7.30 Report

Why, once again, does the ABC avoid the issue of population growth, the primary cause of housing affordability. It is simply a fantasy to believe that adding another 400,000 people to Australia's population every year is not relevant

What follows is the text of a complaint lodged with the Australian ABC regarding the bias in its reporting on housing in a series of segments on the 7.30 report:-

“This week, the 7.30 Report included 4 segments on the above subject.

Once again, the ABC avoided the key issue like the plague.

It can be argued that housing affordability is Australia's greatest problem. Thousands of young couples in particular are having to save for years and years to accumulate a house deposit while prices skyrocket. This puts relationships under strain, and means that they often have to put off having families until they are well into their 30s, while often having to pay back a large HECS debt, and repay large mortgage instalments at the same time.

And it is not only young people who are affected. There are many older women who are caught in a rental trap.And don't get me started on the desperately bad housing conditions being experienced by our indigenous folk.

None of your "contributors" to the segments offered any real solutions, apart from densification, which many people do not want in their neighborhoods
.
So why, once again, does the ABC avoid the issue of population growth, the primary cause of this problem. It is simply a fantasy to believe that adding another 400,000 people to Australia's population every year is not relevant.

The answer to the problem is to reign in this insane population growth. This is easily done by big cuts to immigration, and encouragement of small families.

This is not the first time I have raised this matter with you. Why do you avoid it. I refuse to believe that ABC researchers are not aware of the problem. It seems clear to me your reluctance to discuss population growth is idealogical, or perhaps you are frightened of being labelled racist. Proposing to cut immigration is not racist unless the proposer is advocating cutting immigration of particular races.

I have 3 children and six grandchildren. Two of my children have managed to break into the housing market, but the housing opportunities for the other seven are very uncertain, and a cause of worry for them as they enter into relationships and try and get on with their lives.

I am very angry that my family members are having to worry about getting a roof over their heads. My anger is made worse by the stupidity and ignorance of the political parties who will not acknowledge the problem. And of course, the ABC is aiding and abetting them by refusing to discuss the issue.

I have noted this week the saturation coverage the ABC has given to the so called sports rorts affair. Yes, that is a case of seriously bad behaviour by the Government, but it pales into insignificance compared to the pressure put on many Australians in obtaining housing. So why does the primary cause not get more attention.

ABC people, you are not doing your job. Your people have been whining in recent times about freedom of the press in particular having a good old bitch about AFP raids on the ABC offices. Well do not expect any sympathy from me. You are guilty of keeping relevant information from the public. It cuts both ways you know. Keep your bloody ideaology to yourselves, and start reporting/ commenting on ALL relevant facts, not just the bits that suit you.

PS And while you are at it, you might like to comment on the fact that the housing affordability issue is worsened by the fact that many Australians own multiple properties. I believe there are 20,000 Australians who own 6 or more investment properties, including many of our politicians. At one stage Barry O’Sullivan, a Nationals MP, owned 50. What about reporting on whether this is having an effect on housing affordability (or are you frightened the Government might cut your budget if you do). It is clearly a serious question as to whether ownership of residential property in particular should be controlled to ensure that house ownership is shared equitably by all Australians.

Bob Couch

cc Ita Buttrose, Nicolle Flint, Minister of Communications”

Dear 7.30.
The statements being made by politicians and commentators re the size and growth of the population/immigration intake are (deliberately) ignorant, seriously uninformed or deliberately politically biased. And the coverage of this issue by your program and ABC journalists more generally also lack quality research, lack of 'joining the dots', failure to question unfounded claims by the above and, in some cases, unquestioned acceptance and repeat of demonstrably untrue statements.
Please consider the following demonstrable facts and follow the inevitable conclusion.

Infrastructure, including, schools, hospitals, police stations, utilities for water and electricity, roads etc. do not last forever. It's estimated that across the broad sweep of all infrastructure, infrastructure has a life of ~50 years. Thus 2% of the total capital value of all infrastructure must be spent every year just to maintain but not to improve infrastructure for the existing population.

Recently, largely due to high immigration intakes, our population has been growing at 1.6% pa. Not long ago the rate was as high as 2%. But at 1.6% this means that 3.6% of the total capital value of all infrastructure must be spent each and every year just to maintain the level of service; that is an 80% increase in the cost of infrastructure just to maintain the same level of service.

This cost is not only ignored when it is claimed that high immigration is economically beneficial, the error is massively compounded and used to mislead by the way in which GDP is used as the criterion of economic benefit. The additional cost of the required 80% increase in infrastructure is added to GDP not subtracted. This is a function of the way GDP is calculated. It adds together all the dollars spent on goods and services whether the 'goods' are 'goods' or 'bads'. This money spent on expanding infrastructure cannot be spent on other things to improve real welfare for the existing population. Everyone seems to agree that the infrastructure required by the deliberately expanded population (through the Federal Government's immigration policy) should be built before the new intake arrives. Witness the very loud and universal applause on your QandA program when this point was made. Thus the burden falls on the existing population one way or another. If the infrastructure is not built before the new intake arrives, existing citizens suffer a decline in service, if it is built before the new intake arrives it is the existing citizens who pick up the cost. This is consistent with several Productivity Commission reports that it is not the existing population that benefits but the migrants.

