(We) can do better

France has banned fracking, but the United States is allowing lateral mining to utterly demolish democracy and people are facing destitution and starvation because of the lack of citizen rights in the United States to protect farm and town water. Here are some quotes from the film: "Using our resources against us"... "Greed and money: they're just sucking all of the water out of the ground. Why can't I have a say? Why can't these oil companies understand?"..."We've got to have some restrictions on mining... "If we run out of water, we're going to have to pump it in and it will cost more than oil. So why do you think the people of this town should be quiet about it?" In the face of a winner takes all, some farmers are caving in and trading farming in for mining and selling off their water. "... If you've got to have the oil you have to use the water. The demand is out there." Australia's government is going the same way as the United States.

Former career mining professional Simon Michaux gives a public lecture in Adelaide describing the onset of 'peak mining' and its various implications for natural resource management. A significant and comprehensive update to the field. Governments will be watching this one and trying to ignore it.

A useful presentation of the decline in return on energy invested. The industry is having to work harder and harder in order to get returns. Of course the industry is not going to admit this to potential investors or to governments because, if they did, governments would put the brakes on, realising that we are heading for uncontrollable problems if we do not.

The United States with its fracking and oil-shale mining; canada with its tarsands etc - they are able to get money to invest in the short term because of high demand and low intelligence and education in the investor community. The same kind of thing is happening with many resources, including uranium.

This is the picture that is not shown by graphs of oil production, which manage to convey the impression that per capital production is on a very slightly declining trajectory. If the increasing cost of the extraction from the earth were actually taken into account, we would see a much more rapid downward curve.

Back in 2010, the Victorian Government made a pre-election promise to increase penalties for breeders found committing acts of cruelty and to eliminate illegal and/or poorly run puppy farms. Considering this, it is appalling that the Government is recommended "revisions" to its Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses. This code sets out the minimum standards of accommodation, management and care required by breeding and rearing establishments. This revision would legalise some of the abhorrent conditions and practices regularly seen by RSPCA Inspectors at puppy factories.
(images are the property of Oscar's Law)

I and many of the caring members of the public, would like to see the end of intensive breeding of dogs and cats for domestic sales.  Why, when we have shelters overloaded and excessive numbers of animals being dumped and on death row, should these "businesses" operate anyway?

Companion animals should be that - companions.  It shouldn't be an industry.  More people are moving into units and apartment and animals are banned.  Shelters and rescue organisations/charities end up picking up the pieces, the high numbers of animals discarded by society because of over breeding.

Downgraded and inhumane conditions for the benefit of the industry

Under the revisions, staffed ‘business hours’ for breeding and rearing establishments have reduced from 12 to eight hours a day.  How are the animals meant to be cared for and their social/environmental needs met? 

Litters need care and attention and mother dogs should be nurtured and protected.  Long periods of isolation and non-attendance is not acceptable.  They don't need to provide any warm bedding and there's no cap to the amount of litters that dog can have, so it can be legally bred for birth to death.

Puppy factory dogs are viewed only for their ability to make their owners’ money. Puppies are often confined in crowded cages with no room to move.   The mortality rate of the puppies is quite high because veterinary care is scarcely provided. Puppies that do survive and are sold often suffer from ongoing health issues that the new owners have to pay for.

Vet checks to ensure animals are fit for breeding are no longer required before animals are bred from.  How are any standards of "animal welfare" to be improved?  Breeders will be able to declare an animal fit for sale – rather than vets.   How will they be qualified?

The recommendations allow for ‘any method’ of euthanasia as long as it is humane. Humane is not defined and ‘any method’ could, in theory, include shooting or blunt trauma, causing incredible suffering.  How is "humane" meant to be defined?  We can't feel the animals' pain.  This could mean animals are open to horrific attacks, and it's called "euthanasia".

There must be 24 hour per day veterinary access for the animals if they are sick or injured.  "Any method" is far from being acceptable and chillingly callous.

There would be no maximum breeding age or period that an animal could be bred from, meaning these animals can potentially spend their entire lifetime confined to breeding establishments.  Dogs and cats would be condemned as breeding machines, and valued for nothing more than producing litters.  How is this "animal welfare"?  This is commercial breeding, and all the evils associated with it.

Under the recommendations, some categories of puppies must not be left without food for more than 12 hours.  The feeding of raw offal is now permitted in conjunction with a complete worming program.  Standards of animal care are being weakened to cave into the industry's political and commercial powers.

A blight on our society

Puppy factories must end.  There's no way to soften and make acceptable the fact that they are inhumane and a blight on our society. 

If animals are to be adopted, first and foremost the potential buyers should go to one of the many shelters and homes for dogs and cats.  There are many needing homes.  Otherwise, they should go to a breeder and get expert advice.  Puppy factories operate in secret, and they can't be contacted. They are not transparent to the public.

These callous breeding facilities are producing animals for mass markets, without accountability.  Australians should be enlightened and our society should be walking and working towards more humane animal welfare systems, not in the retrograde darkness of lost and unwanted dogs and cats, and "businesses" breeding animals in cages for profits.  They are cruel and unjustified, and are producing litters of animals for an already saturated market. 

Pet shops should be linked to shelters and registered breeders, and not be allowed to sell the products from puppy factories.

Puppy factories must be banned

The Victorian government should ban puppy factories, not trying to weaken standards and loosen controls for the benefit of a few owners of these shameful establishments.  These dark places can't be justified by money or profits. The government should be setting high standards, not caving into profit-making through the use of small and defenceless social animals.

Oscar's Law

We can all help fight the genocide in Australia's pounds, promote rescue organisations and shelters as the first option to adopting, and change the way Australians gets their pets. Adoption is the intelligent alternative to impulse buying. No puppy factory whether it is 'clean', 'model', 'state of the art' or otherwise is the answer for mans best friend.

Oscars Law is an organisation committed to "We no longer want the pet industry to mislead us about what is acceptable for our animals”.

-Abolish the factory farming of companion animals.
-Ban the sale of companion animals from pets shops/online trading sites.
-Promote adoption through rescue groups/pounds/shelters

Who is Oscar?

Oscar was one of a number of dogs who were rescued from a puppy factory in central Victoria where they had been neglected to the point they required urgent veterinary care.

The list of ailments the dogs suffered was extensive, including:

Severe matting — the dogs had to be sedated in order to shave their painful matted fur away from their skin; ear infections; gum disease; and rotten teeth. Once their matted fur was shaved it was evident that painful grass seed abscesses covered their bodies. The dogs were so severely malnourished their irritated skin was like paper and they were grossly underweight.

Days later and recovering from surgery, Oscar was returned by authorities to the very people who failed to provide veterinary care and neglected all their dogs including Oscar. They have never been charged with cruelty and Oscar remains in the puppy factory.

Oscar’s Law Campaign is in memory of all the ‘Oscars’ hidden away on factory farms treated as breeding machines to supply the pet industry.

Make a submission to the DEPI

[email protected]

Submissions may be emailed to [email protected] or posted to

Postal Address:

Breeding and Rearing Code Review

Bureau of Animal Welfare
475 Mickleham Rd
Attwood, Vic, 3049

Hard copy submission must be post marked before 14 August 2013 to be accepted

More information

DEPI: domestic animal businesses- breeding and rearing code review

RSPCA - Take action on puppy factories

Labor MP David Bradbury must correct error riddled conservation funding announcement (NSW), says Geoff Brown, Stable Population Party candidate. Mr Brown, who is a New South Wales natural conservation activist, has long fought to retain Cumberland plain woodland against attempts by governments to allow it to be destroyed for massive suburban developments. He believes now that the ALP has tried to take credit for his concept of the Cumberland Conservation Corridor. Geoff is running as a candidate for the Stable Population Party.

Mark Butler, the Federal Environment Minister, and David Bradbury, Labor member for Lindsay and the Assistant Treasurer, have been called on by Geoff Brown, the Stable Population Party candidate for Lindsay, to set the voters of Lindsay straight, after Lindsay's leading local newspaper, the Penrith Press, printed a half page story riddled with errors and misinformation about Labors 2010 federal election commitment of $7.5 million towards the establishment of the Cumberland Conservation Corridor.

Geoff Brown, also the President of the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance, developed the concept for the Cumberland Conservation Corridor in 2005, and at the 2010 election ran as an Independent using preference negotiations with Labor and Liberal to extract the $7.5 million deal from Labor. So he is on top of this issue. Several articles published by candobetter.net show his record on this matter. See Cumberland plain woodland and Geoff Brown.

Brown described himself as "livid" when he read the Penrith Press article which erroneously stated that Labor had announced $7.5m towards establishing the Cumberland Conservation Corridor. He said the article made it look as if Labor had just made some new 2013 committment. He said the voters of Linsay would be confused.

"The story should have been about why it took 3 years to fulfill their 2010 commitment. The article was littered with errors based on the dubious media release put out by David Bradbury and Mark Butler. If not corrected it will let Labor off the hook in Lindsay from announcing any new local conservation funding outcomes for the 2013 election. Labor may try to fudge their way out of it”.

Geoff Brown called on David Bradbury and Mark Butler to front the voters of Lindsay and tell them:

" - That neither Labor nor Liberals have yet promised any new conservation money in Lindsay for the 2013 election
- The announcement cited by the Penrith Press was from the 2010 election and it took 3 years to cobble together an outcome
- The Mulgoa biobanking site stays in private ownership so will not become part of the publicly owned Mulgoa Nature Reserve. So no net public benefit or use for education
- The Mulgoa site was never at threat of development and was already protected under Penrith Councils LEP which zones it E2 Environmental Conservation (I argued that money be better spent trying to conserve bushland in Penriths north at risk of development)
- That nearly half of the $7.5 million was spent on land care projects that are outside the Lindsay electorate and nowhere near the proposed Cumberland Conservation Corridor. Projects such as those in the Blue Mountains and the Cranebrook wetland project are not anywhere near the CCC
- That $3.4 million funding for weed removal and the planting trees is exactly what Tony Abbott proposes with his Green Army and Direct Action policy. This outcome condones the Liberals policy
- That 2000 ha of local bush land has not been protected (David’s MR and his letterbox propaganda claims he has saved 2000 ha of local bush land. He is claiming to have protected the 558 ha Airservices Australia land at Shanes Park and 1300 ha of bush at the Orchard Hillls Defence Establishment. These sites are not formally protected. Shanes Park has the proposed Castlereagh Freeway running through it)
- That biobanking is a scheme whereby there is a net loss of habitat. Bushland gets bulldozed with developers offsetting that clearing by funding the management of bushland elsewhere. In this case the State funding came from the clearing of critically endangered bushland in the Sydney Growth Centres. It is a highly dubious method of conserving nature.
- That the land owner is not raising his income from selling the biobanking credits. He gets a guaranteed $6.6 million as the joint Federal and State funding has already purchased the credits."

Labor caught out moving the fence posts

Geoff Brown added that Labor has been caught out trying to change the location of the Cumberland Conservation Corridor. As an example he cited the wetlands at Cranebrook near the Waterside housing estate as being 'nowhere near' the CCC.”

Mr Brown says that Lindsay voters need to be aware that Labor has not yet committed any new money towards conserving bushland within the Cumberland Conservation Corridor.

Mr Brown met last week with Mark Butler and David Bradbury calling on them to fund the protection of 1500 ha of Priority Conservation Land north of the ADI Site that is threatened. He says that the 50 ha of Mulgoa land was already zoned for protection but this 1500 ha of bushland has no such conservation zoning.

In his opinion, the only way it will be zoned for conservation by Penrith Council is if there is money on the table to buy it.

"The voters of Lindsay need to join with the Stable Population Party in calling on Labor and Liberal to commit to protecting this land.”

A better, not a bigger Australia

Mr Brown concluded by saying that to his knowledge, the Stable Population Party is the only minor political party in Lindsay actively lobbying Labor and Liberal about protecting the environment and limiting more urban sprawl and traffic congestion. He said that voters could rest assured that the Stable Population Party stands for a better not a bigger Australia.

Reporting on the Australian elections by the ABC is Orwellian. If it sends chills down your spine then you will understand why candobetter.net is so keen to publicise political alternatives, especially any that promise a civilised halt to the overpopulation juggernaut to which Tony Abbot and Kevin Rudd have hitched their evil stars. This article promotes information about the candidate list for the Stable Population Party. The introduction was written by Sheila Newman, who has also filmed their Victorian candidates.

The Stable Population Party has announced that it has now finalised Senate groups in all states and territories. it has also just approved House of Representatives (local) candidates in the seats of Griffith (challenging Kevin Rudd) and Denison (challenging Andrew Wilkie). It has a final total of 26 candidates in our very first election.

Candidate list: CLICK HERE

The party is looking for polling place volunteers.

If you would like to join a support group for one of our 10 local candidates for other campaign activities, please let us know ASAP and we will put you in touch: CLICK HERE

House of Representatives

Final list of House of Representatives candidates:

NSW

BEROWRA - Deborah Smythe

LINDSAY - Geoff Brown

EDEN-MONARO - Martin Tye

WARRINGAH - Mike Cottee

QLD

BRISBANE - John Roles

GRIFFITH - Jan McNicol

TAS

DENISON - Brandon Hoult

VIC

LALOR - Jonathan Page

MELBOURNE - Michael Bayliss

MELBOURNE PORTS - Steven Armstrong

Senate

The Stable Population Party is running Senate groups in every state and territory, so every Australian voter will be able to vote for a stable population above the line on the Senate (large white) ballot paper.

