overpopulation

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

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

Orwellian AFR Editorial

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

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

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

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

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

Shameless

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

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

What manufacturing?

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

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

What is this editorialist smoking?

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

This statement is bizarre:

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

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

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

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

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

What democracy?

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

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

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

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

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

Perseverative demographic policy

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

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

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

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

Push for overpopulation and authoritarian government in Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES

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

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

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

Date & Time
Wed 11 Dec 2013 9:00am

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

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

Key themes

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

Keynote Speakers

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

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

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

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

Peter Cosier: Director, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the State Government spiel which reads that it has

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download the templates here (word docs):

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

Regards

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

NOTES

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

A report released by the Federal Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics underlines just how inadequate and incompetent Melbourne’s recent planning has been.

The report analysed population growth, jobs growth and commuter flows in Australia’s four largest cities. It found:

1) Melbourne was the only city in which jobs growth in the outer suburbs had failed to keep pace with the population boom. Parts of outer Melbourne now have less than one job for every three working people, forcing residents to commute further for employment.

2) Eighty-four per cent of outer Melbournians drive to work, the highest level among Australia’s biggest cities, and just 9% use public transport.

Monash University Professor of Public Transport Graham Currie said any city growing in population without expanding public transport was planning for decline. He said “the future cupboard of public transport projects is looking bare” and that “If population grows by 25% but services remain essentially static, we have a per capita decline of 25 per cent in service levels. We are not responding to growth. Rather we are going backwards”.

This report reveals as a fraud the idea that Melbourne’s rapid population growth is okay. Jobs are far removed from homes, and workers are not using public transport, leading to traffic congestion, long commutes, and reduced quality of life for everybody – a planning debacle.

It’s all very well to say that what is needed is better planning, but expanding the urban growth boundary and high rise and urban consolidation have both given us the outcomes we have today. The better planning never happens, and it won’t as long as Melbourne’s population continues to grow by 200 a day, 1500 a week, 75,000 each year.

Originally published at http://kelvinthomson.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/melbourne-planning-debacle.html

Geoff at Aussiebushtreks writes, "This is very urgent. Please watch Corine Fisher's video. [Inside article]" Then Email upper house pollies without delay. There is still a chance to stop O`Farrells dreadful destructive Planning Law. If you go to http://betterplanningnetwork.good.do/nsw/email-upper-house-mps/ your email will automatically go to Upper House Parliamentarians. Don't dilly dally!

(Video URL is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfrSqxpmYY#t=37)

The film tells about the Better Planning Network, which has 115 groups involved, with their numbers rising.

Unlike in the Lower House of Parliament, the NSW Government does not have the majority in the Upper House. Therefore, to ensure that its Planning Bills get through the Upper House, the Government needs the vote of either: Labor; and/or the Greens; and/or the Christian Democrats and the Shooters and Fishers.

The Upper House debate of the Planning Bills could occur as soon as 12 November. It is therefore vital to email Upper House MPs NOW and voice your concerns about the Government's Disgraceful, corrupt and Destructive Planning Bills.

Please write an email in your own words. Some key points you may wish to make are:

The Government's Planning Bills go against its election promise to return planning powers to the local community.
The Government's Planning Bills will not deliver certainty or transparency for communities.
The principle of Ecologically Sustainable Development must be the overarching driver of the legislation.
The ease with which developers will be able to override local councils' planning controls to get their rezoning requests approved by the State, by the issuing of Strategic Compatibility Certificates (a green light to a spot rezoning) goes against the very concept of strategic planning. These provisions must be removed from the Bill.
The restriction of code-assessable development to 'nominated growth areas' will create 2 classes of residents: the first, in low-density suburbs, will have the right to comment on most developments in their neighbourhood; the second, in growth areas, will not.
The Government's Planning Bills do not provide any simpler or more user-friendly a system that the one we already have.
There is no evidence that the Government's Planning Bills will improve housing affordability simply by increasing housing supply. This is because the drivers of housing affordability are complex and include tax (eg. negative gearing) and welfare policies which the Planning Bills will not address.[1]
No amount of tweaking can fix the Bills and it's best to scrap the Bills and work with all stakeholders to draft new legislation.

NOTES

[1] Candobetter Ed.: Less complex but poorly known by the general public is that State governments in Australia drive population growth upward to benefit developers. They do this by encouraging business immigration and family reunion via State websites inviting immigrants. Australia's federal government is in charge of setting a ceiling on total immigration but, since 2009, Australia's population growth has come 60 per cent from extremely high mass immigration. We are talking hundreds of thousands here. See http://candobetter.net/?q=taxonomy/term/5149

Today I helped a registered nurse to scan documents to submit in a job application. While we were doing this, she mentioned to me with great concern that she had heard that the government is talking about making people work until they are 70 years old and make them take out loans on their homes in order to fund their retirement. "I'm only 46," she said, "but I didn't work when my children were young and I never had the money to save for a home. So I'm supposed to keep on working until I'm 70. I'm too tired now to work full-time because, even though standards are slipping, working conditions are getting tougher and tougher and management more and more unreasonable." The latest productivity report on An Aging Australia supplies policies to undermine the political strength of older people who would otherwise be able to represent the rest of the community and defend the wealth and security basis of the younger generations. Blaming older people for economic decline that has its real seeds in resource decline sets the scene for generational splitting. However, the real targets are actually today's young people and their children.

You would think that in an Australia where the Productivity Commission (see below) is banging on about how health care for an aging population is going to be a huge slice of our economic pie that my friend would be sitting pretty. Not so.

Setting the tone for scary policies: "An Aging Australia" Productivity Commission Report

The news about people working until they are 70 years old and being made to sell their houses back to the bank comes from another rather Orwellian report by the Australian Productivity Commission. The Commission seems to want to blame a lot of its suggestions here on the aging population and the costs of health care. (The reference is An Aging Australia, available at this URL: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/129749/ageing-australia.pdf).

The report has a narrow economic basis whereby GDP = Numbers of Workers X Productivity X Terms of trade. There is no overt consideration of resource depletion, although you can tell it is lurking namelessly. The report presents as an excuse for more population growth, even though it predicts an indefinite (possibly endless) period of economic poverty, when people will have to borrow on their homes to live and work until they drop for declining returns, which it relates vaguely to the end of the mining boom.

Demographic Fairy-tales

In a section entitled "Demography: Net overseas migration", the Report comes clean on what is driving high population growth in Australia: Successive recent governments have pushed very high immigration.

"Unlike either fertility or mortality, [Net Overseas Migration - NOM] is more readily controllable by the Australian Government (DIAC 2013). Most particularly, the Government can set quotas on its migration program [...]."

The report also admits that our extremely high mass immigration is a wild card, although it uses less colourful language:

"Were such levels of [Net Overseas Migration - NOM] to persist over the next 50 years, it would imply a considerably more populous Australia than most population projections."

The section concludes with a sublimely irresponsible comment about why our population might not spiral out of control but somehow stop after 2017 or something like that:

"Typically, advanced countries experience population growth slowdowns as their population numbers rise, and some reversion of Australian population growth rates to the average OECD rate might ultimately be expected," it concludes, blithely.

My comment The Report's faith in Australia experiencing a population growth slowdown to the 'average OECD rate' is dangerously ridiculous in the light of Australia's high immigration. It is presumably relying on 'demographic transition' ideology, which is (a) unreliable and (b) does not take high immigration into account. Australia's population growth was slowing naturally but this natural trend has been completely distorted by State and Federally led mass immigration.[1]

See footnote for full quoted passage.[2]

There are some very slanted presentations of the medical costs of aging, notably in a diagram, "Hospital Costs by Age and Sex 2010-2011," which shows a kind of upside-down pyramid with costly old people at its wide top and low cost young people near the narrow base. This gives an apparent cost-weight per elderly person. The casual observer could easily infer from the graph that there were more people over 65 and 85 plus than all the other age-groups in 2011. In fact, due mostly to mass immigration, these numbers will actually be continually bloated, year after year, instead of dying back naturally as the baby-boomers leave their mortal coil.

Mass immigration, discontinued in Western Continental Europe after the first oil shock in 1973, meant that population numbers will decline naturally there as oil declines. In Australian and other Anglophone countries, however, there will be no such gentle and natural decline if artificial population boosting through high immigration is allowed to continue.

The report justifies its presentation of 'trends' in the following statement:

"The apparent neat precision of any particular number is not meant to convey that this shall inevitably be the result, when over a 50 year period a wide variety of unknown factors will arise. But the existence of unknown factors is no basis for not considering the trends, which are the important aspect of this analysis. The trends are unmistakable in most cases."

The problem is that those 'trends' in population, and their proposed solutions in erosion of housing equity and retirement benefits will be taken for gospel by the mass media and parliament. They will be portrayed as inevitable and used to further the corporate agenda, which is to control more and more of Australia's remaining wealth, and allow the majority of citizens less and less control over their material and political circumstances. The very narrow context of this kind of economic report prevents it from recommending citizen empowerment or admitting to resource depletion or inviting comparison with more democratic societies and reconsideration of our legal system. Can the report researchers and writers be criticised for this? Not really; they are working within the same paradigm as the nurses I described at the beginning of this article. It would be career suicide for them to suggest that we are going in the wrong direction with overpopulation and overconsumption.

The Report fails to take into account some enormously influential trends in climate change, overpopulation, oil depletion, loss of democracy (e.g. laws against 'terrorism'), numbers of wars with increasing impact.

It doesn't consider that during the industrial revolution where its life-expectancy charts begin, life expectancy went down to less than half of the ordinary biblical span of three score and ten before it went up again 'due to modern medicine'. And that now diabetes and other nutritional diseases related to our so-called advanced lifestyles and medicine are reducing life expectancy, not increasing it. It does acknowledge a failure to factor those disease risks in, but still merrily uses its projections:

"As the ABS notes, this approach also ignores the possibility of major adverse events, such as major pandemics or wars, though historically these have sometimes been important. Some of these events would be difficult to estimate given their rarity in historical data, and at best, could be treated separately as low probability, high impact events with assumed statistical distributions. For example, the European Actuarial Consultative Group (2006) assesses that there is a high risk of a major global pandemic over a decade, but that events with significant excess population mortality are unlikely. Others doubt that it is possible to make ‘any scientifically based prediction about the emergence of future pandemics ’ (Taubenberger and Morens 2009). Given this, it is more reasonable to take account of other significant risks — such as the possible adverse impacts on longevity of lifestyle factors (growing obesity) and antibiotic resistant bacteria, which would have a gradual effect and could be modelled as a lower - life expectancy scenario in mortality projections. "

In fact, the Report shows what struck me as a wicked sense of humour at times, as if it recognises its own absurdity. On prevention of obesity and other diseases like AIDS, it seems to suggest that dying young might be more economical in the long run:

Second, and more subtly, gauging the effectiveness and efficiency of preventative measures on a disease - by - disease basis can miss the reality that people live to die another day (Bonneux et al. 1998). Dollars saved on avoiding (or minimising the costs) of one disease opens the possibility of people experiencing another costly disease. Ideally, assessments of particular interventions should adopt a longitudinal approach that takes into account the timing and costs of disease and quality of life under the counterfactual that no preventative action is taken.

Housing equity, poverty and power

The Productivity Commission Report "canvasses "policy approaches currently over - the - horizon, but nevertheless relevant to a deeper consideration of the challenges of an ageing Australia (including the role of non - fungible housing equity as a financing method and the link between labour force participation and the Age Pension eligibility age)."

Comment:This report supplies policies to undermine the political strength of older people who would otherwise be able to represent the rest of the community and defend the wealth and security basis of the younger generations. Blaming older people for economic decline that has its real seeds in resource decline sets the scene for generational splitting. The power elites (in the form of banks and corporate government) can then find ways to seize remaining assets and resources in the community for their own enrichment. Young people should realise that this report actually targets their generation - see the huge bulge in the 2014 population pyramid of people below the age of 60. These are the post-baby-boomers. It is their old age that is targeted here. Without land and housing they have no means to grow food, no secure shelter, no security to pass on to their families. The Productivity Commission, with its very narrow parameters of examination, is effectively providing future governments with excuses to make laws to beggar the population. And the Commission is cynically aware of this, implying that young people are stupidly myopic and won't realise that it is their futures that are being targeted, because they cannot imagine being old:

"Despite the possibility of such responses [i.e. protests against giving up their homes], governments can use anti-avoidance measures to reduce the risks of such behaviours at older ages (as it does already with gifting provisions). And responses by the young to possible asset tests when they are old are likely to be relatively weak, reflecting discounting of the future , myopia and the fact that caps would apply to any government - backed equity withdrawal."

Don't you love the term government-backed 'equity withdrawal'? A great new term for the State stealing from its citizens.

On Housing equity: Aim: Put land outside the reach of banks.

To avoid being patsies to these predator policies, Australians need to create new community ownerships with special laws of inheritance for their children, to help relocalise power and organisation in line with families and clans. These are the only secure bases for people in hard times. The British legal model promotes the opposite. If Australia changed its system to Roman Law (the kind used throughout continental Europe) children would be guaranteed to inherit from their parents; shelter and income would be deemed civil rights at law. Another model that amounts to the same thing is the New Zealand Maori land-rights model, which guarantees every Maori descendent land which cannot be sold. Banks should not be able to take shelter and food-gardens from owners or their inheritors. Governments should not be able to legislate water prices out of reach of suburban food producers. Planners should not be able to authorise buildings which block sunlight from gardens and solar panels. People should all have rights to viable land. This is what is missing from this report, which assumes that we will all work for other people and rely on diminishing rations when we can no longer compete with young workers.

The Report trots out the low inflation assertion with which many Australians would disagree:

"The average Australian has nevertheless fared well in the last two decades in terms of net national disposable income per capita, low inflation and low unemployment."

In fact, inflation indicators fail to take into account the very high cost of land for housing, which drives up all other costs. Wages must be high enough for workers to pay the highest accommodation costs in the world and business must pay similar costs for premises, plus wages. Shrinking disposable income has appeared to stretch because of cheap imports from low-wage and low land-cost countries, like China. People have only been able to afford trinkets, however. Whilst rents and mortgages rose, dependence on wages and debt grew. With mass immigration and watering-down of industrial protection, wages and conditions are deteriorating and the cost of finite resources, shelter, food, water and power are inflating.

Conclusion: These trends are the result of government engineering the population to please corporate fancy. If Australians do not start to band together against their corporatised governments these nightmares will come to pass.

Commission Press Release: Key Points of An ageing Australia: preparing for the future

Productivity Commission, 22 November, 2013 [3]

"The report examines the effects of ageing on economic output (underpinned by changes in population, participation and productivity) and the resulting implications for government budgets were current policy settings to be maintained.

Key points:

Australia's population will both grow strongly and become older. Such slow but profound shifts in the nature of a society do not elicit the same scrutiny as immediate policy issues. The preferable time to contemplate the implications is while these near inevitable trends are still in their infancy.

Population ageing is largely a positive outcome, primarily reflecting improved life expectancy. A female (male) born in 2012 will on average live for an estimated 94.4 (91.6) years.

However, population growth and ageing will affect labour supply, economic output, infrastructure requirements and governments' budgets.

Australia's population is projected to rise to around 38 million by 2060, or around 15 million more than the population in 2012. Sydney and Melbourne can be expected to grow by around 3 million each over this period.

The population aged 75 or more years is expected to rise by 4 million from 2012 to 2060, increasing from about 6.4 to 14.4 per cent of the population. In 2012, there was roughly one person aged 100 years old or more to every 100 babies. By 2060, it is projected there will be around 25 such centenarians.

Total private and public investment requirements over this 50 year period are estimated to be more than 5 times the cumulative investment made over the last half century, which reveals the importance of an efficient investment environment.

Labour participation rates are expected to fall from around 65 to 60 per cent from 2012 to 2060, and overall labour supply per capita to contract by 5 per cent.

Average labour productivity growth is projected to be around 1.5 per cent per annum from 2012-13, well below the high productivity period from 1988-89 to 2003-04. Real disposable income per capita is expected to grow at 1.1 per cent per annum compared with the average 2.7 per cent annual growth over the last 20 years.

Collectively, it is projected that Australian governments will face additional pressures on their budgets equivalent to around 6 per cent of national GDP by 2060, principally reflecting the growth of expenditure on health, aged care and the Age Pension.

Major impending economic and social changes can create the impetus for new reform approaches not currently on the policy horizon. For example:

The design of the Age Pension and broader retirement income system might be linked to life expectancy after completion of the current transition to 67 years in 2023.

Using some of the annual growth in the housing equity of older Australians could help ensure higher quality options for aged care services and lower fiscal costs.

Wide ranging health care reforms could improve productivity in the sector that is the largest contributor to fiscal pressures. Even modest improvements in this area would reduce fiscal pressures significantly."

NOTES

26/11/2013: Correction to Stupid mistake about baby-boomers' ages corrected on population-pyramid-2014.jpg. I had them as tweny years older than they are. Apologies. Thanks Jill Quirk of SPA Victoria for pointing this out.

[1] For the latest on demographic theories and which ones hold water, see Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory and Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2013, Chapter 2, "Modern Fertility, Mortality and Development Myths."

[2] An Aging Australia, (Productivity Commission), pp.37-38:
"DEMOGRAPHY
While the technical definition and estimation of net overseas migration (NOM) is complex, it is a measure of long - term arrivals less long - term departures.

NOM has been a critical factor behind Australia’s population growth and will continue to be so (PC 2011 d ).

Unlike either fertility or mortality, NOM is more readily controllable by the Australian Government (DIAC 2013). Most particularly, the Government can set quotas on its migration program — which comprises three categories of migrant (humanitarian, skilled and family re-union). That said, the Australian Government does not have full control over NOM as any number of Australians (and New Zealanders) can arrive or depart. Moreover, the number of temporary entrants, such as long - term visitors and working holiday makers, is effectively uncapped. Their numbers are largely driven by other factors, such as economic conditions. However, since temporary entrants ultimately leave, they do not contribute to long - run population growth.

Currently, NOM is around 230000 per year, which is well above the longer - term average.

From 1948 to 2003, NOM was around 90 000 per year, with no upwards trend. In contrast, in the period 2003 – 2012, the average NOM was around 200000 and the trend growth was around 10000 per year (figure 2.2).

