times.

It appears to be common behaviour.

Sometimes the workers take it in turns to knee then kick the same bird as it hangs in its shackles on the production line.

A few seconds later, the two workers appear to celebrate. Then one of them slams a bird against the factory wall.

These live birds are treated like toys to be ridden or bashed.

EMMA HURST, ANIMAL LIBERATION: I think this is definitely some of the worst that we've seen.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Emma Hurst is from Animal Liberation which provided the footage to Lateline.

EMMA HURST: You're just seeing this whole - complete disconnect from the suffering that these animals are experiencing as though these animals are just mere objects and that they're there for their enjoyment to torture
them.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Here, a worker apparently tries to separate the bird's head from its body, stretching its neck from the cages while it is attached to the moving shackles. He fails. But later, there's another attempt. The bird
breaks free.

EMMA HURST: Every single day we found incidences of concern where workers are going out of their way to intentionally abuse these animals and to cause harm on these animals. And that's - it's just absolutely horrendous.

MICHAEL VINCENT: It's not just the intentional harm; there are also serious concerns about the general handling of the birds.

EMMA HURST: Because these birds are so large, it's not appropriate for them to be shackled. If you think about an eight to 17-year-old - eight to 17 kilogram animal, it's almost the same weight as a three-year-old child being
hung upside down by its ankles and we're seeing feet actually rip off the animals as well.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Animal Liberation says these images capture legs being separated from live birds.

This, however, is perhaps the most telling image captured in the entire two weeks.

Look at this. The worker - you can actually see him - he looks around, sees his work colleague, goes and has a check of the doorway and then comes back to line up the animal.

EMMA HURST: Yeah, so, it's looking around to make sure - he knows there's something wrong with this. It's not that these people could argue that, you know, "We thought that this was perfectly fine. They know that this is unacceptable.

MARK SIMPSON, VETERINARIAN: Having done work for a number of welfare organisations, it's amongst the worst I've ever seen.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Dr Mark Simpson is a vet who has viewed the footage. He's been asked by Animal Liberation to prepare a report which will go to police and animal welfare authorities.

MARK SIMPSON: If this sort of behaviour was witnessed in general public, there'd be a huge outcry. There'd be - the people involved would be physically restrained, I'm sure, police would be involved, the full force of the law would be brought immediately to prevent any further pain and suffering to animals.

MICHAEL VINCENT: At Inghams' processing plant the production line was continuing today. Inghams is Australia's largest turkey processor.

This afternoon we went to Inghams' Sydney headquarters to show their CEO the footage.

We've just spent an hour in the office of Inghams chief executive Kevin McBain. He sat silently while watching the entire footage. He's declined to give us an on-camera interview, but he did provide us with this statement:

KEVIN MCBAIN, CEO, INGHAMS (male voiceover): "We want to reassure Australians that Inghams does not tolerate the mistreatment of our livestock. We condemn the animal abuse we have seen in the footage and will - as a matter of urgency - work to review, retrain and reinforce our animal welfare standards throughout our organisation. We are investigating and working with all relevant parties to address and resolve these intolerable incidents."

MICHAEL VINCENT: Animal welfare groups are now demanding constant CCTV monitoring in all abattoirs.

MARK SIMPSON: I'll be making a strong call in my report for mandatory video monitoring of these critical stages in the process of slaughtering animals. They're - you know, these animals give their life for the benefit of humans and we have a responsibility to make sure where that happens, it happens as humanely as possible.

MICHAEL VINCENT: New South Wales police have been asked to investigate the Inghams footage.

Michael Vincent, Lateline.

TONY JONES: And you can read Inghams' full statement on the Lateline website, below.

20 March, 2013

Media Statement

"In light of the footage that we have viewed today we want to reassure Australians that Inghams does not tolerate the mistreatment of our livestock.

We condemn the animal abuse we have seen in the footage and will - as a matter of urgency - work to review, retrain and reinforce our animal welfare standards throughout our organisation.

Inghams has a strong commitment to animal welfare. We have Best Practice Animal Welfare Programs and Standards in place. We work with regulatory animal welfare specialists to ensure these programs are active and operating throughout all aspects of the company. The programs are regularly audited internally and by second and third party auditors to ensure compliance with standards.