Fundraising campaign

The Party is getting close to achieving our fundraising goals, to ensure it can pay the $32,000 Senate nomination fees, as well as 10 local candidate nomination fees of $1,000 each.

It is looking for help.

Donations of $20, $100 or more are greatly appreciated. Donations up to $1,500 per annum are tax-deductible.

To donate: CLICK HERE

William Bourke is the President of the Stable Population Party. www.populationparty.org.au

Like them on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/populationparty

Follow them on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/populationparty

The Stable Population Party declares itself to be "Committed a stable, sustainable, open and tolerant Australia."

A New South Wales lawyer, Philip Howell, has written a brilliant new democratic strategy to decide from the local level upwards, how big we the people want Australia's population to be. As a population sociologist who compares international systems on this matter, I am really impressed and can only encourage everyone to support this man's remarkable contribution to our democracy and wellbeing. Look at his site for more detail on reforming our constitution.

The original site, along with the reasons for the proposal is to be found here: The We Will Decide Proposal

This section describes how the proposal will operate in practice. Further details are provided in the Explanatory Notes.

The Purpose

1. The aims of the We Will Decide proposal are:
- To give people control over the population density in their residential area, by preventing development in that area which would allow the population to grow by more than the people want. People have a legitimate self-interest in controlling the scale of development in their local area.
- To provide a connection between the number of migrants and the preference of the people for more or fewer people in their area. The number of migrants permitted to enter the country in Australia’s self-interest will be restricted by reference to the total of the local decisions made by people about the population in their area.
- To continue to allow the Commonwealth Government to determine the number of migrants permitted to enter the country pursuant to our international obligations.

The Process

2. In the online census form for 2016, any respondent whose answers confirm that he or she:
- Is over 18; and
- Has a usual residence;
will be asked a new question, namely:
‘Would you like to comment on how many people should live in your area?’
Where an online form is submitted for more than one respondent - for example all members of a household - each person submitting the form who is above the age of 18 will be asked the new question. A negative answer to the question would be recorded, and the respondent would continue on with the census form. An affirmative answer to the question would generate a unique code linking each individual respondent with the Statistical Area Level 1 (“SA1") in which his or her usual place of residence is situated.

3. Each respondent would have 14 days to log in to the ABS’s We Will Decide website using the unique code. On logging in, the respondent would be presented in sequence with 3 screens:

Screen 1 will describe what the respondent will be asked to do. View the text of the screen here: Screen 1.

Screen 2 will display a map of the area about which the respondent will be asked to make a decision. It will be based on the Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) in which the respondent’s usual residence is located. The size of the area will depend on whether the respondent’s SA1 is classed as urban or rural by the Bureau of Statistics. In summary:
- Those living in residential areas classed as urban, or in commercial areas, will decide in relation to an area comprising their own SA1 and each adjoining SA1 which is in the same Statistical Area Level 2 (SA2).
- Those living in areas classed as rural will decide only in relation to their own SA1.
The reason these areas have been selected is explained here: Determining the Area. The text of the screen may be viewed here: Screen 2.

Screen 3 will allow the respondent’s decision to be recorded. It will show the area’s present population and ask the respondent to select a percentage change between negative 2.0% and positive 2.0% which represents the respondent’s preference for the rate of increase or decrease in that area’s population over the next five years. The selection will be made by from radio buttons or check boxes on a number line, divided at intervals of at least 0.2. (Intervals of 0.1 would be better, but may not fit easily across smaller screens.) The text of the screen is here: Screen 3. Note that the respondent is shown rates of change per year and asked to decide on an annual rate of increase or decrease.

The Results

4. Locally: Results of the people’s decision as to the level of any increase or decrease will be calculated separately for each SA1 across the country. The calculation will be made as follows:
- The response from each respondent who makes a decision about an SA1 will be recorded as a decimal number; for example, an increase of 0.2% will be recorded as plus 0.2, and a decrease of 1.5% will be recorded as minus 1.5.
- All responses will then be added.
- The total will then be divided by the number of responses.
- The result will be a decimal number between minus 2.0 and plus 2.0.
This number will express the rate of population change per year which people living in that area wish to occur throughout the next five years. This will be the People’s Decision at a Local Level.

5. Nationally: The percentage change decided for each area at the Local Level will be applied to the current population of that area to determine the numerical increase or decrease preferred in that area. The country-wide total of those local numerical increases or decreases will be the Peoples’ Decision as to the extent to which Australia’s population should increase, decrease or stay the same.

Using the Results

6. Locally: The impact of the Peoples’ Decision at Local Level will vary depending on the area under consideration. In general, the intention is that development which would permit the population of residential areas to change contrary to the wishes of the people in that area would be prohibited. To ensure some flexibility, this would be implemented as follows:
- In areas classed as residential, more intense residential development would be prevented if its effect would be to increase the population by more than permitted by the people’s decision. Extensions to existing dwellings, or their replacement with larger dwellings would not be classed as ‘more intense’, but any development of dual occupancies, villas or flats in place of a lower density dwelling form would generally be prevented, unless the development did not increase the overall population in the area. Proposals for less intense development could use the people’s decision as a reason why the development should be approved.
This prohibition could be subject to a proviso. If fewer than 10% of the people in an area participated in the We Will Decide process, the prohibition would not take effect. The decision of those who responded could be treated in the same way as for non-residential areas.
- Some people live in areas classed as commercial, industrial or rural. In such non-residential areas, the people’s decision would not be binding on Government. It would merely be another factor which could be taken into account when development applications are considered.
This would permit Governments to change commercial, industrial and rural areas to residential, or to increase the number of residences in those areas if necessary. So it would still be possible, for example, for Governments to permit residential flats in commercial areas near to major transport routes, up until the point at which the area became mainly residential, after which the people would decide.
There will be no other local impacts. No-one will be forced to move if the people vote to have a lower population. There will be no restrictions on the movement of people at all. The only restrictions will be on development which would permit a change in population density which the local people do not want.

7. Nationally: The People’s Decision for Australia will become the prime (but not exclusive) determinant of the number of people permitted to migrate into Australia.

The migration intake which the Government announces each year deals with people who will be permitted to stay for 12 months or more. In future, existing visa categories which permit entry for more than 12 months would be divided into two groups.
- A National Interest category, comprising all those who are brought in to serve Australia’s self interest. This would include skilled, business and student migrants, family re-union entrants, working holiday makers and so on.
- An International Obligations category, comprising those we permit to enter for selfless reasons, or because of existing treaties and arrangements with other countries. Mainly this group would include refugees and those admitted for humanitarian reasons, plus New Zealand citizens, who have for decades been granted free access (with reciprocal rights for Australians who move to New Zealand).

Each year a National Interest calculation would be made. From the number representing the People’s Decision for Australia (see point 5 above), the following would be subtracted:
- The expected natural increase (i.e. births minus deaths), assuming current fertility and mortality rates are equal to the average for the previous five years; and
- The expected number of migrant departures, assuming that the rate of departure remains the same as the average over the last five years.
The figure remaining would indicate the number of new visas which could be issued to new migrants each year. An adjustment would then be made to take account of the propensity of some potential migrants to obtain a visa but then not travel to Australia.

In summary, in mathematical terms:

People’s Decision minus expected natural increase minus expected migrant departures equals new National Interest visas which can be issued (propensity adjusted).

If the result of the calculation is zero or negative, the Government would be prevented from issuing visas in National Interest category for that year, because the people would have decided that it was not in their interests to admit more people that year. If the result of the calculation is positive, the Government would be able to issue visas in any of the National Interest categories up to the number permitted by the Peoples’ Decision, taking account of the propensity of some migrants not to take up the offer of a visa.

We Will Decide would have no effect on the International Obligations category. The Government would still decide the refugee and humanitarian intake, and New Zealanders would come and go as they please, as Australians do in relation to New Zealand.

Implementation

8. From the time a decision is made to introduce the We Will Decide proposal, migration levels should be reduced dramatically, pending a trial of the proposal. Assuming in-principle adoption in 2013, it should be possible to run a voluntary trial of the proposal in 2015 which can be used to guide the migration intake from then. The next census will occur in August 2016. The We Will Decide process will formally take effect when the census results become available in early 2017.

9. We Will Decide can be introduced without amending the Census and Statistics Act. A new regulation under s.8(3) of the Act would however need to be made and placed before each House of Parliament.

10. The People’s Decision for Australia could be implemented by the Commonwealth Government voluntarily following it when formulating the migration intake each year, but it would be far better for the changes to be implemented by amendments to the Migration Act.

11. The Commonwealth Parliament could impose the People’s Decision at a Local Level on the Territories, but has no power over planning and development within the States. The most it could do there would be to authorise planning authorities at all levels to take the People’s Decision into account, using the incidental power in s.51(xxxix) of the Constitution.

Implementation at a State level would require the co-operation of State Parliaments, which would need to amend their planning laws.

While our government is condemned as being heartless and lacking compassion for asylum seekers, it must be considered in a national and global context.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution’. People leave their countries and seek asylum for many reasons—political persecution, ethnic persecution and gender-based violence. Overpopulation isn't one of them! (Originally published 30 July 2013, 11:23:16 +1000)

When the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was established in 1951, there were approximately 1.5 million refugees internationally.    At the end of 2012 there were 15.4 million refugees.

According to the latest figures there were 28.8 million IDPs (Internally Displaced Peoples) around the world, and global number has steadily increased from a total of around 17 million in 1997.

The annual UNHCR global trends in displacement report highlights that last year 7.6 million people were newly displaced due to conflict or persecution, with a total of 45.2 million people around the world in situations of displacement, meaning that more people are refugees or internally displaced than at any point since 1994.

On an average day in 2012, 23,000 people were forced to flee their homes around the world, which is more than total number of people claiming asylum in Australia for the entire year.

Global population has swollen from just over 2.5 billion in 1951, to now 7 billion - and growing. There are no new frontiers to settle in.

Growth in numbers of refugees since Vietnam

The Vietnam War ended in 1975 but their troubles did not, and over two million people in Indo-China became refugees in the 1970s.

Over the next five years from 1976 there were 2059 Vietnamese boat arrivals with the last arriving in August 1981. From 1989  boats arrived at the rate of about 300 people per annum for the next 9 years—mostly from Cambodia, Vietnam and southern China. 

The number of asylum seekers seeking refuge in all countries, including Australia, began to rise again in 2006. This was due to the state of emergency that was declared in Sri Lanka in 2005 and the US troop surge in Iraq in 2007. Afghanistan remained the main country of origin of asylum-seekers (36,600 claims versus 36,200 in 2011). Syria was the second largest, the conflict there reflected in a jump from 15th place in 2011 and a 191 per cent increase in asylum claims to 24,800.

Atrocious conditions in Somalia and Sudan have generated huge refugee flows, but number of East African "irregular entrants" known to be in Indonesia is tiny by comparison with South Asians and Middle East people. The scope and range of refugee sources is widening.

The majority of asylum seekers arriving in Australia irregularly by boat in recent years have been from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Sri Lanka.
Forced displacement has become a defining characteristic of sub-Saharan Africa, obliging people to abandon their homes and seek refuge elsewhere, often at the price of serious threats to their welfare and rights. The African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, known as the Kampala Convention, breaks new ground in articulating the rights of internally displaced persons (IDPs), and the responsibilities of states, regional organizations, and other actors to uphold them.

With almost ten million people internally displaced across twenty-one sub-Saharan African states, the continent is home to one third of the world’s IDPs.
Kampala Convention

Australia's population growth

Australia's population in 1951 was nearing 8.5 million, and in 1975, Australia's population was less than 13.5 million people. Australia's current population growth of 1.8% is higher than that of the Philippines, Malaysia or India. 

Due to the tight regulation on asylum seekers, Australia receives relatively less refugees compared to other countries. As the world’s sixth largest country, in 2009, Australia only accepted 0.6% of asylum seekers in the world.
This must be inconsideration to our environmental resources, and high domestic population growth.

Australia is a small nation on a large landscape.  The allusion of having large frontiers, of boundless plains to share, and capable of inhabiting millions more people is attractive, but unrealistic.

The cost of supporting more than 40,000 asylum seekers expected to be in Australia next financial year is set to average more than $70,000 each person.

This is at a time our cities already are struggling with infrastructure short-falls. Lobby groups claim that the government needs to fund $500 billion debt for infrastructure needed due to population growth.

Papua New Guinea solution

The move to settle asylum seekers in PNG  is likely to see a significant part of the cost of the asylum seeker problem carried in the foreign aid budget. Australia has agreed to a significant increase in direct assistance to PNG as well as carrying the cost of resettling asylum seekers there. 

Mr Rudd said the policy was likely to be expensive in its early stages but would ultimately reduce the budget cost of asylum seekers over time as he anticipated it would lead to a drop in arrivals.