DIAC (2013)forecasts that current high levels of NOM will persist at least until 2017, but that its growth rate will decline. It projects NOM of around 250000 in 2017.
Were such levels of NOM to persist over the next 50 years, it would imply a considerably more populous Australia than most population projections.

It is difficult to establish whether a level of NOM around 200000 – 250000 is likely to persist. In part, the high recent levels may reflect strong relative economic and income growth in Australia c ompared to other countries, which make Australia an attractive destination. Given that the terms of trade are now declining, it is possible that NOM will fall somewhat from its current level.

The contribution of high relative fertility rates and migration means that Australia’s population is growing at a rate well above most OECD countries. Over the period from 1999 to 2010, Australia had the 4th highest population growth rate among OECD countries, with higher growth rates than some less developed economies, such as Mexico and Turkey (OECD 2013). The average growth rate for Australia (1.47 per cent growth per annum) was more than four times that for the 27 European Union countries (0.35 per cent per annum) and more than twice that of the OECD overall (0.68 per cent per annum). The persistence of NOM of 250000 persons per year would underpin continued high growth rates of this order.

Typically, advanced countries experience population growth slowdowns as their population numbers rise, and some reversion of Australian population growth rates to the average OECD rate might ultimately be expected. "

[3] This is a press release from the Productivity Commission about its report.

Plan Melbourne is the latest by the latest Victorian government to attempt to accommodate forced population growth. This article examines the economic propositions entailed in the plan. The fundamental failure of Plan Melbourne is that it is driven by a political imperative to maintain rapid population growth. Developers and some industry sectors will benefit, but to the detriment of the general public. ...Planning solutions, whether they be decentralisation, intra-urban dispersion, environmental pricing or other strategies face too many political and implementation difficulties to be successful. Reducing the rate of population growth, on the other hand, would make the planning tasks so much easier. Excessive growth requires massive infrastructure costs and borrowing requirements that will jeopardize Victoria’s AAA credit rating. Most AAA-rated countries have little population growth and modest infrastructure needs.

[Candobetter Editor:This video is from the Plan Melbourne page and gives an animated plan of what the government wants for Melbourne to 2050. There is no exit plan after that; it is as if population growth will magically stop in 2050. In fact, it is likely to be even faster then due to internal dynamics created by early engineering plus the larger base.]

My overall impression is that this plan will fail because it does not embrace some fundamental principles of urban economic development. My concerns are as follows.

Decentralisation: In 1965, leading urban economist the late Max Neutze, in his book Economic Policy and the Size of Cities, developed a theory of selective decentralization based on the observation that Australian urban centres were either too large or too small, and therefore population growth should be diverted away from the larger ones to smaller ones. But because of the prevalence of market imperfections in urban development, namely externalities, imperfect foresight and imperfect co-ordination, the free market could not do this without government assistance.

He tentatively suggested that the optimum size of a major city in terms of efficiency and liveability was between 200,000 and one million, and that decentralization policy should aim to push the new regional centres towards that level. But because only a few regional centres could reach such size, decentralization must be very selective, perhaps to only two or three centres in Victoria that are already large enough to provide their own momentum – e.g. Ballarat, Bendigo. Eventually they will become large enough for growth to become self-sustaining and for government assistance to be withdrawn.

Plan Melbourne fails here in two respects. Firstly, it accepts that Melbourne’s population will continue to grow and exceed optimum, with escalating adverse effects on efficiency and living standards. Secondly, it has too many growth centres, many of which are far too small to reach optimum size, even with permanent government assistance. Selection of unviable centres merely diverts resources away from more viable centres and reduces their chances of robust growth.

The multi-nodal alternative: In 1972, I adapted Neutze’s theory to the internal structure of cities, on the observation that most of the problems of overcrowding occur in or near the central business district, while centres in outer suburbs are too small to provide an adequate range of commercial, financial and recreational services. That is, commercial centres within cities were either too large or too small, and therefore an objective of planning should be to divert economic activity away from the CBD to a few outer suburban centres, which would be assisted to grow to a size which would eventually provide a range of activities similar to those offered in the CBD. Again the policy would be selective – perhaps for two or three carefully selected centres – and based on a similar understanding of market imperfections as identified by Neutze. In 1972 the multi-nodal (or polynuclear) concept had been an established principle in town planning and geography literature, but had not hitherto been developed in the economics literature.

Again, Plan Melbourne fails to embrace the selective principle, despite its underlying logic. Selection of too many centres ensures that none of them will succeed and that the city centre will continue to expand, as envisaged in the Plan.

Increased urban density: There is ample anecdotal evidence and formal research to suggest that increasing densities beyond optimum levels adds to inefficiency, reduced liveability and housing affordability problems. Pro-growth optimists constantly claim that problems of congestion and over-development can be solved by good planning and expansion of infrastructure, but do not acknowledge the time lags and huge costs this will entail. For example, the massive construction costs of underground tunnels, desalination plants and high-rise buildings are clear examples of agglomeration diseconomies resulting from over-development.

Furthermore, medium density housing, retail developments and major road projects frequently attract public opposition because of their impact on local amenity. Research that I have done reveals a negative correlation between income and density – that is, as people become wealthier they generally prefer to spread out to take advantage of the benefits of parks and gardens, peace and tranquility, car parking and open space.

Another disadvantage of increasing densities is that the population pressures causing them force up housing and rental costs, pushing low-income earners out of the property market and into a poverty trap.

Plan Melbourne fails badly here, and is certain to exacerbate the above problems.

Conclusion: The fundamental failure of Plan Melbourne is that it is driven by a political imperative to maintain rapid population growth. Developers and some industry sectors will benefit, but to the detriment of the general public. In the 40 years since I did my original research I have seen Melbourne gradually deteriorate, as traffic congestion worsens, commuting distances lengthen, environmental damage continues, water restrictions intensify, more people are priced out of the housing market, successive governments fail to keep up with infrastructure requirements, outer-urban agricultural land diminishes and public opposition to over-development increases.

Planning solutions, whether they be decentralisation, intra-urban dispersion, environmental pricing or other strategies face too many political and implementation difficulties to be successful. Reducing the rate of population growth, on the other hand, would make the planning tasks so much easier. Note also Tim Colebatch’s argument that excessive growth requires massive infrastructure costs and borrowing requirements that will jeopardize Victoria’s AAA credit rating, whereas “most AAA-rated countries have little population growth and modest infrastructure needs” (Melbourne Age, 15.10.2013).

Robert Braby

Jenny Warfe went to the Westernport Catchment Committee meeting yesterday 18th October 2013 to hear the PoHDA CEO Mike Lean’s presentation about the proposed Hastings Port expansion. It was all about business as usual, ignoring resource depletion, seeing growing the economy as the only way to provide jobs, unwilling to contemplate the ceasing of engineering population growth upwards. Here is a report.

I went to the Westernport Catchment Committee meeting yesterday 18th October 2013 to hear the PoHDA CEO Mike Lean’s presentation about the proposed Hastings Port expansion. Some of his memorable (predictable ) statements included, according to my notes:

• There are no other options
• Construction phase 2018-2025
• Will serve Victoria's trade for the next 70,80 to 100 years
• It is fundamental as a gateway for the State
• Australians overwhelmingly want their children to have jobs
• Westernport highway would be upgraded to 6 lanes with dual train track in centre
• Project would also require the metro train tunnel to be built to allow for better movement of passenger trains on the Dandenong line, freeing up space for freight trains
• Shipping lines are now moving to wider container ships and steaming slower [so much for the PoMC’s Channel Deepening rationale that the Heads must be deepened because container ships would always be getting deeper and it was uneconomic for ships to wait for tide assistance]
• Container trade is growing at 5-7% compounding annually
• Planning for a minimum of 9 million containers per annum by 2060, ramping up from 2025
• Victoria is growing at 1500 people per week [it is actually 100,000 per annum at present, 60% of which is elective immigration]
• We are many years from having an outcome in the business case
• Compared with any other Australian port, Hastings has the largest amount of port related zoned land close to a port
• If you put it in a container we will move it
• Aiming for maximum automation at the port, so that flood lighting at night is not required, so that birds won’t be disturbed – might only be a few dozen people on site [so much for jobs then.]
• There will be positive impacts as well

[et cetera]

Clearly the plan is predicated on a business as usual scenario, reliant on a doubling of the state’s population and a quadrupling of trade by mid-century and of course abundant fossil fuels to power the juggernaut.
When asked, Mr. Lean denied any knowledge of coal export through Hastings as part of the business case- although acknowledged that he had “read something about it recently.”

There was quite a bit of concern expressed in questions from the meeting and amazement at the numbers of containers, ships, trucks and trains that his “vision” would entail. .....And quite a bit of defensiveness in his replies- perhaps reverting to his former Army Lieutenant Colonel days. Prior to PoHDA, Mr. Lean was responsible for the Williamstown shipyard and the Maritime Business Unit at BAE Systems Australia working on the Air Warfare Destroyer and Landing Helicopter Dock projects.

The Mornington Peninsula has been under continuous assault from forced population growth in the face of lax environmental protection now since the time of Jeff Kennett, who made it part of 'Greater Melbourne', thus taking Victorian environmentalists 'beyond blue'. A few years ago plans to intensively industrialise Hastings on a scale previously unknown in Australia came to light. (See Candobetter has a whole site topic devoted to these.. Now the use of Hastings to export coal is being mooted.

Documents Blue Wedges obtained under Freedom of Information last year revealed that the former Brumby government’s plans for Hastings included coal exports in the business case. Given the Napthine government’s project costs and projected trade volumes released so far for an expanded Hastings are almost identical to the Brumby plan, it’s pretty likely that coal is still on the agenda.

An Exergen (power company claiming to have clean coal credentials) 2011 document obtained by Environment Victoria under FoI also builds a case for coal to be transported as slurry in a pipeline from the LaTrobe Valley to the Port of Hastings, and then treated/de-watered on site at the Port of Hastings, for export through there. (Brown coal cannot be exported in its natural state due to its high moisture content and risks of spontaneous combustion).
Exergen states that the upgraded coal would be exported to lndia, Japan, Korea and other locations in North Asia.

"What a hideous vision for Hastings – and what an appalling contribution to our planet’s Greenhouse gas emissions." (Jenny Warfe, leader of Blue Wedges campaign against Port Phillip dredging)

The Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council (WPPC) is having a rally on November 9th 2pm-3.30pm Hastings Foreshore. WPPC have organized it with Environment Victoria and Quit Coal. People from Corner Inlet and 90 Mile Beach who are opposing their own coal port proposals will be travelling to the rally. Farmers who face having their excellent farms turned into a coal mine will also be present. There will be talks from VNPA and Blue Wedges too.

Start inviting your friends.

The East-West Link (EW Link) Preliminary Assessment by Geoff Lawler, Director of City Planning and Infrastructure, spells out in graphic terms to Council the wide scale damage to Royal Park likely from the EW Link. It is, therefore, difficult to understand why the City of Melbourne Mayor and Councillors have not apprehended the significance of this report and voted to publically oppose the destruction of the City by the East West Link. Submission from Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC)

When a vote was taken recently on whether approval would be given for the exploratory drilling in Royal Park, Councillor Stephen Mayne voted for it to proceed saying that there was time for a decision to be made in the future concerning the dangers of the EW Link. Hence Councillors voted for the drilling – and the project – to proceed. (6 to 5.) DDAY has arrived and the City of Melbourne must now take a stand against the EW Link. It is disappointing that the City of Melbourne has not taken a stand earlier whereas the following municipalities have voted to say “no” to the East West Link: Darebin, Glen Eira, Moonee Valley, Moreland and Yarra.
.
Our organisation prepared a list of reasons why the City of Melbourne should say “no” to the East West Link and “yes” to public transport in particular rail to Doncaster and the airport.

No Satisfactory Business Case for East West Link: The previous Federal Government refused to provide funding to the State Government due to the flimsy case presented. Questions are being raised as to how the project attract funds without a satisfactory business case being made.

No Funds for Key Public Transport Rail Projects: The East West Link may cost $10 billion plus and so suck Treasury dry of funds for long-demanded rail projects, namely Doncaster, Tullamarine, Rowville and extension of the South Morang Rail line. Also Melbourne Metro Rail.

No Satisfactory Traffic Modelling: It has been established recently that VicRoads traffic statistics have not been used to justify predicted traffic increases but a private consultant employed by the State Government. Suspect figures have been provided.

Not in City of Melbourne 2008 Transport Strategy or MSS The project runs contrary to the Council’s own 2998 Transport Strategy and the transport objectives of the Melbourne Municipal Strategy recently signed off by Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

Blowout in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Increased Car Use Encouraged: The proposed project involves construction of 4 lane tollway concrete road tunnels and aerial roadways or cut-and cover-roadways for 18 km., which will blow out Victoria’s green house emissions. Provision of new roads will encourage increased vehicle usage, whereas in other States rail lines are being extended for commuters and for freight transport.

East West Link = Truck Not Commuter Route: The road tunnels are first and foremost a city by-pass for trucks and therefore do not serve commuters. The EW Link is reportedly going underground at Hoddle Street and, with one turnoff/on at Elliott Avenue to Flemington Road, emerges in Royal Park, travels through the Ross Straw Field and joins CityLink in or over the Royal Park wetlands. A later addition is the aerial roadway from Racecourse Road to the Port. As most traffic off the Eastern Freeway is headed south or north - including for the city – not east-west, the road tunnels do not serve the majority of commuters off the Eastern Freeway.

Planning on the Run: No proper plans have been produced only dotted lines on aerial maps and Mickey-Mouse animated videos. The State Government has demanded that the Eastern Section of the EW Link be expedited. By contrast three years were spent planning Westlink when it was a stand alone project. It is now the western end of the EW Link. Turn offs at Elliott Avenue in Royal Park and at Arden and Macaulay Street Kensington have been added only recently to the EW Link.

Congestion Will Remain: The current congestion and gridlock experienced in parts of the city will worsen as city commuters avoid the road tollway and turn off at Hoddle Street, Clifton Hill, turn off at Elliott Avenue for the Flemington Road to the city; and filter through the inner city or continue on existing roads above ground. Congestion on CityLink is predicted at the junction with EW Link over the Royal Park wetlands.

Destruction of Melbourne’s Major Park - Royal Park and the Moonee Ponds Creek: The EW Link will cut a swathe through Royal Park and in the process of tunnel or roadway construction over four to five years it will be transformed into giant quarry sites and its bushland (used for passive recreation), sports fields, community facilities, wetlands and water storage tanks ripped up by the EW Link construction. The remnant bushland in West Royal Park is the only area of this kind of vegetation left in Melbourne. An aerial roadway to the Port is now planned over the Moonee Ponds Creek.

Destruction of Wetlands and Water Storage Facilities: The Royal Park Wetlands which supplies water for Melbourne’s parks and street trees plus the Royal Park Golf course will be completely destroyed, including the vast water storage tanks under the Ross Straw field.

Loss of sports fields and club rooms: The sports fields in west and east Royal Park plus Princes Park which serve thousands of people - school children as well as adults – from across Melbourne will be requisitioned for construction for the tollway and probably never restored. This is at a time the population is growing rapidly and sports facilities are already in short supply. This will have a negative impact on people’s health. Will areas of parkland used for passive recreation be converted now for sports fields?

Loss of the State Netball and Hockey Centre plus Urban Camp for Children: The 4 lane EW Link will come within metres of the SNHC and will wipe out the Urban Camp. Two giant vent stacks will we positioned on the escarpment over the railway line not far from the SNHC. Brens Drive will be closed off during construction which will take 4 to 5 years. It is doubtful if the SNHC can survive despite assurances from Linking Melbourne Authority that access won’t be blocked. (Will another road be built through parkland?)

Compulsory Acquisition of Homes and Loss of Residential Amenity: Whole neighbourhoods will be severely affected by construction of road tunnels and elevated roadways on the route. We know that properties will be subject to compulsory acquisitions in Collingwood, Nth Melbourne, Clifton Hill, Kensington, West Parkville and Ascot Vale, plus the threat to residential amenity.

Threat to the Melbourne Zoo and the Royal Children’s Hospital: These institutions are threatened not only during 4 to 5 years of construction with vibration and noise but from long term pollution from vent stacks and obtrusive lighting. . It is not known whether the EW Link will be open “cut-and-cover” through Royal Park. The Elliott Avenue on/off ramps for the roads to/from Flemington Road are near the Zoo wall and is expected to harm the captive animals. The EW Link will be only a short distance - some 300 metres away - from the Royal Children’s Hospital. In their wisdom City of Melbourne staff members have extended the children’s discovery playground into the grass lands area of Royal Park. It will, therefore, will be extremely close to the E W Link as well as next to the helipad.

Yours sincerely

Julianne Bell
Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

Community Rally! Say 'No' to the East-West Tunnel! Say 'Yes' to Public Transport! 11am Sunday October 13, Corner Brunswick St & Westgarth St, Fitzroy.
- Say no to the $8b government handout to private road companies and yes to real investment in the expansion and improvement
- Save hundreds of local residents homes from demolition or damage
- Save Royal Park for future generations & protect the Moonie Valley Creek
- Protect the Royal Melbourne Zoo

This will be a family friendly event with food available by donation and speakers from various community groups who have been campaigning against the $8b East West tunnel. The rally will also be celebration of the peaceful community pickets that have been disrupting East West tunnel drilling.

Speakers include:

Freda Watkin (YCAT)
Amanda Stone & Steven Jolly (Yarra Councillors)
Keith & Mike (Local Residents)
Anthony Maine (Community Picket Coordinator)
More to be announced

Endorsements:

The community picket disrupting the test drilling
Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport (YCAT)
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (coalition of 80 environment, heritage and transport groups)
If your organisation would like to endorse this protest contact Liz Walsh on 0405 736 265

Get involved:
To get involved in the campaign that has successfully disrupted East West tunnel drilling:
Txt 'tunnel' to 0432 447 036 to receive daily picket locations

For campaign updates 'like' on facebook
- Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport
- No East-West Tunnel - Take the Pledge
- Trains Not Tolls

Visit www.ycat.org.au
Follow our social media hashtag: #tunnelpicket

Move aside Steven King, jellyfish are worse than any of your demons, worse than any Grade-B monster that’s graced the silver screen. Unlike The Blob, which can be stopped by freezing, you can’t kill them. Not with chemical repellents or biocides or nets or electric shocks or introducing species that eat jellyfish like the striped sea slug. If you shoot, stab, slash, or chop off part of a jellyfish, it can regenerate lost body parts within two days. Not even the past 5 major extinction events which killed up to 90% of all life on earth, killed off the jellyfish.