We are investigating and working with all relevant parties to address and resolve these intolerable incidents."

Kevin McBain, CEO, Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited

SYDNEY | It is the third day that Malaysian citizens have occupied the headquarters of Australian rare earth miner, Lynas Corporation. The ‘Bury Lynas with 1,000,000 signatures’ petition campaign was launched in August and already 1.2 million Malaysians have signed the petition. This is how strongly many Malaysians feel about the plant.

Wong Tack, chairman, Himpunan Hijau (Green Assembly) said,

“We have set up our protest camp right on the doorstep of the companies head quarters.”

Video: Himpunan Hijau occupies HQ of Australian toxic polluting company Lynas.

“We will stay here until the Lynas Annual General meeting of shareholders this coming Friday the 29th November. More Malaysians will fly into Sydney on the 28th November to join us.”

The Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) is located 2km from a residential area of 30,000 people and some 25km from Kuantan potentially putting 700,000 people directly at risk from many toxic leaks and emissions. A by-product of the plant is radioactive thorium (Th). Exposure to Thorium can cause cancer posing serious risks to workers at the LAMP and surrounding communities, flora and fauna.

“Our purpose here is to send the strongest message to Lynas’ management and investors that we will never let go of our struggle until the Lynas plant in Gebeng is SHUT DOWN!”

‘Bury Lynas with 1,000,000 signatures’ petition

In the month of August 2013, Himpunan Hijau launched the ‘Bury Lynas with 1,000,000 signatures’ petition campaign. They achieved their target of 1 million signatures in just 36 days. To-date, 1.2 million Malaysians have signed the petition.

“Our petition clearly demonstrates the strong determination and commitment of Malaysians to shut down Lynas advanced material plant,” stated Mr Wong Tack

“Lynas operates it’s plant with violations of rules, regulations and safe practices. Such incompetent, irresponsible and immoral acts cannot be tolerated.”

“The health of Innocent fishermen and villagers, including women and children is at risk. Their livelihoods are being jeopardised by bad business from Lynas who has no social licence to operate.”

“Most importantly, radioactive pollution does not just affect people of this generation, but for generations to come. On the grounds of humanity, no one should be a bystander on this issue”.

For more info and contacts: http://imgur.com/a/8rDQr

NOTES

Photos: Peter Boyle Six Malaysian activists from the Himpunan Hijau (Green Assembly) group have begun a 24-hour, week-long occupation of the front of the corporate HQ of Lynas, the Australian company that has built an unwanted toxic rare earths refinery in Kuantan , Malaysia. They have come with a petition with the signatures of 1.2 million Malaysians who demand that the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant be shut down. See and share this video: Please share this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YdLKRvV4Zo http://stoplynas.org

Blackfish tells the heartbreaking and shocking story of Tilikum, an orca who was torn from his family in the wild and imprisoned in a concrete bathtub at SeaWorld, where he made headlines after killing trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010. After more than 30 years in captivity, he lashed out in frustrated rage, drawing worldwide attention to SeaWorld’s practice of imprisoning sensitive, intelligent marine mammals and denying them everything that is natural and important to them.

Screaming orca fated for SeaWorld urges public to watch Blackfish

BlackFish – official trailer

Attracting up to 12 million visitors a year across the three locations, SeaWorld was rocked by Brancheau's death after Orca whale Tilikum dragged her by her ponytail into the water, scalped her and dismembered her.

Officials claimed trainer Mrs Brancheau's hair brushed the nose of the killer whale, called Tillikum, as she petted him in a pool (2010). 

Mrs Brancheau, an experienced trainer, was lying down in a few inches of water with her head close to the whale when it reached across to grab her hair.

The whale grabbed the 40-year-old married trainer in its awesome jaws and held her until she drowned. The death was witnessed by up to 50 tourists.

Kidnapped Marine Wildlife

Kidnapping marine life from the ocean, removing them from their families, imprisoning them for life, and forcing them to perform tricks for people who pay $75 a ticket is not about educating the public as Sea World would have you believe; it's all about profits.

