bad laws

A Prohibition Act passed 20 years ago stands as NT parliament's legal opposition to plans to dump nuclear waste in the NT. It simply prohibits handling, transport and storage of long-lived intermediate-level and high-level nuclear wastes (materials which are only found in the form of spent reactor fuel).

Unfortunately the 'Online Safety Amendment (Protecting Australian Children from Online Harm) Bill 2023 passed the Australian Senate last night, with an amendment to be inserted after section 63D.  I attach both the bill and the Senate amendment to the bill. 

In light of the looming Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation ('M.A.D) Bill,[1] Prof. Andrea Carson and Dr Max Grömping's paper looks into the real state of the information environment in Australia in comparison to other countries, focusing on the exaggerated perceived threat of so-called misinformation and disinformation on public information quality and how any harmful effects might be combatted without draconian censorship laws. 

How you can help : Download, print and distribute the double-sided A5 leaflet Ask your Senators to block Labor’s Orwellian “Misinformation Bill” . Ask your Senators to block the M.A.D. bill in the sittings of the Senate which commence Monday 18 November. The bundle of double-sided landscape-oriented A4 printed sheets will have to be carefully guillotined down the middle to give two bundles of double-sided landscape-oriented A5 printed sheets.

Biko Konstantinos has done a fantastic expose of PM Albanese's awful censorship laws that are up for voting in the Senate on 18 November 2024.

"Protection for consumer deposits in Australia's construction sector is vital as insolvencies rise, threatening the stability of the homebuilding industry," writes Dr Bradley Hastings[1] and Professor Peter Swan.

Update, 2/10/24: Of 25 submissions I could only find one that supported this legislation. The remaining 24 were strongly opposed. Unfortunately, I narrowly missed the dead-line, so my own submission, included below, was not included. (further update, 18 Oct 24: PDF Stop the M.A.D. Bill included.)

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 purports to aim to enhance transparency and accountability among digital platforms, it does not adequately protect users from arbitrary actions by governments regarding the content they post.

This is about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.

"There are three aspects of the draft Exposure Bill that are of real concern: the first relating to the role of a council albeit its relationship to its community, the second the role of mayor and deputy mayor in their relationship to other councillors, and the third the electoral system and its relationship to its electors. [...] A duly elected city council should not be subservient to the State or proscribed a role that undermines the capacity of a council to engage with its community on a broad range of issues that impact on our lives. [...] The view that what is good for other levels of government should be replicated at the local level. This reinforces that local government is ‘government’ and not an administrative arm of the State." [Candobetter.net Editor: The state government is obviously trying to remove the capacity of residents to affect what happens in their local environment and suburb. We already have almost no democratic power at state or federal level - just reduced to a risible function of voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledumber. But local government is where it all happens. This is the first line of population policy, because the councils say whether there can be subdivision or new housing, which is what dictates population growth. VCAT has been used and abused by the State government to overturn council judgment, as has the insertion of State-paid Council CEOs. This attempt to rewrite the Act risks annihilating local governments in all but name. See also 'Population and Development Battlefronts' at the end of the statement by Fitzroy Council.]

Local Government Act reviewed?

The Local Government Act is being reviewed and is in its last throes of consultation before being adopted in May this year. The Act proscribes the role of local government and thus we residents have a lot to gain and much to lose in how our City Council works and carries out the role of governing our City and building a sustainable and liveable city for all.

The Yarra City Council’s response was tabled at its 6 March meeting and should be of interest to many residents who wish to ensure that the role of local government and its relationship to our State Government is collaborative and not subservient and that its pre-eminent relationship is to the community.

There are three aspects of the draft Exposure Bill that are of real concern: the first relating to the role of a council albeit its relationship to its community, the second the role of mayor and deputy mayor in their relationship to other councillors, and the third the electoral system and its relationship to its electors.

A duly elected city council should not be subservient to the State or proscribed a role that undermines the capacity of a council to engage with its community on a broad range of issues that impact on our lives.

If we revert to the ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ mantra our City will be the poorer. The current 1989 Local Government Act sets out a high level statement that reflects a contemporary role for a council whilst the draft reduces this to a series of governance principles together with a requirement that councils ‘cooperate with other government bodies’.

This would result in our council being beholden to other governments and thus reduce their independence as a legitimate level of government. The result of not incorporating into the Act an advocacy role would limit the community’s voice through its elected representatives.

And finally the electoral system which defines local representation and the voting process underpins the value and credibility placed on a city council. As the Yarra City Council report states

“Elections in the City of Yarra have long been conducted by attendance voting, and the Yarra City Council is disappointed that the Exposure Draft makes this unlikely to continue”.

Attendance voting builds community and provides a window for residents into their local neighbourhood. State and Federal governments mandate attendance voting though increasingly pre-poll voting is becoming popular. The view that what is good for other levels of government should be replicated at the local level. This reinforces that local government is ‘government’ and not an administrative arm of the State.

[End of Fitzroy Council statement]

Population and Development Battlefronts

Here is a quick lesson in how populations are controlled when societies are governed democratically.

Population Policy Battlefronts for democracy and ecological sustainability
1. Local Government
2. State Government
3. National Government
4. Global

1. Local Government

* power of limiting building permits (and thus of limiting population growth) in line with water catchment capacities, aesthetics, civil hygiene, preservation of agricultural land and natural amenities, like green wedges, nature reserves and parkland
* promotion of energy efficient public and private buildings
* facilitation of householder independence from the State power and sewerage grid
* incorporation of local indigenous species' needs for space, food and water within the concept of local planning and as participants in the regional ecology.
* residents should have self government
* local elected officials and paid staff are servants of residents and should not implement plans without their agreement
* food and fiber production should be local where possible, minimising energy used to transport goods in and out of a community

2. State Government

Wherever States have the responsibility for and power of limiting impact on the bio-regions within their borders they should exercise this within the context of national and local population policy. In Australia the states have the power over land-use and water sources and the ability and responsibility to signal when infrastructure is close to capacity. They have a number of tools for limiting urban expansion. Among these are:

*taxes on second homes, taxes on windfalls gained by sellers when land is rezoned,
*redevelopment, not new development - of old buildings, insulation of old buildings - instead of land-clearing for new construction. These taxes are there to feedback order into the allocation of construction permits and should not be relied upon as something that can be grown to subsidise increases in government spending.
*housing as a citizen's right, a state's duty and a public cost
*land-development by the state to provide low-cost land to undercut speculative private development, which raises costs through unreasonable profits, thus driving up all other costs, and providing a motive for overpopulation

- Water should not be disaggregated from land because this removes valuable biofeedback that signals limits to growth.

- State governments must be entirely transparent in all their transactions and so must the political parties in and out of government. See "John-Paul Langbroek and why the Liberal National Party won't survive unless Labor Governments reform."

- Business can only be the servant of democracy and should not dictate population limits.
- Economy is a subset of the environment.
- State governments have no business making plans for local government to follow if these are not inspected and agreed to in detail by local residents.

3. National Government

* adoption of democratic and ecologically informed population policy
* separation of political and administrative responsibility for population and immigration
* chairing of a cabinet committee on population by Prime Minister adoption of a consumption strategy
* aim to stabilise population numbers by:
- promoting small families and a
- zero net migration program - gives around 70,000 person-spaces
* plan immigration program for the humanitarian longterm, staggering intake to cope with foreseeable ongoing demands and climate change
* Change the emphasis on immigration and population research funding from its longstanding almost exclusive focus on internal migration and ethnic group demographics, in order to give far greater attention to population numbers, per capita energy use and environmental impact.

4. Global

Australia should support policies to help people to protect local controls over land-tenure, recognising that the population problems of Africa, India and the Pacific Islands, only started when colonisation dispossessed people from their local lands and stable economic traditions in homeostatic indigenous ecologies.

Australia should direct more money into foreign aid to combat the conditions that contribute to overpopulation by assisting initiatives for educating and enfranchising women, enhancing children's health, promoting family planning education and safe, non-coercive family planning methods and protecting local self-government and self-sufficiency.

Australia and other 'Developed' countries should cooperate with United Nations global initiatives in developing longsighted population policies which take into account our high environmental/energy consumption impact per capita.

As an ecologically impoverished commodity producer, Australia should lead other commodity producers by example and assist in the development and use of low energy consumption technology and lifestyle, being careful to keep its population low in conformity with the limiting characteristics of the continent's ecology and the nature of commodity dependent economies, which also do not require large volumes of workers, unless they are conducted as slave colonies to furnish cheap supply to other countries - a practice that is neither ethical, humane or sustainable.

Australia should not encourage high birth rates or high immigration without their constituents knowledge or agreement, based on useful and true information about optimal carrying capacity and the preservation of democratic rights and local empowerment.

To me the “Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017” is more of the same – putting out a spot fire/diversionary tactic. The bill may be aimed at so-called charities that provide political advocacy while at the same time accommodating such advocacy through the back door, the bill may claim some smaller fry that are, to the government, collateral damage. Instead of addressing political donations head-on, we pathetically tinker around at the edges. As the dust settles the sharks that were dominating the pond are still there while the sardines have been thinned out!

Understanding the political gravy train

My first glimpse of the political gravy train (game of mates) in Australia was back in 1992 prior to Jeff sacking Victoria’s councils. As a bastard from the bush in the State seat of Rodney I’d joined the National Party who at the time was doing some good work for the farming community. The local branch had called an open meeting for all members and prospective members to attend to hear from speakers Noel Maughan (MLA for Rodney) and Bill Baxter (MLC for North East Province) regarding the forthcoming election.

The spectre of Council Amalgamations was in the wind and at the meeting we were informed by Bill Baxter with great emphasis that the National Party would not tolerate Council Amalgamations in any shape or form whatsoever. Within 2 years Council Amalgamations were rammed through parliament with the National Party’s blessing. At a subsequent meeting of the local branch of the Nashos when it was put to Bill Baxter regarding the obvious about-face, flip, sell-out, he refuted (lied) that he had ever given the aforesaid commitment. The meeting degenerated into a farce with Bill being ushered out the back door and many members including yours truly resigning their membership in disgust!

Political parties and political baggage

I came to realise over the ensuing years that all of the major political parties carried political baggage similar to that of the National Party. The (once) Liberal Party had morphed into a conservative organisation taking the nashos with them (or Vicky Verca), the Labour Party sold out the workers, both parties adopted neoliberal principles and the Democrats were on a hiding to nothing trying to keep the bastards honest. The neoliberal mantra under the Hawke/Keating Federal Government and the Kennett State Government redefined the political landscape dramatically during this time.

Today the landscape has only changed in the fact that the Demos have gone and have been replaced by the “Greens” who are also neoliberal despite somewhat honourable beginnings. Politically Australia has become a backwater of neoliberalism similar to North America and most of Europe and is suffering under the yoke of American hegemony, Chinese influence, neo-classical economics, overpopulation driven climate change and political indecision on all facets of the home front.

Legislating against spot-fires

Much of what passes for legislation at federal level today is aimed at putting out spot fires or shoring-up community/electoral support for the Turnbull Government. Similar to the State Governments of both Baillieu and Napthine, the Abbott and Turnbull Federal Governments have been do nothing ministries. There has been no significant legislation that these Premiers/Prime Ministers could or can hang their hats on, nothing, nought, zip, zilch!!