Meanwhile they’re on a rampage, doing millions of dollars in damage clogging intakes of nuclear, coal, and desalination plants, killing millions of farmed fish, and destroying fishing nets with their sticky icky bodies.

The more we overfish, pollute, acidify and warm the ocean, create vast dead zones, and trawl ocean bottoms, the better the jellyfish do.

The oceans make the earth habitable for us. They generate most of the oxygen we breathe, stabilize temperatures, drive climate and weather, and absorb a third of the CO2 we’re emitting. Over 3 billion people depend on the oceans for their livelihoods; 2.6 billion depend on seafood as their main source of protein.

Most alarming of all, 40% of phytoplankton has died off globally since the 1950s – they’re not only at the base of the food chain, but they generate most of the oxygen we breathe, as well as absorb half of the carbon dioxide, and their increasing death rate will make the ocean get warmer even faster.

Why Jellyfish are taking over the world

Prolific, hard to kill, breed fast, and more – no wonder they’re so successful:

They’ve everywhere, spread around the world in ship ballast or sea currents.
Ubiquitous – from top to bottom of the ocean, from pole to pole, year-round.
Grow faster than other species to quickly take advantage of any food, and they’ll eat almost anything — copepods, fish eggs, larvae, flagellates. They eat past when they can keep consuming, spit food out, waste a great deal other creatures could have eaten. Even when they’re full, their tentacles keep capturing prey.
If there’s no food, jellyfish can consume their own body mass and get smaller and smaller until they find food again, and rapidly return to normal. Even when they grow smaller they can still reproduce.
Consume many times their body weight in high-value food but are of low-value themselves because they provide little energy, ounce for ounce, compared to the food they ate. So they have few predators.
When 2 weeks old they can lay 10,000 eggs a day that hatch 12-20 hours later
They reproduce many ways: massive orgies, fission, fusion, cloning, hermaphroditism, external fertilization, self-fertilization, copulation.
If they lose a body part, they can regenerate it within 2 days.
They are the “Last Man Standing” in eutrophication zones because they need less oxygen
Many species can tolerate any salinity level, from fresh water to salt water
They’ve survived ice ages, hothouse climates, all five mass extinctions, predators, competitors, and us.
Jellyfish in the oceans have been known to live over 10 years
Many of them avoid predators by long vertical migrations from the deep sea to the surface at night and back down again by daylight

They can wait a long time for the right conditions to bloom

Just as plants have seeds which can endure many years waiting for optimum conditions to grow, jellyfish have a seed-like state called a polyp that waits for good conditions, and can clone themselves to create armies of ‘seeds’ waiting to burst into jellyfish blooms seemingly overnight. Polyps don’t “grow up” to become jellyfish. They spawn what we think of as jellyfish – the medusa — which then mate sexually to produce polyps, which stick to rocks, shells, man-made structures, plastic, etc. Both the polyps and the medusa could be considered “immortal” – when a polyp dies it’s clones live on, and there is one species of jellyfish, where after it dies, its pieces turn back into polyps (“Logically, it would seem that other species probably do it too, but we have yet to identify others,” according to Gershwin in a reply to this book review).

Jellyfish are at the top of the food chain

That seems so wrong– a primitive brainless blob? But jellyfish eat much larger clams, crabs, starfish, snails, and fast, smarter fish and squid.

They’re also at the top because not much wants to eat them.

Worse yet, they outcompete other sea life by devouring the eggs and larvae of species that would have grown up to eat jellyfish larvae. It’s a double whammy since these larvae never grow up, leaving a lot more food for jellyfish to consume. A jellyfish bloom can clear the water of all eggs, larvae, copepods, and small plankton in less than a day. This makes it almost impossible for some overfished species to make a comeback.

We’re helping the jellyfish take over by overfishing

Many of the small fish that compete with jellyfish for the same food, such as anchovies and sardines, are being overfished and turned into farmed fish food, pet food, and fertilizer. We harvest a whopping 44% of these small fish at the base of the food chain, which are also what cod, snapper, tuna, and halibut feed on, which prevents the recovery of fish we’d much rather eat.

We’ve already fished out 90% of all large fish in the ocean. And it’s only a matter of time before we find the other 10% with sonar, radar, LORAN, GPS, and spotter aircraft.

The United Nations has predicted all commercial fish species will be extinct by 2048. In 2002 we were fishing 72% of fish stocks faster than they could reproduce. 90 fish stocks around the world have had no recovery in population even 15 years after they collapsed.

Few small fish left, few big fish left – that opens up a lot of space for jellyfish to move in and take over. We’re creating a feedback loop that favors jellyfish.

Worse yet, overfishing can create trophic cascades when we remove keystone predators. We’ve nearly driven 11 species of large sharks along the Atlantic coast into extinction. They kept the ray population in check, but now that they’re gone, the ray population has exploded, and they’re devouring almost a million tons of scallops, clams, and oysters a year. Fishermen only harvested 330 tons. The Chesapeake used to famous for shellfish, now it’s best known for its jellyfish (p261-263).

You’ve probably heard of bycatch – all the unwanted and unintended dolphins, turtles, fish and so on that are discarded, most so mangle they don’t survive when thrown back. I was unaware that tropical shrimp are the worst of the worst because they’re obtained by bottom trawling and have a bycatch of 125 to 830% more than the shrimp captured. In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery 12,000,000 juvenile snappers and 6,000,000 pounds of sharks are discarded every year. Since most bycatch is unreported, these figures are probably too low. Further destroying the fish are the thousands of miles of “ghost nets” – the nets lost from boats that drift aimlessly still catching fish.

Jellyfish even eat other jellyfish, so when we’ve caught most of the fish, or otherwise destroyed them by dredging, ocean warming and acidification, pollution, dead zones, etc., jellyfish will still survive.

Trawling and Sewage favor jellyfish

Sewage provides nourishment for jellyfish since they can get 10 to 40% of what they need by absorbing nutrients through their skin. And there’s plenty of sewage for them. In just 7 days a 3,000 passenger cruise ship generates 210,000 gallons of sewage, a million gallons of gray water, 37,000 gallons of oil bilge water, 8 tons of solid waste. In the USA, animal feedlots produce 500 million tons of manure a year, 3 times as much as humans.

Bottom-trawls weigh thousands of tons and rake the seafloor for sole, halibut, cod, haddock, plaice, rockfish, rays, skates, prawns and son on, destroying corals and sponges as trawls rake across miles of seafloor, crushing what isn’t scooped up. The raking creates a fog of tiny particles. Fish can’t find their food in this dense fog of raked up particles or murky sewage, but guess who can….jellyfish, who just dangle their tentacles and it capture any food that drifts or swims into them.

Trawling dredges up toxic DDT, PCBs, hydrocarbons, mercury, radioactive particles, heavy metals, and plastics that add to eutrophication, destroy clams, scallops, bryozoans, tunicates, and other creatures. These substances, which had been buried in the sediment and removed from the food chain are released back again, and incorporated into the muscle, bone, blood, and fat of sea organisms.

Jellyfish don’t have these tissues, so they’re not much affected. Nor do they live long enough to store a high concentration of harmful toxins, or develop mutations or cancer.

Dredging creates many more areas for jellyfish polyps to attach to as pieces of plastic and other flotsam are dredged up, increasing the size of jellyfish blooms.

Jellyfish can take the heat

As climate change raises temperatures, the metabolic rate of all creatures rise, and they have to catch more food to stay alive.

The ocean has risen 1.8 F the past century, most of that the past 30 years, and may increase another 3.6 F over the next 100 years. In the ocean heat is even harder on organisms because warmer water has less oxygen. This means increased respiration which uses more energy and finding more food to eat. A creature that can’t respire fast enough will suffocate.

Warmer oceans are a dream come true for jellyfish – they can grow fast very quickly while other species are struggling. Phytoplankton blooms make even more food available. Jellyfish rates of reproduction increases and they can reproduce longer too.

Climate change also means far more unpredictable weather, another advantage for jellyfish, since they respond quickly to change and bloom explosively to cope. They’re the first to arrive and the last to leave. And jellyfish can tolerate a wide range of temperatures.

Jellyfish can even increase CO2 levels because

Their goo and poo are preferred by bacteria that emit high amounts of CO2.
Jellyfish displace fish, whose fecal pellets would have sunk to the bottom and sequestered CO2

We’re tipping the ecosystem in their favor

The more we damage and stress the ocean, the more likely the sedentary polyps will feel compelled to produce the next generation, the getaway medusa jellyfish who can escape the eutrophication, warming temperatures, changes in salinity, pollution, acidification, oil spills, or whatever else we’ve thrown at them. The medusa disperse to safer areas, and new areas, live to see another bloom, and eat and outcompete fish.

Dead zones, eutrophication, hypoxia favor jellyfish

Jellies can survive low oxygen conditions because they store oxygen in their tissues and breathe through their skin. They can swim in the top layer of water above and form a wall of slime that keeps fish out.

They can cause eutrophication by eating so many copepods that phytoplankton blooms erupt, die, and tilt the balance towards flagellate-based organisms, which jellyfish eat but fish don’t. And also their goo and poo favors microbes that respire a lot which generate CO2 and increase ocean acidification. Jellyfish can survive low oxygen levels better than most creatures.

The more jellyfish, the more jellyfish

As we create conditions that favor larger jellyfish blooms, their concentrations grow more dense, so when they release sperm and eggs the odds of contact and fertilization are greater.

And the greater the density of jellyfish, the more likely prey will be unable to escape. Nor will the small predators of jellyfish larvae be able to do so – the dense numbers of parent medusae will eat the small predators before their own larva can be consumed.

Larger jellyfish blooms makes even larger jellyfish blooms more likely, ratcheting up their ascent to dominance in the oceans.

Farmed fish won’t keep fish around – jellyfish kill them too

Jellyfish harm salmon farms through their mucous, bacteria, and stinging. The salmon waste and uneaten food also probably change the ocean to favor jellyfish and algal blooms.

Other jellyfish facts

- There are 1,500 known species of jellyfish, but probably quite a few more we haven’t identified yet
- They have no heart, brains, ears, heads, feet, gills, or bones
-They range from the size of a pea to 8 feet in diameter with tentacles that can be 200 feet long
- Kinds of jellies: moon, comb, pink meanies, rainbow, box, fire, sea wasps, sea nettles, sea gooseberries,Venus’s girdles, lion’s manes, purple people eaters, blubbers, snotties, agua vivas, blue bottles, the long stingy stringy thingy, etc.
-They’ve been here at least 565 million years practically unchanged, long before predators with shells or teeth evolved
-The Box Jellyfish is the world’s most venomous animal that can kill within 2 minutes. There are other lethal jellyfish as well.

Conclusion – We’ve turned the tide in favor of Jellyfish

This is one of the best books you can read about the myriad ways we’re destroying the ocean, which Gershwin has to explain so that she can then explain how that relates to how those factors affect jellyfish. Gershwin’s writing is witty and funny, making this grim topic easier to take. The natural history of jellyfish is amazing and bizarre. And despite this long book review, I’ve left out quite a bit, the story is far too complex to summarize — I hope you’ll read this book to learn more.

Even if we stopped overfishing, polluting, and so on, once we tip the ecosystem into one controlled by jellyfish, they will become the “new normal” and that will quite likely be impossible to change.

What a dismal future — an ocean of slimy, repulsive, stinging, sticky, lethal, spooky, scary, alien jellyfish. Bye-bye fish, oysters, shrimp, scallops, lobsters, Beluga caviar, abalone, sharks, whales, seals, sea lions, penguins, dolphins, sea otters, polar bears. Hello jelly-O.

The time when jellyfish rule is not far away, it could be in your lifetime, or your children’s lifetime. The climate and chemistry of the ocean is becoming like the Ediacaran ocean 565 million years ago, when jellyfish ruled the oceans for over 100 million years as the top predators.

In the last chapter, Gershwin writes that in the end, jellyfish are “also outcompeting the human race, because we depend on the oceans’ fish for our own food.”

Gershwin wrote this book assuming she’d have advice at the end of actions you could take to bring back the fisheries and keep jellyfish from dominating the oceans, but she ends the book saying it’s too late to do anything. Hold the presses — perhaps not, Lisa replied to this book review and said “I welcome thoughts that you or your readers may have toward saving the oceans and fixing the damage… the subject of my next book!”.

I like Gershwin’s honesty, and the willingness of the University of Chicago Press to publish her book, since most publishers won’t print a book that doesn’t have a happy ending (and also why our political and economic leaders deny or don’t talk about peak oil, climate change, and other insoluble problems.)

When will the fish, whales, dolphins, etc., return?

People have asked me when the fish would come back, since after all, they’re here now, they must have defeated the jellyfish in the past. That’s why you need to read this 344 page book. the ocean ecosystem is complex and Gershwin spends most of the book explaining how it works in order to then say how this relates to jellyfish. I’ve only reported on jellyfish part of what she wrote.

One important concept I didn’t cover was on low versus high-energy food chains, since that’s a big part of why the ocean is tipping in favor of the jellyfish, who do better in a low-energy system like the Ediacaran oceans hundreds of millions of years ago (read pages 288-344).

We’re returning the oceans to an Ediacaran state — warm oceans favor jellyfish, low energy food chains favor jellyfish, low oxygen favors jellyfish, ocean acidification favors jellyfish, billions of jellyfish consuming most fish eggs, larva, and juveniles favors jellyfish, ability to catch food in murky water favors jellyfish, their ability to bloom and grow faster than any other creature, humans removing most of the jellyfish predators and competitors from overfishing, the amazing adaptability of jellyfish, their being at the top of the food chain, and the synergy of all of these and the dozens of other factors above.

When this becomes a stable state, how do you get back?

“The Earth without us” gave me great hope. Because we’re at peak fossil fuels the climate change scenarios won’t be as bad as the worst forecasts (perhaps), without oil there will be only a billion people or less, who can’t do nearly as much harm without oil-powered vehicles and combustion engines.

A day will come when the earth cools, oceanic oxygen and pH levels go up, and fish and sea mammals will return. If they’ve survived, that is. The problem with an extinction like this 6th one we’re causing is that the hangover can last for millions of years before evolution refills the lost niches of extinct creatures, sigh.

Alice Friedemann

This puts Mr Roberton way ahead of two of Labor's federal leaders, Bill Shorten and Paul Howes, who are still singing the praises of population growth.

Of course John Robertson did not suggest that he would do anything concrete to stop this rapid population growth. If he had done so, Murdoch's editors would almost certainly have refused to run his piece.

He implies that we may have to be fatalistic about population growth, but will need to spend more on catering for it: He correctly remarks that "Expanding our city at the current rate - while slashing services and failing to deliver infrastructure - is a recipe for disaster." But he fails to note that governments can't simply spend ever more on infrastructure because the rising rate of population growth is driving them towards bankruptcy. Every extra person in Australia, needs at least $200,000 worth of additional infrastructure, though some studies suggest the figure is far higher. The impossibility of coping with such rapid population growth without letting services and infrastructure deteriorate is well explained on Kelvin Thomson's Wikipedia page (last paragraphs).

That's a lovely pair of pincers to have your political opponents trapped between. But there's no reason to assume Robertson could do any better if he came to power. There is no piece of magic technology called "good government" that gets you out of that trap, unless you can reduce the rate of population growth. But at least Robertson seems able to see both sides of the trap he (and his opponents) are in.

You can find the text of his article here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/sydney-needs-services-not-just-a-rising-population/story-fni0cwl5-1226731779788#mm-breached

And below that is a reminder about the Fenner Conference on Population (10-11 October in Canberra) for which bookings close on Monday.

FENNER CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT 2013

10, 11 October 2013

Shine Dome, Acton, Canberra

Book online at https://www.amlink.com.au/secure/html/fenner2013.html

Further information at www.population.org.au

Keynote address by Professor Paul Ehrlich

Other speakers include:

Suzanne Cory, Hugh Possingham, David Lindenmayer, Chris Dickman, Bob Birrell, Mark O’Connor, Jane O’Sullivan, Michael Lardelli, Simon Michaux, Sharyn Munro, Rhondda Dickson, Michael Jeffrey, Gary Jones, Ian Lowe, Michael Raupach, Ian Dunlop, Tony McMichael, Paul Collins, Haydn Washington, Kelvin Thomson, Julian Cribb, and Roger Short. Richard Denniss is after-dinner speaker.

Registration: $220 ($170 concession) Dinner $70

Organised by Sustainable Population Australia Inc.

Help needed, and it won’t take but a moment of your time. Here in Macedon Ranges Shire we have a terrible council. It thinks it can operate and make decisions in isolation of and without consulting its community, while making the community pay for its decisions. Recently Macedon Ranges council took this culture a step too far. It deliberately resolved (not once, but twice) to apply for funding for a conference centre (and other large-scale development) at Hanging Rock and to not consult the community on the development or funding.

Hanging Rock does not belong to Macedon Ranges’ council officers and 5 of 9 councillors! It is an international icon; it belongs to the people of Macedon Ranges, Victoria, and Australia. Yet our council has shut everyone out. It’s making big decisions on our behalf – and on yours – without us having a say. We want our council to know this is not acceptable, and to rethink its decision.

The first favour we ask of you is PLEASE, PLEASE SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION “HANGING ROCK FOR SALE – HAVE YOUR SAY” by going to
http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/hanging-rock-for-sale-have-your-say
This petition has been authored and started by local residents in the Hanging Rock area community. MRRA is supporting this initiative.

The second favour we ask is PLEASE, PLEASE SEND THIS EMAIL AROUND TO YOUR FRIENDS AND CONTACTS AND ASK THEM TO SIGN THE PETITION AS WELL.

Here’s what some people are saying:

“If you have visited the Rock at some stage in your life you know the beauty and mysteriousness of the area, if you have not visited the Rock please google it and you will see what I mean. I live near the Rock and drive past it every day to and from work and it never ceases to amaze me because I see the same view but it’s different. I implore you to sign this petition to put a stop to the suggested development around the area of the Rock; Landcare has spent 10 years building up the wildlife corridor here and as usual greedy people just want to tear the bush down and put in concrete. Once you have signed it please email this to all your friends so we can save a natural beauty so close to Melb for visitors.” Toni

“Development such as that being proposed by MRSC in an area protected by an environmental overlay is totally inappropriate. It goes against all that this Landcare group has been working towards over a 10 year period! The East paddock area was purchased to buffer the reserve at Hanging Rock - a haven for wild-life and city-weary folks. So please add your name to the petition Luke has prepared and send it [the link] to your friends.” Penny

As you can see, this awful decision affects many people and impacts many (irreplaceable) values.
Many thanks for your help.