The capacity of the Manus Island detention centre will increase from 600 people to 3000 people. Mr Rudd signalled further facilities will be established in PNG, saying there would be
“no cap on the number of people who can be transferred to Papua New Guinea”.

2.3 percent population growth is a comfortable sounding figure but what this really means is that Papua New Guineans produce over two hundred and seventy thousand babies every year. It’s the equivalent of the entire population of the Chimbu Province. 

Papua New Guinea faces many challenges in resettling refugees given many of its people already struggle to find jobs and housing.

The Asian Development Bank estimates only 5 per cent of PNG's population is engaged in formal sector employment. Approximately 85 per cent of the population live in rural areas, where they live a subsistence lifestyle or participate in the informal economy.

The causes of displacement

When all a nation's agricultural land and natural resources are used up, and there are more people than there are jobs, water, food and resources, there are only three choices:
a) live in life-threatening poverty,
b) leave for greener pastures,
c) force others to leave. This last is 'persecution'.

Refugees aren't just fleeing intolerance in a vacuum. They are fleeing overpopulation, plus the greed of corporations and developed nations' predation for dwindling natural wealth.

The refugee convention is hopelessly out of date now, based as it is on 1950's world outlook following World War when there were thousands of genuine refugees after that appalling war. We are living through only the beginning of what will degenerate into a world debacle of people 'gatecrashing' countries where life may hold a better future.

Skilled visas accounted for 68 per cent of the 2007-08 migration program, and family reunion 31 per cent. We should be taking more proven genuine refugees, not making them into a political football with random arrivals! Our population growth is a political decision, not inevitable!

Stable Population Australia say:

    “Rather than aiming to resettle ever-increasing numbers of people, our policy aim should be to relieve the pressures that force migration in the first place, and help people live in peace and harmony in their homeland.”

Kevin Rudd recently observed that the world has changed since the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention was created.

Then, potential refugee flows numbered only tens of thousands; now they are tens of millions.

Growing poverty in Australia – a political inconvenience

While Australia is viewed as a choice destination for asylum seekers, our cities are under considerable stress from being under resourced. According to ACOSS ,(Australian Council of Social Services )   Last year 2,265,000 Australians (12.8% of all people) are living below the poverty line after taking account of their housing costs.

Community groups decry the state of housing affordability and availability across the country. In Victoria, over 36,000 people are on the public housing waiting list. A report from Australians for Affordable Housing shows that Victoria has some of the least affordable housing in the country and highlights yet again the crippling impact that high housing costs are having on our community.

For the year ending December 2012, net overseas migration was 235,900. (not including the temporary migrants).   

Family Planning initiatives

Last year the Government of the United Kingdom and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with UNFPA and other partners, pledged $2.6 billion to make family planning available to 120 million women in developing countries by 2020.

Human displacement caused by conflicts from competition for dwindling resources can be avoided through sensible, global family planning.  Overpopulation denies people the living standards they need, and the ability to live in harmony with others.

by Barbara Nimri Aziz. Republished from Syria News, Global Research.

The blockade on Syria -- on Syrian life not weaponry -- reaches into the heart of social, historical and cultural life.This policy is integral to the US-led assault against the country and against Arab national integrity.

Includes: Editorial comment: Australia's shameful complicity in the war against Syria.

(Original image)

This policy is integral to the US-led assault against the country and against Arab national integrity.

No-fly zone, poison gas, foreign guerrillas, sectarian massacres. These frightening yet alluring, ambitious yet wearying thoughts define Syria today. More reason to take time for other dramas--Syrian TV serials and their politics.

Apart from an opportune 'Ramadan' reference, this topic may seem inconsequential or out of place for a nation engulfed in conflict. Yet the subject isn't too slight a target for US policies.

Extending its aggression against Syria into every corner of the economy, the United States has seen TV productions by its longstanding enemy dumped from international satellites, a move that essentially severs global access. This move followed withdrawal of supporting infrastructure for widely popular Syrian programs by US-Gulf state allies, erstwhile co-sponsors, customers and distributors of TV dramas originating in Damascus.

Now, why would anyone censor Syrian TV? Are we not led to believe that Syrian media's sole purpose is to mislead rather than inform? How could anything of value originate from that 'brutal dictatorship'? Anyway, how can 'mindless' TV soaps warrant an international embargo?

People familiar with the range of public issues which Syrian producers address through popular drama will understand.

Over the past decade the Damascus-based industry rose to become a major center of high quality TV drama. Its productions won admiration across the Arab-speaking world, rivaling once dominant Egyptian dramas.

What Syrian dramas, most of which are made by private companies, offer is best illustrated by two productions:-- 'Bab al-Hara' (http://www.istikana.com/en/episodes/bab-el-hara-1-1), first released during Ramadan month in 2006, and a hugely successful 2010 production, 'Ma Malakat Aymanukum' (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=41098).

'Bab al-Hara' is a colonial period drama typical of the historical productions Syria excels in. This and dramatizations of early epochs hold special significance throughout the Arab world through portrayals and reflections of Arab civilization's accomplishments and historical events.

By contrast with 'Bab al-Hara', 'Ma Malakat' explores contemporary social concerns: --religious fanaticism, homosexuality, abuse of women. Written by Syrian author Halla Diyab (), 'Ma-Malakat' was directed by her accomplished compatriot Najdat Ansour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najdat_Anzour).

The work of these and other brilliant Syrian artists is renowned.

Yes, armed conflict itself thwarts artistic production. Hundreds of Syria's most talented and liberal-thinking people-- actors, designers, musicians, writers, technicians-- are jobless today. Many flee in search of outside employment, like those featured in a token CNN Ramadan story. By contrast view your yourself the Syrian Ramadan 2013 series broadcast over lbc TV. Theater is one of many institutions devastated by war. But the destruction of this industry is not collateral damage. It's deliberate. The sale of Syrian series came to a standstill when networks in Saudi Arabia and UAE (where major distributors are located) cancelled orders for Syrian productions.

Next, in June 2012 the Arab League itself ordered satellite transmitters Hotbird, Nilesat and Arabsat to cease carrying Syrian media including Syrian TV and Syrian Drama TV. Whereas Syria exported 25 new TV series in 2010, the following year producers were able to sell only one--a direct effect of the US-designed embargo.

Of course this blockade has significant economic consequences for Syria. But its real target is Syria's cultural and ideological position in the region.

The Arab public and specialists recognize that Syrian productions are unrivaled in their authenticity and ideology. Syria is known to have the highest standards in historical research (applied to the arts) and in Arabic language. Besides the technical, literary and entertainment value of specific stories, Syria's dramatic productions represent a struggling political consciousness--the Arab nationalist ideal. (This includes celebration of Palestinian resistance.)

Syrian dramas invoke regional pride and values largely absent in productions from neighboring countries. The industry's collapse was targeted because these productions embody and espouse values which the West seeks to eliminate. Nothing is overlooked, it seems, in the US design against Syria. Meanwhile Turkish TV serials, translated into Arabic, heir focus limited to romance and family conflict, keep people distracted. A coincidence?

Barbara Nimri Aziz

#AustralianComplicity" id="AustralianComplicity">Editorial comment: Australia's shameful complicity in the war against Syria

Barbara Aziz has provided further confirmation that the justifications given by the likes of US Secretary of state John Kerry, for the arming of the supposed 'rebels', the threats of "no fly zones" and outright military invasion, are barefaced lies. How could it be possible for a country ruled by a corrupt and brutally repressive despot to have made such an outstanding contribution to culture?

The role of Australia and its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr, has been particularly shameful.

As a result of the illegal wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 in which Australia participated (and which Bob Carr, incidentally, claimed to oppose), 1,300,000 Iraqis fled to Syria
according to wikipedia. This is in addition to the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- 3,300,000 according to one estimate -- who were killed in the fighting or died through disease or starvation as a result of sanctions imposed by the US, Australia and their allies.

Syria should rightly have expected, at the very least, massive financial aid from Australia for having helped to create such a huge problem for the Syrian government. Instead, in May 2012, on the pretext of the absurd and fraudulent allegation that the Syrian government had massacred 108 of its own supporters in the town of Houla, Bob Carr expelled the Syrian ambassador and tightened existing sanction against Syria.

Prior to that, in May 2012, the current 'Labor' Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as a roving Australian ambassador in the Middle East, helped initiate the invasion of Libya by urging the establishment of the United Nations "no fly zone".

In 2001, Australia participated in the invasion of Afghanistan on the pretext of the lie of 9/11. One result is that opium production, which had almost been eliminated by the Taliban government has since skyrocketed.

July 30. The film will be introduced by Australian population scientist, Sheila Newman, (Demography, Territory, Law) who will also lead discussion afterwards. Grounded in the theories of social scientist Riane Eisler, the film strives not to blame but to educate, to highlight a different path for humanity. Overpopulation is merely a symptom of an even larger problem - a "domination system" that for most of human history has glorified the domination of man over nature, man over child and man over woman. To break this pattern, the film demonstrates that we must change our conquering mindset into a nurturing one. And the first step is to raise the status of women worldwide.

Sheila Newman, who will be introducing the event, is the author of a new demographic theory book called Demography, territory and Law, the Rules of Animal and Human Populations.

The event is sponsored by Sustainable Population Australia and Arts in Action. You can find out more about it at www.artsinaction.com.au/mother-caring-for-7-billion. You can purchase tickets at the door or order them online. Tickets online are $7/$10 BF. At the door tickets will cost $12/$15.

Synopsis

Mother, the film, breaks a 40-year taboo by bringing to light an issue that silently fuels our most pressing environmental, humanitarian and social crises - population growth. In 2011 the world population reached 7 billion, a startling seven-fold increase since the first billion occurred 200 years ago.

Population was once at the top of the international agenda, dominating the first Earth Day and the subject of best-selling books like “The Population Bomb”. Since the 1960s the world population has nearly doubled, adding more than 3 billion people. At the same time, talking about population has become politically incorrect because of the sensitivity of the issues surrounding the topic–religion, economics, family planning and gender inequality. Yet it is an issue we cannot afford to ignore.

Today, nearly 1 billion people still suffer from chronic hunger even though the Green Revolution that has fed billions will soon come to an end due to the diminishing availability of its main ingredients–oil and water. Compounded with our ravenous appetite for natural resources, population growth is putting an unprecedented burden on the life system we all depend on, as we refuse to face the fact that more people equals more problems.

The film illustrates both the over-consumption and the inequity side of the population issue by following Beth, a mother and a child-rights activist as she comes to discover, along with the audience, the thorny complexities of the population issue. Beth – who comes from a large American family of 12 and has adopted an African-born daughter–travels to Ethiopia where she meets Zinet, the oldest daughter of a desperately poor family of 12. Zinet has found the courage to break free from thousand-year-old-cultural barriers, and their encounter will change Beth forever.

Grounded in the theories of social scientist Riane Eisler, the film strives not to blame but to educate, to highlight a different path for humanity. Overpopulation is merely a symptom of an even larger problem - a "domination system" that for most of human history has glorified the domination of man over nature, man over child and man over woman. To break this pattern, the film demonstrates that we must change our conquering mindset into a nurturing one. And the first step is to raise the status of women worldwide.

"Mother: Caring for 7 Billion" features world-renown experts and scientists including biologist Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb;" economist Mathis Wackernagel, the creator of the ground-breaking Footprint Network; Malcolm Potts, a pioneer in human reproductive health; and Riane Eisler, whose book “The Chalice and the Blade” has been published in 23 countries.

Flyers will be handed out at various public transport venues tomorrow. It is suggested that you use their template to write to your local member and State ministers. They are protesting the Inner Melbourne Toll Road proposition and the neglect of public transport.

To download a pdf file of the "Fix Public Transport Now" document, click on it.

PTUA Public Transport Community Forum, Newport, Thurs 8 August

Community Forum:
The 2013 Federal Election and Public
Transport in Melbourne’s West
Thursday 8 th August 6.30pm doors open 6pm, food and drinks available from the bar
Newport Bowls Club, 4 Market St Newport

The Public Transport Users Association is hosting a community forum looking at public transport issues in Melbourne’s Western Suburbs. With a federal election imminent, residents are concerned about how transport policy will impact on access to jobs, education and services, as well as household transport stress.

This community forum is an opportunity to hear from transport planning experts alongside local Members of Parliament, Councillors and federal candidates. Come along and ask your questions and learn what they plan to
do to solve public transport in Melbourne.

Guest Speakers will Include:
Dr Sophie Sturrup, University of Melbourne
Janet Rice, Greens Lead Senate Candidate
Tim Watts, ALP Candidate for Gellibrand
Lisel Thomas, Maribyrnong Truck Action Group

Any questions please contact
Cait Jones: 0412 549 589

Thoughts on David Suzuki’s observation that Canada is FULL. Now is the opportune moment to say that on this issue, Dr. David Suzuki is right.
Suzuki has offered us a golden opportunity to resurrect a longstanding demand. We need to develop a Population Plan for this country. We need to start a conversation that would answer one critical question about Canada. "How many people do we want to live here?"

In any discussion about immigration, invariably there is one recurrent statement that never fails to grate. The oft-repeated line that "Canada is a nation of immigrants". It is a cliche that at once manages to be both untrue in the immediate sense and meaningless in its broader truth.