They have gone from proposing the ludicrous to the unworkable, shoring-up their support as they go! As spot fires break out around them their time and energy is consumed putting them out. In an effort to achieve this, diversionary tactics or smoke screens are often employed to take the community’s/electorate’s eye off the ball. The classic here was the “Same Sex Marriage” bill which was always going to get up, being taken to a (“referendum”) postal vote. This took some of the heat off the Feds for 6 months wasting time and money. In the meantime, Australia, as a nation, just drifted along with the Yanks pulling us one direction and the Chinese the other.

I read with interest the excepts from Clive Hamilton’s book “Silent Invasion” in Saturday’s Age and am currently reading Robert Macklin’s “Dragon & Kangaroo” and I’m beginning to understand an aspect of Australia’s history they I hadn’t grasped previously. Unfortunately, there is not much to like in what I’ve read so far and combined with our colonial sycophancy and our current obsequiousness to the good old USofA, we are sadly lacking especially when it comes to leadership of the nation.

Electoral Funding and Disclosure Bill 2017

To me the “Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017” is more of the same – putting out a spot fire/diversionary tactic. The bill may be aimed at so-called charities that provide political advocacy while at the same time accommodating such advocacy through the back door, the bill may claim some smaller fry that are, to the government, collateral damage. Instead of addressing political donations head-on, we pathetically tinker around at the edges. As the dust settles the sharks that were dominating the pond are still there while the sardines have been thinned out!

However, I do believe that any bid to curb the right of individuals to collectively provide alms and benevolence or to protest by either the Federal or State Governments to be an infringement of our civil liberties. This where the Australian constitution is an absolute dodo. Similar to the constitution not recognising First Australians, it doesn’t recognise the civil liberties of all Australians. As the constitution continues to fail all Australians and it will increasingly do so in the future, the more ordinary Australians and groups of Ozzies including charities will come under the spotlight. These individuals and groups will then be put under the microscope while those with money, power and political clout will able to evade this bandaid legislation and carry on as if nothing has happened.

Meanwhile the yawning gap between the haves and the have nots widens appreciably. As the middle class become trapped by the zombie neo-classical economics, climate change tightens its noose, environmental degradation continues unabated, resources become depleted, civil unrest mounts as people go hungry, fresh water diminishes and spills over into war and mass migration. This is the leaderless society that is being thrust upon us. Overpopulation is a killer!!

John Bentley

“We are all an involuntary part of a social revolution, where political parties feel entitled to take ownership of our individual rights to real and personal property, and where our civil and political rights are abused and overridden by the many politically created entities within the Australian Government System.” (Larry Hannigan).

You can read more on Larry Hannigan's blog, where it seems he is doing Victorians a great service: https://larryhannigan.com/government-state/13-victorian-local-government-act-2018-submissions/.

"We cannot hide the fact that the European left has a clear agenda. They are supportive to migration. They actually import future leftist voters to Europe hiding behind humanism. It is an old trick but I do not understand why we have to accept it. They consider registration and protection of borders bureaucratic, nationalist and against human rights. They have a dream about the politically constructed world society without religious traditions, without borders, without nations. They attack core values of our European identity: family, nation, subsidiarity and responsibility. [...] We have a heartfelt compassion for the people who left their homes. They are victims of the bad governance of their own countries. They are victims of bad international political decisions. And they are victims of our bad European policy as well which raises expectations that are impossible to be fulfilled. They are obviously victims of the human traffickers. But considering them victims must not turn ourselves into being victims. Just because we do not consider them enemies we must not act against ourselves. Our moral responsibility is to give back these people their homes and their countries. It can’t be our objective to provide them with a new European life. Right to human dignity and security are basic rights. But neither the German, Austrian nor the Hungarian way of life is a basic right of all people on the Earth. " (Speech of Viktor Orbán at the EPP Congress in Madrid, on the 22nd of October in 2015 - more than ever, relevant today.)

You can find more recent speeches and transcripts here:

Video Transcript below:

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, President, dear Delegates,

I would like to congratulate to Partido Popular and to the Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy for the outstanding performance of their government. Today I would like to speak about the migration crisis. This issue will determine the future of our political family. We are in a deep trouble. The migration crisis is able to destabilize governments, countries and the whole European continent. We need a strong and clear-cut answer, timetable and action plan of EPP. The Hungarian delegates welcome the resolution of the congress, declaring that the Spanish approach is the right one.

Dear Friends,

The danger we have been facing demands open and honest speech. First of all, dear Friends, what we have been facing is not a refugee crisis. This is a migratory movement composed of economic migrants, refugees and also foreign fighters. This is an uncontrolled and unregulated process. I would like to remind you that free choice of a host country is not included in the international law. I also want to underline that there is an unlimited source of supply of people, after Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Africa is now also on the move. The dimension and the volume of the danger is well above our expectations.

Dear Colleagues,

This is the right time to make clear the nature and the dimension of our moral responsibility. We are Christian democrats so the issue of moral responsibility must also be put high into consideration. We have a heartfelt compassion for the people who left their homes. They are victims of the bad governance of their own countries. They are victims of bad international political decisions. And they are victims of our bad European policy as well which raises expectations that are impossible to be fulfilled. They are obviously victims of the human traffickers. But considering them victims must not turn ourselves into being victims. Just because we do not consider them enemies we must not act against ourselves. Our moral responsibility is to give back these people their homes and their countries. It can’t be our objective to provide them with a new European life. Right to human dignity and security are basic rights. But neither the German, Austrian nor the Hungarian way of life is a basic right of all people on the Earth. It is only a right of those ones who have contributed to it. Europe is not able to accept everyone who wants a better life. We have to help them to get back their own lives with dignity and we have to send them back to their own countries.

Dear Colleagues,

Let me draw your kind attention to the fact that European Christian democratic approach doesn’t tolerate any anti-Muslim policy. Muslim faith which we honor and respect is not responsible for the root causes of this mass migratory movement.

Dear Delegates,

We cannot avoid speaking about the quality of our democracies. Does it comply with the freedom of information and speech that medias usually show women and children while seventy percent of the migrants are young men and they look like an army? How could it happen that our people’s feel that their opinion is not being put into consideration? And we have to address the question whether our people want what has been happening. Did we get authorization from them to allow millions of migrants to enter our continent? Did we get authorization not to comply with the Schengen regulations for months? No, distinguished Delegates, we did not. And it is not a convincing argument any more that what we have been doing is because of emergency. I believe we have to gather all our courage, we have to throw away PC-ness and we should launch a big debate. We have to discuss our own intentions regarding our own continent without hypocrisy and pharisaism. What do we think about our civilization heritage? Can the change of cultural pattern forced externally? Do we accept parallel societies? Or we defend our tolerant and rule of law based way of life we have lived so far?

Dear Delegates,

Europe is currently rich and weak. This is the most possibly dangerous mixture. We seem not to be able to overcome our challenges on our own. Turkey is an important strategic partner. But if based on the lack of our own power we expect the solution from them that will make us exposed. This is the current situation of Europe. If we do not want that we have to protect our borders. If we are unable to do so at Greece which is the Eastern gate of the Balkans and the first line of defence than we have to do it at the Western gate of the Balkans at Hungary and Slovenia.

Dear Friends,

We cannot hide the fact that the European left has a clear agenda. They are supportive to migration. They actually import future leftist voters to Europe hiding behind humanism. It is an old trick but I do not understand why we have to accept it. They consider registration and protection of borders bureaucratic, nationalist and against human rights. They have a dream about the politically constructed world society without religious traditions, without borders, without nations. They attack core values of our European identity: family, nation, subsidiarity and responsibility.

Dear Friends,

We are EPP. Our behavior should not be determined by the opinion of our rivals. We are a strong and great party. The stronger the attack, the stronger we need to fight back. We need to be ready to fight for our principles. We have to be innovative as well. In the rise of the new crises, the old ways do not work anymore. We need courage and new experiments, even if not every idea we try succeeds, but it should not stop us from trying. And we should not attack those who are trying. I thank for our President and for sister parties who defended us, Hungarians in the difficult times when we offered new solutions.

Dear Friends,

We are the European People’s Party – Partie Populaire, Volkspartei, Partido Popular, Party of the People – our responsibility is towards the people. Listen to the people. Let’s be determined, let’s defend Europe. Do not let the leftist mess up and reconstruct Europe! And do not let them oust the soul of Europe! Do not let liberals and socialists take away Europe from the people!

Thank you very much for your attention.

"The proposed “Smart Planning” must not proceed in its current form. The Group does not support fast tracking development, weakening permit or planning triggers or referral requirements, or permit exemptions, or the removal of appeal rights." Inside find Port Campbell Community Group Inc's submission to the Victorian Planning Provisions Discussion Paper.

Port Campbell Community Group Inc. A0051688U
Submission to DELWP’s “Smart Planning” November 2017

In the interests of balancing the present and future interests of all Victorians (g) that “Smart Planning’s” so-called “Key Benefits” must better align with the P&E Act’s Objectives which requires all development (f) to foremost meet (a), (b), (c) and (d):
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co‑ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

Community Expertise

Community members and groups are crucial for their local knowledge and expertise which, if listened to, would save the State and public millions of dollars in wasted time and energy considering flawed planning proposals.
The Group has taken part in in many planning consultations – see Appendix A.

Four instances of poor planning decisions are listed below, some current:

The Southern Ocean Beach House
A major motel, retail development and excavation within meters of major caverns on Port Campbell’s fragile limestone headland cliffs.
The University of New South Wales Law Journal published a special edition on ‘Rethinking Climate Change and the Law’. A history of the Port Campbell Southern Ocean Beach House saga is part of this edition. It was launched by the Honourable Justice Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court. An important part of the articles is an emphasis on community expertise and involvement in decision-making. See article attached and at: https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/.

The Shipwreck Coast Master Plan
There was extensive community consultation, but it seems the community was not heard. The proposed projected viewing platform at the 12 Apostles appears to be high risk. It is situated above an area where there has been a major recent cliff collapse – image below. Local knowledge, and geotechnical knowledge, would say this is high risk. This is just one of the problems with the Shipwreck Coast Master Plan, because community expertise has been ignored.

12 Apostles Cliff collapse August 2011

Montarosa proposal on Princetown Flood Plain
We must ask why this proposal was permitted by Council, as the risks are obvious. We must also ask why the proposal received a $650,000 federal government grant; State Government appears to have encouraged Corangamite Shire Council to approve the development.

The proposal is an 18 room residential ‘eco’-lodge, 20 cabins elevated on stilts, a restaurant, café, shop, briefing facilities, office, function rooms, 2 swimming pools/day spa, lookout tower, cycling and walking trails, boardwalks, a boat shed and jetty pontoon/boat ramp for pleasure activities. There is an estimated 278 car parks, 5 bus parks, and 480 visitors. Council notes the development will require Crown Land “to create road access and walking tracks”.

The flood plain presents an unacceptable risk to the low-lying development, and the development presents an unacceptable risk to a non-resilient, fragile estuary environment which contains endangered and threatened species including Latham’s Snipe, Australasian Bitten, Southern Brown Bandicoot and Australian Grayling. The site adjoins the Great Otway National Park.