Christine Pruneau,

Note that Mr Abbott's 2010 policy on population growth still amounted to wanting to have his cake and eat it, in the sense of wanting 'sustainability' but growth at the same time. He does say, however, that "Australia needs a population that our services can satisfy, our infrastructure can support, our environment can sustain, our society can embrace, and our economy can employ." Unfortunately he seems to want to leave the judgement of what this is up to the productivity commission, which seems to be entirely incompetent to assess ecological sustainability. Will Mr Abbott toe the line of his political promoter, the Murdoch Press, by keeping Australian targeted for continuing overpopulation, or will he use his big majority to carve out something more democratic? Clive Palmer, probably correctly, described Abbott as a B.A. Santamariaist" on Q & A tonight.

On Tony Abbott's websiste you can read:

"Real Action On Sustainable Population Growth

Posted on Sunday, 25 July 2010

Australia needs a population that our services can satisfy, our infrastructure can support, our environment can sustain, our society can embrace, and our economy can employ.

Australia's population growth since World War II has helped create the prosperity we now enjoy. Successive waves of post-war migration have expanded our capacity as a nation.

Under the Howard Government, our immigration programme enjoyed support from a majority of Australians who were confident that the programme was fair, competently administered, and delivering benefits to the entire community.

Under Labor, migration-fuelled population growth has caused Australians to become increasingly concerned, and to lose confidence in our broader immigration programme.

The hopeless failure of Labor’s border protection regime has further eroded community trust.

Under Labor, net overseas migration has risen to 300,000 people per year, against a long run average of around 140,000 per year. [Candobetter.net editorial comment: Actually it was more like 80,000 per year until Howard ramped it up, but it is true that it has increased even more under Labor - see Graph above, based on Australian Year Books and ABS stats].

At this rate Australia’s population would reach 42.3 million people by 2050, significantly above the earlier Intergenerational Report II (IGR) forecast of 36 million.

As a result, the quality of life for Australians living in our major urban areas today is under great pressure.
Fuelling population growth today must not rob future generations of the quality of life and opportunities we currently enjoy. That is what sustainability is all about.

On the eve of an election, Labor politicians have suddenly started to say they no longer believe in a “big Australia” – while cynically trying to put off any decisions on these issues until after the election.

While Labor may have changed its rhetoric under its new leader, Labor’s policies on immigration or population have not changed.

The Coalition believes it is necessary to ease population growth to deliver more sustainable population levels, based on our present and future capacity, so that our infrastructure, services and environment can catch up.

Unlike Labor, the Coalition’s population and immigration policy is clear.

The Coalition will:

1. Establish ‘Guard Rails’ for Population Growth

The Coalition will set clear parameters for population growth by tasking a renamed Productivity and Sustainability Commission to advise on population growth bands that it considers are sustainable.

This recommendation will provide a Coalition Government with the expert advice necessary to establish the framework for setting migration programmes.

2. Take Real Action on Immigration

The Coalition will reduce Australia’s annual rate of population growth from more than 2 per cent under Labor, to our historical long-run average of 1.4 per cent within our first term.

This will require reducing our annual rate of net overseas migration from 298,924 in 2008/09 to no more than 170,000 per year by the end of our first term.

3. Make a Clear Commitment to Skills Migration and Regional Australia.

The Coalition will ensure that two-thirds of our permanent migration programme will be for the purposes of skilled migration.

A Coalition Government will also quarantine the level of employer nominated skills migration and 457 temporary business visas to at least the levels it inherits. In addition, the Coalition will liberalise arrangements for temporary business visas (457s) subject to clear standards, to make them more accessible to business, especially small businesses, and business in regional areas, with proven skills shortage needs. [= Yes, repeat No? – Mark’s comment]

To address the skills needs of regional areas and small business, the Coalition will encourage the settlement on either a temporary or permanent basis of new arrivals in regional and rural areas.

States such as Queensland and Western Australia will be afforded a high priority for permanent and temporary skilled visa applications.

A Coalition Government would also seek to resettle more entrants from our refugee and humanitarian programme in regional areas, where these resettlement programmes have proved to be highly successful.

4. Establish A Clear and Consultative Process to Restore Control

The Coalition will produce a White Paper on immigration that will reframe the structure and composition of Australia’s immigration programme to address the policy challenges of sustainable population growth.

A Discussion Paper will be released by the end of 2010, with a final paper to be completed by the Coalition’s first Budget in May 2011. This will help inform the composition of the 2011-12 migration programme.

Australians want their government to take control of population and immigration policies to restore confidence and ensure our immigration and population levels are sustainable and in the national interest.

The Coalition’s plan for Real Action on Sustainable Population Growth will restore confidence and re-establish consensus on the benefits of our immigration programme."

A few years ago I was introduced to Dr. Al Bartlett's "Arithmetic, population and energy" lecture recorded at the University of Colorado , (Boulder) U.S.A. To me, the message was so clear, engaging and logical that no-one could fail to understand it and hopefully none would fail to see the significance.

– He was saying that what may look to be ample reserves , for example, 500 years of coal still in the ground will not last anywhere near that as the demand for that resource increases with exponential population growth.

He was talking to a lecture theatre of students and I thought, "That's good. They cannot fail to understand the significance of exponential growth combined with the use of a finite resource and the implications. I read that Prof. Bartlett has given this lecture 1,600 times since 1969 http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html to average audiences of 80 people. That is 128,000 who have heard his lecture live. One of the You Tube videos of this talk has had 37,720 views. Someone in that large audience over those 4 decades must have realised from them that humanity is in real trouble over finite energy resources and an ever growing population!

Today I heard that Al Bartlett has died. There will be no more lectures to students in Universities, but we can still hear the important and clear message from Prof. Bartlett by going to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU. Believe me, you will not be bored, you should be spellbound.

Climate change appears to be promoting the spread of crop pests throughout the world as regions once too cold to sustain them begin to warm.

Some species are being driven to extinction, but currently 10-16% of global crop production is lost to pests, and the spread of beetles, moths, bacteria, worms, funghi etc in a warming world may increasing.

The Brown Marmorated stink bug can be an agricultural pest, threatening apples, pears, peaches, figs, mulberries, citrus, persimmon and soybeans.

"If crop pests continue to march polewards as the Earth warms the combined effects of a growing world population and the increased loss of crops to pests will pose a serious threat to global food security," co-author of an research article in journal Nature Climate Change, Dan Bebber of the University of Exeter, said in statement.

Co-author Sarah Gurr, also from the University of Exeter, international government officials must pay greater heed as to what crops they allow to cross their borders. It flies in the face of the concept of a global food trade.

The spread of pests is caused by both human activities and natural processes but is thought to be primarily the result of international freight transportation. Observations over 50 years revealed that the movement of pests north and south towards the poles, and into new previously un-colonised regions, corresponds to increased temperatures during that period.

The study included fungi, such as wheat rust,is devastating harvests in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The mountain pine beetle is destroying trees in the US, as well as bacteria, viruses and microscopic nematode worms. The organisms can only take hold in new areas if the conditions are suitable, and the researchers believe that warming temperatures have enabled the creature to survive at higher latitudes.

The paper also acknowledges, future global food security depends on a number of physical and socio-economic factors i.e. population growth.

Predications around food production indicate that food growth will need to increase by 70 to 100 percent over the next 30 years to meet demand.

Losses of major crops to fungi, and fungi-like microorganisms, amount to
enough to feed nearly nine percent of today's global population. The study suggests that these figures will increase further if global temperatures continue to rise as predicted.

Climate change may add a further 50% to maize prices and slightly less to wheat, rice and oil seeds.

Child malnutrition is predicted to increase by 20% by 2050. Climate change impacts will disproportionately fall on people living in tropical regions, and particularly on the most vulnerable and marginalised population groups.

Population growth

Dr Sharma, director of plant biosecurity at the Department of Agriculture and Food in western Australia, says that more than 30 per cent of the world's food - enough to feed more than 2 billion people - is currently lost in the food value chain. This problem is being compounded by the decreasing availability of arable land and water.

"The task of feeding the world's growing population will become harder with rising natural resource constraints, declining crop productivity, and more frequent extreme weather events. One in eight people go hungry in the world today, and even more in Africa".

In Australia, the CSIRO states that 25 per cent of the cost of food products come from invasive weeds, pests and diseases. “We live in an increasingly food-insecure world with challenges from population growth, urbanisation, and environmental degradation”.

Dr Bruce Lee (Director Food Futures Flagship, CSIRO) put it succinctly at a recent agricultural biotechnology conference “in 1960 1ha fed 2 people but by 2030 that 1ha will have to feed 5”.

GM Crops

GM crops are being made to be healthier for us and the environment by becoming more salt tolerant, harder to be eaten by pests (and consequently less pesticide is used) and having increased yields.

According to World Vision, allergic responses may occur due to inserting material from a food – such as peanuts, wheat or egg – that already causes allergic reactions in some people. Toxins are already present in many widely consumed foods, but GM plant breeding to develop a particular characteristic (such as pest resistance) could increase the toxicity of a plant or reduce its nutritional value.

A recent study conducted by Australian and US researchers found that pigs that were fed a diet of genetically modified grain showed significantly higher rates (20 percent) of stomach inflammation than pigs who were fed conventional feed. The study, which was published in the Journal of Organic Systems, was conducted over 22.7 weeks using 168 newly weaned pigs in a commercial piggery located in the US.

The CSIRO was trialling GM wheat in the ACT and received warnings from a number of scientists stating that the modified crops could pose a significant health risk to humans and other animals

Our own Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says that:
"Continuing population growth and limited land and water resources, particularly in the Asia–Pacific region, have made food security a priority for many governments. As the economies in our region grow, and per capita incomes rise, consumers will increasingly demand safe, high-quality, high-protein food".

Considering our own population growth is politically engineered, why don't this type of information reach the politicians intent on growth at all costs?

Dwindling resources

Prof Paul Ehrlich warns us that “Global food and nutrition security is a major global concern as the world prepares to feed a growing population on a dwindling resource base.."

Prof David Attenborough says that "Since I first started making TV programs there are over three times as many human beings on earth as there were. And we all need food, we all need houses, and we all need schools... and we all therefore make huge demands on what was the natural world.
"So there's less and less space for wild animals," he says.

It would be a remarkable irony if some of the smallest creatures on the planet continued to be “successful” and spread, and thanks to anthropogenic climate change, were able to reproduce at a rate outpacing human population growth – eating crops before they were supposed to secure our food supplies!

The “challenges” of the future could come from some of the Earth's smallest inhabitants, and be a constraint to human overpopulation.

Our politicians assume that Australia is immune from global patterns and threats, and the major parties have no environmental policies that future-proof Australia's food bowls.

Governments are creating a great fear of an "ageing population" and population decline.  While asylum seekers are shunted off to PNG, there are over 1000 people legally imported into Australia each day - as skilled migrants or under the family reunion scheme – to alleviate our “ageing population”.

Our cities and infrastructure are buckling under the heavy weight of population growth, to alleviate our "ageing population"! We have constant "shortages", cut backs and austerity measures due to population pressures.  Young people are at risk from being lost to unemployment, and debt, as our economy lags behind population growth.
Mug shot of Charles Ponzi (March 3, 1882 – January 18, 1949). Charles Ponzi was born in Italy and became known as a swindler for his money scheme.

Increasing spending on welfare

With total government spending at $485 billion, spending on the welfare state accounted for a majority share—or 65% of the total. It is astounding that of the $316 billion that the government spent on welfare, approximately half, or $158 billion, was due to tax-welfare churn (The process of levying taxes on people and then returning those taxes to the same people in the form of income support payments and welfare services simultaneously or over the course of an individual’s lifetime).

When combined with the fiscal pressures of an ageing population and expected lower tax revenue growth, it is clear the Australian welfare state is unsustainable on current trends.

Australia is facing a welfare state-driven financial crisis like that which exists in Europe today. (CIS report: Target 30)

Target30 propose that superannuation be used to buy annuities, pension assets tests should include the family home, and aged pension and preservation ages be raised and aligned.

Social security and welfare spending accounted for A$138 billion in the latest budget, a rise of nearly 14% per year over the past decade. Assistance to the aged has risen to almost A$55 billion, a rise of 22% per year since 2003-04. In 2003-04 A$26 billion were payments to the aged, while families with children received A$21 billion.

Health expenditure expected to nearly double as a proportion of GDP over the next 40 years and aged-care spending projected to increase as a proportion of GDP from 0.8 per cent in 2010 to about 1.8 per cent in 2050.

The aged pension is predicted to cost $37 billion this year rising rapidly to $45 billion by 2015-16. It is estimated another 220,000 older Australians will start drawing down an aged pension in the coming four years.The greatest risk to prosperity come from sustained increases in spending, especially in health. Over the past decade health expenditure rose by over $40 billion in real terms. According to a Grattan Report the ageing population was not the prime cause. Rather, people of any age saw doctors more often, had more tests and operations and took more prescription drugs.

After welfare, the second biggest chunk of the federal budget is healthcare. This is "burdened" by the ageing population. The health budget is set to escalate to $71 billion by 2015-16.

In third place in the budget comes education spending at almost $30 billion a year, including funding for universities, non-government schools and some funding for public schools (although states still pick up most of the tab for public schools).

News.com: Where does all the money go

No doubt the best solution would be to ensure that older people were eliminated, by voluntary euthanasia, after they finished contributing economically to our society.

Ageing migrants

Despite many older people living long and healthy lives, and being financially self-sufficient, they are are being exaggerated as a threat. Migrants are ageing too. Professor Graeme Hugo AO, Director of the Australian Population and Migration Research Centre at the University of Adelaide, says the issue of ageing migrants is important to a range of policy areas in Australia. The last Census showed that 32,000 aged pensions are being paid every year direct to Greece and Italy to migrants who formerly came to Australia over the decades in the 20th century, and have now retired.

It's assumed that young migrants are the "silver bullet" to our ageing workforce, but migrants age too!

We need to end the stigma and discrimination of the aged in the work force and tap into their wisdom and experience. Japan has an ageing population, and still their economy is strong and growing - due to production and skills.

Importing young migrants only temporarily keeps our population "young" anyway, as everyone ages at the same rate. Rather than a constant flow of foreigners, many of whom are now facing higher rates of unemployment than Australian born, employers need to be flexible to allow part-time work, and tap into the experience and abilities of older workers.

Immigration only temporarily relieves ageing population

NSW Treasury Long-Term Fiscal Pressures Report answer to the fiscal ‘challenge’ of Australia’s ageing population is to increase immigration, restrain public sector pay, and – the quote here is direct – through “lowering community expectations” of services. There’s no Get Up! outrage over humdrum issues like 10 year-long queues for public housing, or ballooning hospital waiting times, or the fact that only 2% of rents in Sydney-Illawara are affordable for very low income workers. Deniers avert our attention to asylum seekers and gay marriage,"McMansions", big cars and over-consumption.

Population growth is also the lazy way to grow GDP (as opposed to GDP per capita) and make Treasurers look good. If this wasn’t enough, big business also has enormous influence on our major political parties through donations.

Young people remain longer in education before they take on full-time jobs in an economy increasingly based on knowledge and skills, and older people may often experience difficulty in finding employment. In 2011, 36% of Australia's older people were not born in Australia, a substantially higher proportion than the 24% of people under 65 years who were overseas-born.

It's not just "baby boomers" who are ageing!

In the Productivity Commission 2010 report titled Population and Migration: Understanding the Numbers, the Commission concluded that "Realistic changes in migration levels also make little difference to the age structure of the population in the future, with any effect being temporary, since immigrants themselves age."

Where does population growth end? We might be able to temporarily dilute, by a fraction, the proportion of people aged over 65, but in the long term the next generation will inherit a bigger "ageing population" to compensate for - but how?

“Realistic changes in fertility can have little impact on the age structure of the population in the short to medium term. While they have a greater effect in the longer term, they cannot stem the ageing of Australia’s population. Realistic changes to fertility could have some effect in the long term, but the proportion of older Australians will still grow from current levels. ”

End to the Age of Entitlements

The nation's peak welfare body has backed Joe Hockey's call for an end to the age of entitlement, arguing that people have "learned to expect new things from government" and tax reform is needed to transform the system. Australian Council of Social Service senior policy officer on tax and economics Peter Davidson said slowing growth and an ageing population meant the tax and welfare system was unsustainable.

The Australian: Joe Hockey call for an end to the age of Entitlement

Baby Bonus, Schoolkids Bonus and a Seniors Bonus are all "wasteful". Acoss says that taxes should be as simple, transparent and predictable as possible.

The Age of Entitlement is over. We should not take this as cause for despair. It is our market based economies which have forced this change on unwilling participants. Government spending on a range of social programs including education, health, housing, subsidised transport, social safety nets and retirement benefits has reached extraordinary levels as a percentage of GDP, and in an age of slowing growth and ageing population, are simply unsustainable.
It's an admission that our "growth" will inevitably lower our standards of living, and we will be less for our taxes. It's pure Ponzi economics!

Two decades of economic growth and we are being strangled economically.

“The reality is that despite more than two decades of strong economic growth, fault lines are emerging in our economic and social foundations that we simply cannot continue to ignore.

“There are major holes in our social safety net that the next government will have to address – in affordable housing, education, disability, mental and dental health, and community controlled services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples..." In reality, 22 years of "economic growth" has left us worse off, and poverty is increasing with 2.2 million people living below the poverty line.

ACOSS outlines proposals for first 100 days of new government (They never suggest limiting growth!)

Australia has long been one of the countries which has most enthusiastically pursued growth through immigration. But as the fertility rate fell – it has been below replacement rate for more than 30 years – that Big Australia goal became ever more reliant on imported people.

With no policies on slowing immigration levels, the flow of migrants to the western suburbs will hardly slow at all.

Lower fertility rates mean older, less innovative and productive workforces. More importantly to the Ponzi economic order, older, stable or declining populations consume less. So growth requires either importing people, or exporting stuff, or a combination of the two. Orthodox economics simply can’t cope otherwise.