It is untrue because fully 79% of Canadians were born in this country. To say then that we are a nation of immigrants is like saying that the 401 is a highway of heavy trucks. Yes, there are many heavy trucks using
the 401, but the vast majority of vehicles travelling on that road are family cars. In truth, then, the only accurate observation one could make about the 401 is that it is a major conduit of motorized vehicle traffic. So what?

Ah yes, you say, but if we were born here, our parents, our grandparents or our great-grandparents were not. "So we are all immigrants". Well, that could be said of EVERY SINGLE NATION ON THE PLANET because ultimately all of humanity issued out of the Olduvai gorge. We are all then "Africans". So what is your point? That no nation has a right to determine who takes up residence in their country and how many? That unfettered migration is a divine right? That because we entered the elevator from the lobby therefore none of us have a moral right to close the door no matter how much weight is on board?

The ability to migrate, to move to areas of greater resource abundance is and has been a key fertility stimulant. Less densely populated areas offer the promise of raising larger families. The promise of greater prosperity. More material opportunities. That is what spurs migration.

But there comes a point when what Dave Foreman calls "superabundance" gives way to mere abundance and then finally to scarcity. That was the case with every continent in the world and in recent history it has been the case with North America and Australia. Yet despite this obvious transformation we---the grandchildren or great grandchildren of migrants---cling to an absurd and obsolete frontier mentality that is not appropriate to our actual predicament. That "immigrants built this country" may be a truism, but it is also true that a country can become
over-built, and that our current population level is far beyond the carrying capacity of the land to support it.

Such is the case with Canada, a large land mass with a deceptively small carrying capacity---like Antarctica.

Who will talk about fertility, immigration and global overpopulation? Who will point out that migration and global
overpopulation are intimately bound up together? And if there ever was a time to make that point, when would be better than now, after an environmental celebrity of Asian ancestry has stuck his neck out to say what the majority of Canadians are thinking? Are we going to let him hang out to dry? Are we by our silence going to feed the

McCarthyist ambition to squelch any national discussion on this issue?

Now is the opportune moment to say that on this issue, Dr. David Suzuki is right.

Suzuki has offered us a golden opportunity to resurrect a longstanding demand. We need to develop a Population Plan for this country. We need to start a conversation that would answer one critical question about Canada. "How many people do we want to live here?"

This article features videos of the four Victorian based candidates for the Stable Population Party - Jill Quirk, Clifford Hayes, Michael Bayliss, Steven Armstrong and Jonathan Page - not necessarily in that order. It is very interesting to see what the candidates have to say and how they present. Australians have a chance of making a crucial difference by voting for these candidates in the Senate and in the lower house for the next Federal Election. Candidates are also running in other states. Check this website for details: http://www.populationparty.org.au/templates/pop/page/page_html_standard.php?secID=210

The first video is of senate candidate Jill Quirk, who gives quite a rundown of Victoria's population problems. Many candobetter net readers will know of Jill. It is good to see that the Stable Population Party is running a woman with such experience in population matters. Jill has been particularly active in campaigning for a sustainable population over the last 10 years after a lifelong interest and concern for the environment especially our native fauna. She approaches this issue as a writer and artist as well as leading and educating on the issue within an environmental population organisation. She is convinced that for future survival not only of Australia’s wildlife but ultimately for its people, we must plan towards a stable population living within the severe environmental constraints of our land.

Clifford Hayes has more than five years experience as a councillor at Bayside City Council in Melbourne. He held the position of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Clifford was elected by the community on a platform of planning reform, opposing high rise over-development in Bayside (100,000 residents). Clifford also has significant experience in the film and television industry and farm management (viticulture). He enjoys swimming and the arts.

Michael Bayliss is running for Melbourne. Michael has post graduate degrees in both economics and sport science and has developed inclusive sports programs for people with disabilities in capital cities across Australia (was finalist in the WA support worker awards in 2012). He has also been an advocate and campaigner for disability inclusion, animal rights and sustainable town planning. Michael strongly believes that a stable population will help address Australia's housing crisis, environmental toll and infrastructure debt.

Steven Armstrong is an electronics contractor and a surfer. Steven became interested in the population issue 25 years ago when he was astounded to hear Bob Hawke urging us all on to 50 million. Having waited patiently for the major parties to come to their senses, Steven now realises this is not going to happen. In order to offer a democratic choice to the people of Melbourne Ports, and challenge 'big Australia' advocate Michael Danby MP, Steven has decided to act.

Jonathan Page is running for the seat of Lalor.
Jonathan has a professional background in science and a strong connection with the Australian environment, having spent much of his formative years bushwalking. He treasures the beauty of many other species on this planet and is pained when hearing about the next Australian species under threat due to land clearing or other human activity. Jonathan is also particularly concerned about the housing affordability crisis, which of course, is exacerbated by rapidly growing demand for a finite resource (habitable land in well serviced areas).

The last video is of NSW-based William Bourke, who is the leader of the party. I have featured this video in another article on candobetter.net. William gives a very clear idea of what the Stable Population Party is offering.

A better quality of life

SPPA calls for "A better quality of life" and articulates six reasons to vote for a stable population:

to Relieve overstretched infrastructure, incluidng hospitals, schools, roads and public transport;
to Ease cost of living pressures, including housing, energy, water and transport;
to Protect our environment, including food, water and energy resources, native bushland and animal habitats;
to Promote education and training to increase job opportunities for all Australians;
to Minimise overdevelopment, including high-rise and sprawl;
to Create a more resilient economy, to sustain and enhance prosperity.

The G21Geelong Region Plan – a ‘sustainable growth strategy’ has big plans for Geelong and environs. The areas covered by the plan are Colac, Golden Plains, Greater Geelong, Queenscliffe and Surf Coast.

Over the next 30 to 40 years the current population of 250,000 is expected to double to 500,000. What you can do

80,000 jobs are to be created.

20 homes to the hectare are planned for urban Geelong.

The existing Geelong Ring Road is to be extended to Portarlington on the Bellarine Peninsula.

The Midland Highway to Bannockburn is to be duplicated.

Areas of ‘significant growth’ are Central Geelong, Armstrong Creek, Ocean Grove, Drysdale, Clifton Springs, Leopold, Lara, Torquay, Jan Juc, Bannockburn, Colac and Winchelsea.

This plan was drawn up before the loss of major industries such as Ford, Shell, Blue Circle Cement, Target, layoffs at the Banks, etc.

We expect Geelong to connect to Torquay and most likely there will be a corridor of development between Geelong and Melbourne which is partly underway now.

If you travel around Geelong, there are huge developments everywhere including 2000 blocks in Highton, extensive new subdivisions on the Bellarine Peninsula and in Fyansford where a 1000 house development has been announced this week. I have also heard that Barwon Water can barely cope with the rapid and huge development.

The consequence of this development is traffic congestion, long hospital waiting lists, pollution, inadequate rail transport from Geelong to Melbourne.

Yvonne Campbell
Geelong

#WhatYouCanDo">What you can do:

Federal elections will occur in a matter of weeks from now. Ask of each candidate seeking your vote whether he/she is in favour of this planned devastation of the Geelong region and cast your vote accordingly. If he/she claims to oppose this plan, ask what he/she intends to do about it if elected. Be sure to tell others of his/her response. Please be sure to let us at candobetter know also.

Monash University's Dr. Bob Birrell of Monash University Centre for Population and Urban Research spoke at the Sustainable Population Australia AGM on July 20, 2013 to a conference center packed to standing room only. The speaker was retained for questions until long after the end of the talk. "It was chilling the way Dr Birrell calmly and factually revealed the deep globalised shit we are in. It just doesn’t make sense at all. If only the public understood what is being done to them and their children...not to mention our environment." Videos by Steven Armstrong.

The meeting yesterday was well summed-up by one of those present as a “rip snorter”. The room was filled to capacity with standing room only. The mean age of the audience was substantially reduced on previous AGMs, an indication of how the effects of overpopulation are hitting more and more people in the form of unavailable, unaffordable housing, massive power bills, congestion and stress at every level ... and unemployment.

One gentleman slapped a wad of 10x $10 notes on the table at the beginning of the branch meeting and people seemed keen to give money to help SPA.

"It was chilling the way Dr Birrell calmly and factually revealed the deep globalised shit we are in. It just doesn’t make sense at all. If only the public understood what is being done to them and their children. ..not to mention our environment." (A new SPA member).

The notes below were taken by a member of the audience and are an impressionistic paraphrase of some highlights of Birrell's speech. You will need to watch the videos of the speech for detailed quotes.

Bob Birrel in calm measured tones revealed the treachery of our governments to Australians especially workers.

The latest population increase was 370,000 people, representing a growth rate of 1.7%. This increase was made up of 210,000-215,000 permanent entry including humanitarian. It included temporary entry e.g. 457 visas and working holiday visas. About 30,000 people moved here from New Zealand (but not all were born there; many migrated there from elsewhere.) Natural increase (births over deaths) made up 150,000. That makes a huge excess of immigrants over native born, to the tune of 150,000: 270,000.

Snapshot - In December 2012 the ABS calculated that there were 1.1 million temporaries here. Most temporary visa holders have work rights. Visitors don't have work rights but many work anyway. This is all on top of the permanent entry people, numbering about 210,000- 215,000.

May 2012-13: 108,000 new arrivals added to labour market. Total employed persons only increased by 127,000.

Rate of workforce growth has declined sharply. During the mining boom it grew by 200,000 but this has halved- leading to an increase in unemployment.

Our Youth disadvantaged by immigration levels:

50-60,00 young people seek entry level jobs each year. Immigrants competing with them for these. There has also been a drop in workforce participation.

This is the CFMEU billboard Dr Birrell refers to: "In the 12 months to February 2013, Australian construction industry employment grew by only 1.1%, but the number of 457 visa holders employers had working in the industry actually increased by 25% to 14,080. Between December 2012 and March 2013, trades apprenticeship numbers dropped from 67.500 to 53.400."

Why is ALP not decreasing the migrant program when jobs are falling and unemployment is rising?

Labor elites now tend to see themselves as globalisers, harking back to the Hawke-Keating era of deregulation. By subjecting workers to enterprise bargaining and international migrant competition they are trying to overcome a bogey they perceive in "Protectionism".

Government has pushed the selection of migrants onto employers, failing to regulate to safeguard local job opportunities. The rules don't require the employer to test the local market. All this came to a head recently over the 457 visas. The CFMEU (mining and construction union) has led the ACTU in a comeback on behalf of workers (see picture of CFMEU Billboard: "More apprenticeships, fewer 457 visas.")

Globalisers In the 1980s the ALP opened the Australian economy to globalists- to “wake up” the sleeping economy. These policies overcame our protection heritage. 457s were good news for globalising forces. CFMEU (mining and construction) were very concerned. They saw 457s as breaking their control. Chris Bowen, the current Federal treasurer is not in favour of protecting local jobs and his book Hearts and minds is apparently very revealing of his preference for the globalist ideology.

457 Visas: Howard, Rudd and Doha 2000

The Howard government had given away our right to this Doha conference in 2000 in exchange for tariff concessions from other countries. Rudd confirmed this when he became prime minister.

There has been a split in ALP ranks over this- Craig Cameron and Kelvin Thomson are among those who support labour market testing.

Julia Gillard, last day of parliament passed protection for local workers against 457 visas

Julia Gillard said, just before she was removed, that Australians should be at the head of the (Job) queue- stated this publicly. One of the last things her government did was to subject the 457 visas to labor market testing. The new law has not yet been proclaimed, but went through on the very last day of parliament. The protections for workers are weak, but they are an improvement on the naked 457. They protect workers in trades but leave professions pretty unprotected.

Adam Creighton and Oliver Marc Hartwich
Centre for Independent Studies: 2011

The report is about local councils being at the coalface of population growth. Their ability to adequately provide basic infrastructure for more people will affect how Australians perceive the costs and benefits of population growth.

See also: Stop beating about the bush and talk about Big Australia in Sydney Morning Herald of 4 Aug 2010. Includes broadcast talk by Ross Gittins on Julia Gillard's election promise to reduce immigration

Australia's Angry Mayors: How Population Growth Frustrates Local Councils

Population growth affects a council’s budget. It usually results in extra revenue from charges and rates, but it also requires extra investment in infrastructure and increased spending on services. If we want to find out how local government is predisposed to dealing with population increases, we need to understand how extra revenue and extra costs play out in practice.

A report in the local Leader newspaper, Wednesday 17th July:
RATE RISES HIT HOME HARD

Homeowners will soon receive their council rates notices and the news won't be good.
No council across Melbourne has managed to hold its rates increases at the 2.5 percent inflation mark.
In contrast, several shires in regional Victoria say they will achieve a rates increase at or below inflation.
Across Melbourne, the hardest hit ratepayers are in Nillumbik. They will pay an extra 9.95%, an average rise of $210.
Budgets will also be stretched in Banyule, where rates will rise 7.95 per cent, or $110, and Casey rate are going up 7.5per cent, or $114.
Moreland is the best performer and has managed its lowest rise in a decade - 2.9 per cent, or $41. Others to get the tick of homeowners approval are Bayside and Glen Eira (both up 3.5 per cent) and Whitehorse at 3.9 per cent, or an average of $49.
Maroondah is to be commended for chopping its expected rise from 5.6 to 4.9 per cent, acknowledging that its residents were doing it tough.
As rates and household bill continue to to rise faster than inflation, councils must do more to explore hardships and relief programs.