There will be major road and earthworks. Council notes that the 1 km long flood prone access road must be widened and raised to 2.1 metres AHD, but raising the road will create a barrier directing flood waters elsewhere which is unlikely to be resolved by culverts. The single-lane access bridge will need to be upgraded. Council notes: “The site is susceptible to flooding. The proposed buildings are located just outside or on the fringe of the 1% AEP floodplain. The finished floor levels of all buildings will be required to be no lower than 3.5 metres AHD which the application details will be achieved by placing buildings on stumps…”
The Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study lists the area as of State significance with a landscape objective: “To protect the valley floor from development” and “Potential Threats: Development on valley floor (unlikely)”, recognising it is unlikely a development would be put on the flood plain. The Victorian Coastal Strategy states to avoid development in low lying areas. Part of the area has an Environmental Significance Overlay “for the protection of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands”.

There are serious concerns regarding the leeching potential of the sewer and waste water system and potential for catastrophe in floods. The submission recognises the likely presence of acid sulphate soil.

Ten sites were rezoned on the Corangamite Shire coast for large tourism projects. None of these sites have been developed as yet, and none would have these risks.

Decision-makers must take into account the effects of climate change and the precautionary principle: the combined effects of rising seas, storm surge, extreme rainfall events, and flooding. But now the community has withdrawn from VCAT, who is going to make this decision? Council does not have the expertise.

The State government must investigate and insist on an independent Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment and a full and inclusive public Environmental Effects Statement to assess the potential for flooding risk, and risk to the public.

Princetown Flood Plain. X marks site of proposed development with road linkages into and between the sites. Note the road into the area is flooded, and this was solely due to storm surge. A more extreme event would occur with a high rainfall event in conjunction with storm surge.
Original Photo: Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

1 Hennessy Street Port Campbell residential development
The height imposes on the public domain, overlooking a state and nationally significant headland’s walking trail. Any development is required to be a height of the vegetation and fit neighbourhood character. VCAT and Council ignored the community’s concerns and consequently failed to meet planning requirements.

1 Hennessy St does not fit neighbourhood character, nor does it meet the height guides, and it overlooks national and state listed heritage headland and walking trail. View from heritage listed Beacon Steps lookout.

Consultants

The only ones winning at the moment appear to be consultants who may conduct consultation but do not seem to listen to expert community advice. It is costing rate payers and tax payers billions.

Better Education for Planning Officers

The latest Corangamite Shire Amendment (C45) 2017 – changes to the MSS – demonstrated that planners do not understand the difference between Objectives and Strategies. Planning was advised by the Panel to rewrite them. The Panel members also noted the amendment could become irrelevant if Smart Planning proceeds. A lot of time and money had been spent on a document which could be irrelevant. Not smart planning.

VCAT

There needs to be a full review of VCAT’s inconsistencies and poor performances in decision-making which undermine the planning process.

Summary

For the benefit of Victoria there must not be weakened permit or planning triggers or referral requirements, or permit exemptions, or the removal of appeal rights.
Without real community input, the government will make many more mistakes which will cost the State billions.
Marion Manifold
Secretary on behalf of
Port Campbell Community Group Inc. A0051688U

APPENDIX A

• Shifts in Victorian climate law and policy and the planning system: Intersected views from the field and academy. Brad Jessup and Marion Manifold. UNSW publications, 2016
• Commonwealth Government’s Draft Referral Guidelines for the Southern Brown Bandicoot and the EPBC Act, 2015
• Western Regional Coastal Plan Draft, 2015 – provided submission and photos
• Corangamite Shire Draft Environment & Sustainability Strategy 2014-2019
• Victorian National Parks Association with Bioregional Profile Coastal Paper, 2014
• Amendment C36 for Heritage Overlay on Port Campbell headland, 2014. (Planning panel recommended this be implemented).
• Shipwreck Coast Master Plan, 2013-2015
• The Arts Bridge: Bridging Art, Community and the Coastal Environment, Regional Arts Victoria, 2013
• Drafted the South West Threatened Species Recovery Program which aims to provide a plan of action to recover threatened species in South West Victoria including liaising with Parks Victoria, Landcare, Conservation Ecology Centre Cape Otway and the Otway Community Conservation Network, 2013.
• Victorian Coastal Strategy Draft, 2013
• Port of Port Campbell Safety & Environment Management Plan, 2013
• Parliamentary Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism in Victoria, 2013
• Co-ordinated the Environment Defenders Office to assist writing and present a submission on Amendment C30 which has resulted in improved environmental outcomes, 2013.
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C28, 2013
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C29, 2012.
• The effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia, 2012
• Plan to rehabilitate the remnant Great Ocean Road on Port Campbell headland to increase habitat for endangered species including Southern Brown Bandicoot, 2014
• Port Campbell Headland Management and Landscape Plan including Biodiversity Action Plan, 2012
• Port Campbell Headland Walking Track – Coastcare and Council Submission, 2013
• DSE Review of Land Stability at Sturgess Point, Port Campbell, 2011
• EPBC Act 1999 Draft Referral Guidelines for Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern), Isoodon obesulus obesulus, 2011
• Review of Victorian Planning Provisions and Planning Scheme, 2011
• National Trust ‘State’ listing for the Port Campbell headland, 2008
• Parliamentary Inquiry into Use and Development of Public Land, Port Campbell Headland, 2008
• Heritage Victoria – Port Campbell Headland submission, 2008
• Victorian Coastal Strategy Draft, 2008
• Corangamite Shire Environmental Strategy, 2007
• VCAT submissions including organising expert witness reports 2003-2011
• Federal Government – Meeting the Challenge of Coastal Growth. Discussion Paper, May 2006
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C13, 2002
• Wannon Water / Parks Victoria panel to consider sewage options for the 12 Apostles
• Marion Manifold. High-risk coastal resort on flood plain. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. September. 2017.
• Marion Manifold. The Port Campbell Coast: Paradise Lost. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. June 2014. Pp.12-13.
• Marion Manifold. Port Campbell: Developments on a Fragile Coast. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. December 2014. Pp.18-19.
• Marion Manifold. Port Campbell headland still at risk. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. September 2009. P.23.
• Marion Manifold. At risk – Port Campbell headland and national park. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. March 2009. Pp.12-13

"Labor is developing what is meant to be the most fundamental restructure of the Victorian planning system since the 1996 introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the new Smart Planning program. [...] A simpler, more efficient and certain planning scheme is long overdue, but Smart Planning is not the way to provide it. This is a $25 million program managed through the Smart Planning program Rules team. If the system is simply to implement five minor changes, along with online access, then the program is a massive waste of money. Alternatively, if future stages are to radically change the system, then the government is hiding its intentions, locking out community groups from the process, and intends to present the public with a fait accompli." (Professor Michael Buxton*)

Labor is developing what is meant to be the most fundamental restructure of the Victorian planning system since the 1996 introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the new Smart Planning program.

For the first time, the government has issued a tender for significant private sector involvement in the development of this program. A private consulting company has been given the significant role in developing what is meant to be further privatisation of the planning system.

Nobody knows what the precise instructions to this firm are because few public criteria were provided. However enough is known to provide a broad outline of government intentions. Criteria include the need to reduce regulation and regulatory costs by simplifying planning rules particularly through code assessment, lowering the level of permit triggers, increasing ‘as-of-right’ approvals and reducing local variation. The result will be a new model planning scheme which includes a new structure for the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and new content including revised zones, overlays and particular provisions.

The new system is being promoted on the need to ‘simplify and modernise Victoria’s planning rules’, reduce complexity and increase efficiency. The rhetoric of ‘cutting red tape’ and ‘reform’ are used to sell an increasingly deregulated system.

Stages in the process

There are two main elements to the process:

• The Rules and Policy stream which is making changes to the regulatory content and structure of the VPP;
• The Systems Stream which will make substantial changes to online planning information including a single point of entry to information, an online lodgement system for permits and planning scheme amendments, the content of planning schemes, and interactive state-wide maps. At this stage, this component will not include a single online centralised portal for all planning applications.

Under the Rules and Policy stream, the government envisages four stages in the process.

Stage 1 was the addition of further categories to VicSmart focusing on residential zones

Stage 2 will comprise a first package of further changes to VicSmart, and allegedly minor changes to the VPPs..

Stage 3 is intended to include a major restructure of the VPP and implemented in mid-2018.

Stage 4 will ‘further reshape the planning system’ in even more fundamental ways. under a program titled Transform.

Consultation

The property industry is an enthusiastic advocate for Smart Planning. The Property Council, for example, stated that the new system “is exactly what the doctor ordered…to cut red tape…and accelerate decision making”.

However, community groups have been locked out of the entire Smart Planning process.

Property and professional groups are represented on the technical reference and advisory groups for the program but not residents. The following groups are represented on the advisory group:

• Municipal Association of Victoria
• Australian Institute of Architects
• Building Designers Association of Victoria
• Housing Industry Association
• Master Builders Association of Victoria
• Planning Institute of Australia
• Property Council of Australia
• Urban Development Institute of Australia
• Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association.

No members of relevant community groups of the public are represented on either the technical or the advisory group.

A Smart Planning presentation to industry organised by the Planning Institute on 31 October, proposed the following reasons for the exclusion of the public from consultation:

• Members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning
• Members of the public might initially object to changes to planning systems or specific developments but invariably ultimately accept them
• The large number of past reports into planning make further public consultation unnecessary.

A survey was released into potential VPP changes with a completion date of 10 July. Professionals made up most of the 688 respondents.

A discussion paper into broad proposals for Stage 1 changes was released on 16 October along with an online questionnaire with responses required by 24 November.

Stage 1 changes to VicSmart were introduced without the opportunity for public consultation in mid 2017.

Stage 2 changes will be presented to the minister and, if necessary, cabinet for approval in December for immediate adoption. This means that changes to the planning system will be immediately implemented without making the content of changes publicly available prior to adoption. The public will be presented with a fait accompli.

Stage 3 and 4 changes are expected to proceed in the same way as stage 2.

VicSmart changes

The government introduced a dual track approval system into Victorian planning with the enactment of the Planning and Environment Amendment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Act in September 2012. Clauses 90–95 inserted into the VPP implement the VicSmart system. The Act establishes a different approval procedure for a separate class of applications but does not define this class or specify these applications. These are listed in clause 92 and initially comprised relatively minor and uncontroversial applications for various zones including subdivision to align a common boundary; construction of a fence, carport or garage; and construction of buildings and works of less than $50,000 in value not within 30 metres of a residential zone.

Clause 91 sets out the process for VicSmart applications. Applications must be processed within 10 business days and are exempt from notice, decision guidelines and review rights, policies or other provisions, although applicants may appeal a decision by the responsible authority; the responsible authority cannot request further information; authorities cannot act as referral authorities for comment on an application; environmental impacts cannot be considered; and councillors are excluded from decisions.