“Economic growth” Ponzi economics

The Economy is meant to serve us, not “grow” to detrimental levels and deny its very purpose – to care for our health, education, children and seniors, and be a safety-net when emergencies strike.

“We’re certainly operating a Ponzi scheme in Australia,” says Dr Bob Birrell, an economist and migration expert from Monash University.

“Our growth is predicated on extra numbers… [and] more of our activity is going into city building and people servicing, which do not directly produce many goods that can be traded in overseas markets".

There are limits to growth, and Ponzi pyramid growth schemes always collapse and leave the participants worse off - except for the capital owners at the summit. What we need is a circuit-breaker to the growth/ageing population/"economic growth" mentality that is destroying our environment, vilifying older people, and causing hardship and increasing budgetary austerity.

Why is it that we almost always only hear about how population restraint depends on women? It's as if women made babies all by themselves and men had no responsibility. But not everyone falls for that strangely distorted point of view. Link to film inside.

Jonathan Stack and supporters are trying to raise a bit over $50,000 in order to make a film about the power of vasectomy.

Vasectomies are cheaper, easier and safer than hysterectomies and tubal ligations or chemical contraceptives (although women remain very grateful for those). What is more, you know where you stand on paternity suits. Most of all, though, you take control over your ecological footprint by not creating any little feet that you don't want.

What do you do when you want to lower the cat population? You desex the tom-cats. The same rules apply for humans.

October 18 is World Vasectomy Day and 100 doctors in 25 countries are going to do over 1000 vasectomies. Already doctors are helping men to fulfill their desire to stop siring children. In the film below we see a doctor about to perform a vasectomy on a willing free customer who has 26 children and does not want any more.

As the founder of World Vasectomy Day, Jonathan Stack, says, "Overpopulation makes every environmental problem more complicated."

Groups representing thousands of Australians intend seeking meetings with Federal MPs to see where they stand on population growth and are calling for a referendum on the issues.

Peak environmental and planning groups in Victoria have cooperated to create a people’s Population Charter which says to the growth lobbyists “enough!”

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Green Wedges Coalition, Planning Backlash, Environment East Gippsland, and the Vic/Tas branch of Sustainable Population Australia represent thousands of Victorians concerned that urban and rural amenity is being paved over as our urban open space, productive farmland and critical wildlife habitats are lost to more and more development.

The group intends to seek meetings with various Federal MPs to assess their support for action on population growth, and is also calling for a referendum to gauge the level of support for government to adopt a population policy which is responsive to the environmental carrying capacity of each region whilst also observing our international humanitarian obligations.

Acting Victorian president of Sustainable Population Australia and charter spokesperson Jenny Warfe says:

“Representative democracy is failing us. From Tecoma to Collingwood and Port Campbell to Gippsland, environmental and community groups are battling developer juggernauts, road and toll way builders. We are all having the same arguments over and over again with decision makers who don’t care what their constituents want, just what their developer mates want. And they want more of everything. It’s time to take back the decision making process about critical environmental and planning issues before unchecked population expansion rolls over all that is dear to us and critical for our future survival.”

It is fascinating to note that the bulk of the people leading and animating these groups are women, standing up to the male-dominated ideology of forced population growth in Australia.

The onerous charges inflicted on citizens attempting to access rights to control over their local environment and government are increasingly medieval. With the Judiciary now almost uniquely serving the corporate sector, one gets the sense that developers truly think they are Lords and that the state government thinks it is a King, and that both see the suburbs as their frontiers and their inhabitants as some insignificant race of beings. It seems clear that capitalism, as practised in Australia, is antithetical to democracy. It is clear that VCAT supports government policy of growth at all costs and that citizens are paying most of those costs, but not getting justice in return.

From the Macedon Ranges Christine's description of VCAT charges on citizens evoke Charles I's star chamber. She says that there is a case in the area, initiated by objectors against a council approval, which was lodged before the changes on 1 July.

The objectors are a group, and another individual (i.e. there are two formal ‘objectors’).

The group asked for 3 hours. They have just been told it is a 5 day hearing, with the developer asking for 21 hours.

The objectors have to pay $2,000 in daily hearing fees for this (split between objectors), on top of lodgement fees.

They have to pay every day before the hearing day because if they pay in advance, and the hearing is deferred or cancelled, they lose their ‘hearing day’ money.

The developer apparently pays nothing.

How VCAT was meant to function:

When Justice Bell first took up the position of President of VCAT he said:

“Local government is the primary decision-maker and we are truly a review tribunal, that’s our statutory purpose.”

“I would be disturbed if it were true
that we had become a default state
planning tribunal; if , for example,
the power of amendment we have is
being abused by developers such
that they are not presenting their
true case to council and are
saving it for VCAT.”

Justice Kevin Bell
August 2009.

Link here for Macedon Ranges Residents website

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.

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."

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.

There is an Orwellian new Bill on the brink of being passed in Victoria's Parliament. (Debate 27 June) The Bill justifies reducing public rights to consultation and objection by narrowing the scope of consultation, by reducing the scope of information given to the public in respect of revocation of reserves of public land and compulsory acquisition of land, public and private. It allows enormous discretion on the part of the Minister with regard to what information and consultation he allows, even with local government bodies. The really Orwellian part of the Bill is the circular justification of these reductions in citizens' civil rights on so-called grounds of 'efficiency' and 'time saving'. In this case 'cutting red tape' means 'cutting out democracy'.

This new Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment (East West Link and Other Projects) Bill 2013 is to be debated on 27 June in the Legislative Assembly. The Bill, by its very name, shows that it has been drafted to push through a particular hated series of private toll-roads that will horribly scar our green landscape and drastically reduce habitat for native animals. We refer to the East-West Link, which Kelvin Thomson has described as "con job". This legislation is part of a frightening trend to remove public land, particularly green, natural land and parks from Melbourne and its surrounds.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc say that it is very important that the public attend Parliament for the second reading and debate on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment (East West Link and Other Projects) Bill 2013 in the Legislative Assembly on Thursday 27 June 2013.

Government and Opposition need to see large numbers of the public in attendance in the public galleries. It is important to signify public vigilance and opposition to the East West Link and support for the Doncaster Rail Project, which the public actually want and which represents a true alternative.

Thursday 27 June 2013 is the last sitting day of Parliament before the winter recess. The Bill will go to the Upper House - the Legislative Council - to be considered on the first day of the new term of Parliamentary sitting i.e. 20 August 2013.

By next Tuesday afternoon there should be an estimated time for the Bill to be heard in the Legislative Assembly on the Thursday 27 June and therefore when to attend. The public can ring the Legislative Assembly Papers Office by ringing the Parliament House switch phone: 9651 8911 or try [email protected].

Community Activist groups monitoring these proposed reductions in democratic rights to object to unwanted development are Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) and Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport (YCAT)

Below we have emboldened key comments in the parliamentary 'statement of compatibility with human rights' of the bill. Below that we have reproduced the second reading of the bill.

Page 2162

MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT (EAST WEST
LINK AND OTHER PROJECTS) BILL 2013

Statement of compatibility

Mr MULDER (Minister for Public Transport) tabled following statement in
accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006 (charter act), I make this statement of
compatibility with respect to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation
Amendment (East West Link and Other Projects) Bill 2013.

In my opinion, the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment (East West
Link and Other Projects) Bill 2013, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly,
is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter act. I base my
opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The main purposes of the bill are to:

amend the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to reduce
procedural delays and red tape in relation to major transport projects; and

amend the Transport Integration Act 2010 to improve the operation of that
act.

Human rights issues

Section 15 of the charter act protects a person's right to freedom of
expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart
information. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute; lawful
restrictions reasonably necessary to protect the rights of other persons, or
for the protection of public order and public health, are permissible under
the charter act.

Restricting a person's ability to receive information in the form of
Government Gazette notices could engage the right of freedom of expression.
Clauses 7(2), 11(1), 12(1), 15, 17(3), 22, 51, 52 and 65(1) in the bill remove
requirements to publish certain notices in the Government Gazette from the
Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009.

However, the bill does not limit the right of freedom of expression because it
requires or does not affect the requirement to publish notices on websites of
agencies and, therefore, the relevant information remains widely accessible to
the public and potentially in a way that is more accessible and user friendly.
In some cases (clauses 6 and 14(2)), the requirement to publish information on
the departmental website is new and therefore positively promotes the right to
receive information.

Clauses 16(c) and 23(c) of the bill change requirements relating to
documentation for assessment under the impact management plan and
comprehensive impact statement respectively. The changes remove some
information requirements for those documents which could engage the right of
freedom of information as it affects the ability of the public to receive
information.

[Ends justify the means? (Ed.)]

In so far as these amendments limit the right to the freedom of information,
in my opinion the limitation is justifiable and proportionate to the bill's
objective of reducing red tape and procedural delays. In addition, the
restrictions are limited in nature as the information is still provided in
accordance with scoping directions (the publicly available requirements for
project assessment documentation) issued by the planning minister and sections
27(a), (f)-(h) and 39(a), (f)-(i).

Clause 21 of the bill also engages the right to freedom of expression by
amending the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to allow the
planning minister to confine the scope of any public hearing to specified
matters. Clause 21 may also engage the right to take part in public life by
limiting the degree of involvement during a public hearing, if the minister
exercises his or her discretion to confine the scope of a hearing.

Section 18 of the charter act provides that every person has the right, and is
to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct
of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, for
example by exerting influence through public dialogue and debate with elected
representatives.

However, members of the public are not restricted from making written
submissions to the assessment committee and verbal submissions to the
assessment committee where a confinement does not apply. Therefore, although
clause 21 of the bill limits these rights, in my opinion the limitation is
justifiable on the basis that the limitation reflects the purpose of the bill
to reduce procedural delay and cut red tape in relation to major transport
projects. It is also a limited restriction as members of the public are still
able to convey their views and participate in the engagement process required
by the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009. Therefore the public
can still participate in influencing the final approval decision of the
minister.

Section 19(1) of the charter act provides that all persons with a particular
cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background must not be denied the
right, in community with other persons of that background, to enjoy his or her
culture.

Clause 59 of the bill allows for reservations of land under the Crown Land
(Reserves) Act 1978 to be revoked and therefore engages cultural rights
generally. The Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 enables Crown land to be
permanently or temporarily reserved for a range of purposes, including
purposes which involve the creation, protection or preservation of places of
cultural significance.

However, revoking a reservation for the purpose of an approved project will
only occur following an assessment and approvals process under the Major
Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 and a transparent and public process
under division 5 of part 3 of that act. Therefore, the bill maintains cultural
rights by providing groups whose cultural rights may be affected and the
public generally with an opportunity to participate in the decision-making
process where a reservation is revoked.

Clause 59 also engages the right to take part in public life as impacts on
public participation on the basis that reservations can be revoked. However,
again the limitation is proportionate and justifiable on the basis that the
revocation must occur in accordance with the proper processes under the Crown
Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the public participation mechanisms in the Major
Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009.

Section 20 of the charter act provides that a person must not be deprived of
his or her property other than in accordance with law. Any law that deprives a
person of property must be accessible, sufficiently precise and should not
provide for an arbitrary interference with property. Clause 73 of the bill
inserts a new section 138A into the Transport Integration Act 2009 which
allows the Linking Melbourne Authority to compulsorily acquire land required
in connection with the performance of its powers or the exercise of its
functions.

Compulsory acquisition of an individual's land is a deprivation of property
for the purpose of the right to property. However, the acquisition of
interests in land under the bill requires ministerial approval.

[That's sure to be a big comfort! - Ed.]

The compensation requirements in the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 2009
also apply, with minor modifications.

A person deprived of their land under these clauses must be properly notified
and compensated, and may test the lawfulness of an acquisition through
judicial review. In addition, clause 55 does not limit planning compensation.
Accordingly, in my view, compulsory acquisition of land under the bill would
be in accordance with the law and these provisions do not limit the property
right.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I consider that the bill is compatible with
the charter act.

Terry Mulder, MP

Minister for Public Transport

MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT (EAST WEST
LINK AND OTHER PROJECTS) BILL 2013

Second reading Title MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT (EAST WEST LINK AND OTHER PROJECTS) BILL 2013

House ASSEMBLY
Activity Second Reading
Members MULDER
Date 13 June 2013 Page 2163

Page 2163

MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT (EAST WEST
LINK AND OTHER PROJECTS) BILL 2013

Second reading

Mr MULDER (Minister for Public Transport)

-- I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Transport context

Victoria is growing and changing. The demand for travel and the need to
efficiently move people and goods is growing every day.

The coalition government is committed to delivering major transport
infrastructure projects. They are essential to our economic future and our
livability.

Congestion on roads and on public transport hurts our economy and affects all of
our day-to-day lives.

The government is taking decisive action to cut red tape to allow for the
assessment and delivery of major transport projects more quickly and
efficiently.

Legislation has a key part to play in cutting red tape to address the
infrastructure backlog. This is central to transforming our transport system.
Put simply, this bill will deliver much needed infrastructure sooner, and at a
lower cost.

The coalition did not oppose the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act when
it was introduced into this house in 2009.

There are, however, a range of improvements that need to be made to the scheme
to cut red tape and boost productivity for the assessment, and delivery of
declared projects.

The benefits to major transport projects

The east-west road link, the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel and the port of
Hastings are transformative projects. The quicker they are delivered, the
quicker Victorians and Victorian businesses will see the benefits.

The east-west road link is a city-shaping project for Victoria. The new
18-kilometre cross-city freeway-standard link will provide an alternative to the

---

Page 2164

M1 corridor, alleviate chronic congestion and improve travel time for motorists
and allow freight to be moved around more quickly. The government has committed
to fund stage 1 of this project, which has an estimated capital cost of between
$6 billion and $8 billion.

The Melbourne Metro rail tunnel will untangle the rail network and unlock the
capacity needed to expand the network and increase services to Melbourne's
growth areas in the north, west and south-east. Creating capacity, particularly
in the city loop, also means that more trains can run on all the lines, not just
those running through the new tunnel. In 2012, the government made the first
state contribution to the project, allocating $49.7 million.

Subject to the Premier's approval the legislation will also enable the port of
Hastings development to be delivered.

This project is essential for Victoria's future and the government has provided
$110 million in the budget to kick-start the development.

This act, with the substantial improvements before you, is the foundation on
which these crucial projects can be delivered.

It would also be a mistake to think that the bill is only for
multibillion-dollar projects. It is not just about capital expenditure, it is
about the value to the community that new and upgraded parts of the transport
network can bring. Cycling networks, for example, face the same barriers as
other linear projects in road and rail and the issues associated with getting
projects delivered.

This legislation provides an alternative to the environment effects statement
process and the multiple approvals required to deliver state-significant
projects.

Delivering major transport projects is a very costly exercise. This bill is
designed to cut down on bureaucracy and channel state funds to where it can
deliver the most benefit -- the transport infrastructure on which we all rely.

Policy context

The changes before the house are a cornerstone of the government's budget
commitment to deliver better value in infrastructure planning and delivery.

As the budget papers state:

The government is driving better value for money, streamlining project
approvals and cutting red tape to expedite major projects coming to market.
The government is continuing to implement rigorous processes to improve
infrastructure project delivery and ensure the cost pressures that affected
major projects in the past are not repeated.

This is precisely what this bill is designed to do.

In December last year the government released its economic statement, 'Securing
Victoria's Economy -- Planning, Building, Delivering'.

The strategy outlines the government's vision for public sector reform involving
controlling costs, reducing internal red tape and improving management within
the public sector.

This bill exemplifies this government's commitment to work harder and to work
smarter to cut red tape so the benefits of major transport projects can be
delivered sooner.

The bill

Part 1 of the bill deals with preliminary matters.

Part 2 of the bill makes changes to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation
Act 2009 to:

introduce a more risk-based assessment regime;

enable early works on projects, including the

east-west link;

shorten statutory time frames to improve productivity and speed up projects;

simplify administrative processes;

enable more efficient land assembly and project delivery; and

extend the scope of the act.

Part 3 of the bill addresses other related amendments.

Key changes to the regime

Moving progressively to a risk-based assessment enables a more proportionate
approach to different risks. This will improve assessment efficiencies and
deliver a more practical and focused assessment report for public exhibition and
consultation.

Early works on projects can provide an opportunity to structure projects to
maximise efficiency and create jobs sooner. This bill makes clear that
declaration of a project does not prevent the delivery of early works outside of
the act's provisions. The act expands, rather than replaces, the methods of
obtaining the necessary approvals for a major transport project. For projects

---

Page 2165

with early works, it is simply a matter of obtaining any required planning or
environment approvals in accordance with existing applicable laws.

This bill makes significant cuts to time frames for decisions in the assessment
and approval process. Time frames for decisions around pathways, scoping,
release of key documents and approvals have all been halved or more than halved.

The bill not only cuts time frames for decision making, but changes the scheme
to allocate resources more efficiently and shift the focus to the project,
rather than the process itself. An example of this is the simplification of the
administrative steps required to have a project declared.

What the bill does not do is reduce the time frame for public exhibition -- the
onus is on government and government agencies to work more efficiently. This
power does not prevent government from consulting with councils, where relevant.

The bill extends an existing provision to make clear that councils cannot
frustrate projects once that project has been approved by the Minister for
Planning.

The bill introduces a statutory duty on state agencies to act and make decisions
expeditiously to avoid delay.

The bill also enables more efficient project delivery by reducing red tape to
improve the arrangements for land assembly.

Conclusion

The changes cut red tape to boost productivity in the assessment and delivery of
projects under the act.

The burden of red tape in the system is shouldered by the community and by
business. Every week a project is tied up in administration is another week of
congestion on our transport system. Congestion increases business costs and
decreases the amount of time we all get to spend with our families.

This bill cuts red tape for projects. This bill cuts the time taken to assess,
approve and deliver major transport projects. This bill gives that time back to
the people of Victoria.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr SCOTT (Preston).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 27 June.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 12 May 2010

Ausfis is one of many private immigration agencies in Australia promoting a problematic political message that sounds like they are representing all Australians and the Australian government and which many Australians would disagree with. Should migration agencies aggressively promote immigration? It's another case of advertising taking over democracy.

https://www.ausfis.org/Home.aspx

Ausfis's talk about 'a new land of opportunity' belies the biogeophysical reality of Australia - the oldest, driest continent.