John Crowe, a former diver, explains the kidnapping process in one of the most poignant interviews in Blackfish. In 1970, he was involved in a kidnapping operation in Puget Sound, Washington. When he and the other hunters tried to get the baby orcas into a stretcher, the family was in a big line communicating and refused to leave when their nets were removed.

At that point, he realized he was kidnapping a child from its mother. On the verge of tears, he said it was the worst thing he'd ever done. 

Unbeknown to the the victim, and the public, Dawn Brancheau was not Tilikum's first casualty.

In 1991, trainer Keltie Lee Byrne fell into a tank holding Tilikum and two other whales at Sealand of the Pacific in Victoria, Canada. A homicide inquest found that the whales had prevented Byrne from climbing out of the tank and ruled her death an accident.

Soon afterwards he was sold to SeaWorld where he sired 12 calves.

In 1999, 27-year-old homeless Daniel Dukes was found dead and nude, draped over Tilikum’s back. He had stayed until SeaWorld closed for the evening, evaded security and managed to get into the tank.

"Death at Seaworld"

Death at SeaWorld is written by New York City reporter David Kirby, who claims that killer whales kept in captivity suffer immense emotional and psychological trauma and spoke to former trainers and  campaigning animal rights advocates to present his damning case. Staff interviewed by Kirby told him of killer whales destroying their teeth on metal gates and then subsequently having those teeth removed by staff wielding power drills.

He claims that calves are separated from their mothers, causing both parent and child massive distress and in one instance almost leading to a fatality as an irate mother took out her anger on a trainer at SeaWorld's San Diego headquarters.

 There are no known records of killer whales attacking humans in the wild, while even mild aggression towards trainers at close quarters is not uncommon.

Orcas are inherently wild animals, and their size, behaviours, psychologically damaging capture, separation from their mothers and pods, and having to be confined in bath-tub sized aquariums, makes them unsuitable for training, displays for human entertainment. It seems that people like to see wild animals “perform”, in a submissive display of dominance.

MRI scans have revealed that Orca whales have a large component of their brain used for processing emotions. They have a language, they move in large interconnected families and, as one hunter said, ‘they know what is going on.’ The wails are nothing more than the sounds of excruciating grief.

Killer whales are incredibly beautiful, intelligent and emotional animals. They simply do not deserve to be ripped away from their families and kept in restrictive concrete pools for the entertainment of humans. Keeping animals in captivity is bad, but the depth to which it damages and arguably destroys them, and they become self-destructive and spontaneously violent.

The Australian Sea World doesn’t have orca whales, but it does have dolphins and a baby polar bear – all of whom I reckon would rather not be kept in enclosures in Queensland.

Things at SeaWorld are not looking good—even its owners are jumping ship. Following declining ticket sales and a public outcry over the documentary Blackfish, the chair of SeaWorld's  board of directors David D'Alessandro sold 43,179 shares of the company's stock.

Petition: Help Animals Imprisoned by SeaWorld

New projections released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics have revised upwards the growth estimates that triggered the Big Australia debate in 2009 and 2010. At that time it was estimated that Australia was heading for 35 or 36 million by 2050. Now according to the ABS central projection we are tracking for 37.5 million by 2050, and possibly 70 million by 2100.

This growth will be overwhelmingly in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Brisbane. Melbourne is set to double by 2060, to 8.5 million, and Perth and Brisbane are also set to double. Sydney will increase by 80%.

This increase will be disastrous for these cities. It will drive traffic congestion and gridlock, high rise and the loss of public open space, a widening gap between rich and poor and social inequality. It will fuel housing unaffordability and job insecurity for our young people.

It makes a farce of the view that population growth in Australia is about populating our regional and remote areas

14 million of the extra 18 million people projected for 2060 will move into just 4 cities.

The latest upward lift is a consequence of net overseas migration rising yet again. The Bureau of Statistics is now using a net annual migration figure of 240,000 per year, more than double the numbers just 10 years ago. Migration is now the source of 2/3 of our population growth.

To challenge the view that rapid population growth is a good thing, I am setting up a non-government organisation called Victoria First.

Its first meeting will be:
• Sunday, December 1st, 10am- 12 noon
• Flemington Community Centre, 25 Mt Alexander Rd, Flemington

From a Press Release by Kelvin Thomson, 27 November 2013.
(Cartoons by candobetter.net).