The government justified the introduction of a separate track by the need for a streamlined permit process aimed at ‘straightforward, low impact development proposals’, intended to ‘reduce frustration and unnecessary red tape for families wanting to make simple improvements to their homes’ and reduce ‘unnecessary delays and costs in Victoria's planning system’. However, the failure of the legislation to list the class of applications and conferring on the minister the power to develop and alter the list without further reference to parliament has allowed the progressive extension of the system by expanding the classes of applications. The then Shadow Minister for Planning, Brian Tee, commented in the parliamentary debate on the VicSmart Bill that ‘we all know that this legislation is much broader in its scope; the sky is the limit’.

The 2017 changes to VicSmart were introduced through Amendment VC137. This allowed extensions to dwellings in residential zones without a permit, and doubled the class of applications for buildings and works in a range of zones to $100,000.

These VicSmart changes have helped double VicSmart applications to 8 per cent. Further Stage 1 changes are expected to increase them to 14 per cent, ultimately rising possibly to one third of all applications. The 2016 budget estimates states that the Smart Planning program “will enable an extension to the VicSmart process, including the targeted removal of permit requirements in commercial and industrial zones, allowing faster approval times for certain development proposals….[its] proportion of planning permit applications will increase over time as reforms aimed at streamlining the planning system take hold”. It is likely that this process will reduce or remove existing rights to notice and appeal against classes of medium and high rise developments.

Stage 2 changes

Vicsmart will be integrated into particularly provisions and overlay schedules and other provisions. At present, VicSmart operates as a separate section at the end of planning schemes. Its integration into other provisions will entrench it structurally, providing codified assessments, uses and developments exempt from permits and applications exempt from notice or review. This integration will make further increases to VicSmart applications inevitable. A list of five new classes of applications is proposed at present.

Local and State planning policy will be integrated. Since local policy cannot contradict State policy, this will probably weaken local policy.

Streamlined assessment pathways will be provided by amending specific provisions to add building and works exemptions, reduce permitted applications by increasing ‘as-of-right’ uses and developments, and reduce the number of prohibited uses.

Drafting and procedural changes will be made.

Stage 3 and 4 changes

The discussion paper does not outline these. However, it is clear from the October 2017 discussion paper, Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions, and other Smart Planning material, that radical changes to the planning system are envisaged under stages 3 and 4.

A revealing indicator of the government’s approach is the reference to the Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment prepared by the Development Assessment Forum in 2005. This influential model prepared by a body composed primarily of development and professional groups has been progressively implemented by all State governments to deregulate planning systems. The paper also refers to the use of code assessment and exemptions in New South Wales and Queensland systems. These are the most deregulated in Australia. Yet the government’s overall aim for Smart Planning is to “make Victoria’s planning system the most efficient and responsive in Australia”.

The government provides little detail of how radically the Stage 3 and 4 changes will further deregulate the planning system. However, the documentation provides a sense of what is envisaged. A progressive process of change is envisaged through “successive VPP and planning scheme amendments”. The program “seeks to deliver long term, transformative changes to the planning system”. The discussion paper proposes code assessment for multiple dwellings in defined locations, increasing code assessment to remove “entirely from the need for assessment” more applications, and applying VicSmart to complex applications. The Transform process would “further reshape the planning system” for the next 30 years.

Some proposed more detailed amendments to provisions include:

• Exempt single dwellings on lots above 300 square metres.
• Increase exempt uses in commercial and mixed use zones
• Make office an exempt use in the Industrial 3 zone.
• Increase exempt commercial uses in the Farming zone.
• Review the need for permits under all overlays and liberalise Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation overlays.
• Exempt car parking requirements in nominated zones
• Exempt premises in commercial zones from planning permits for licenced and gambling premises
• Further deregulate the Heritage Overlay by removing the need for permits for dry stone walls.
• Remove clause 57 providing greater control over uses and developments in green wedge land.
• Remove the powers of referral authorities
• Review the role of Section 173 agreements and decision guidelines.

Omissions

A simpler, more efficient and certain planning scheme is long overdue, but Smart Planning is not the way to provide it. This is a $25 million program managed through the Smart Planning program Rules team. If the system is simply to implement five minor changes, along with online access, then the program is a massive waste of money. Alternatively, if future stages are to radically change the system, then the government is hiding its intentions, locking out community groups from the process, and intends to present the public with a fait accompli.

The Smart Planning process addresses none of the major problems associated with the VPPs. These problems all arise from the lack of effective regulation, not the need for further deregulation. In particular

• The recent deregulation of the residential zones should be reversed
• Height controls should be added to the commercial and mixed use zones to protect historic strip and local retail centres
• The extensive out-of-centre development allowed in commercial zones, which allows further unfair competition with traditional centres and entrenches car based centres, should be controlled.
• The few prohibited uses in commercial and mixed use zones should be expanded
• Greater heritage protection should be provided to historic industrial areas to require building reuse not demolition.
• The former rural zones should be reinstated
• Commercial uses should be prohibited in Green Wedge zones and all uses not listed in section 2 prohibited.
• Vague and contradictory decision guidelines and objectives should be rewritten in a clear, regulatory manner.
• The widespread inadequate application of standard provisions to land by local councils should be addressed to better match provisions to local conditions and need.

* About Michael Buxton

Michael Buxton is Professor of Environment and Planning at RMIT University and former head of the RMIT planning program. He spent 12 years in senior management in planning and environmental agencies in the Victorian Government and has written widely on urban form, peri-urban development and environmental policy.

This is dismantling planning schemes, removing impediments to what developers want, and allowing development on developers’ terms. What is happening under “Smart Planning” has no relationship to either of those words. Read it and weep – or get angry, and loud. This is essentially about making a single planning scheme for Victoria, controlled by the State government (and whoever may have its ear). You are having YOUR planning scheme stolen from you.

We have all been through the Elaine Carbine’s “Making Local Policy Stronger” farce 10 years ago, when all that happened was significant loss of local policy. Local policy, particularly “old” policy (i.e. something that says what it means and has teeth – like our Statement of Planning Policy No. 8) is intended to be weeded out to fit into the new format. This single planning scheme will comprise primarily State policy, which as we have all lately seen, can be changed by a stroke of the Minister’s pen.

There is also substantial cost to councils involved. To get to where so-called “Smart Planning” is intending to take us, planning schemes will have to be re-written, and if your council is currently doing a planning scheme review, they will have to start again.

Other niceties include:

• Moving the peri-urban areas from “Regional Victoria” to “Urban Growth”,
• Moving “Open Space” to “Community Infrastructure”,
• Deleting Municipal Strategic Statements [MSS], and “simplifying” what used to be in them.
• The whole section on Metropolitan Melbourne is deleted, with some parts transferred to other State policies, meaning these are now applied across the State instead of just metro Melbourne.
• Local policies will also have to be justified by identifying in the policy (“Policy Context”) the local issue that triggered the policy.
• There won’t be a policy-neutral translation of existing policy to this new format, local policies will have to be changed or deleted to fit with the format.

Local policies will have to fit in with State policy themes. If you’ve got some other issue locally – too bad. Can’t have a policy.

Watch out as well for a second attempt to introduce that idiotic “verbs matrix” that surfaced circa 2013/14 which restricts the use of verbs with which policy statements can begin, and dictates verbs that can be used.

All along the way, VicSmart infiltrates every part of the State Planning Policy Framework, together with “streamlining” permit triggers (i.e. primarily to remove them).

The whole thing is “user” (read developer) driven, and Professor Buxton’s information exposing who is making these decisions, confirms why the public has been shut out of the so-called “Smart Planning” processes.

A new Departmental unit to “vet” local policy is to be set up – ‘policy police’?

They haven’t even shown us what they are intending to do.

From our perspective, we are asking if it’s time to say the government’s promise to protect Macedon Ranges is a broken one. It can’t be protected with all of this going down, and Green Wedges are also under direct attack.

AND FINALLY, THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL BE CONSULTED. FROM HERE THIS RUBBISH GOES STRAIGHT INTO PLANNING SCHEMES – AFTER IT HAS BEEN THROUGH THE ‘REFERENCE’ GROUPS.

Some additional specific issues for change include:
• Removing permit triggers for houses on lots between 300 and 500 sqm and use the building code to assess instead of planning system.
• Making more commercial uses to not need a permit in the Mixed Use zone
• Making motor repair shop and convenience shop as-of-right in the Industrial 1 zone.
• Making takeaway food premises, indoor recreation facilities and motor repair premises as-of-right in the Industrial 3 zone.
• Replacing the Urban Floodway Zone.
• Automatically rezoning land in the Urban Growth Zone when a precinct structure plan is approved, instead of requiring a planning scheme amendment to change the zones.
• Reviewing the use of Environmental Significance Overlay to identify ‘buffers’
• Increasing permit exemptions for single dwellings in Environmental Significant and Significant Landscape Overlays
• More permit exemptions in Heritage Overlays for ‘minor buildings and works’
• Review whether the Neighbourhood Character Overlay should be deleted.
• Review merging all current flood controls (Urban Floodway Zone, Floodway Overlay and Land Subject To Inundation Overlay) into a single control
• Increase permit exemptions in the Land Subject To Inundation Overlay
• Increased use of VicSmart where the Special Building Overlay is the only permit trigger for an application
• Amalgamate all Airport Environs Overlays with the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay -
• Car Parking – provide car parking exemptions in selected zoned (commercial, mixed use and industrial) sor section 1 uses in existing buildings
• Consider making all car parking applications (Clause 52.06) exempt from notice requirements in all circumstances.
• Review (again) all separation distances (Clause 52.10) for uses with amenity impacts.
• Review requirements for service stations.
• Review provisions for car washes to ensure they reflect current practices and “modern” car wash designs, including crossover dimensions
• Review removing liquor licensing from the planning scheme, and no permit in Commercial 1 and 2 zones.
• Review the role of the planning scheme in gaming applications.
• Review permit triggers in the Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 or Public Acquisition Overlay
• Review removing the particular provision for post boxes and dry stone walls.
• Clause 57 Green Wedges – assess whether would be more “transparent” if deleted and requirements (and restrictions?) transferred to zones.
• Consolidation of planning scheme General Provisions – this means moving them all to one place at the back of the scheme (where they are now). The change is to have a single set of application requirements, and a single set of decision guidelines – a generic version to apply in all circumstances instead of being tailored to the specific issue or requirements they apply to.
• Reviewing referral requirements (currently determining or recommending) and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens.
• All planning scheme DEFINITIONS – review. Be less prescriptive by removing ‘overly specific’ terms.

These thoughts come from Christine, of MRRA.

"The MEG Committee expresses its anger at the entire lack of contact between DELWP and residents’ groups such as ours. DELWP’s actions re the Discussion Paper seek to exclude residents from being informed of the proposed changes and from taking part in the decision-making process about the area in which we live." ..."VicSmart must not be broadened. It is quite clear that there is enough of the ‘fast tracking’ for so-called ‘simple’ planning applications. The Discussion Paper indicates that “the sky’s the limit.” When VicSmart was introduced the then Opposition (now the Government) vigorously opposed it saying that it really meant “the sky’s the limit” with regard to fast-tracking Planning Applications and this was to be deplored. The same Party (now in Government) has put aside such quibbles and enthusiastically adopted fast-tracking of applications and the Discussion Paper is mere tokenism."