This is a link that was sent to an immigrant from Peru from someone living in Peru - about inviting migrants to come to Australia because we have opportunities and skills shortages!

It not only refers to skill shortages, but it suggests that its lawyers will get applicants citizenship after four years and encourages immigrants to bring their dependent family members to live here as well, receive health care and use the public education system.

"What are the benefits of receiving a visa via the General Skilled Worker Visa program?

The grass is greener in Australia. If you are planning to make a move outside your home country, Australia should be on the top of your list as a place to make your dreams a reality. Besides legally living and working in Australia, a Australian General Skilled Visa has other benefits,
such as:

Bringing all dependent family members with you
Receiving healthcare
Using the public education system
Applying for citizenship after 4 years!"

Immigration greatly accelerates ageing of Australia's population: FECCA

Note that FECCA has only recently published a paper "Immigration speeds up Australia's rate of aging - FECCA"calling for special funding for aged immigrants because of the way immigration ages the Australian population. Every immigrant comes here older than anyone born here, but this fact is grossly magnified by the effect of bringing dependent adults as extended family here. Between 2011 to 2026 ethnic people over 80 will increase by 59% compared with 29% in the Australian-born population. Continuing high immigration threatens to make this problem unmanagable, with stress on housing, employment, water, food and power supplies undermining democracy, health and life-expectancy.

Ausfis looks very official and could easily be mistaken for an Australian Government website and message, but it isn't. It is a private business composed of people who make money out of processing migration applications. In fact, it does clearly state what it is at the bottom of the page and the agency promotion style seems responsible. It is not doing or saying anything illegal or misleading; it is, indeed, apparently promoting government policy.

Currently immigration to Australia outweighs births over deaths. It is the main source of population growth here.

"Increased migration and fertility (2007–2011)

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2071.0main+features952012-2013
Despite the economic impacts of the global financial crisis which started in 2007 and the ongoing repercussions within global financial markets, Australia experienced strong and sustained population growth throughout the period 2007–2011 (see the graph of Annual population growth above). In 2009, the addition of 394,000 people was the highest single annual increase to Australia's population, and the annual growth rate of 1.8% was unmatched since 1972. Migration was a significant factor in the population growth during this period. For the first time since federation, migration consistently contributed more to population growth than the contribution from natural increase. However, much of this recent increase has come from increased numbers of long-term temporary migrants; those with student, holiday and business visas (for more information see Migration, Australia (cat. no. 3412.0). The effect of this high level of migration can be seen in the 25–29 years age group in 2011, where there were an additional 385,000 people compared with the numbers in this cohort when they were aged 5–9 years in 1991. "

From 2011 to 2026 ethnic people over 80 will increase by 59% compared with 29% in the Australian-born population. The rate at which Australia's population is ageing has been accelerated by immigration. Furthermore, this effect will increase. Immigration is a major contributor to the dementing demographic. These statistics run counter to the ideology peddled by the growth lobby and its promoters should be held responsible.

Australians misled by so-called 'demographic experts'

Australians have often been presented with the idea that they must submit to ever-increasing mass immigration because this will counteract our so-called 'aging population problem'.

"Immigration is the best solution for Australia's aging population, according to Bernard Salt, from KPMG."
Immigration Essential for Australia - according to expert, Australian Immigration News, Friday, 2 October 2009

However, a recent publication by the Federation of Ethnic Communities (FECCA) shows that immigration is actually making what might have been a mild problem because of baby-boomers much worse.

FECCA cannot be accused of anti-immigrant or even anti-immigration bias. The date of the FECCA publication was 2011, and based on data reflecting much lower immigration numbers than we have had in the past few years. The mind boggles at what the real size of the problem may be, especially if we continue with current numbers, let alone ramp them up.

Immigration and Aging in Australia - the facts

- The proportion of older foreign-born Australians has been growing more rapidly than the Australian-born population.

- From 2011 to 2026 ethnic people over 80 will increase by 59% compared with 29% in the Australian-born population.

- From 1996 to 2010 the proportion of over 80s in the foreign-born population increased from 16.3% to 25.9% compared with 22.9% to
27.5% for the Australian-born.

- By 2026 one in every four people aged over 80 will be from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Immigration and Dementia trends in Victoria

- One in four Australians with dementia is Victorian.

- By 2050, the number of Victorians with dementia is projected to be 246,389, nearly 4 times as many as in 2011.

- 44% of victorians were born overseas or have one parent born overseas

Immigrant ageing population

According to the Access Economics report (2006) one-sixth (16%) of people aged over 60 years spoke a language other than English at home,

while just over one-third (33%) of people aged over 60 years were born in a country other than Australia.

Around one in eight (12.4%) of Australians with dementia do not speak English at home.

In 2011, 40% of Victorians over 65 were from culturally diverse backgrounds. The older culturally diverse population will grow by 44% in the next 15 years from 2011 to 2026.

Funding is being sought to care for non-English background people with dementia because of the growing size of the problem. It is ironic that in Victoria, where the problem is worst of all, in 2002 the Premier Steve Bracks convened Melbourne's Population Summit where he and others repeatedly justified unwanted and undemocratic plans to vastly increase immigration rates with the myth that high immigration fixes the aging population problem:

"LEADING political and business leaders have joined in a call for increased immigration into Australia in a bid to speed growth and overcome the problems of an ageing population.

Among the political leaders who consider more immigrants are good for Australia are Labor Opposition leader, Simon Crean and Victorian Labor Premier, Steve Bracks.

Both spoke in favour of a higher population at a special conference in Melbourne, last month.

Australia must set population growth targets as part of comprehensive national policy or risk becoming "an ageing, declining society", Simon Crean warned."

"Major call for more migrants," Consyl Publishing & Publicity Ltd, March 2002

Where is this immigration ideology taking us? How can we sheet this disaster home to those responsible and make them stop increasing the environmental and social damage they have inflicted on this country?

NOTES

The following links were updated on 1 December 2016:

Source of all immigration and ageing factoids and their references was, "Meant to Care," Discussion Paper, Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, 2011, Volume 1, Number 2, p.13.
http://eccv.org.au/library/file/policy/Final_eccv_Dementia_Paper_Aug_2011.pdf. A library of earlier and later sources is at http://eccv.org.au/aged-care/aged-care-policy/

State governments are in the business of creating the conditions that cause overpopulation, and then of limiting public transport, whilst increasing road-building, so that people become even more reliant on cars. They encourage business to invest in speculative 'solutions' for these problems and then collect so-called environmental taxes in a vicious cycle that is part of growth economics.

Ecology of congestion taxes and multistory parking lots

Have you ever looked closely at a rose bush and marveled to see thousands of aphids clinging to the roses, with many ants tending them? The aphids are eating the roses and the ants are milking the aphids. It's a kind of farm and if nothing controlled it, like ladybirds or hoverfly larvae, the roses would become a mess.

I was reminded of this insect economy when I read about the trials and tribulations of high-rise parking lot landlords and their relations with State governments recently.

The state governments are like the ants and the parking lot owners and their Real-Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) are like the aphids, and they are living off our once useful and well-planned towns and cities. The rest of us - the gardeners and voters - have become too busy or too confused to tend our gardens anymore, so the insects are taking over.[1]

How parasitic industries and governments prosper from overpopulation

Consider the multi-story parking lot and marvel at how parasitic industries prosper from overpopulation in this country. State governments seem to be in the business of creating the conditions that cause overpopulation, and then of limiting public transport, whilst increasing road-building, so that people become even more reliant on cars.

Do you remember when you first noticed a multi-story car park in your suburb or town?

Were you shocked that someone anticipated so much population growth that they would be able to make money out of renting ugly concrete spaces by the hour just to park cars? Have you ever considered how many tall buildings in the city are built simply to stack cars one on top of the other?

In the city we are talking double figures for a few hours to a day's parking.

It is a sign of overpopulation coupled with growth-lobby urban planning when enough people find they have little choice but to take their cars into the city for the owners of multi-story car parks to make a living from them, like ants milking aphids parked on plants.

In my town, like my city, the council actually encourages population growth in part so that such parasitic investments can prosper. To me it seems like shooting yourself in the foot so that the doctor can collect a fee, but in council-logic, that's generating business.

State Government Congestion Taxes

In 2006 Australian State Governments began imposing levies on parking facilities in a so-called 'congestion tax'. That would have met with the approval of people with 'environmental values' who don't understand how business and government make money out of overpopulation. Well now it seems that Australian state governments are talking about increasing those levies. The car park industry is alarmed. A spokesperson for Wilson Parking has been described as saying that 'car park operators would not be able to pass on the cost of rising levies to price-sensitive car park users. Instead the higher costs would have to be passed on to landlords through rent reductions.'

It is claimed that the owners of car parks will finish up bearing the levy and that this will finish up hurting the 'mums and dads that own the REITS.' (REITS stands for Real Estate Investment Trusts.) You or your bank and superannuation fund can invest in your city's and your society's misfortune. And that's the part of capitalism that keeps us all unhappy.

Responding to the news that levies are going to go up, an Adelaide office building and car park landlord was quoted by the Australian Financial Review as saying, "Operators will get to a point where [the car parks] will be unprofitable and if they can't recover then ultimately it will affect property values. If I can't rent the car park to an operator the value of the property will be affected."

The car park lords are cooking up a panic-storm claiming that this isn't really a congestion tax; it's a property tax.

Well, yes! And car parks are turbo-charged property speculators, ripe for property taxes.

Isn't that good? Not if it is all self-perpetuating.

Green-sounding doesn't make it green

Here is why it is very important for environmentalists to count population growth in any environmental equation. Whereas a government might bring in a tax with a green-sounding name, like 'congestion tax', if the same government then advertises overseas for more and more migrants and encourages road building in
preference to public transport, then what is going to happen?

There will be reliable growth in congestion.

Business will make money out of managing the burgeoning inconveniences, by building things like high rise parking lots, toll-ways and apartment blocks.

Then state governments will impose levies, stamp duties etc.

Locked into their parasitic investments, the parking lot speculators now become captive cashcows, milking smaller cows - the public.

The state government collects the taxes and, to drive up the value of the cash cows, it artificially stimulates population growth, and, in this case it then increases its congestion taxes.

The sums of money are phenomenal. The 'congestion taxes' amount to $930 per bay, soon to go up to $1300 per bay.

It is like a mad dance between government and big business, as we use up all of our cheap fossil fuel and heat up the atmosphere to power an economy that seems to be devoted to turning our environments into vast human termite mounds and dooming everyone into endless service inside these termite economies.

NOTES

[1] In fact, I do ants and aphids an injustice here and the mosquitos sucking from the ticks in the cartoon is more accurate, however, the ants and aphids serves a purpose and it was too late to change metaphors in mid article.
Source on congestion tax levies for parking lots was Mathew Cranston and Rebecca Thistleton, 'Car park owners slam levy increase', Australian Financial Review, 16 May 2013, p.44

This current strategy will be the sixth strategic plan for Melbourne in 25 years... Increasing energy costs ... The role of the construction sector in the State's economy is directly related to repeated extensions to the urban growth boundary. Housing affordability. Food security... ensure all suburbs have access to back up food supplies that are not reliant on transport. Framework for regional linkages should be based on consideration of the protection of environmental and ecological systems. The '20 minute city' and 'Unlocking capacity in established suburbs' proposal is code for high population density and high rise development in existing suburbs and suburban streets; pressure on existing infrastructure to cope with higher population demands but without system renewal; further vegetation clearance and ecological impacts; decline in living standards ...and should be withdrawn.

Melbourne Metropolitian Planning Strategy - Discussion Paper: Melbourne, Let's talk about the future

This evaluation was first presented as a submission to the State Government of Victoria Ministry Advisory Committee to oversee the development of the metropolitan planning strategy in response to a "Discussion Paper" promoted by the Committee entitled "Melbourne, Let's talk about the future." The original title of Liz Burton's evaluation was, "Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy - Discussion Paper: Melbourne, Let's talk about the future." It takes the form of responses by Liz Burton to questions under headings (in upper case) set out by the Department.

1. COMMENTS ON FIVE OUTCOME PRINCIPLES

1.1 QUESTION 1: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE OUTCOME PRINCIPLES?

1.1.1 Melbourne 2030 repackaged
The set of five outcome principles, outlined in the Discussion Paper are more accurately described as generic themes rather than principles as they do not provide clear underlying directions, plans and targets. As a vision for Melbourne the principles:
(a) essentially repackage Melbourne 2030 but add radical free market development (refer Appendix A);
(b) do not seem to advance the significant qualitative long term vision established by early city planners and surveyors such as Russell (survey and plan for Melbourne) and Hoddle (the CBD grid structure); and
(c) most significantly, offer limited response in relation to scientific projections of the impacts of climate change, with specific reference to Australia.

1.1.2 Climate change and international best practice planning response
The set of five outcome principles are limited on the impacts of climate change on planning for the next 40 years.

The major flaw in the Discussion Paper is that it conceptualises carbon reduction strategies as a silo under principle 5 'Environmental resilience', instead of embedding carbon reduction as a strategy within each of the nine principles.

The Discussion Paper's Principle 5, 'Environmental resilience' is sub optimal as regards international best practice planning to mitigate the predicted effects of climate change and helping to reduce carbon emissions. The Minister's Advisory Committee appears to lack appropriate insights into international best practice in planning regarding climate change mitigation in the structure of cities and planning of new suburbs. For example Vancouver, Canada has a 'Greenest City 2020 Action Plan' divided into ten sub plans, each with long-term goals and specific targets [1] . There is no emphasis in the Discussion Paper on the strategic importance of addressing climate change through planning and this is a major weakness of the Discussion Paper.

Melbourne as a destination will be superseded by the initiatives of countries that are taking active measures to implement an integrated plan with set targets relating to environmental resilience, ecosystems, carbon reduction and waste.

1.1.2.1 Ministerial Advisory Committee
The Ministerial Advisory Committee's membership has no-one with leadership in environmental planning and this absence from the Committee's expertise is reflected in the weak response and lack of integrated vision on this critical issue.

Climate change impacts include: (a) extreme heat waves and hot days; (b) heavy rain; (c) drought; (d) increase in incidence of wildfires; (e) sea level rise and coastal flooding; (f) tropical cyclones and storms.[2] Extreme weather events that were considered a one-in-one-hundred year event are now recurring more frequently in parts of Australia. Associated with these impacts are projections regarding: (i) food security and potential food shortages through impacts on crop yields, distribution, diseases; (ii) health impacts; (iii) cost of living increases; (iv) issues regarding security and social stability.

The Discussion Paper needs to address carbon reduction and environmental resilience strategies as essential components of a new planning strategy for Victoria to ensure its relevance for the next 40 years.

1.1.3 Recommendations
1. That the Discussion Paper be reconceptualised so that carbon reduction strategies and environmental resilience strategies are embedded within each of the nine principles and their associated Ideas;
2. That any successive planning strategy document is informed by expertise from senior academic planning staff whose published research is in the field of addressing climate change through a range of planning strategies.

1.1.4 Economic issues
The question that needs to be addressed in a new planning strategy spanning 40 years is: 'what is the purpose of the State's population growth strategy'? High populations are not of themselves a source of economic vitality and often mask underlying structural deficits in the economy. In Victoria, population growth is clearly masking structural deficits as the retail sector is the State's major employment sector but one of the lowest on innovation and research and development.

In its 2011 report, the Productivity Commission concluded in relation to the retail sector, that “it appears likely that the size of the gap between Australia and the US has been increasing; nor has Australia made any significant gains in its position in regards to other leading countries” (2011: 67).[3]

These deficits in the structure of the economy are significant contributors to decline in competitiveness and productivity and unless addressed, lead to ongoing economic decline.

The response of yet more population growth exacerbates the decline because it does not create the necessary economic productivity and innovation boost required to increase tax revenues per head of population.

1.1.4.1 Nexus between the State's economy, planning and the construction sector
A major difference between planning up to the 1970s and today is the role of the construction sector in: (a) the State's economic performance, (b) major provider of jobs and (c) generating retail stimulus. Construction is among the top four employment sectors in the State and a feature of contemporary planning is its role in enabling construction. Return on investment drives the construction sector and this imperative relates directly to planning and associated built form outcomes through: (a) residential infill, (b) growth corridors, and (c) Melbourne city central and Southbank high rise developments.

This economic nexus today drives and informs planning, which is now an economic tool rather than a distinguishable discipline in its own right concerned with town planning. The subordination of planning to economic ends is supported by provisions in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to take into account economic and social considerations when making planning decisions - see extract below. As such, planning has a responsibility to take account of the economic effects on the State.
Em>Extract from PEAct 1987
4. Objectives
"2(d) to ensure that the effects on the environment are considered and provide for explicit consideration of social and economic effects when decisions are made about the use and development of land; "

Furthermore, the availability of land for construction is essential for the ongoing contribution by the construction sector to supporting the State's economy and jobs. It comes at a high environmental cost owing to the construction cycle of project commencements and completions. Furthermore, while contributing to environmental decline this sector has been declining in productivity in relation to the USA construction sector since the 1990s. Daley and Walsh (2011) have argued that labour productivity in the Australian construction sector declined by half relative to its US counterpart between 1990 and 2005. [4]

1.1.4.2 Productivity and major employment sectors in Victoria
Based on ABS labour force data and Grattan Institute calculations for 2008-09 [5], the construction industry ranks amongst the lower percentile of employment sectors on labour productivity performance. Furthermore, Victoria has slightly more low productivity sectors and slightly less high productivity sectors when compared with other states. This has meant that in 2008-09 Victoria's per capita gross value added in industry was 4.9% below the national average. [6]

1.1.4.3 Why is productivity relevant?
Global competitiveness and housing affordability
The principles of: (a) 'Victoria as a globally competitive city' and (b) 'strong communities', an element of which is affordable housing, relates directly to Victoria's productivity capability and to the productivity of the construction sector. The Discussion Paper in its 'Executive Summary' rightly draws attention to the need for Melbourne to improve its productivity: 'Melbourne needs to improve its "productivity" - the economic value produced for an hour of work or a dollar of investment'. (Melbourne, let's talk about the future, pvi).