Researchers conducted an online survey of all 558 local governments in Australia (mayors and chief executives). The survey comprised 18 questions. Four key findings emerged from the 120 valid responses (or 21.5% of the entire sample):

• Local governments have been raising property rates to meet the costs of population growth.
These rises are more likely in more populous and rapidly growing communities.

• Almost one-third of respondents, particularly larger councils, said population growth was damaging their bottom line, and that they were concerned about upgrading infrastructure.

•About 80% of respondents use developer levies to help pay for the costs of population growth.
Levies are used more widely by larger councils, and particularly in NSW and Queensland.

•Only a fraction of respondents thought their existing revenue mechanisms were wholly adequate. Indeed, more than half of the respondents in NSW and Queensland said the current setup was not satisfactory. Overwhelmingly, local councils think better access to ongoing revenue streams would alleviate some of the pressures of accommodating extra population.

Former US Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill once famously said, ‘all politics is local.’
No sector exemplifies this better than population growth. As population grows, people require new houses, schools, health services, roads, and waste management facilities. A growing population in Playford has to be addressed in Playford. If Queanbeyan needs a new school, there is no use building one in Mount Barker.

Alexis De Tocqueville, the great French liberal writer, observed with envious approval the success of local governments in New England in the United States when he toured there. He wrote in the 1830s:
The strength of free peoples resides in the local community. Local institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they put it within the people’s reach; they teach people to appreciate its peaceful enjoyment and accustom them to make use of it.

Council Rates

Local governments obtain much of their revenue from rates, a form of land tax levied on the unimproved value of land within the local government jurisdiction paid directly by landowners. About 80% of local government revenues come from rates, fines and user charges for use of local services. The easiest way for councils to collect taxes is to base them on land value.

Despite the economic boom in Western Australia and Wanneroo, the city does not generate enough revenue to build extra infrastructure for its growing population. Residents are already dealing with more traffic, loss of amenities, and crowding of public services—and yet they are being asked to pay for accommodating more people. The local council raised its rates by 6.9% in its 2010–11 budget.

Altogether, a majority of councils increased rates to deal with population growth. There were, however, some variations among states.

Unsurprisingly, the degree of population growth influenced the use of rate hikes. The stronger the population growth, the more likely rates were increased to cope with it. Larger councils were more likely to increase rates, while smaller councils were more reluctant.

Population growth’s bottom line effect

The financial effects of population growth on a council’s bottom line are ambiguous. Councils face higher costs associated with providing infrastructure and services for extra residents, but earn more revenue through increased rates and additional grants from state and federal governments.

More than half the survey respondents believed that population growth had a positive net effect on their council’s bottom line, citing the long-term benefits of population growth over the significant short- to medium-term funding shortfalls.

Smaller councils believed that the positive financial effect of population growth outweighed the costs of development. With bigger councils it was the reverse.

There is no perfect solution to the concerns that local governments have about their ability to finance the costs of population growth. Government, of whatever size, will always desire more funds. Council rate revenue, however, comes after new population, and is not sufficient to cover larger upfront capital costs that a surge of new residents requires. Moreover, rates may not increase very much if the new population is housed in higher density residential apartments
and rates are levied solely on the value of land.

Their results indicate that mayors and senior management of local governments believe financial constraints are impeding their ability to manage the inflow of people. Almost one-third of our survey respondents believe additional migration is a net cost to their budget.

As a result, councils are increasing their rates, penalising existing residents—hardly an inducement to embrace change—or using developer levies, which push the cost of new development wholly onto developers and potential residents.

Australia’s Angry Mayors: How Population Growth Frustrates Local Councils

This coming Saturday July 20th, 2.00 p.m. at the Annual General meeting of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch at the Balwyn Library meeting room, guest speaker, Dr. Bob Birrell of Monash University's, Centre for Population and Urban Research will address the facts and figures which explain "Why is immigration running at record high levels when unemployment is increasing?"

Dr. Birrell says:

"The Australian government is running a record high migration program. Recent arrivals are adding massively to Australia's workforce each year. About 100,000 have found employment in each of the past two years. This is about the same as the total annual growth in the employed workforce in Australia since 2011. As a result they are squeezing out resident workers from employment, particularly young people looking for entry level jobs. This is why the number of Australian born persons on unemployment benefits is increasing by around 50,000 a year.

"The most striking increase in the overseas born numbers is among those in Australia on temporary visas (including 457s, working holiday makers and students). The stock of these temporaries (most of whom have work rights) increased from 1.03 million in December 2010 to 1.13 million in December 2012."

President of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch, Jill Quirk says:

"Whilst Sustainable Population Australia evolved from concern about the environmental impacts of an ever growing population on the most arid and infertile inhabited continent, the organisation has a broader scope, aiming to contribute to public awareness of the limits of Australian population growth from ecological, social and economic viewpoints.

"Dr. Birrell's talk this Saturday will be of critical interest to all those who care not only about population impacts on the environment but also about the employment climate which confronts those not in secure employment, especially young people who have not yet had a chance to acquire much of a work history. We look forward very much to hearing Dr. Birrell's important talk and commend it especially to policy makers and journalists all of whom are welcome to attend."

Contact, for further information: Jill Quirk, President, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch,

0409742927

www.population.org.au

The agreement signed by the Australian Government and other Pacific Powers at the recent Trans Pacific Partnership, largely held in secret in Kuala Lumpur takes away from people in the Pacific, much of what democratic rights they previously had to make decisions on matters that what would effect their livelihoods and environment.

See also: Flush the TPP! -- Stop the Global Corporate Coup! at http://www.flushthetpp.org/; Marles vows not to cave to US pressure by Peter Martin in the Age of 15 July 2013; Public health at risk in trade talks by Deborah Gleeson and David Legge in the Age of 14 July 2013. Broadcasts of interviews embedded in this article.

from Global Research TV of 15 July 2013

Protestors: Stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership and incinerator for Baltimore’s Curtis Bay

from the Baltimore Post-Examiner of 16 July 2013

...

Activist Margaret Flowers shared her views with respect to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is a proposed free trade agreement. Flowers labeled it “a gift to the oil and gas industry.”

She added that the ex-U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, who negotiated the agreement in secret, said that if the people knew what was in it, “that it would never be able to be signed.” To learn more click at the Popular Resistance webpage.

Nick Davenport also shared his views with respect to the highly controversial Keystone XL Pipeline. He opposes it. If completed, it will carry “toxic tar sands from under Canada’s Boreal forest 2000 miles [south] to the Gulf of Mexico,” he says. Davenport is associated with the Baltimore Ecosocilalist Alliance. To learn more about the issue check out this webpage.

Japan Times warns how Trans Pacific Partnership threatens local farmers, fishermen, IP consumers ..

From an editorial of the Japan Times

Parties must clearly explain TPP

Jul 18 July 2013

Whether Japan should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade scheme is one of the main issues in the coming Upper House election. If Japan becomes a member of the TPP, it will greatly impact agriculture and other industries, and people’s lives. Deplorably, political parties are talking about the TPP only in the general terms of whether they support or oppose it. They should present the TPP’s merits and demerits in a clear-cut and detailed manner so that voters can be fully informed before passing judgment on it.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced in March that Japan will start a procedure to take part in negotiations for the TPP. But both the Liberal Democratic Party and its junior partner Komeito have neglected to show how the TPP will help promote Japan’s national interests.

The opposition forces are divided over the issue. ... the DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) does not clearly say whether it supports or opposes the TPP. The Japan Communist Party, the People’s Life Party, the Social Democratic Party and the Green Wind oppose the TPP mainly because they think it will destroy Japan’s agriculture and local economies.

Many parties call for exempting tariffs on rice, wheat, pork and beef, dairy products and sugar from abolition, the principle tenet of the TPP. But they also should emphasize the importance of food security as well as the noneconomic values of Japanese agriculture, such as its role in protecting the environment as well as preserving traditional cultures and ways of living.

Political parties also should pay attention to the fact the TPP scheme covers trade rules in 21 fields including intellectual property, government procurement and the environment. Japan should not forget that the United States has a clear strategy on how to expand its interests in the finance and insurance sectors in the Japanese economy through the TPP arrangement Political parties should specifically address fears that the TPP may undermine Japan’s public health insurance system.

There is a possibility that environment-related rules may ban Japan from providing subsidies to help reconstruct devastated fishing ports in the Tohoku region and that government procurement-related rules may force Japan to allow overseas firms greater access to its market for public works projects.

It is odd that political parties talk very little about the TPP’s investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which could enable global business enterprises to supersede decisions taken by Japanese central and local governments regarding environmental protection and social policy.

Political parties should make it clear to people that the TPP is not just a traditional free trade agreement but could very well topple Japanese business practices and social policy arrangements that they have long taken for granted.

This article Oz Population Growth Lunacy is a nice example of the scrambled head-space of some journalists. Yes, Monica Attard (ex ABC, now working for the Hoopla website) can see David Attenborough's point that population growth can't go on for ever,and she can even see that "It’s hard to fathom how governments (all levels of them) can act fast and smart enough to ease the congestion we are seeing in the major cities across Australia, the spiraling cost of housing and an environment which looks stressed."

Yet if a government-appointed committee says it's all right then it must be. She can then go back to suggesting it's just as well not to think too much about these things because that might lead to encouraging people who . . .well . . . think too much about them. Or are "anti-immigration" ---a term which she seems to equate both with anti-very-high-immigration and with anti-immigrant.

I did learn one thing from this piece of hers (of May 28th) that has just come to my notice. It seems that one of the initiatives of the now half-forgotten Ministry for Sustainable Population (headed by Tony Burke, who never even met with anyone from Sustainable Population Australia, and whose Sustainability portfolio vanished under Rudd) was to set up last October a "National Sustainability Council" (whose members Burke chose). This Council, it seems, has put out a report that has been so largely ignored that till now I never heard about it. (However you can find a summary of it here. It's pretty anodyne.)

Yet it seems the Report contained all the re-assuring and distracting noises that Monica needed to calm her disquiet on this issue. As she reports: "Though the Sustainable Australia report itself steers well clear of taking a position on what’s best – big population or small population – it does give us a glimpse of what it might be thinking. One point it makes clearly is that there seems little point in setting population targets because there are too many factors which are always in a state of flux – like fertility rates, longevity and emigration, all of which are unpredictable".

Monica swallows this cop-out. Then, throwing in some caricature of her own, assures her readers that "Someone should tell Sir David, Australia is thinking about these issues. Specialists and bureaucrats are working on how to deal with what lies ahead without having to resort to a Chinese style one-child policy!"

She also claims that, "Migrants not only contribute to higher levels of productivity and to labour force participation and growth." [For a simple refutation of this PR stuff, see “More bills than skills from this migration”, The National Times, 19 July 2011. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/more-bills-than-skills-from-this-migration-20110718-1hlgk.html ] Attard continues: "According to the Sustainable Australia report: “Migrants have also increasingly been contributing to growth and development in regional Australia. One in every six new permanent arrivals is now settling in a regional area.”
[ -- but not, it seems, necessarily staying there.]

She also meekly accepts the Tony Bourke line that it's not a matter of how many people we have but of where and how we put them. "As the report emphasizes, population change isn’t only about how many people Australia ends up housing at any particular point in time."

Oddly enough she doesn't accept the common line that we need a bigger population to stop our labour force aging, but somehow manages to twist the opposite view into yet another argument for population growth:

"But on the upside, being so healthy means “the proportion of working aged citizens is high compared to the number of non-working-aged people, resulting in high rates of productivity and economic growth” according to Sustainable Australia: a tick for the economy and the flow through effects which could make us better at getting bigger."

Heads I win, tails you lose! And by the end she has come round to the common innumerate belief that good management will enable Australia to take in the populations that the rest of the world can't accommodate, without any fall in our quality of life -- or presumably any important damage to the natural or the urban environments:

"Sir David Attenborough might think the debate isn’t worth having. But with such a large expanse of land and so many people the world over searching desperately for a new chance at the good life, it’s over to government to figure out how to make it work so we all get to live – sustainably – in the manner to which we have become accustomed."

So now it's David Attenborough, not Monica and not the government, that is refusing to think about population. Perhaps Monica failed to check who selected these experts [in fact a mixed group, who as Tony Burke well knew would produce a rather mixed message, which would leave the government free to do pretty much as it wished] and why their conclusions were so different from those of the Productivity Commission, or the Immigration Department's "Redbook" advice (which told incoming PM Gillard that there was no real prospect of preventing immigrants settling overwhelmingly in the already crowded capital cities).

This article was written by Mark O'Connor, who is running as a candidate for the Stable Population Party in the A.C.T. in the Federal Election. More information here.