Submission re …Reforming the Victorian Planning Provisions…November 2017

The MEG Committee expresses its anger at the entire lack of contact between DELWP and residents’ groups such as ours. DELWP’s actions re the Discussion Paper seek to exclude residents from being informed of the proposed changes and from taking part in the decision-making process about the area in which we live.

Community groups have been locked out of the entire Smart (so-called) Planning process and we are informed that this is because we (the people) are….

(1) incapable of understanding strategic planning
(2) likely to object initially to change and subsequently accept it…(as if there is ever a
choice!)
(3) further public consultation is unnecessary.

In other words, DEWLP and its Minister view the community with contempt!

MEG is left breathless at the sheer arrogance of this Government.

MEG has taken part in a number of Strategic Planning issues. We have attended Information Sessions and Consultation Sessions. We have lodged written submissions to Council and to Planning Panels Victoria re a number of Planning Scheme Amendments . We have made oral submissions to Panel on a number of occasions.

We have NEVER stopped our opposition to a particular Panel decision which allowed “no height limits” in one section of the area covered by Amendment C173 … a decision which has resulted in construction of an 18 storey development with 322 apartments bang up against single storey houses. The sheer ignorance and stupidity of that Panel decision makes us wonder if that particular Panel “was capable of understanding strategic planning.”

It would seem that “strategic planning” actually means State Government and those it employs “going where the dollars are.”

The Discussion Paper sets out to remove any impediments to the ambitious schemes of developers though considering the decision cited above we wonder if there has ever been any real Impediments. In Stonnington it has long been ‘development on developers’ terms.’

The Discussion Paper proposes ‘getting more development more easily.’ Given the evidence of our own eyes we wonder just how easy can it get? Clearly DELWP’s purpose is to achieve more and more development at the expense of all environmental and health issues.

The Discussion Paper suggests the ways and means to accelerate development.

(1) Broaden VicSmart
(2) Use Code Assess
(3) Removal of what developers call ‘barriers’ to their plans…(residents call
them’ safeguards’ though they do not save us from much.)

VicSmart must not be broadened. It is quite clear that there is enough of the ‘fast tracking’ for so-called ‘simple’ planning applications. The Discussion Paper indicates that “the sky’s the limit.” When VicSmart was introduced the then Opposition (now the Government) vigorously opposed it saying that it really meant “the sky’s the limit” with regard to fast-tracking Planning Applications and this was to be deplored. The same Party (now in Government) has put aside such quibbles and enthusiastically adopted fast-tracking of applications and the Discussion Paper is mere tokenism.

Some of the suggestions DELWP makes for expediting development are:-

…using the building code to assess an application instead of ResCode on lots between 300 &
500sq.m. (N.B. there are no amenity issues considered in the Building Code.)

Mixed Use Zones to have more commercial uses that do not need a Permit.

…more permit exemptions in Heritage Overlays for ‘minor’ works….whatever that means.

review the existence of Neighbour Character Overlays.

car parking….provide exemptions in selected zones

consider making all car parking applications exempt from notice requirements.

no environmental impacts to be considered.

The list is endless. “The sky’s the limit,” said the Government when in Opposition.

To introduce ‘Code Assess’ to the mix would sound the death knell for our suburbs as we know them. (Remember when Victoria was called ‘The Garden State?’) Please note that the correct term for ‘Code Assess’ is ‘Free Reign for Developers.’ Code Assess is a system in which the applicant assesses his/her application, ticks the boxes and pronounces “full steam ahead.” There is no resident input and residents’ groups such as MEG vigorously oppose it.

The Property Council is apparently delighted with the proposals from DELWP. We are told that such a system “will cut red tape and accelerate decision-making.” As they are well-represented on the Advisory Council (and residents’ groups are not represented at all) of course they are delighted with the fact that DELWP has done exactly what developers’ representatives advised …i.e. the impediments to development are to be removed. It follows that with this ‘top down implementation’ any consideration of residential amenity at local level is to be forever consigned to the archives.

The impact of the proposals on Councils will be significant. Stonnington’s entire Planning Scheme will have to be re-written just as a Review of the Planning Scheme has commenced. This will have to be restarted … and to what purpose? Whatever we want in our Planning Scheme will be over-ridden by the revised VPPS. As Local Policy cannot now contradict State Policy our Local Policy might as well not exist under proposals in the Discussion Paper so any re-writing or requests from Council for residents’ views will be mere tokenism.

There is, of course, no indication of additional resources from State Government for all the additional work. The ratepayers will be forced to pay even though we were not to be consulted by DELWP …. and we have to wonder if that was a Ministerial direction!

MEG is grateful for the ever-active grapevine in our network that permits us to discover at least SOME Government scheming.

The entire Discussion Paper is, in essence, a dismantling of all Planning Schemes in Victoria.
What is proposed under “Smart Planning” is neither ‘smart’ nor is it ‘planning.’

It proposes “getting more development more easily” and in doing so silencing the voice of residents while residents propose “getting planning in a regulated way.”

The residents’ way is “smart planning.” The Government’s way is a massive free kick to the development industry.

Ann Reid (MEG Convenor)
C/- 14 Chanak Street,
Malvern East Vic 3145
Phone/Fax 9572 3205
Email [email protected]
Web http://www.chezsamuel.com/meghome.php

We need stronger not weaker planning controls at the level of local government and more community involvement. We need to empower local government and communities by ensuring that projects other than minor modifications to existing properties are scrutinized by council in consultation with the community. It might be more time consuming and cumbersome however it will be well worth the additional effort if we can avoid a planning disaster while at the same time achieving better planning outcomes. To achieve a good result, we need to give Councils the right to veto or modify a proposed development application and in the case of a disputed application that cannot be resolved at the level of local government, I would like to recommend that we replace VCAT by appointing a democratically elected community jury with the power to veto or modify a project. Overpopulation, planning and overdevelopment and building safe, attractive and cohesive communities will be the over-riding themes in the upcoming election campaign. Any further action in relation to the proposed changes should be deferred until we elect a new government in 2018 to allow the people to decide whether or not they support further deregulation and privatisation of the planning process and the removal of appeal rights. (A. Walker, Ashburton Residents Action Group)

23 November 2017

In confidence and without prejudice

Submission – Smart Planning Initiative

Attention: Smart Planning Team

Introduction

I am a ratepayer and a local resident and I have major concerns that unwelcome and unwanted high-rise, high-density over-development poses an existential threat to our city and suburbs, living standards and quality of life.

The community must be given a greater say as to how their suburbs will be allowed to develop and this will translate into better planning outcomes and happier communities. Ratepayers elect councillors to represent them at the local government level and our councillors must be allowed to do their job.

We need tougher restrictions and more community input to help preserve Melbourne’s ranking as one of the most liveable cities in the world as this is under threat.

Neighbourhood Residential Zones

The neighbourhood residential zones were originally introduced by the Baillieu/Napthine government to protect our suburbs from the ravages of inappropriate over-development. These changes were welcomed by local ratepayers.

The height and density limits were designed to give local residents and investors, certainty and protection and ensured that those seeking to push the boundaries could no longer appeal to VCAT to achieve the planning outcomes that they desired for non-compliant projects. Since then there has been some pushback and the Andrews government has already removed mandatory height limits and replaced them with discretionary height limits in certain areas making the sky the limit. We cannot afford to further weaken the controls governing neighbourhood residential zones and mandatory height limits need to be reinstated as soon as possible.

Stage 1, 2, 3 and 4

I can understand the arguments in favour of simplifying the planning rules to allow minor modifications to properties such as erecting a fence, garden shed, carport, adding a small extension to a house or a bay window without a permit, however, when it comes to larger projects, we need stronger regulations, adequate scrutiny by local government and stronger appeal rights for local residents who value the liveability of their suburbs.

For the reasons stated above, I disagree strongly with the smart planning initiative (stages 1, 2, 3 and 4) as I believe it will open the door to a proliferation of unwelcome and unwanted overdevelopment projects in many of our suburbs and that local government and the community will be disenfranchised and excluded from the planning process. That is not acceptable by any measure. I also take offence at the statement that members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning. The public who are living with the consequences of unsustainable population growth and over-development understand the implications of strategic planning better than anyone.

Simplifying the planning process to allow larger projects to proceed without adequate scrutiny by local government is inherently dangerous as it would open the door to over-development, poor quality projects and we would run the risk of creating the slum precincts of the future with all the associated problems.

Conclusion

We need stronger not weaker planning controls at the level of local government and more community involvement. We need to empower local government and communities by ensuring that projects other than minor modifications to existing properties are scrutinized by council in consultation with the community. It might be more time consuming and cumbersome however it will be well worth the additional effort if we can avoid a planning disaster while at the same time achieving better planning outcomes.

To achieve a good result, we need to give Councils the right to veto or modify a proposed development application and in the case of a disputed application that cannot be resolved at the level of local government, I would like to recommend that we replace VCAT by appointing a democratically elected community jury with the power to veto or modify a project.

2018 Election

Overpopulation, planning and overdevelopment and building safe, attractive and cohesive communities will be the over-riding themes in the upcoming election campaign. Any further action in relation to the proposed changes should be deferred until we elect a new government in 2018 to allow the people to decide whether or not they support further deregulation and privatisation of the planning process and the removal of appeal rights.

A. Walker
Committee Member
Ashburton Residents Action Group
PO Box 45
Ashburton Vic 3147.

[Address for submissions. ]The discussion paper fails to acknowledge fundamental truths about our modern society and how we live. The built environment profoundly affects residents, visitors, and indeed other species every day. As such, as in other disciplines, it is incumbent upon government to exercise the “Precautionary Principle” in how it plans for Victoria’s future. A fundamental part of proper planning is to acknowledge the importance of local input and longstanding local knowledge of an area. From the discussion paper on “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions” residents have been excluded from the both the technical and advisory groups to the “Smart Planning” process. Long standing and hard fought for citizens’ rights, previously accepted and adopted into our Planning provisions have been swept away. What is proposed is government and developers operating as a combined growth machine pitted against the residents without residents even being given a seat at the table as a minority voice. Where has our democracy gone? [Candobetter.net editor: For a history of how this has come about in Victoria, check out our 'bad laws' section.]

The Victorian Planning Provisions Discussion Paper - Submission for Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch

The discussion paper fails to acknowledge fundamental truths about our modern society and how we live.

The built environment profoundly affects residents, visitors, and indeed other species every day. As such, as in other disciplines, it is incumbent upon government to exercise the “Precautionary Principle” in how it plans for Victoria’s future. A fundamental part of proper planning is to acknowledge the importance of local input and longstanding local knowledge of an area. From the discussion paper on “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions” residents have been excluded from the both the technical and advisory groups to the “Smart Planning” process. Long standing and hard fought for citizens’ rights, previously accepted and adopted into our Planning provisions have been swept away. What is proposed is government and developers operating as a combined growth machine pitted against the residents without residents even being given a seat at the table as a minority voice. Where has our democracy gone?

We note the following property and professional groups are represented on the Advisory group

· Municipal Association of Victoria
· Australian Institute of Architects
· Building Designers Association of Victoria
· Housing Industry Association
· Master Builders Association of Victoria
· Planning Institute of Australia
· Property Council of Australia
· Urban Development Institute of Australia

Most of these Industry groups and associated organisations benefit directly or indirectly from the growth trajectory adopted by the current government, and the proposed changes further strengthen the influence of these vested interests. As residents, the largest and most diverse group to be impacted by proposed changes have been excluded, this cannot be described as an objective group to “strategically” plan for Victoria and Melbourne’s future.