The importance of productivity competitiveness to economic success and revitalisation is recognised by business leaders and leading academics. In a recent article in The Conversation[7] Professor John Freebairn draws attention to productivity issues facing the Victorian economy, including productivity stagnation and the need respond to demand for new technology and work practices. A shift in focus from less productive industry sectors to those that are more productive is advocated:

"A major challenge facing the Australian economy — particularly the Victorian economy — has been the stagnation of productivity growth this century. The increase in the terms of trade to record high levels over the last decade largely drove higher living standards over this period rather than productivity growth, but this is likely to be eroded in the coming years.
Restarting productivity growth is vital if Victorians' increasing expectations of higher income are to be realised. There is a major challenge for the government, businesses and individuals to better respond to changing markets and buyer needs, to adopt new technology, to change management and work practices, and to allow the transfer of resources and industries from less productive to more productive uses".
1.1.4.4 Structural constraints to the economy
The case presented in the Discussion Paper on Principle 2 does not address the structural constraints in the economy impacting on productivity and therefore on Victoria's competitiveness.

A number of the State's major employment sectors of: (a) retail trade, (b) health care and social assistance, (c) manufacturing, (d) construction and (e) education and training, are sectors that may have either reached their peak or be in decline in terms of their capacity to attract the best and brightest employment candidates. For example, the retail trade with its low productivity status, combined with low research and development output, is a major employment sector in Victoria that does not appear to be addressing competitiveness and therefore may not be positioned to support the aim of contributing to global competition.

1.1.4.5 Recommendations
1. That the structural weaknesses of the Victorian economy as outlined above relating to its major sectors and to productivity be addressed by preparing plans and targets to restructure the economy and to attract people with appropriate qualifications and expertise to help business and industry to transform;
2. That infrastructure replenishment be prioritised in relation to rail transport rather than buses.

1.1.5 Contemporary planning deficits
There is concern that contemporary planning lacks capacity to establish strategies that meet the community's long term needs and each strategy is superseded within a few years. This current strategy will be the sixth strategic plan for Melbourne in 25 years; a plan on average about every four years, together with a number of minor plans.

Major elements of strategies return disappointing outcomes. For example according to the Melbourne 2030 planning strategy, the Docklands development, constructed in the 2000s, would be 'a key location for high-order commercial development and retail and entertainment core of the metropolitan area' (Melbourne 2030, p 37). It was intended as the 'preferred location for uses serving the State or nation' (Melbourne 2030, p 37).

1.1.5.1 Docklands examplar of suboptimal planning performance
Although it benefits from its proximity to water, Docklands offers residents, workers and casual users a vast amount of concrete, shadows and wind tunnels. Public open space is provided mainly in the form of concrete walkways and there is little relief from concrete both in its horizontal and vertical elements.

While it has attracted major corporate and business investment, as an entertainment and retail destination Docklands has failed, despite major advertising campaigns. It is now acknowledged that it needs to be reworked to augment its appeal on these core components of the strategy. Such duplication of effort has significant implications for productivity and acts as a poor exemplar for future major projects.

The suboptimal performance of these major planning investments needs to be assimilated by the government and the planning community and the reasons for poor outcomes need to be clearly identified and published so that mistakes are not repeated. This is essential as it has implications for new planning proposals for revitalisation and renewal such as the Fisherman's Bend rezoning to create new residential suburbs.

2. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE THESE OUTCOME PRINCIPLES?

The outcome principles (or generic themes) are better assessed in relation to stated performance targets and outcomes. The Discussion Paper does not have the necessary content and structure to facilitate such feedback. However feedback is provided on each Principle under the discussion and associated recommendations outlined above and below.

3. WHAT ARE THE KEY INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING THE VISION OF AN EXPANDED CENTRAL CITY?

3.1 Population growth as a measure of economic growth - a falacy?
Based on the discussion above under paragraph 1.1.3 concerning the structure of the Victorian economy, it appears that population growth masks and exacerbates underlying structural deficits and has potential to reduce per capita revenue. The issues of productivity improvements, innovation and research and development are not addressed through population growth as the cornerstone of the strategy. It is noted that attention is given to innovation clusters but they are conceptionalised as stand alone facilities rather than as a vital component of each sector to strengthen the State's economy and its competitiveness.

3.2 Principle 1: A distinctive Melbourne
The current liveability of Melbourne is informed by the vision of early government planners, surveyors and Lieutenant-Governor Charles La Trobe (large public reserves). Their long term legacies include:

• the city framework of major streets eg Collins St, supported by subsidiary streets linked to them eg Little Collins St, and the associated interconnecting network of arcades and laneways to provide a coherent circulation system, particularly congenial for pedestrians;
• reserving large areas as public parks including: the Treasury Gardens, Carlton Gardens, Flagstaff Gardens, Royal Park and the Royal Botanic Gardens.

3.2.1 Urban structure and place
Urban structure and place would benefit from the following elements:
(a) designed in relation to ecologically sustainable design principles including: (i) zero carbon, (ii) zero waste, (iii) sustainable materials, (iv) local and sustainable food, (v) sustainable transport, (vi) land use and wildlife, (vii) local economy, (viii) sustainable building design principles, site design and technologies;
(b) creating a sense of place through including public piazza's or public squares that have access to lunch time sunshine. These public spaces could also serve to promote the history of the area through the use of plaques and photos. Historic references help create a sense of place and its importance and are a common feature throughout European cities and towns.

3.3 Principle 2: A globally connected and competitive Melbourne
The Discussion Paper's identification of building opportunities in the knowledge economy is strongly supported to improve productivity and to create export opportunities. However the discussion in the paper about the knowledge economy is limited in scope and does not appear to advance the importance of facilitating collaboration between universities, business, industry and government in advancing the knowledge economy through invention and innovation opportunities. Competition from rapidly developing Asian states present potential limitations to competing globally in specific market sectors, for example in manufacturing, unless embedded cost structures are overcome through technological advances.

The global connectivity envisaged in the Discussion Paper needs to put in place a plan to address the State's productivity output and to review the major employment sectors and their capacity to contribute to this principle. A review of this kind needs to prioritise sectors with capacity to contribute, including modelling of their growth trajectory over the strategy timeline.

In terms of freight and logistics it is a major concern that Victoria is over committed to road transport and has no intention to transition to rail, a highly efficient, fast and cleaner form of transport. Increasing energy costs may impact on Victoria's competitiveness through its over reliance on road transport.

3.3.1 Recommendations
1. That the Government set targets for increasing productivity in existing sectors to improve global competitiveness;
2. That opportunities in renewable technologies be included in the work of innovation clusters.

3.4 Principle 3: Social and economic participation
The extensive spread of Melbourne in all directions is a major concern and a failure of planning by successive governments. As discussed above, the role of the construction sector in the State's economy is directly related to repeated extensions to the urban growth boundary. Until the government diversifies the economy and becomes less reliant on this sector, the pattern is likely to continue.

3.5 Principle 4: Strong communities
Affordable housing
The Discussion Paper rightly draws attention to the need to lower pressure on price. It identifies the costs of commercial construction in Melbourne as being higher than other cities and that this limits the ability to build medium density apartments in suitable suburban locations.

Apart from construction costs, another direct impact on affordability is the significant amount of overseas investment in housing, including apartments. Overseas investment places pressure on demand and its role in creating pressure on affordability needs to be investigated and addressed.

Various strategies are applied by European countries to limit impact on housing affordability through overseas investment and it would not be unreasonable for Australia to review the impact on affordability from foreign investment.

As noted in the Discussion Paper the size and standard of houses needs to be considered. Australian house sizes are the largest in the world and this is clearly unsustainable from both a materials and carbon emissions perspective. The economic model involved in construction needs to be reviewed and productivity needs to be increased.

3.6 Principle 5: Environmental Resilience

3.6.1 Energy efficient urban design
Major omissions from the Discussion Paper concerning the outcomes sought are clear targets regarding carbon reduction strategies. The current Australian Building Code for Victoria has low environmental and energy efficiency performance standards for the class of building comprising residential multi storey built form and for commercial buildings, while for houses the plan to increase to 6 star energy efficiency was not implemented and remains at 5 star.

Typically, Australian dwellings account for higher emissions than in the UK, at around 8 tonnes of CO2 per annum, because of the high proportion of coal used in electricity generation. [8] Across Australia residential electricity consumption accounted for 24% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2009.[9] Total residential sector energy consumption across
Australia was 401 petajoules (PJ) in 2008, forecast to rise to 467 PJ in 2020 (DEWHA, 2008). [10]

The following table demonstrates the profile across Australia for energy demand within the home. It should be noted that regionally, the share of heating/ cooling load can vary as result of different climate conditions.
[11]
Source: Government of Australia (2011) [12]

As noted under Principle 4: 'Strong communities' above, new Australian dwellings are a third larger than 20 years ago and are the largest in the world in median floor area at 214.6 square meters in 2009 (ABS). [13]

It is considered essential that the plan for Melbourne's future contains energy efficiency targets for housing to comply with national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

3.6.1.1 Recommendations
1. That effective environmentally sustainable design principles (ESD) including significant energy reduction demand be implemented in new housing communities, including growth corridors and new suburb developments such as Fisherman's Bend;
2. That housing communities based on the UK Bioregional solutions for sustainability such as BedZED be implemented. The Fishermans Bend residential rezoning would be an ideal site at which to implement these standards;
3. That waste reduction combined with recycling be embedded in the infrastructure provided in new housing estates;
4. That with regard to lower impact transport, bicycle paths, separate from roads, be constructed in new housing estates.

3.6.2 Food production
Attention to local food production as a means of advancing food security is strongly supported. This section of the Discussion Paper needs to be advanced with specific plans and targets across the metropolitan area so that all suburbs have access to back up food supplies that are not reliant on transport. The term "Food Security" needs to be addressed as a relevant strategy in the 40 year time line of the Paper.

3.6.2.1 Recommendations
That the food production section of the Discussion Paper needs to be renamed 'Food Security' and advanced with specific plans and targets across the metropolitan area so that all suburbs have access to back up food supplies that are not reliant on transport.

4. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF IDENTIFYING AND REINFORCING EMPLOYMENT AND INNOVATION CLUSTERS ACROSS MELBOURNE?

4.1 Innovation clusters
It is not clear what is intended by this proposal as the present innovation clusters involve universities and their location and numbers are not likely to be flexible. Universities are mandated to conduct research and the outcomes of research include invention and innovation. All businesses ought to carry out innovation and a useful model for this is to seek consultancy engagement with nearby universities on specific aspects of their business. For example, the City of Whitehorse has engaged academic consultancy to assist it to develop and implement a 'Climate change adaptation plan' in 2010 and an associated set of environmental strategies.

While innovation clusters are a good model for reinforcing employment, it may not be feasible to extend the clusters associated with The University of Melbourne and Monash Universities to all Victorian universities owing to cost and expertise limitations. An alternative model is to facilitate consultancy engagement with academic staff with appropriate expertise to assist business and government to develop their plans based on international best practice research and competitiveness.

4.1.1 Recommendation
That business innovation, competitiveness and growth be augmented through facilitating engagement / consultancies with academic staff working as part of a team in business and government to develop their plans based on international best practice research and competitiveness.

5. WHAT IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN REGIONAL CITIES?

5.1 Principle 6: A polycentric city linked to regional cities
The environmental and ecological implications of city and regional linkages throughout the State need to be considered. Victoria has the lowest proportion of its original extent of native vegetation remaining of any Australian state or territory. Across much of Victoria the extent, condition and configuration of remnant native vegetation is the primary determinant of ecological health.

Fragmented landscapes make up nearly 79% of Victoria and account for 54% of the current extent of native vegetation. Fragmentation is a driver of ecosystem fragility and consideration needs to be given to reinforcing green wedges and corridors and ensuring that they are not impacted by infrastructure and development. The condition of each bioregion in Victoria have been mapped and identified and this information can be used in determining sites for city - regional linkages.

Ongoing development of the urban growth boundary is likely under the proposals in the Discussion Paper and there is concern that the vision of a city of cities and regional linkages is a strategy to exploit land indiscriminately for development without setting aside land for agricultural and environmental/ecological purposes.

This is a particularly heavy handed vision that is ultimately self-defeating as the environmental costs are eventually a matter to be addressed by the State. Issues of pollution, congestion, ecosystem breakdown, species extinction, threats and vulnerabilities are likely scenarios under the model being advanced in the Discussion Paper.

5.1.1 Recommendations
1. That no further expansion of the urban growth boundary be permitted;
2. That productive agricultural land be identified and quarantined from development;
3. That agricultural land in the metropolitan area be identified and set aside for this purpose;
4. That documented fragmentation of ecosystems be addressed through funds set aside for restoration;
5. That the framework for regional linkages be based on consideration of the protection of environmental and ecological systems, taking into account the mapping and identification of each bioregion and its condition.

6. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF A ‘20 MINUTE CITY’?

6.1 Principle 7: Living Locally - A '20 minute city': linked to 'Unlocking capacity in established suburbs'
The 20 minute city sounds appealing on face value but it has a number of inherent corollaries that are not adequately outlined in the paper. These include:

(a) the assumption that population growth contributes to the economy but without providing documented evidence;
(b) an extensive duplication of facilities and infrastructure implied in this strategy can only be justified economically on the grounds of a minimum quantum of consumers and is therefore based on high populations and building densities;
(c) in areas where the population is ageing it is likely that the population density would need to be higher than otherwise to justify investment as this demographic are lower consumers;
(d) the issue regarding affordability as presented in the Discussion Paper means reducing the price of a three bedroom townhouse apartment by $100,000. What is not disclosed is that developers base their business model on gaining specific returns on investment in any project and this needs to be achieved for the development to proceed. The reduction of $100,000 on the price of an individual townhouse at a development site needs to be made up through more townhouses being built on the site and therefore contributing to higher density.
(e) the 20 minute city is another way of referring to an "activity centre" as defined under Melbourne 2030 but with the disadvantage that high density development and population will be allowed to occur throughout suburban streets and not limited to activity centres.

The '20 minute city' is associated with the 'Unlocking capacity in established suburbs' proposal and together they would involve a radical and undesirable departure from the current planning scheme. As noted above under paragraph 5.2, these proposals devolve planning decisions direct to developers and effectively remove local government from substantive planning decisions. A characteristic of this system is radical free market development together with uncertainty as to the type of developments that would take place in any residential street.

6.1.1 Recommendation
That the '20 minute cit'y proposal be reviewed taking into account the issues outlined above.

7. HOW CAN ESTABLISHED SUBURBS ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF CHANGING POPULATIONS AND MAINTAIN WHAT PEOPLE VALUE ABOUT THEIR AREA?

7.1 Unlocking capacity in established suburbs - code for high density and high rise and radical free market development
'Unlocking capacity in established suburbs' is code for: (a) high population density and high rise development in existing suburbs and suburban streets; (b) placing pressure on existing infrastructure to cope with higher population demands but without expenditure on system renewal and replenishment; (c) further vegetation clearance and ecological impacts; (d) decline in living standards.

As a planning strategy for the next 40 years in Victoria this proposal is one of the most objectionable aspects of the Discussion Paper as it would:
(a) ensure public uncertainty throughout the metropolitan region regarding development levels in individual streets and
(b) devolve planning decisions direct to developers and effectively remove local government from substantive planning decisions.

Established suburbs of high value per square metre and access to infrastructure would be especially vulnerable to high density development. This includes municipalities such as Boroondara, Stonnington, Bayside, Port Phillip and Banyule.

The implications of such a strategy need to be considered in terms of political ramification,s as individuals who invest in these suburbs have a high commitment to their amenity. The convergence of threats to:
(a) the belief that planning is orderly and determined by local government; and
(b) local neighbourhood amenity and character,
are highly contentious and provocative.

7.1.1 Recommendation
That the proposal to unlock capacity in established suburbs be withdrawn.

8. HOW DO WE ENSURE A HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS?

8.1 Planning for public open space
As noted under paragraph 3.1, the establishment of major areas of reserves for parks was an essential feature of the layout of early Melbourne. Despite substantial population growth, State and local governments have not supplemented the total area of parkland in relation to population growth. Consequently parks today are under pressure to act as multi purpose facilities, especially for use by sporting groups; in some cases, such as Royal Park, sections of them have been redeployed for public buildings.

The legislative framework supporting public open space, such as provision in the Sub Division Act and in the Planning and Environment Act, is very poor, with the result that minimal increases have occurred over decades.

Historically, it should be noted that Victoria had an open space per capita standard which was originally developed by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works in 1954.[14] An open space per capita standard used in Victoria is 3.03 hectares per thousand people, of which 1.5 hectares is for organised recreation.

The importance of this standard is that it sets a baseline of public open space in relation to population. The standard needs to be further developed by taking into account population density by precinct, together with the specific needs of each community.

8.1.1 Recommendations
1. That urban structure be designed in relation to ecologically sustainable design principles including: (i) zero carbon, (ii) zero waste, (iii) sustainable materials, (iv) local and sustainable food, (v) sustainable transport, (vi) land use and wildlife, (vii) local economy, (viii) sustainable building design principles, site design and technologies;
2. That a sense of place be created through public piazza's or public squares with access to lunch time sunshine;
3. That provision for public open space be addressed by relating the amount of public open space to population by precinct and municipality;
4. That the Sub Division Act be changed to mandate contributions to Local Government specifically for the purchase of additional land for this purpose rather than allowing contributions to be spent on maintenance of existing open space.

8.2 Public transport infrastructure
It should be noted that early governments, developers and business investors were responsible for establishing an extensive public transport infrastructure through the development of tram and rail networks and systems. The first railway line was established in the 1850s when Melbourne's population was around 20,000 people. The first tram lines were opened in the 1880s when the population of Melbourne was still under 500,000.

Today's tram and rail networks have added limited capacity to the public transport infrastructure in place by the 1920s and investment has not kept pace with population growth and demand. It is significant that there are no fast trains in Melbourne and that the network provides limited service to the growth corridor suburbs and no service to Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine. It is essential for a globally connected city to offer favourable international comparisons and an airport - city train link is well overdue.

There is a strong need for the Federal government to provide funding for states to supplement their aged public transport infrastructure to bring it up to date with internationally benchmarked comparisons including fast rail. Much of the surplus of the previous Liberal Federal government was returned to individuals in the form of tax cuts instead of being put towards public infrastructure replenishment. Policies that ignore national needs create capacity constraints that impact nationally in the longer term. It is considered that the State government needs to argue this case at COAG and to establish the principle at COAG that accumulated surpluses are to be used for national infrastructure upgrades and replenishment and not distributed to individuals as tax cuts.