On 9th July, 2013 Australia lost a great man. Pat O'Brien has been championing the cause for kangaroos and Australian native animals for 41 years. He started the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia, comprising 31 groups that campaign actively to protect wildlife, especially kangaroos. His patrons were Steve Irwin's family, who own Australia Zoo on the Sunshine Coast. He will be sadly missed.

How Pat Went from Butcher to Activist

It all started in 1972 at Condobolin, N.S.W., when he saw kangaroos herded together, shot and clubbed to death. Until that moment, he had been 'normal.' He was a meatworker, working his way around Australia with his wife and three kids, but the sight of kangaroos being slaughtered, caused him to spend the rest of his life fighting for animals and the environment. Read more here.

Photo of Pat in September, 2001 - by Teresa Buss-Carden

The Human Shield Concept

How well I remember reading headlines back in 2008 around the time of the infamous Belconnen massacre when Pat threatened that he and others would become a human shield for the kangaroos if necessary. In recent years that is exactly the strategy employed to try and stop these horrific blood baths of our national icon with a high level of success because when activists go into an area where shooting is occurring, police are notified and the shooters have to stop shooting or risk committing manslaughter.

He was famous for saying that the reason why the kangaroo industry has never been able to meet their quota is because they can't find them and that the counting methods used to estimate populations was dodgy.

Legal Challenge to the Kangaroo Management Plan

In 2008 he challenged the Federal Minister's decision to approve the 2007-2012 Kangaroo Management Plan, having amassed a a formidable legal team including expert witnesses. However the Adminisrative Appeals Tribunal approved the Plan and he lost the case, in spite of all odds showing he should have won based on the precautionary approach. Read more here.

Videotaped Interviews

Sheila Newman made a number of films interviewing this man (thank you Sheila!) which can be viewed below. It is self-evident what a truly humble spirited man Pat was, how passionate he was in his quest to protect kangaroos. Not only that but he was extremely knowledgeable about kangaroos, having broken the ground for Australia to wake up to the dire consequences of the kangaroo industry.

1. Kangaroos versus man

2. Kangaroo Meatworks

3. Sydney 2008 Crucial Wildlife Protection Case

4. Kangaroo Industry History and Official Story

5. Lay Reports on Kangaroo Numbers

6. Law (EPBC), Policy and the System

7. How Steve Irwin Chose Pat O'Brien's Kangaroo Work

Without Sheila's investigative journalism and video-making we would have little online record of this great man. Even google has no images of him. Left is Pat with Teresa Buss-Carden, Tadpolka her dog and Katherine.

Radio Interview

Below is a radio Interview on kangaroos of Pat O'Brien, Co-ordinator for the National Kangaroo Protection Coalition and President of the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia by Lea Budge, 101fm, dated 20th August, 2008. Click to listen to Part 1 and Part 2.

Personal Experiences with Pat by Dror Ben Ami

"Losing Pat is a tragic loss for humans and animals alike. My acquaintance with Pat is purely professional, but I was touched by his determination to help kangaroos. As an aspiring wildlife biologist, specialising in wallabies and kangaroos, I was well entrenched in the existing academic dogma that the kangaroo industry was a good thing. Reading about Pat's work (and a few others) opened my eyes to the unspeakable suffering caused by this industry and the myths propagated to support it. Over the years Pat became a valuable source of information for my academic work. Moreover, his dogged determination to protect the animals he loved so dearly was an inspiration. I know that even while suffering from the ills of cancer Pat still went out bush in the searing heat of summer to collect information for his beloved kangaroos. This lesson about love, doing what's right, and persisting will remain with me."

Dr Dror Ben-Ami, Ecologist
Co-founder & Research Associate: THINK Wildlife, the centre for compassionate conservation (http://thinkwildlife.uts.edu.au)
Investment Associate: Sherman Group Ltd, 2 Paddington St, Paddington NSW 2021.

Personal Experiences with Pat by Marie-Louise Sarjeant

"I met Pat at the Earthrace Rally in Brisbane in Feb 2012, where we were all demonstrating for our endangered wild life. I was particularly thrilled to meet him as I had admired his work for along time.

"My impression was of a gentleman who had a steely passion for his kangaroos. It was a real pleasure to have the chance to catch up with him in person - and I would add a truly decent person.

"He was always very supportive not only for his kangaroos but for the dingoes I am fighting for. I have sent out and used over and over again his well written "History of Fraser Island" as it is concisely written giving probably the best concise back ground of the Fraser Island story. Read here.

"Left is a picture of him at the Rally with the speaker Colin Riddell, the rally was organised by Alan Winstanley of Earthrace."

Kind wishes
Marie

My Personal Experiences with Pat

My experience is that I met him very briefly 2 years ago at an Animal Liberation conference on the Gold Coast as he was rushing to catch a plane. It was a very warm and big-hearted man that shook my hand and his sincere caring radiated through his hands and eyes. Subsequently he wrote an endorsement for my children's book ‘Arktel, the Planet Only Children Could Save’ which can be read here (scroll down 3/4rds of the page).

He also made a valued comment on my blog
here (at the end).
"Thats a very good speech Menkit, Im sorry you were not allowed to present it. The attitude that exists in many conservation groups is that we have to go softly, softly, or we upset people. So what? Let's upset them!

"We dont have time to pussyfoot around, we are on a very limited time span, to being able to continue to exist on this Planet. Forget the so-called conservation groups, I urge you to put your considerable talents elsewhere where they will do more good. Cheers, Pat"

Below is a photo of him with a kangaroo rehabilitated by Anne-Marie Dineen.

I invite you all to send me your stories to upload on this blog or simply type in your comment below.

Closing Thoughts

How ironic that he died on the eve of a Canberra Tribunal giving the green light to yet another kangaroo massacre of 1244 kangaroos in 7 Nature Reserves, rubber stamped by Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury - read here.

He died at age 71 of cancer. Kangaroo activists around the world are devastated by the passing of this great man who made a qualitative difference for our maligned and vilified kangaroos.

The battle goes on - it must go on. Perhaps he can help us even more on the other side? I feel his spirit shining down on us and within us, the ones who have vowed to protect kangaroos to the end, as he has done.

Bless you Pat and thank you for all you have done!

Government Growth Policy is not working – an example of one Growth Area municipality struggling under the financial burden of infinite population growth. Other growth corridors are also in stress.

Cardinia Shire is a largely rural municipality about 60 km from Melbourne. A government designated corridor of population growth and housing construction has been absorbing rapid population increase since 2003. The population is predicted to double over the next 10 years. Current Council records indicate that five families per day are moving into the corridor.

The council’s annual budget document and four year plan states that its greatest challenge is “managing population growth”. More administrative staff are required so the Council must move to expensive new premises in Officer. Increased financial responsibility has been placed on local government but despite an ongoing debt level of almost $50 million and increasing the annual rates each year over the past 10 years, there is still a major lack of infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the continuous high population growth coming into the growth corridor of the municipality. The infrastructure shortfall includes public transport, roads and schools for which State government is responsible. Ratepayers are virtually being taxed via Council rates, and a further increase to 6.8% this year will be a financial burden for a lot of property owners.

Huge residential and commercial development is impacting on former good quality agricultural land, sensitive environmental landscapes and waterways.

Traffic congestion is increasing, particularly on local roads not built to cope with the current volume flowing off the freeway. During morning and evening peak times traffic is at gridlock.

There is growing evidence of social disadvantage, a local welfare support agency is dealing with constant requests for assistance with food supplies, financial counselling etc. There has been an increase in antisocial behaviour, graffiti, and more serious instances of assault, burglaries and trades area break-ins. Local police are at their limit keeping up with the level of crime.

If this is the end result of government policies of high population economic growth and increased productivity, where are the supposed benefits? This is just one example of a growth area in one State of Australia. How many others are encountering similar problems?

Encouraging people to move out to Melbourne’s fringe areas, creating car dependent and socially disadvantaged communities where there is inadequate local employment and insufficient infrastructure is just not working.

Australian people urgently need a referendum on the need to limit the annual population intake via immigration, rather than on the merits of including local government in the Australian Constitution. Let’s get the priorities right. G. Terria (Fugitive from the Growth Corridor)/em>

Editorial comment: G. Terria, your suggestion that we need to hold an annual referendum is excellent. Elections such as the forthcoming Federal elections can be used as a referendum of sorts. You can vote for candidates opposed to population growth . Two such candidates are Jill Quirk and William Bourke, who are standing for the Stable Population Party in the Senate n Victoria. You could distribute your Senate preferences according to how other candidates measure up on population and other issues of concern. Ask all candidates standing for your Lower House seat what are his/her policy towards population and immigration and vote and allocate your preferences accordingly.

Update, 12 July 2013: The Stalking of Julia Gillard by Kerry-Anne Walsh published by Allen and Unwin has already been reprinted 3 times, such is its public reception! Kindle edition (AU$9.99) also available. See also comment of 30 June by Barry Tucker of the Truth in Media Resource Centre.

Julia Gillard, almost uniquely amongst leaders of either the Labor or Coalition parties, tried to make it possible for the voting public to properly hold to account all candidates contesting the forthcoming Federal elections. That is why the ruling elites, its newsmedia and its glove puppets in the Federal Parliamentary Labor caucus felt threatened by her and removed her from office. (Article was originally published on 28 June 2013.)

See also: PM of great value discarded of 5 July 2013 - comment in response to poem Julia Gillard through the mass media looking-glass by brolga-brolga, Kevin Rudd's Press Club speech: full transcript of 12 July 2013 by PostGrowthEra.

Update, 5 July: Victorian Women's Trust condemns sexist treatment of former PM by mass media.

Early announcement of election date to enable thorough scrutiny of candidates by voters

Reports of 30 January 2013 of Prime Minister Julia Gillard announcing the election date a full eight and a half months in advance, provide a clue for the motives for the recent coup against her.

Julia Gillard's statements announcing the election so far in advance show, that, almost uniquely amongst leaders from all the major parties in recent decades, Julia Gillard was motivated by a sincere wish to allow proper informed discussion of the policies on offer by the different candidates contesting the federal elections.

The Guardian reported in the article Julia Gillard: Australian election will be held on 14 September of 30 January 2013:

Gillard said the election date allowed for the year to be one "not of fevered campaigning but of cool and reasoned deliberation". She said no surprises about the election date should mean "no excuses", a clear barb at the conservative opposition leader, Tony Abbott, whom she has criticised as announcing "platitudes not policies" and giving few costings for his promises.

"Australians are not interested in campaigns without content, [in] platitudes devoid of purpose," she said.

Gillard said she had made the announcement to allow all parties to have the chance to properly cost their policies.

The Australian article Julia Gillard sets September 14 election date of the same date reported:

Ms Gillard said Australians weren't interested in campaigns without content, or platitudes devoid of purpose.

"There is now clearly the time and certainty necessary for the people and parties contesting the election to lay out their fully detailed, costed plans for the timely consideration of voters," she added.

Further along, the Prime Minister expanded upon her reasons:

Ms Gillard said by announcing the date so far in advance, the opposition no longer had an excuse not to provide detailed costings ahead of the poll.

"They have two things that an opposition has never had before to enable them to do that," she said.

"One, they've got the benefit of a fixed election date now with several months notice.

"Two, because of what we've done with the Parliamentary Budget Office they've got more resources available to them than an opposition has ever had before in the history of the nation to produce proper costings."

Gillard's announcement was welcomed by Federal independent Parliamentarians Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeschott, independent Senator Nick Xenophon and the ABC election analyst Antony Green.

Three year fixed term parliaments would remove unfair electoral advantage to incumbents

The Australian Greens leader Senator Christine Milne also welcomed the announcement and called upon the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, to agree henceforth to have fixed three-year terms. Christine continued:

"Wouldn't that be a great thing for the Australian people so we didn't have all the game playing that has gone on in the past?"

Senator Milne was alluding to the established practice of the ruling party in the Federal Parliament using its incumbency to gain unfair advantage over its opponents by being able to suddenly announce election campaigns at a time that gives it the greatest advantage.

As an example, former Prime Minister John Howard was only able to win the election of 1998, thereby gaining what he claimed to be a mandate to subsequently implement his "never ever" Goods and Services Tax (GST) by abusing his position of incumbency. He did this by announcing a phony inquiry into "tax reform". The inquiry was really a vehicle to push his GST into Parliament as Liberal Parliamentarian Paul Zammitt, who resigned from the inquiry committee, complained.

As Howard had planned, the "inquiry" recommended adoption of the GST. He Immediately called an election before Parliament could scrutinise the report and just scraped back into power with a bare majority in the House of Representatives and only a minority in the Senate, having lost the poplar vote 51% to 49%._#fn1">1

John Howard's subsequent election victories of 2001 and 2004 were also helped by his further abuse of incumbency in setting the election date.

Had there been fixed term elections, John Howard almost certainly would have been voted out after his first term.

Julia Gillard has shown, by her actions, integrity not shown by Labor leaders, with the possible exception of Mark Latham, since Gough Whitlam and like-minded people lost control of the Federal Labor Party in the late 1970's.

The Age newspaper's editorial of last Saturday 22 July claimed that only by removing Julia Gillard would a more thorough debate of policy occur - as if the Age did not already have sufficient profile to make that happen should it have wished to do so.