A Smart Planning presentation to industry organised by the Planning Institute on 31 October, proposed the following reasons for the exclusion of the public from consultation:

· Members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning.

· Members of the public might initially object to changes to planning systems or specific developments but invariably ultimately accept them

· The large number of past reports into planning make further public consultation unnecessary.”

We address these three claims below.

1. This egregious slur on residents is outrageous. We question the need for the public be required to “understand strategic planning” in order not to have their environment eroded. However we also observe that many residents are extremely well informed about planning issues, especially as applied to their own areas, and the technicalities and imperatives involved. Indeed, we suggest that well informed residents probably number into the tens or hundreds of thousands of people – multiples more than the hand full of planners and other vested interest entities involved in the introduction of these proposed changes.

2. This claim is not supported with empirical evidence. Whilst it may be true that some members of the public might eventually accept changes to the planning scheme or local projects, this does not prove that they “invariably accept” those changes. Indeed, what you call “invariable acceptance” may actually be exhausted and dispirited resignation. Members of the public have other jobs – they are doctors, nurses, teachers, small business owners , retailers, physiotherapists , dentists- working long hours at their jobs with their own various areas of expertise. Why should they have their rights to peacefully enjoy where they live taken away without even being heard?

3. Whilst previous planning scheme iterations have usually included substantial public consultation, this should not mean that all of a sudden consultation can stop. Public opinion is not static, nor is the demographics and changing needs of various communities. As society changes and matures it is the government's job to ensure that measures to protect resident’s amenity, safety and peace continue to be effective. To do otherwise is an abrogation of this responsibility. The discussion paper gives the sense of urgency because of the scale and volume of change envisaged for Victoria which is of course driven by population growth welcomed and lobbied for by the development industry. This augers very badly for all Victorians. Government is riding roughshod over the people of Victoria who in 2014 handed them the responsibly of governing the state. With safeguards in place and a more normal rate of growth (rather than the turbo charged population growth that Melbourne in particular has experienced over recent years) residents should be able to trust local and state authorities to make changes largely in the interests of residents. It should not be necessary for residents to have to spend their time and energy on trying to maintain their quality of life. But, as things stand with no input from residents they will be certain to get exactly what they don’t want.

In summary:

Planning should be no different to other modern disciplines, where logic and reason is used to predict outcomes and develop strategies. However, in this discussion paper government has abandoned reason and logic and has instead embraced an ill informed and primitive view that infinite growth on a finite planet is possible and indeed even desirable (for those few ill informed, short sighted and primitive thinkers). Our planet, and by extension all national and local systems, are part of the “closed system” on planet Earth where water, soil, rare earth and other mineral resources are finite. The local and regional planning targeted in this discussion paper is fundamentally reliant on these finite resources. Building, transport, telecommunications, food production, power supply etc., indeed all of modern society’s activities, rely on systems which rely on these finite resources. It is therefore incumbent upon government to adopt a planning model which acknowledges that Earth’s resources are finite and so too must growth be finite. Your discussion paper ignores fundamental truths which is to all our detriments.

So, rather than members of the public being incapable of understanding strategic planning, we suggest that it is government, its planners and other vested interests responsible for the proposals outlined in this discussion paper, who are demonstrating a lack of strategic thinking and planning.

This discussion paper heralds massive changes to the built environment and massive population increases over which residents will have no control. The more change that is anticipated , the more say residents need to have. It is not the other way around as envisaged by this discussion paper.

Jill Quirk
Secretary, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch
P.O. Box 556 Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122

Brigitte Bardot, possibly once the most famous 20th century French woman, has devoted her later life to the welfare of other species, via the Brigitte Bardot Foundation. Trump has recently signed off on an awful bill to change hunting laws in Alaska to permit rates of hunting that will quickly threaten the targeted species and which are devoid of any traditional pretence of courage or skill. Bardot has written to Trump in the hope of persuading him to rescind this bill for no-holds-barred slaughter.

To President Trump

Mr President,

Yet again you parade your contempt for the the necessity of preserving nature, of defending biodiversity.

Having already wrecked the Paris agreement on climate (COP 21), your decision to allow Alaskan hunters to follow bears, wolves and their cubs right into their dens has rightly scandalised world opinion.

You are allowing shooting from helicopters and the killing of hibernating bears, even in protected areas. What cowardice, what a disgrace!

Your friend, Sarah Palin, who is also an ecological catastrophe, will be able to shoot without limits, spreading death. What are you leaving for future generations, should there be any future generations after your massively destructive quest.

In this terrifying world where man destroys everything, causing his own ruin, the duty of a statesman is to have a vision for the long-term, to defend peace rather than violence, including towards the other species that people this planet, who have the same rights as us.

Mr President, I don't know if you will be able to hear my call today via Twitter, which seems to be your official communication medium, but I dare hope that, in a flash of sanity, you will go back on your absurd decision, which represents a crime by humans against nature.

God, what sadness....

Brigitte Bardot

(Translation from French by Sheila Newman)

US Congress Quietly Passes Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites By Tyler Durden, Global Research, December 03, 2016, Zero Hedge 2 December 2016. On November 30, one week after the Washington Post launched its witch hunt against “Russian propaganda fake news”, with 390 votes for, the House quietly passed “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017“, sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes (whose third largest donor in 2016 is Google parent Alphabet, Inc), a bill which deals with a number of intelligence-related issues, including Russian propaganda, or what the government calls propaganda, and hints at a potential crackdown on “offenders.”

A quick skim of the bill reveals “Title V—Matters relating to foreign countries”,  whose Section 501 calls for the government to “counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in  coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly.”

The section lists the following definitions of media manipulation:

• Establishment or funding of a front group.
• Covert broadcasting.
• Media manipulation.
• Disinformation and forgeries.
• Funding agents of influence.
• Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.
• Assassinations.
• Terrorist acts.

As ActivistPost correctly notes, it is easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used to target, threaten, or eliminate so-called “fake news” websites, a list which has been used to arbitrarily define any website, or blog, that does not share the mainstream media’s proclivity to serve as the Public Relations arm of a given administration.

Read more of Tyler Durdan's article here: US Congress Quietly Passes Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites

The Baird government's controversial biodiversity laws have passed their final hurdle in parliament, with NSW farmers set to get greater power to clear their land from next year. The legislation will replace the Native Vegetation Act, which was designed to prevent mass land clearing. Thousands of possums, quolls, koalas and gliders will be killed each year if Premier Mike Baird scraps our tree-clearing laws. Nationals MPs, big agri-business and developers want to allow landholders trash our precious woodlands and urban bushland by replacing the Native Vegetation Act with weaker tree-clearing controls.

Letter

The Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP

Minister for the Environment and Energy

Dear Minister

End the senseless destruction of our wildlife - stop the carnage and destruction in NSW

The Baird government's controversial biodiversity laws have passed their final hurdle in parliament, with NSW farmers set to get greater power to clear their land from next year.
The legislation will replace the Native Vegetation Act, which was designed to prevent mass land clearing.

Thousands of possums, quolls, koalas and gliders will be killed each year if Premier Mike Baird scraps our tree-clearing laws. Nationals MPs, big agri-business and developers want to allow landholders trash our precious woodlands and urban bushland by replacing the Native Vegetation Act with weaker tree-clearing controls. These changes will:

-add extinction pressures to our state's 1000 threatened species;
-threaten our clean, reliable water supplies;
-turn our fertile land into wasteland through erosion and salinity;
-put landmark trees and bushland at risk; and
-add further to Australia's carbon pollution.

In 2015, a study by NSW Parks and Wildlife found that 60,000 hectares was being cleared per year in the state — a four-fold increase on previous State Government figures.

Professor Hugh Possingham warned that rather than protecting biodiversity, the laws would allow a doubling of broad-scale clearing that would put some native animals at risk of extinction.

The primary objections of Professor Possingham are that the government is proposing self-assessable codes that will result in broad-scale land clearing, thus degrading soil, water and biodiversity, and that the ‘no net loss’ standard against which clearing should be measured has not made the draft legislation. Despite the weight of scientific expertise opposed to the legislation the Baird Government has pressed on regardless. How are those with short-term, vested interests in monetary gain, allowed to determine their own rate of land clearing? Environmental protection is in everybody's interests, and that of future generations. Eradicating habitat is a silver-bullet for more threatened species, and native flora and fauns extinctions - already we have one of the highest rates in the modern world! Tourist come to see, and rightly expect to see, our wonderful mega-diverse range of iconic native species - vegetation, marsupials, birds, and other native wildlife. They don't want to see barren, cleared landscapes, urban sprawl and industries!

The current laws are supposed to prevent that kind of clearing without permits. The changes, which the government says were developed through a "rigorous, transparent, scientific and evidence-based process," allow farmers more freedom to clear their land without having to find equivalent areas of offsets. This is vandalism, and not only will we lose precious biodiversity functions, and native animals/birds, but we will see more desertification in the future - hardly the route to more production and more food!

The Sydney Basin, for instance, has some 1900 koalas under limited protection, with about 300 of the marsupials resident near Campbelltown one of the areas with rapid housing growth. This is because our rate of immigration is set on full-throttle levels - and not inevitable.

Last year 47,000 native animals and birds were killed in NSW by property owners using a "s121 licence". Each licence strictly controls the number of animals permitted to killed, and requires data to be lodged with the Office of Environment and Heritage. The office issued permits for 34 species, or a total of 145,550 animals and birds to be killed in 2015-16. This included more than 100,000 eastern grey kangaroos, almost 9000 corellas, 6500 sulphur crested cockatoos, 5500 galahs, 655 emus, 175 swamp wallabies, 113 wombats and 83 magpies. What sort of department of "Environment and Heritage" actually gives out so many permits to kill off native species? Some Orwellian oxymoron? They are killing off the ENVIRONMENT, habitat, biodiversity and vandalizing NSW's natural HERITAGE. How can this horrendous carnage be permitted, or justified?

Almost 1000 species of plants and animals are currently endangered in NSW, mainly due to land clearing. Over 40% of the state has already been cleared for agriculture, mining and development purposes and of what’s left, just 9% is in good condition. This leaves very little room for our native animals to maintain their homes. Since the "bad old days" of colonisation, and ignorance, biodiversity has been in steady decline in NSW. For the last 10 years, previous Governments have been working hard to halt and improve this decimation of our local plants and animals, armed with two environment protection acts – the 1995 Threatened Species Conservation Act and the 2003 Native Vegetation Act. They aren’t perfect but the World Wildlife Fund reckons these laws have saved the lives of around 250 000 of our furry amigos to date, including koalas and other native animals.

So why the new Colonial land-clearing permits, a return to the dark ages of ignorance, and law-less-ness? What about the national laws and policies that protect our native species?

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Australian Government's central piece of environmental legislation. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places defined in the Act as matters of national environmental significance.