8.2.1 Recommendations
1. That the State government presents a case at COAG to establish the principle that accumulated budget surpluses are to be used for national infrastructure upgrades and replenishment and not distributed to individuals as tax cuts;
2. That a dual train line from Melbourne to Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine be budgeted and implemented as a high priority.

8.3 Energy efficient urban design
As noted under paragraph 3.6.1, clear targets are required regarding carbon reduction strategies. Electricity consumption accounted for 24% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 and this outcome needs to be reduced.

8.3.1 Recommendations
The recommended reduction strategies are: (a) reduction of house sizes by 33% to bring them back in line with the early 1990s and proportional to smaller family sizes; (b) mandated environmentally sustainable design standards including passive solar and other low cost design measures; (c) introduce gradual targets aimed at zero carbon emissions and waste by 2020.

9. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE POSSIBLE WAYS OF FUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE?

9.1 Federal government contributions to infrastructure
As noted under paragraph 8.2 there is a strong need for the Federal government to provide funding for states to supplement their aged public transport infrastructure to bring it up to date with internationally benchmarked comparisons including fast rail.

The distribution of previous accumulated Federal budget surpluses to individuals in the form of tax cuts is considered inappropriate. Instead, surpluses should be put towards public infrastructure replenishment. The State government needs to argue this case at COAG and to establish the principle at COAG that accumulated surpluses are to be used for national infrastructure upgrades and replenishment and not distributed to individuals as tax cuts.

10. HOW CAN ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY WORK
TOGETHER TO CREATE THE CITY YOU WANT?

10.1 Principle 9 Leadership and partnership
Concern is expressed over principle 9 regarding the suggestions of: (1) a new governance structure and (2) a revised planning policy. No details are provided and these proposals are advanced at the back of the Discussion Paper.

10.1.1 Recommendations
1. That clarification be provided about the proposal to introduce: (1) a new governance structure and (2) a revised planning policy.
2. That any changes to introduce a free market for development and remove local government from responsibility for all planning decisions are rejected.

11. ANY OTHER COMMENTS

11.1 Comments on the capacity of the Discussion Paper "Melbourne, let's talk about the future" to effectively support strategic planning
Overall, the principles and ideas advanced in the Discussion Paper, "Melbourne, let's talk about the future" are elusive, vaporous and aspirational as the document contains no clear direction as to what it intends to achieve. The absence of intent makes it difficult to contemplate the vision and strategy being advanced. On this count alone, the document fails as there is no tangible framework being advanced on which one can comment.

The Discussion Paper has been prepared to seek feedback from the community for the preparation of a new planning strategy for Melbourne but as a planning strategy for the next 40 years it fails on several counts:

1. climate change and its diverse impacts are potentially the major influence over the economy, liveability, business productivity and competition but its relevance over the 40 year timeline of the strategy appears to be afforded relatively minor status rather than addressing it as a core component of the strategy;

2. capturing business opportunities arising from innovation and invention in developing resilience against climate change impacts appear to be lacking despite ideas for innovation clusters and a metropolitan framework based on jobs outlined in Principle 2;

3. the relevant legislative framework supporting planning such as the Planning and Environment Act and the Sub Division Act contain weak infrastructure provisions but the document is unclear as to how best to respond to the identified urgent need for infrastructure upgrades;

4. the document appears to be primarily concerned with addressing: (a) questions of economic importance to Victoria such as attracting business investment and facilitating business investment through freight, ports, airport upgrades and additions; (b) optimising existing soft and hard infrastructure by maximising populations within existing suburbs, euphemistically called 'the 20 minute city' and unlocking capacity in established suburbs; (c) job creation; and (d) social questions such as housing affordability and as such appears to be essentially an economic plan;

5. the concept of town planning is subordinated to delivering additional construction opportunities through: (a) density intensification and (b) continuing urban sprawl through linkages with regional cities;

6. an acceptance of road transport as the major means of commuting and for freight instead of directing a transition to rail which is far better developed in the international cities with which connection is anticipated;

7. no tangible plan and enabling mechanisms for delivering additional public open space in the form of parks and gardens to alleviate congestion and to compensate for high density livings;

8. the Discussion Paper is framed around a series of principles and ideas but there is no clear identification of the core strategies that will enable Melbourne to be positioned for the future and to successfully achieve its economic, social and environmental aspirations;

9. lack of protection of the green wedges (p40, Principle 5, Environmental Resilience, does not confirm protection but states that it is expected that protection will continue);

10. absence of vision for developing housing communities based on the UK Bioregional solutions for sustainability such as BedZED. The Fishermans Bend residential rezoning would be an ideal site at which to implement sustainable communities based on the One Planet Communities principles. See website at: http://www.bioregional.com/flagship-projects/one-planet-communities/bedzed-uk/

The Melbourne 2030 document, prepared in October 2002, and made available for public comment, as a planning strategy, was a superior plan in that it outlined a fully formed strategic framework including the following elements:
(a) statement of vision
(b) set of principles
(c) a set of 9 key directions for example, Direction 5: 'A great place to be' (Melbourne 2030 p91);
(d) a range of clear policies supporting each key direction, for example, '5.6 'Improve the quality and distribution of local open space and ensure long-term protection of public open space'(Melbourne 2030 p91);
(e) a set of specific initiatives intended to support each separate policy, for example, 5.6.1 'Review mechanisms for strategic open space planning in consultation with open space management agencies in light of the Parks Victoria strategy 'Linking People and Spaces'.

The Discussion Paper, 'Melbourne, let's talk about the future' barely acknowledges that an existing strategy is in place (it may not agree with it but it ought to recognise that Melbourne 2030, with its various difficulties, is the current planning strategy) and in many ways, this draft strategy builds on Melbourne 2030 - see Appendix A, Table 1.

It should be noted that this will be the sixth strategic plan for Melbourne in 25 years; a plan on average about every four years, together with a number of minor plans. It is clearly unsatisfactory and inefficient for the State government to be directing considerable resources into planning strategies at such regular intervals and implies that the plans are superficial and / or uncertain about the proposals advanced.

According to Michael Buxton [15] some earlier plans for Melbourne involved years of research and investigation together with the modelling of options. He considers that the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) strategic planning was exemplary for investigation and consideration of options, particularly the 1954 and 1971 plans.

The 1954 plan entitled 'Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme Report' observes:

'The plan has involved three years of painstaking and careful study of Melbourne and its people. Almost every phase of city and community life was thoroughly examined and analysed to ascertain Melbourne's present and future needs, and to determine the most suitable course for sound and progressive development." p132 [16]

This level of research and preparation formed a comprehensive, informative and long-term plan.

11.1.1 Recommendations
That the Discussion Paper, "Melbourne, let's talk about the future" be revised as a fully formed strategic framework including the following elements, as contained in the Melbourne 2030 document:
(a) statement of vision
(b) set of principles (possibly adapted from the current Discussion Paper)
(c) a set of key directions for example, Direction 5 in Melbourne 2030: 'A great place to be' (Melbourne 2030 p91);
(d) a range of clear policies supporting each key direction, for example, '5.6 'Improve the quality and distribution of local open space and ensure long-term protection of public open space' (Melbourne 2030 p91);
(e) a set of specific initiatives intended to support each separate policy, for example, 5.6.1 'Review mechanisms for strategic open space planning in consultation with open space management agencies in light of the Parks Victoria strategy 'Linking People and Spaces' (Melbourne 2030 p103).

11.2 Civil defence and town planning
The 1954 MMBW 'Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme Report' includes a chapter entitled 'Decentralisation and Civil Defence'. In a section called "The problem of civil defence" it draws attention to the need for town planning to consider the risks of warfare and to take precautions to minimise loss of life and property in the event of attack. It recognises the role of public open space in breaking up the urban mass of buildings and residences supported by a system of communication to assist with movement throughout the area.

"The increasing concentration of population in cities must be looked at from a new angle. No large city today can afford to ignore the risks of warfare, and must take all practicable precautions in its civic development to minimise loss of life and property should it be attacked". [17]

Although contemporary Western society has become complacent about war, the complete lack of planning for its potential may appear negligent.

11.2.1 Recommendation
It is recommended that consideration be given to including the provision for civil defence in the current metropolitan Melbourne planning strategy as its absence appears to assume that planning for this purpose is irrelevant.

APPENDIX A

COMPARISON OF MELBOURNE, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE WITH MELBOURNE 2030

NOTES

[1] See http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/targets-and-priority-actions.aspx
[2] The Critical Decade: Extreme Weather. Report by the Australian Climate Commission, April 2013
[3Productivity Commission Economic Structure and Performance of the Australian Retail Industry, Draft Report, Canberra, July 2011
[4] Daley, John and Walsh, Marcus (2011), ‘Losing the productivity race’, Australian Financial Review, 7 July, 63.
[5] Sources: ABS, Australian System of National Accounts (5204.0), State Accounts (5220.0), and The Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly (6291.0.55.003; Grattan Institute calculations, based on table by Eslake, S. in 'An analysis of Victoria’s labour productivity performance. Presentation to a forum hosted by Victorian Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development, 14th April 2010.
[6] Eslake, S. in 'An analysis of Victoria’s labour productivity performance. Presentation to a forum hosted by Victorian Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development, 14th April 2010.
[7] Freebairn, J. "Flat economy will continue to challenge the Victorian government" in 'The Conversation', an online academic journal, 13 March 2013.
[8] The contribution of housing to carbon emissions and the potential for reduction: an Australia-UK comparison, 18th Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference Adelaide, Australia, January 2012
[9] Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Australian National Greenhouse Accounts, National Inventory by Economic Sector, Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, p6.
[10] Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Energy use in the Australian Residential Sector, 1990-2020, Commonwealth of Australia, 2008
[11] The contribution of housing to carbon emissions and the potential for reduction: an Australia-UK comparison, 18th Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference Adelaide, Australia, January 2012, p6.
[12] Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse gas Inventory, March Quarter 2011, Commonwealth of Australia, 2011
[13] The contribution of housing to carbon emissions and the potential for reduction: an Australia-UK comparison, 18th Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference Adelaide, Australia, January 2012, p5.
[14] Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Melbourne Metropolitan Investigation Discussion Paper, October 2010, p102.
[15] “Melbourne Metropolitan Strategy – Con Job or for Real?”. Buxton, M, Professor of Environment and Planning, RMIT University.
[16] Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme Report 1954, Explanation of the planning scheme submitted to the Town Planning Committee by E. F. Borrie, M.C., M.C.E., MIC . Aust., F.A.P.I., Chief Planner, on behalf of the planning staff.
[17] MMBW 'Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme Report' 1954, p28

Bandicoot writes in Our rights to jobs negotiated awayabout how Australian government has signed away the rights of Australians to self-govern on the question of mass immigration, a problem now affecting our employment opportunities and conditions. Indeed, many problems affecting Australians arise from a trend of the late 20th century to conflate trade in goods across borders and trade in people across borders. Goods-imports depress our prices and people-imports depress our wages and conditions, but, even more importantly, they depress our democracy. In the end neither producers nor workers win, unless they are multinational corporates.

Bad economic farming

The seeds of the predicament that Bandicoot so ably documents in "Our right to jobs negotiated away" were contained in the multilateral trade agreements that people protested in 1994 when a trendy-sounding Mr Keating signed us up for them. Arguably the Greens and the so called socialists of the Socialist Alliance that field a lot of potential youthful energy for protest, could have led Australians against this had they educated their followers. It seemed then, and seems now, however that the Greens and the Socialist Alliance failed to defend Australians rights on this matter because they have a core that defends immigration against any criticism, for reasons best known to their leaders.

The problems we are now deeply affected by arise from a trend of the late 20th century to conflate trade in goods across borders and trade in people across borders. Goods imports depress our prices and people imports depress our wages and conditions. In the end neither producers nor workers win, unless they are multinational corporates. This is because of an ideology that pretends that all our interests are promoted by economic liberalisation. It is obvious, however, that economic liberalisation (the ability to go to any bank in the world looking for the best rates, the ability to buy any commodity or product from anywhere) does not apply generally to most people. For instance, ordinary Australians cannot go to the Bank of Paris and access better terms for chequebooks and housing loans. Similarly, authors cannot publish with amazon.com and expect their earnings to be paid electronically into their accounts unless they are located in a certain few countries and you cannot usually freely download electronic books and dvds from French Amazon.com because the rights are restricted to certain countries. And you cannot off-shore your personal accounts to tax havens if you are a PAYE employee.

The philosophy of free trade, such as it is, is that ordinary people benefit from the transfer of wealth to international business entities because it may trickle down in the form of employment via these entities or in the form of the very cheap goods that flood our countries to the detriment of local small to medium business. Australia has also almost abolished the notion of property rights for ordinary people; Free trade in property acquisition means that land-prices have become inflated - affecting housing, farming and business rents so that Australians must compete with corporates and wealthy international investors and landlords to buy property where they only competed with each other previously. The same inflationary pressure on land is now acting on water and power because of the ideology of privatisation which is also associated with free marketeering.

History of cheap worker flood

Primeminister Howard

The absolute flood of immigrants now taking Australian jobs was not possible until Mr Howard's WorkChoices. Before WorkChoices, it was not generally profitable to import immigrant workers in Australia because our conciliation and arbitration system required any worker in an industry with an award to have the same wages and conditions as his/her fellows. This also applied to foreign workers. So you could not, until very recently, import a worker from overseas and pay them less than Australians and treat them worse.

However our capacity to bargain industrially has been pulled apart in a series of successive damaging attacks on our Conciliation and Arbitration system that was the hallmark of the Australian Federation democratic agreement.

Primeminister Malcolm Fraser

Primeminister Malcolm Fraser set the rot in motion with his laws against Secondary Boycotts which meant that workers could not withhold their labour from industries that behaved badly towards them. This fundamentally altered the human rights of Australian workers in a process that set in motion their degradation.

Premier Jeff Kennett

Industrial Awards were a very strong defense against a flood of cheap labour, especially State Industrial Awards.

These were first dismantled at State level, beginning with the Kennett Government in Victoria. Gradually industries were thrown into the disorganised mess of individual workplace agreements, stored in the tangled morass of the federal system. Unions lost rights to represent us at the same time as the laws they used to back us up on were watered down into uselessness.

It was obvious the whole time, to anyone who knew about the trade agreements that outlawed national differences in worker protection among signatories, that this situation would open up the sluice gates on cheap worker immigration in Australia. It was therefore obvious to the people responsible for signing us up with the WTO agreements and for dismanteling our industrial system.

Primeminister Keating

Keating set the scene for the undermining of citizens rights to determine our industrial laws and conditions as well as our rights to set limits on imports and foreign workers at the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization 1 in 1994.

In Under "PART III,SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS, Article XVI, Market access:

1. With respect to market access through the modes of supply identified in Article I, each Member shall accord services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable than that provided for under the terms, limitations and conditions agreed and specified in its Schedule.[152]

2. In sectors where market-access commitments are undertaken, the measures which a Member shall not maintain or adopt either on the basis of a regional subdivision or on the basis of its entire territory, unless otherwise specified in its Schedule, are defined as:

(d) limitations on the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular service sector or that a service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the supply of a specific service in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test;

PART IV, PROGRESSIVE LIBERALIZATION, Article XIX, Negotiation of specific commitments, commits the signatories to continuous relaxing of trade barriers and, presumably, movement of people across national borders and the granting of work permits. Obviously this agreement abrogates the rights of citizens to determine wages and employment conditions which are an intrinsic part of self-government in a democracy and were a notable feature of Australia until this agreement to free trade.

Primeminister Hawke

Hawke was responsible for instituting an ideology of multculturalism which was subsequently used to intimidate Australians from criticising mass immigration. A document of his involvement in setting up the Multicultural Foundation of Australia is available here. Whilst the Multicultural Foundation of Australia might seem a quite innocuously unimportant organisation, the fact that its small list of members contains the then Executive Director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia and every Australian primeminister and most opposition leaders since Hawke leads one to question this first impression. For more see Background on the Australian Multicultural Foundation

Hawke was also responsible for negotiating - in the Accord, against the background of the post 1970s oil shock, a centralisation of industrial unions that entailed the breaking up of diverse local and state power bases. These changes were probably necessary to weaken the union movement so that there would be no chance of Australians finding purchase to stand and fight against the slippery slide into third world conditions. The corporate model of huge unions had an inbuilt tendency to make unions allies of banks and the wealthy with professionalisation of traditionally voluntary offices, becoming stepping stones for parliamentary opportunists.

Corrupted Socialist movement helped destroy union solidarity and sense

Geoffrey Taylor (who writes for candobetter.net) would argue that a corrupted socialist movement in Australia kept up significant unwarranted agitation and confusion within unions so that workers and employers were unnecessarily alienated from their own interests. That is, he would argue that the socialist movement led poorly founded strikes and protests but that it also undermined well-founded protests and strikes - and does to this day. The underlying theory here is that the corrupted socialist movement was actually working for the government and the power elites of the day, and against the very principles that caused so many to pay their dues to it and follow its orders.

Did Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard et al all realise the harm their policies would do Australians or were they just caught up in a tsunami of Chicago School economics (called 'shock doctrine' by Naomi Klein) that seemed clever at the time? If there had been no oil shock in the 1970s, I do not think that their ideas would have gained purchase, but that series of shocks and countershocks helped to divide the 'developed world' into two different economic policy schools. Amongst the anglophones, the Thatcher-Reagan view of the world evolved to chisel away at citizenship and democracy in favour of a contractual society where we were all just economic units, in contrast to Western Europe, where a more citizen-focused solidarity created a bulwark for democracy, with smaller economic differences between citizens and a humanist view of one's fellows.

Oil and trade wars

Oil scarcity still looms however and Anglophone elite dominance of world political economy is now magnifying the division between the oil producing economies in the Middle East, Africa, South America and Russia and the massive consumer economies in the West. International banking deregulation has broken down Western Europe's solidarity with its citizens by investing government and personal funds in the USA stock, housing and futures markets, which are totally overcapitalised. These banking and investment institutions that have invested in the United States have created of the United States a monster debt that must be fed to keep its investors alive. To feed that monster, 'austerity measures' now erode the solidarity of citizens and government in Western Europe. In a related pact, The USA, England, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany and others are now aligned temporarily in illegal wars for trade where they are historically competitors.

I know only some parts of the history of Australia's loss of citizens' rights and welcome contributions and criticisms from others.