Another justification given by the Labor Caucus and the Age newspaper is that the opinion polls showed that Labor could only win if the former failed Prime minister Kevin Rudd was leader. If this were the case then it is surely evidence that the public has been misinformed by the newsmedia.

Much, but not quite all, of what Julia Gillard gave the Australian public has been lost. There may still be time, for those with access to the Internet, to scrutinise and hold to account candidates from the major parties and minor parties and independent candidates. However, if Kevin Rudd were to give in to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's demands to hold the election earlier than 14 September, that would be much harder to achieve.

Examples of reporting, misreporting and arm-twisting in the Australian newsmedia

Kevin Rudd produces fresh uncertainty over federal election date in Question Time, Abbott wants Rudd to name election date of 27 June, Kevin Rudd produces fresh uncertainty over federal election date in Question Time of 27 June

#update_5jul13" id="update_5jul13">Update, 5 July: Victorian Women's Trust condemns sexist treatment of former PM by mass media.

The ABC reported: A women's rights group has accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of treachery for his treatment of predecessor Julia Gillard.

The Victorian Women's Trust has placed full-page advertisements in four Australian newspapers praising Ms Gillard's achievements and slamming both Labor and the Liberal parties for their actions over the past three years.

...

The statement says Mr Rudd orchestrated a treacherous "seek-and-destroy" mission against Ms Gillard, while Tony Abbott made opportunistic appeals to people's prejudices.

The trust's Mary Crooks [said]:

"We just want to put on the public record early in the piece the fact that this was a successful minority government, led by her (Gillard)," Ms Crooks said.

...

The advertisement also accuses seasoned reporters of becoming players in an aggressive campaign of sexist and chauvinistic abuse.

Ms Crooks says the mainstream media failed to engage in dispassionate reporting.

"I think there's been a hostile media, by and large, over the last three years, which I also argue has given licence to a lot of people across the community to speak very destructively and disrespectfully towards Julia Gillard and the minority government," she said.

The trust says the seams of contempt and sexism should be cause for reflection on what is needed to restore respect and "a fair go" for women.

...

Footnote[s]

#fn1" id="fn1">1. #fntxt1">↑ However, as a result of backsliding by a number of Australian Democrats Senators, who could have helped Labor block the GST legislation as most of the Australian public and most rank-and-file Australian Democrats party members wanted, John Howard was able to get his "never ever" GST legislation approved by the Senate and thereby made law.

ACT Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury approved the massacre of 1455 kangaroos, thereby proving Greens' policy to 'protect native wildlife' a sham! The usual spiel 'The Minister does not take the decision lightly' is a pathetic excuse for not trialling non-lethal methods!

In June 2013, Greens Minister Rattenbury approved the massacre of 1,455 adult kangaroos (excluding pouch young) in Canberra's so-called Nature Reserves. However since then two protest groups - Animal Liberation ACT and the Australian Society for Kangaroos - launched urgent legal action to stay the seven cull licenses in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. They wanted the culls delayed by the tribunal until a full review of the government's decision occurred, and said they would be at a significant disadvantage if a stay was not granted. Unfortunately, the protest groups lost and a total of 1244 kangaroos were approved to be massacred in seven Nature Reserve Parks.

Greens Hypocritical

What kind of political party would have a policy to 'protect native wildlife' and 'ensure that animals' rights and welfare are respected' then go ahead and authorise a bloody massacre of native animals?

Cruelty in Kangaroo 'Culls'

And it gets worse. For every adult female there is one in-pouch joey and one at foot joey, both dependent on her for 18 months. When she is shot, the pouch young is yanked from her pouch and bashed to death while fully conscious without anesthesia. The at-foot joey will hop away only to die of hunger, predation, hypothermia and a broken heart. In view of how pouch young are despatched, how can the Greens justify this when their policy clearly says 'humans have a duty of care to minimise physical and psychological suffering of animals resulting from human activity'? Where are the strong animal welfare standards when it comes to kangaroo killing? Non-existent obviously.

(photo: Braidwood Wildlife Hospital)

Daniel Iglesius claims that the two professional shooters doing the 'culling'
had an exceptional strike rate of more than 99 per cent for hitting their target the first time. It's extremely unlikely that these shooters would get such a high rate of head shots considering they are shooting at night at moving targets. In fact the RSPCA claims that at least 40% only are not head shots, meaning their face gets blown off and they are still alive or they are body shot and still hop away.

If anyone killed a puppy or kitten like this it would be an offence. Our kangaroo killing is every bit as bad as Canada’s seal hunt. Shame on Australia!

Pseudo-science used to justify brutality

There is currently no evidence of overgrazing, soil loss or threats to other species, but ACT bureaucrats want to spend taxpayers’ money to ‘cull’ in case next year kangaroos breed up.

Where’s the science backing up their claims that:

• kangaroos overgraze
• cause soil loss
• threaten other species
• populations have exploded?

There isn’t any! It all looks very clinical, official and correct. We need to see through this veneer of ‘correctness’ to the cold-hearted brutality masked by pseudo-science.

Non-lethal Solutions

If you believe the 'science' that kangaroos are overpopulated in these reserves (unproved) and if you believe their population estimates (always hyper-inflated) and if you believe kangaroos are impacting other species (also unproved) in spite of millions of years of living in harmony with other species, then where are the wildlife corridors for them to move on? Why have the Greens not even considered the need for these in view of their policy to protect native wildlife?

Relocation is a viable option that is actually cheaper than shooting and many local and experienced wildlife carers would happily assist, however, the Greens appear to not even consider such an option. When I called Rattenbury's office last month I was told that relocation was not an option because of the high number of deaths. Even if that were true, why do they prefer 100% deaths to a lesser number of deaths? As it turns out Professor Steve Garlick and his wife Rosemary Garlick presented a paper in Adelaide showing 0% deaths in their relocation of 700 kangaroos over the years. Why aren't they being consulted by the Greens?

Letter by Macropod Author and Lecturer to Minister Rattenbury dated 9th June 2013

ACT Minister Environment- Simon Corbell MLA
ACT Chief Minister- Katy Gallagher
ACT Legislative Assembly- Shane Rattenbury

Ministers,
I am appalled at the recent announcement (at the last hour) from the Government to kill healthy Eastern grey kangaroos in Canberra national parks. This is NOT a cull, since these are healthy animals!

This is the most underhanded and disgustingly corrupt display of authoritarianism, which seems typical of the way in which this Government works, without any consideration or input from the people who elected them. If this planned slaughter of healthy animals was based on scientific evidence, why isn't this evidence published for public comment?

How is it that healthy, native animals can be slaughtered without any statistics of the numbers of kangaroos present in the Canberra Parks which covers approximately 50 square kilometres?

WHO has carried out a count of these animals? Why hasn't the numbers of kangaroos been published for the public to see?

Last year Mr. Iglesias stated that that, "kangaroos have evolved the ability to quickly take advantage of good conditions"? Kangaroos cannot change their breeding cycle, which remains the same whether conditions are good or bad. Eastern greys have a gestation period of 36 days, it takes 18 months to 2 years for a joey to wean from its mother, reaching sexual maturity between 24 and 36 months; NOTHING can change the physiological development of a kangaroo.

What excuse is being used this year?

Are the authorities aware that kangaroos are an extremely vital aspect of their eco-system, providing all these benefits for mankind? Kangaroos provide a natural fertilization of soil via their faeces. Kangaroo dung promotes nature's soil purifiers, the dung beetles. Dung beetles bury and consume dung, improving nutrient recycling and soil structure. The uptake of nitrogen, phosphorous and sulphur in plants was over 80% greater in soils where dung beetles were active compared to those where they were not. Tunneling dung beetles also assist root penetration and improve water infiltration to the soil, thereby reducing run-off.

Kangaroos provide dispersal of grass seeds to ensure the environment remains in a healthy state. They provide a natural fire prevention by keeping grasses short and preventing understorey kindle that dry out and feed catastrophic bush fires.

I wonder does Mr. Iglesias know that a healthy mob of Grey kangaroos should consist of up to or more than 300 animals? To state that there are 'too many' is comparable to standing on the great plains of Africa and stating that the herds of herbivores on their annual move to greener pastures is a 'plague!

What authorities are obviously not aware of is that Grey kangaroos are the most social of the macropod species and when one of their mob is killed, the effect on an individual can also lead to death, since their bond is so strong. They are only as strong as the number in their mob, the smaller the mob, the less strength of the individuals. The out-of-pouch joeys usually take off in fright when their mother is shot, only to die a very slow and painful death due to starvation and the psychological deprivation of being apart from its maternal mother.

Kangaroos have lived in the Australian ecology for 50 million years and are quite capable of stabilizing their own numbers without any interference from us.

Canberra is emulating a red-neck society, with absolutely NO understanding of the ecology of the natural environment, nor the animals that exist in its diversity.

If your offices intend to send me the standard reply relating to the killing of healthy kangaroos, don't bother. For once in your entire political and business related lives, could you please answer the above questions.

Lynda Staker
Author and lecturer of macropod husbandry and disease.
Queensland

Kangaroos provide ecosystem services

While the ACT is quick to blame kangaroos for environmental problems, they forget that it is humans who create the most devastation to the environment (construction, deforestation, roads, livestock farming, barbed wire fences, chemical sprays).

Kangaroos, on the other hand, benefit the ecosystem in many ways (as described in the above letter from Lynda Staker). Therefore, the more kangaroos, the healthier the ecosystem!

Conversely, the more humans the more unhealthy the ecosystem since humans provide no ecosystem services.

Who to Vote for at the next Federal Election

The Greens have shown their true colours as a hypocritical party not worthy of trust. Luckily for wildlife lovers there is a better choice this September - the Animal Justice Party. AJP will keep their word to protect wildlife. See http://www.animaljusticeparty.org.au .

Kangaroo killing is animal brutality at its worst. The Greens have never really taken an interest in animals. They didn’t even attend the last protest meeting in Canberra on the live trade where AJP President Steve Garlick was the only political party speaker.

Shame on the Greens!

Annual kangaroo cull draws fire of 6 June 2013 in the CanberraTimes
Battle of the experts at roo cull hearing of 10 July 2013 in the CanberraTimes

World Population Day, July 11th is a day to reflect on the population numbers the world will be dealing with 100 years from now. World human population has climbed from just over 2 and half billion in 1950 to over 7 billion today. The human population reached its first 1 billion in 1804 and it took only 123 years to add another 1 billion. Earth is now adding each additional billion in intervals of less than 20 years. The world's population is expected to peak around the middle of this century at 9-10 billion.

While this immense growth has occurred, the populations of other species, not part of human food production have diminished, progressively unraveling Earth's "web of life" and undermining our bio-diverse support system. It is estimated that more than a third of the Earth's biomass is now tied up in only the few species that represent humans, including livestock and crops. Despite this, nearly 1 billion people live with constant hunger and many more are malnourished.

Since the 1970s, humanity has been in ecological overshoot with annual demand on renewable resources exceeding Earth's capacity to regenerate. An illustration of the worsening situation is that in 1992, Earth Overshoot Day (the approximate date our resource consumption for a given year exceeds the planet's ability to replenish) fell on October 21. In 2012, it was on August 22nd. What date will it be in 2013?

"The State of Victoria has nothing to be complacent about, either with its rate of population growth, nor its environmental sustainability", says Jill Quirk, President of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch. "Victoria's population growth rate of 1.8 % in the year to December 2012 translates to almost 100,000 more people. This high population growth has placed ongoing stress on vital services and infrastructure such as ambulance, hospital, education, housing, roads and public transport. High population growth underlies the state government's successive re-jigging of planning to accommodate growth, to the detriment of its citizens."

"The most devastating pressure of all, however is that placed on the environment by ever increasing human activity. The 2008 Victorian State of the Environment Report enunciated that population growth and human activity has ongoing detrimental effects on coastal areas, river systems, estuaries, soils and biodiversity. It is clear from this, that Victoria has reached the limit of its capacity to support human population without further destruction of the environment." says Ms Quirk.

More than half of Victoria's population growth is invited by Federal and State governments -- (see Live in Victoria at http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/) but it is not the hungry people of the world who are being targeted in the State Government's advertisements for more population.

"The Victorian government should focus on catering for the state's unavoidable, home grown additional population for the next few decades (due to the number of women in their reproductive years,) and a share of refugees. It should alert the Federal Government to the peril in which runaway population growth places present and future Victorians." said Ms Quirk.

Contact: Jill Quirk, 0409742927

(President, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch)

vic [ AT ] population.org.au

www.population.org.au

That the war in Syria is no more than an attempt by the United States, Israel, the Arab dictatorships including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and their European allies to conquer and subjugate the Syrian people has even been acknowleged by NATO, which in June admitted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad enjoys the support of 70% of the Syrian people.

In the embedded interview Oksana Boyko and her guest Ammar Waqqaf presume that their viewing audience do not need to be convinced of this. The interview, instead, focuses on how Syria, led by President Bashar al-Assad, after the crushing of his terrorist enemies, will relate to the rulers of the surrounding countries all led by sworn enemies of Bashar al-Assad, who have staked their reputations on ousting him. This discussion between two people, who are not even native English speakers, is the most informative and insightful I can recall ever having seen.