Specifically, the EPBC Act aims to:

-conserve Australia? biodiversity
-protect biodiversity internationally by controlling the international movement of wildlife
-provide a streamlined environmental assessment and
-approvals process where matters of national environmental significance are involved
-protect our world and national heritage
-promote ecologically sustainable development.

So, why isn't this Act being implemented against the rogue Baird government? What are our Environment ministers doing to stop the Baird governments vandalism, and destruction?

Vivienne Ortega

Secretary, Australian Wildlife Protection Council

http://www.awpc.org.au

[email protected]

Kelvin Thomson's response to a question about how Multilateral Trade Agreements (such as the transpacific partnership agreements) might affect Australia's ability to control immigration numbers and to control the awarding of local jobs to local firms. He describes how this might be problematic and does not think we should sign any treaties containing an "Investor state dispute settlement clause." He explains why. He also discusses the process which sounds as if it has a distinct bias towards corporations and against citizens. What you can do: Contact your MP and ask them what they are doing and what they have done to stop any signing of treaties with these clauses. If they cannot show they have done anything to stop them, and do not undertake to do so, then let us know and we will publish this information and their photo. (Transcript and video inside.)

Transcript of Kelvin Thomson responds on Multilateral treaties

This question was asked after Kelvin's speech about Intergenerational Equity, where he mentioned multilateral trade treaties..
(Headings and emphases by Candobetter.net editor, for clarity.)

QUESTION: I noticed that you mentioned the multilateral trade agreements. I'm just wondering. I haven't had time to get into them myself and I'd really appreciate a speech in Parliament about their impact on our ability to control immigration and also to control the awarding of local jobs to local firms and things. And anything else you can think of. Can you speak on it off the cuff for a minute?

KELVIN THOMSON MP for WILLS: It is a very serious issue. In the past, the trade agreements were directed at tariffs and quotas - getting rid of tariffs and quotas - but they are pretty much gone. So if you enter into a trade agreement with another country now - with Korea or China or whoever - the issue is, what do they want? And the sorts of things that they want are freeing up of anything in the way of restriction between movement of people, freeing up of foreign ownership restrictions, and things of that nature. So, some of these agreements now have jumped into the area - I think - of diminishing our democratic capacity to determine our own future.

"Investor state dispute settlement clause"

And, in particular, there is a thing called the "Investor state dispute settlement clause", which is in a number of trade agreements. It's not in all of them. It is in the Korean one. It's not in the Japanese one. I assume it's in the China one, but they haven't released it yet - which is another matter of concern about these trade agreements. They get signed and we only get to see them some distance down the track.

But the Investor state dispute settlement clause allows corporations to sue governments if they believe that the decisions of governments impact adversely on their bottom line.

Health impacts

And the classic example of this is when the previous government introduced plain packaging on tobacco products that - and I think it's Phillip Morris - got themselves incorporated in Hong Kong expressly to take advantage of an investor state dispute settlement clause that we've had as part of a trade agreement with Hong Kong. And they are now suing Australia on the grounds that the plain packaging legislation disadvantages them. Now, that in itself is problematic from my point of view. I believe that governments need to be able to make democratic decisions - in this case in the health interests of the nation.

Environment impacts

It's equally problematic in relation to environmental issues. For example, there are foreign companies that wish to engage in coal-seam mining in New South Wales and Queensland and the like, and you have the prospect that if governments there knock them back, that they will be sued in relation to the Investor state dispute settlement clause.

Settlement of disputes lack normal legal standards

One feature of these clauses, which again is very unsatisfactory, is that it's not that you go to some international court which rules - you know, where you've got judges of the High Court, for example, sitting there. They are arbitration arrangements and the arbitrators come and go. They can be people who are acting for the company one day and sitting as an arbitrator the next, and then acting for a company on the day after that. So that the normal legal protection and rules concerning precedent and - you know - traditional independence and the like, are not present, in terms of these disputes.

We should not enter agreements with investor-state dispute settlement clauses in them

And my own view is that we should not enter into any trade agreements which have investor state dispute settlement clauses.

QUESTION: But do members of Parliament have any control over the signing of these things? Do they get to see the agreement?

KELVIN THOMSON: What happens, Sheila, is that the Executive has control over the treaty-making process and they enter into treaties. The treaties get layed on the floor of the Parliament and Parliament has a Treaties Committee which I chaired for quite a number of years and I'm now the Deputy Chair of - so I do have some experience with this. The Parliamentary committee takes evidence, takes submissions and so on. We can listen to people and make recommendations.

Abbot Liberal Government has majority on the Treaties Committee

There is a government majority on the Treaties Committee, as on Parliamentary Committees generally, and so you don't want to be sort of too carried away about the capacity of the Committee to do much once the treaty has been signed, but we make recommendations about whether the treaty should proceed to ratification and, from time to time Treaties Committee has made serious recommendations in relation to ratification and talked about provisions in particular treaties they regarded as unsatisfactory, but we don't have the capacity to look at treaties in the same way that United States members of the Congress do, for example. [Indistinct ?It's said that] they are able to scrutinise the text of treaties and know what is being negotiated. They're not supposed to tell people about it.

Double Standard: Corporations given privileged info; Civil Society kept in the dark

But this question about the negotiation of treaties and the process being followed is interesting because - so when the Treaties Committee talks to civil society, not government organisations and so on - they say, 'This is a highly secret process. No-one knows what's going on.' You know, the train goes into a tunnel and comes out the end of the tunnel and you've got this treaty. But when we talk to corporations, or agriculture groups and the like, they say, 'Oh, no, it's a good process. You know, they tell us what's going on and they keep us informed.' So, it's clear that there is a double standard at work. There are some people who are kept informed and know what's being discussed and negotiated, and a lot of people who don't.

Human officials just seems to dream up worse and worse situations for kangaroos and carers. Wildlife activists often go to considerable expense to try to help government plan to transfer kangaroos out of the way of new roads and housing developments instead of shooting them. The usual response is that it is too difficult to transport kangaroos. The wildlife rescuers keep a watch, but usually one day they find that the kangaroos have all gone. Then someone will find some mass graves. But, when it suits the government, it seems it's all too easy to transport kangaroos, with police escorts no less.

Looking at this picture of police cars outside a bush-setting home, you could be forgiven for thinking this was a stake-out in a hostage situation. But it was actually an uninvited transport team for a couple of hand-reared kangaroos, and a slap in the face for their carer.

Mad laws create havoc

Tonight I received two pieces of news about kangaroos that highlighted the utter hypocrisy and cruel stupidity of Australian wildlife laws. One was from the owner of a wildlife sanctuary, who described how wildlife activists had managed to rescue and transport kangaroos away from a planned cull and had wanted him to take some in. He said that, not only did he have room for them at the time, but he was happy to take them. Only, the law said that he could not accept wild kangaroos. The law said the roos had to be released into the wild. But there is less and less 'wild' left, and they had already been transported away (at considerable cost) from 'wild' that was being turned into housing lots.

Colin Candy's kangaroos

The second piece of news was that Queenslander Colin Candy's pet kangaroos had been seized in another raid by the police and transported away in crates to the 'wild'. Colin is beside himself because he had rescued these kangaroos and raised them. They have never known the 'wild', with the exception of a little bit of it at the end of his back yard, which has a few acres of bush.

"I travelled to Charleville in July 2009, and approached several shooters and the kangaroo abattoir, asking if someone would save me a joey. But everyone knocked me back saying that that they kill the young and leave them in the paddock.

While driving around Charleville I noticed a sign, wanting to buy kangaroo meat. So I phoned the owner of the sign, and he told me that he also shot roos and if he happened to come across any joeys that he would save them for me.

Next day he phoned to say that he had 2. So I gratefully picked them up and brought them back to Hervey Bay, where they bred, and I hand raised half of the joeys while leaving half with their mum.

We finished fencing this place at Apple Tree Creek late in March 2014, and I caught the hand raised kangaroos and relocated them here, while I couldn’t catch the kangaroos raised by their mum. Those kangaroos I gave to a wildlife park in Maryborough on the 1st April 2014.

None of the kangaroos have any idea, what it is like to live in the wild. As you have stated, kangaroos in Qld don’t get to live much past two years of age, with most being shot before they have even reproduced." (Colin's communication to the author of this article.)

Within days the same agency that had forced the removal of Colin's kangaroos, refused a request to remove a kangaroo involved in an incident, where a 67 year old man had been injured. A stand-off has developed between Bundaberg Regional Council and the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP).

"An EHP spokesman said under the Nature Conservation Act, the EHP issued damage mitigation permits to landholders or local authorities to manage or remove problem native wildlife.

"EHP is not responsible for managing or removing the wildlife itself," he said.

But Bargara Divisional representative Greg Barnes said Wednesday's incident at Apple Tree Creek, which saw EHP officers remove five pet kangaroos from private property, highlighted that native animal issues were the responsibility of the EHP." Source: "Council and state fight over who will kill the 'roo"

In 2001 Mr Candy had two other kangaroos removed from his premises, Mitchell and Marcy. Both kangaroos died soon after they were removed. See article here.

With his first rescued kangaroos, Colin initially obtained permits as a rescuer, but let them lapse after a few years. No-one seemed to object.

Then suddenly in 2001 he became the object of authorities determined to remove those kangaroos from his premises. He lost his home fighting for them in court. How could any authority allow this to happen to someone who was trying to help our wildlife? There do not seem to be any accusations of cruelty or complaints from neighbours that would have precipitated these actions.

Although Colin has since applied for permits, he says they have been refused, on the grounds that they are only given to rescuers - who are expected to release them into the bush. Mr Candy said that he was trained as a paramedic and that

"Kangaroos are treated like pariahs in their own country, so I don't understand why I can't keep them. They are harmless beautiful creatures."

We live in endlessly expanding cities where our governments are forcing all of us into smaller and smaller spaces and forcing our wildlife into oblivion as they pave over natural habitat. As mentioned above, kangaroos in Queensland, the state where Colin lives, have an average life expectancy of only two years because they are shot for kangaroo meat. As a result of all the big males being taken, the kangaroos there are observably much smaller than in Victoria, for instance, where there is no roo-meat industry (although not for lack of lobbying). Not just the Queensland government, but every state government in Australia promotes fictions of how kangaroo populations are ballooning when it is actually our own that are forcing them from the bush onto streets. The ACT government regularly engages in wholesale kangaroo massacres on elaborate pretexts.

And now four female and one male red kangaroos that a kindly Australian called Colin Candy went out of his way to rescue when they were little have been rudely taken from him because he doesn't have a permit. This in a state that authorises industrial scale hunting of kangaroos and the abandon or killing of their young at foot or in pouch. As if anyone involved in this raid really cares about Colin's kangaroos - or dared to speak up if they did. But Colin cares and the kangaroos know nothing else. And he dares to speak up. So we must also. Because the whole thing sounds completely stupid, as well as cruel.

Please speak up for Colin and his kangaroos and for all kangaroos by emailing the following parties. Say something about the population growth that is causing the disturbance of our kangaroos and about the sheer insanity of prosecuting a man who has tried to help abandoned joeys who will now be at risk of being shot in the wild, like their mothers, in the unlikely case that they survive alone in the bush without any relationship with the local roos, who tend to chase unfamiliar roos off their territory.

Director General EHP Jon Black
Jon.Black[AT]ehp.qld.gov.au

Investigation Officer EHP Matt Barr
matt.barr[AT]ehp.qld.gov.au

Wildlife Manager EHP Michael Devery
Michael.Devery[AT]ehp.qld.gov.au

Minister EHP Andrew Powell (this bloke has the power to order the return of the roos)
Environment[AT]ministerial.qld.gov.au

Minister EHP Andrew Powell (he also orders the destruction of wild roos)
glass.house[AT]parliament.qld.gov.au

Premier Hon Campbell Newman
thepremier[AT]premiers.qld.gov.au

"The East West Link is a white elephant that risks undermining Melbourne's productive capacity and living standards. The tunnel is not a solution. It does not provide value for money. Generations of Victorians will be burdened by an $8 billion debt for a tunnel that will have long passed its use-by date. It is regrettable that this government is seeking to amend the Infrastructure Australia legislation to give the minister heightened discretion rather than going through the proper independent, transparent processes that Australians expect when it comes to large spending on infrastructure projects." - Kelvin Thomson, MP. Wills.

(All emphases and headings have been inserted by Candobetter.net's editors.)

Unpopular, unwanted, unwise

The Liberal government's biggest piece of land transport infrastructure is the proposed freeway through Royal Park in Melbourne, which it calls the East West Link. In fact, it does not link the east and west at all. Nor does it have the support of most Victorians, who know perfectly well that if it proceeds it will come with a massive opportunity cost and put paid to their hopes for a rail line to Doncaster, a rail line to Melbourne Airport, rail to Mernda or public transport to Monash University. In particular, it does not have the support of local residents, who are appalled by its impact on Royal Park, the Moonee Ponds Creek and the Melbourne Zoo. I commend Julianne Bell, the tireless secretary of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria and committee member of Royal Park Protection Group, and all the community groups who are working incredibly hard to stop this project happening: David Muir and theKensington Association, Kaye Oddie and the Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek, the Carlton Association and many others.

Costly, profligate, secretive, ill-informed

For a Liberal government that grandstands about fiscal rectitude, this $8 billion project is being put forward without passing any serious cost-benefit analysis. The government claims that the benefits of the $6 billion to $8 billion freeway outweigh the cost but refuses to provide details, claiming that this would compromise commercial negotiations.

Misunderstands Glaeser's Triumph of the City theory

The government's business case relies totally on the assumption of what economists call an 'agglomeration effect', in which population and economic clusters in cities lead to efficiencies and add to business productivity. The Linking Melbourne Authority, which provides information on road infrastructure projects conducted on behalf of the Victorian government, has referred to a book by the American writer, Edward L Glaeser, called Triumph of the City. Its main thesis is the agglomeration benefits that create cities. But the Linking Melbourne Authority does not appear to have read the book, because the book does not argue that freeways are the path to these benefits, in fact it argues quite the opposite. Mr Glaeser argues that 'driving creates negative externalities that hamper urban economies'. He warns against highway building, calling it 'antiurban'.

I quote:

“For decades we have tried to solve the problem of too many cars on too few lanes by building more roads, but each new highway or bridge then attracts more traffic.”

The Age commentator, Kenneth Davidson, has accurately pointed out in relation to the Royal Park freeway:

“It will cripple the state's fiscal position for many years through massive payments to the public-private partnership consortium that will finance it. The financial burden on the Victorian taxpayer will be so big that it will ''crowd out'' the state's core responsibilities for funding schools, hospitals, rail transport and even other roads for at least a generation.”

Contorted and ridiculous economic estimates

An email recently obtained through FOI illustrates that the Victorian government's own economic consultant, Chris Tehan of Evans & Peck, told the government that the business case had dramatically overestimated the wider economic benefits to get an artificial figure of a $1.40 return. According to The Age:

“… the methodology ‘has not been used in any of [the Transport Department's] other public transport projects or program modelling to date’”.

The financial case for the east-west link hinges on a prediction that toll road use will jump over the next 30 years because of rising wealth and shrinking petrol and CBD parking price rises.

The business case for the link makes the controversial assumption that: firstly, a driver's willingness to use toll roads will increase by 1.4 per cent per annum due to rising incomes; secondly, the rate of increase in the cost of running a car will fall from the current two per cent per annum in real terms to half a per cent per annum by 2041; and, thirdly, that the rate of increase in the cost of inner-city parking, which is currently increasing at four per cent per annum in real terms, will fall to 0.5 per cent by 2041.

Victorian government caught out manufacturing and manipulating benefits

The Victorian government has been caught out manipulating modelling to produce a favourable result.

As the minister at the table well knows, this is the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The East West Link is this government's prime piece of proposed land transport infrastructure, and I am detailing to the House why I am opposed to this piece of land transport infrastructure.

Increasingly dodgy business case models being passed by Victorian Government

The former Infrastructure Australia head, Michael Deegan, told a Senate committee that the government's unpublished business case provided an alternative estimate showing a benefit-cost ratio of just 0.8. Under this scenario, the project would return just 80 cents for every one dollar spent, suggesting an economic loss if the stock-standard analysis preferred by Infrastructure Australia is used.

According to The Age, in a submission to a federal infrastructure inquiry, Infrastructure Australia outed Victoria for failing to submit a robust business case for the East West Link, singling out:

“….the controversial $6 billion to $8 billion road as a key example of why the public are cynical about ‘big ticket’ infrastructure announcements.”

Infrastructure Australia's 11-member council, which includes the transport experts, Sir Rod Eddington, and the federal Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, is understood to broadly recommend only those projects with benefit-cost ratios of more than 1.5. And Michael Deegan warns that big-spending promises are being made without proper scrutiny. The Age quotes him as saying:

“This is a particular problem during election periods where commitments are often made although robust business cases have not been prepared, let alone independently reviewed.”

Fed Gov changes afoot to ring-fence projects from independent scrutiny

The Age continues, saying that Infrastructure Australia:

““… is particularly concerned about changes proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, which will give the federal government discretion to ring-fence some projects from independent scrutiny.”"

Mr Deegan warned that any such change would ‘exacerbate’ the problem of projects being presented to Infrastructure Australia ''with limited or questionable business cases.”

The freeway through Royal Park is a classic example of economic 'mutton dressed up as lamb'.
The article continues:

“Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is opposed to Commonwealth funding for public transport projects, has pledged $1.5 billion for the east-west project, with the rest coming from the state government, which will collect toll revenue, and the private sector.”

Costly 'solution' doomed to fail on its own terms 12 years after construction

According to the traffic expert, Stephen Pelosi, the traffic on the East-West Link in the morning peak is expected to have slowed to 20 to 30 kilometres per hour by 2031 as worsening congestion pushes the road close to capacity just 12 years after it is due to open. The East West Link is forecast to carry 80,000 vehicles a day on opening in 2019, increasing to between 100,000 and 120,000 a day by 2031 according to his modelling. He is quoted in The Age:

''If it's reaching 120,000 we're at a position where we're reaching capacity,'' Mr Pelosi said. ''Unless you intervene in some manner and manage the toll rate to influence demand, you get a situation where you're near capacity."

“

It is not much use to commuters.

457 Visas mean no guarantee Australian workers will get jobs from EastWest link

When the Prime Minister is challenged about all the manufacturing jobs that are being lost in Melbourne with the impending closure of Ford, Holden and Toyota, and the job cuts at Qantas, he says, 'It will be alright, we are going to build the EastWest Link'. But will those construction jobs actually go to Australian workers – to Victorian workers, to Melbourne workers? In fact there are no guarantees – there are no guarantees! – that Australian workers will get the jobs created on the project from design through to actual construction work. This is because government policies at the federal and state level favour foreign companies and foreign workers over Australian workers and companies.

At the end of September 2013 there were 13,440 temporary foreign workers on 457 visas in the Australian construction industry, an increase of five per cent in just 12 months. At the end of January 2014 a total of 110,000 457 visa workers were in Australia, four per cent more than at the end of January 2013. The nature of the construction industry is such that any number of these 457 visa workers could be deployed to work on the Royal Park freeway, from engineering to trades like carpentry and other blue-collar jobs. The slowdown in resource sector construction means that many firms employing 457 construction workers are desperately looking for infrastructure projects to fill the gap in their orders.

Government reducing worker protection and encouraging 457 workers

On top of that, the Liberal government has shown that its agenda is to reduce protections for Australian workers and young people in the 457 visa program in the name of deregulation and removing what it calls 'unnecessary red tape'.

Let us consider exactly what the Liberal government considers unnecessary red tape. First, it has removed or watered down the key protections for Australian workers that Labor introduced in its June 2013 legislation, the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Act 2013, specifically, the labour market testing provisions. In November last year the coalition issued regulations under that legislation which make it much easier for employers to hire temporary foreign workers on 457 visas even when qualified Australian workers are readily available and willing to do the work. The figures from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection say that, for 65 per cent of all of the 457 visa nominations.

I am not the one who made the claim that the East West Link is a solution for the unemployed manufacturing workers in Melbourne; it was the Prime Minister who made that claim. I am pointing out why that claim is flawed.
Figures from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection indicate that, for 65 per cent of all 457 visa nominations, they have exempted employers from any legal obligation to labour market test – that is, to even look for Australian workers, let alone show that none were available, before 457 visas could be approved for temporary foreign workers. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU, pointed out in a recent submission to the Productivity Commission that, even in the minority of cases where 457 labour market testing is required, the protections for Australian workers looking for jobs on projects like the East West Tunnel are 'virtually non-existent'. They state:

“Employers have no obligation even to advertise jobs for which they nominate foreign nationals for 457 visas – ‘other recruitment efforts’ (unspecified) will suffice, according to FAQs on the Department’s website.
Job ads can be put on Facebook or buried on obscure company websites, for only a few minutes, then taken down. There is no minimum advertising time …”

The CFMEU propose there be a 28-day advertising period, and I agree with them. They also state:

“The so-called ‘job ads’ can be ‘placed’ any time in the last 12 months. This means employers can use job ads placed in February 2013 to justify their bid for 457 visa workers in February 2014 – regardless of the number of Australian workers who become available or unemployed in that time.”

Employers have no obligation to keep any records of the number of Australian applicants, the number who got jobs and those who didn’t, and the reasons why the Australian candidates missed out while temporary foreign workers did not.

Employers simply have to ‘declare’ this information to the Immigration Department and that’s the end of it. They have no obligation to prove they made good faith efforts to employ Australians first or keep records of any job interviews.

The government regards requirements like this as red tape holding back employers. I say that, without such requirements, a project like the East West Link, if it proceeds, will not employ many Victorian workers at all.
The East West Link is a white elephant that risks undermining Melbourne's productive capacity and living standards. The tunnel is not a solution. It does not provide value for money. Generations of Victorians will be burdened by an $8 billion debt for a tunnel that will have long passed its use-by date. It is regrettable that this government is seeking to amend the Infrastructure Australia legislation to give the minister heightened discretion rather than going through the proper independent, transparent processes that Australians expect when it comes to large spending on infrastructure projects.

Thursday 20th March 2014
The Hon Kelvin Thomson MP
Federal Labor Member for Wills