Also included: FSA Place Food Embargo on West Aleppo - Interview with an Aleppo resident by the Syrian Girl.

Editorial content: The only long term solution that could hope to bring stability and prosperity to the entire region would have to be a reverse of the "regime change" that the surrounding dictatorships are attempting to impose upon Syria, that is, "regime change" by popular revolt from below.

FSA Place Food Embargo on West Aleppo - Interview with an Aleppo resident

#AleppoFoodEmbargo">

Syrian mother giving food to Syrian soldier at checkpoint

Media reports yesterday that the government has received two 'confidential' reports that link channel deepening to coastal erosion in the south of Port Phillip Bay and the loss of Portsea front beach are no surprise to locals or others who have been watching the changes in the south of the Bay since the channel deepening project ended, Sue Pennicuik, Greens MP for Southern Metropolitan Region said today.

Read more: Beach loss linked to dredging -- Reports say wave surges hit Portsea. by Cameron Houston in the Age of 7 July 2013.

"Why are these reports confidential?" Ms Pennicuik asked. "Information about the state of Port Phillip Bay belongs to the public, not to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) or to the Port of Melbourne," she said.

The Port has refused to release the full range of data it has collected on the changed bathymetry in the Bay since channel deepening.

"I have asked for this information through the parliament and through Freedom of Information (FOI) and have not been given access to the range of meaningful data that would allow the parliament and the public to see just what has happened and is happening in the Bay and how much more water is entering and leaving on each tide.

"The Port has repeatedly denied that the loss of Portsea Beach is the result of channel deepening, when all the signs that people have been observing for nearly four years point to that clearly being the case. Now, one of the confidential studies is confirming that the 'size and velocity of waves reflected towards Portsea front beach appear to have increased.

"The research also found that wave energy had been redistributed along the Mornington Peninsula following the completion of the project, which is also no surprise to those of us who have seen for ourselves the 'larger and more powerful swells at the southern end of the peninsula' over the past four years,” Ms Pennicuik said.

"However, evidence that channel deepening has enabled any larger ships to enter Port Phillip Bay is and always has been opaque and dubious.

"Many scientists warned that allowing significantly larger volumes of water into the Bay though the Heads could lead to just the sort of outcomes we are seeing, but were dismissed and derided at the time.

"What is most galling is that the decision makers who ignored these warnings have escaped any responsibility for the damage done in the south of the Bay, which is likely to be irreversible and ongoing.

"Meanwhile, the DEPI stands by its position that there are no issues from channel deepening in relation to erosion at Portsea.

"This official denial has to end. Port Phillip Bay is public property and an ecological system.

"The government and Port of Melbourne should release all the data and information it has, and continues to collect, on the changes to the Bay," Ms Pennicuik concluded.

For further comment: Sue Pennicuik --03 9530 8399

The President of the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program (NDPRP), Jennifer Parkhurst, labelled the Queensland government’s recently conducted review of the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy a bitter disappointment. They outcome of the policy review to be a whitewash, with very little being done in practice to shift the focus of the management strategy to dingo conservation.

Jennifer Parkhurst said that:

‘The NDPRP believes that the review process was only superficially objective, being intended from the outset to gloss over the distorted priorities in the Island’s dingo management strategy, as well as years of deficient management practices by government authorities. These basic deficiencies of the previous policy have been largely covered over by the review process.’

It soon became apparent that the consultancy firm engaged by the Queensland government to conduct the policy review did not have sufficient in-house expertise to carry it out.

There were serious conflicts of interest. One expert had been involved in the development of the policy that was being reviewed, and the other expert, the son of the first, was put in a position of having to review criticisms of the management policy that his father had been involved with. This is hardly conducive to independent analysis!

1.The review continues to label emaciated dingoes as ‘naturally lean’. This is an insult to observations made by many people including veterinarians and animal welfare experts about emaciated dingoes. On the contrary, they are being starved!

2.Dingo ecology is being ignored, with little clear idea of overall dingo numbers, the numbers of breeding pairs, and the genetic health of the dingo population are currently not known with sufficient certainty.

3.The Coalition government’s spending priorities for the management of the Island’s dingo population are distorted. $300,000 will be spent on a VHF radio network expansion to improve ranger response times. What purpose will this serve? A further $84,000 is being spent on new ‘dingo safety’ signage. This is about administration, not dingoes!
Ironically, $50,000 is being spent to develop a science-based research project to ensure animal welfare issues are based on science. Why would this be necessary if the policy was science-based, as government authorities claim it to have been? This funding is an admission that the policy has not been adequately science based. What's been more of a priority is ensuring Fraser Island remains a "safe" haven for tourists, and tourist dollars!

4.The Strategy foreshadows ‘potential’ visits by vets and the ‘possibility’ of establishing a wildlife care facility, but no actual funding has been put aside for these vital conservation requirements. "Possible" and "potential" are not of substance, and will do nothing for establishing anything material, or health-wise, for the dingoes.

5. The new Strategy states that only animals weighing 10 kilos or more will be tagged, but this would still include pups. Save Fraser Island Dingoes (SFID) and NDPRP have been lobbying for dingoes not to be tagged until they are 12 months old.

6. Any dingo "anticipated" to be a problem will be tagged! SFID and NDPRP continue to believe that dingo behaviour has been systematically misunderstood by rangers, having been subjective and inconsistent. For example, a dingo that exhibits a play-bow is labelled by one ranger as ‘playing’ and another as ‘dominance testing’.

The cessation of hazing has been noted by locals and tour operators as a very positive change for the dingoes. However, this has only been suspended pending further research.

The Fraser Island Management Strategy review is that it has turned a blind eye to the gross cruelty inflicted on a dingo in 2011, which had been trapped by management staff as part of radio collaring research. Cruelty has breached the law on more than one count, including a failure to put in place proper ethical approval for the research, and that the incident should be investigated by the government with a view to litigation of the government staff responsible. To date, this legal notification appears to have been ignored.

Jennifer Parkhurst stated that:
‘It should be of concern to all Queenslanders that the Coalition government seems willing to push serious breaches of animal welfare law by government agencies under the rug. The NDPRP intends pursuing these cruelty infringements in the courts. However, it would be preferable if the government dealt with these illegalities in a publically transparent manner. Unfortunately, that the policy review ignored this instance of serious mismanagement is consistent with broader deficiencies of the review process. ’

Wyndham Council may be the first of many in Victoria to speak out against Government engineered population growth which goes against democratic principles and is unmanageable and costly. The State government needs to take responsibility for its covert population engineering and stop playing dumb.

The Victorian and Tasmanian branch of Sustainable Population Australia congratulated the Wyndham Council for its intention to cap population by limiting new housing to 3000 per year today.

Wyndham Council leads democracy in Victoria

“The council’s position is eminently sensible and works in the most fundamental way to give local feedback on the area’s limits to population growth capacity. We know that many other councils face the same housing, financial, social and population pressures that Wyndham faces. We predict Wyndham may be the first of many councils to speak out. Contrary to the Planning Minister’s view that population growth cannot be modified by local signals, I see the local level as a most important barometer of environmentally and socially safe levels of population growth” said President Quirk of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian Branches.

“Fundamental local feedback mechanisms on population are well explained in Sheila Newman’s’ book Demography, Territory and Law. The Planning Minster ignores, at the expense of the well-being of residents, the clear message from the Wyndham council.”

It seems that Mr. Guy has ignored and avoided the fact that more than half of Victoria’s population growth is due to overseas immigration.

Is his characterisation of the Wyndham Council as “silly” and his pretending to be pointing out that governments cannot limit family size also an attempt to portray the council as heartless social engineers?

Mr Guy draws red herrings to avoid responsibility for problem

Mr. Guy’s response deflects attention from the real issue, his failure to address the entirety of demographic forces in Victoria which have contributed to the planning pressures Wyndham Council is suffering.

Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch believes that the State government is derelict in its duty of care for its people and our environment in failing to communicate to the federal government that Victoria’s 3rd world rate of population growth disadvantages us all.

Victoria’s high population growth imposes planning stress, unending increases in traffic congestion, significant costs associated with expanding infrastructure, and is the main cause of the state’s deteriorating environment.

“Rather than criticizing them, the Victorian Government should follow the example of the Wyndham Council and show care and responsibility for its larger constituency, the people of Victoria.” said Ms Quirk.

Contact: Jill Quirk - [email protected]

Saturday 29 June 2013 was the Melbourne launch of the Stable Population Party Australia.
Its leader, William Bourke, gave the following interview.

Since its beginnings in 2010 this party has come a long way in terms of policy and presentation. Their website conveys a clear and positive message. Bourke and the other candidates for the next Federal election carry a business-sized card summarizing six hard to beat policies. The major parties and the Greens have nothing like this clarity.

A better quality of life

SPPA calls for "A better quality of life" and articulates six reasons to vote for a stable population:

to Relieve overstretched infrastructure, incluidng hospitals, schools, roads and public transport;
to Ease cost of living pressures, including housing, energy, water and transport;
to Protect our environment, including food, water and energy resources, native bushland and animal habitats;
to Promote education and training to increase job opportunities for all Australians;
to Minimise overdevelopment, including high-rise and sprawl;
to Create a more resilient economy, to sustain and enhance prosperity.

William Bourke speaks truly when he says, "Population is the everything issue." It touches on everything you can think of and more population makes for more impact.

Candidates for election

The Party is running five candidates in Victoria:
Lead Senate Candidate - Clifford Hayes

Senate candidate - Jill Quirk

Lalor candidate - Jonathan Page

Melbourne candidate - Michael Bayliss

Melbourne Ports candidate - Steven Armstrong

On 7 March 2013, Kevin Rudd was a lead speaker at a pro-population growth meeting held by the "Urban Development Institute of Australia", which is a property developer body that lobbies continually for higher immigration to grow Australia's population. Now Mr Rudd is our Prime Minister, but he still sounds as if he is working for a bunch of property developers.

It's sustainable if you say it is

"I believe in a sustainable Australia," Mr Rudd said. "If you've got the sustainability settings right, on land use, on water use and on infrastructure provision, then of course the country can grow, so I believe in a sustainable Australia."Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-poll-bounce-boosts-labor-20130628-2p366.html#ixzz2XYX4kOhx

Rudd and Murdoch: one setting only

Mr. Rudd is in favour of a Big Australia. I believe (after much reading on the subject) that it will be unsustainable and will put our population in real peril. Australia is a desert continent with very poor soils. Because of fossil fuels we have been able to produce more food than ever before from this continent, but this will come to an end. 2 reasons 1. fossil fuels are finite and there are strong indications that global oil production has already peaked 2. Unless scientists are wrong about GGEs and climate change, we must stop using Fossil Fuels or we won’t have an environment as we know it.

Population policy under Julia Gillard

Mr. Rudd is glib and fanciful in what he says. Julia made a good start when she said she was in favour of a “sustainable Australia” rather than a “Big Australia” but then the whole issue was buried in Tony Burke’s report which recommended population be regionalized – thus sweeping the problem of population numbers into another realm and the government went on to preside over a huge migration program which is more than our natural increase and thus more than double our population growth rate.

Rudd’s intention to continue “ Big Australia” is contained in the quote “ then of course the country can grow”.

Population growth doesn't pay for itself: we do

A sign that our existence in Melbourne is going down hill is that Victorians are already paying more and more for water because of the desalination plant which would not have been necessary had the government not anticipated high population growth and that Melbourne will be a megalopolis. I can see a time when people won’t be able to pay for the water they need.

WA uses almost exclusively desalinated water and ground water. This is a recipe for collapse. Perth has the highest population growth rate of any capital city and comparable to many 3rd world countries.

The Victorian State of the environment Report 2008 showed that all environmental indicators in Victoria were declining because of human activity and population pressures. Since then the population has kept on growing. I understand all reports from other states have shown the same.

A national tragedy

We are already in environmental decline. The country is so delicate, so immensely biodiverse and intricate but since the European invasion we have been stomping all over it with hob nail boots.

Embedded video inside. Some of the chimps in this film are over 50 years old and this is the first time in decades that they have been able to touch another chimp or feel grass under their feet.

Fifty government-owned chimpanzees have already been moved from New Iberia Research Center to Chimp Haven, The National Chimpanzee Sanctuary. Plans have been announced to retire 90% of US laboratory chimpanzees and to significantly decrease research grants involving chimpanzees. This is a heartwarming and interesting short film published by the Humane Society of the United States.

From All Animals Magazine...

Standing before a forested area where the chimps will eventually roam, The Humane Society of the United States’ Kathleen Conlee tries to hold back tears. “It’s been a long road,” she says.

Chimps who lived for decades in steel and concrete cages with no bedding will now indulge their nest-building instincts to their fullest. Some will weave yaupon holly branches and leaves into a circle, piling pine needles in the middle. Others, like 55-year-old Karen, prefer man-made comforts. Each night, the balding matriarch with a wizened, Yoda-like face arranges a pile of blankets about her and carefully tucks herself into bed. “If it’s not quite right,” says Chimp Haven’s Amy Fultz, “she’ll sit back up and retuck and rearrange and then try it out again.”

More here