Nor does the dishonesty over claimed economic benefits of high immigration stop there. As populations increase and cities expand most ordinary citizens bear increased costs: car maintenance, travel distances, petrol etc. These are real costs borne by these citizens but they add, yes add to GDP. It is this failure of GDP to measure, but to be used by many, including ABC journalists, to be a surrogate measure of quality of life that is used to mislead.

Another related matter poorly presented by the ABC. The Premier of S.A. is calling for an increase in migration to South Australia, again claiming economic benefit, yet at the same time hospital services have broken down badly: ambulances are banking up at emergency departments (ramping) and nurses and doctors are bitterly complaining about inadequate facilities to serve their patients. There are 4,794 public hospital beds in South Australia. If our population is to grow by 1.6% per year we would need an additional 77 beds this year and an exponentially increasing number in following years as populations became larger. Against this 77 extra beds the Marshall Government has pointed with some pride at reopening 20 beds in the old Repat Hospital. The hospital problem is clearly related to the issue of high population growth rate but journalists are not making the connection.

This is not in any way to blame migrants for these problems. It is the Federal Government that is responsible for the migration program, not the migrants. Nor is the above any reflection on the composition, religious background, sex or sexual orientation of migrants. This is simply about numbers and the failure of most media including the ABC and your program to do some simple maths and join the dots.
Yours sincerely,
John Coulter

The absurdity of Australian news reporting on Syria would be funny if it were not for the disastrous consequences of such reporting for the people of Syria. I happened to see the end of a report from Matt Brown on 7.30 Report on the subject of chemical weapons in Syria. If it depresses me, think how the Syrians feel about our mindless repetition of war-crimes propaganda against Syria's army when that army is the only thing protecting most Syrians from foreign-backed terrorists.

"Diplomatic battle over Syria's chemical weapons program", Matt Brown, 7.30 Report, Australian Broadcasting Commission, 21 October 2016.

There was hardly a second in Brown’s dramatic production that was true or real. Even the supposed results of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigation into Ghouta were misrepresented.

I’ve been shocked recently by the failure of the ABC, on radio at least, to even mention Syria other than briefly in news bulletins. I only watch SBS world news, which is of course just as bad. Instead of Sophie McNeill and Matt Brown, and Anne Barker, SBS has Nastasya Tay, whose propaganda wrap-ups are just stunning.

On October 23, for instance, reporting about the humanitarian pause in Aleppo, she showed the buses waiting to take residents from East Aleppo, but said, with what seemed like a sort of pleasure, that no-one took them, and that the Syrian army had fired on people trying to leave! Yet what happened was that the ‘rebels’ refused to give in, and fired on the relief route, forcing the buses to drive off at speed. Meanwhile they showed photos of people in the streets dancing and holding up Free Syrian Army (FSA) flags, and shopping at stalls of vegetables.

At the same time, over in Mosul, in Iraq, the boot is on the other foot, while the US claims to do just the same thing the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is doing in Aleppo, with a slight difference. To be clear, in Iraq the US claims to be fighting terrorists in order to defend the Iraqi government, but in Syria it is defending terrorists (which it calls 'moderate rebels') in order to fight the Syrian government. Meanwhile, it isn't stopping ISIL from fleeing Mosul into Syria.

It’s the silence on what is really happening that drives me crazy! Did you hear any interviews with politicians about whether Australia supports more sanctions against Russia, or supports the Turkish army killing Kurds, or supports the Iranians fighting to liberate Mosul for Iraq – or anything!

Even when it was happening it wasn’t happening...

Once upon a time I would have tried to have put the ABC right, but to be honest, I think it has gone past the point of thoughtful analysis, with Brown’s propaganda, and that of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the ‘doctors’ in Istanbul (!)

The fact is that the stories about ‘barrel bombs’ with chlorine are total fabrications, not because the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) didn’t use them, but because they would have absolutely no reason to use such a stupid weapon as ‘Chlorine’. After all, there is almost no evidence that Sarin was actually present and used in Ghouta, and I know of no evidence at all of Chlorine use other than some silly photos showing a cloud of Nitrogen oxides from a fertiliser bomb.

Note that in all such footage there are White Helmets present – so we may assume that these films are not true. President Bashar al Assad noted that the White Helmets are ‘Al Qaeda with a facelift’ in his interview on Swiss TV on the 19th of October, 2016..

Today, (22 October 2016) as the UNHRC report is released that claims proof Syria used Chlorine in March last year, the abandonment of any impartiality in this conflict by the UN is now complete.

Not only was the supposed use of Chlorine in an attack on Sarmin south of Idlib never established as fact with any real evidence, but its timing was completely suspect. It occurred just before or just after the launching by Saudi Arabia and Turkey of a force of thousands of militant jihadists, under the banner of the Army of Conquest – Jaish al Fatah – who swept south towards Lattakia and Hama and killed thousands of soldiers and civilians before they were finally fought all the way back by the Syrian Arab Army and Russian forces six months later.

So while our media carried on about this stupid story, in which supposedly a ‘grandmother’ and three children died, they completely ignored the rampages of the army of terrorists, for instance in their truck bomb assault on Jisr al Shughour hospital. This is just a pre-echo of what is happening now with Aleppo – that while the UN and Western leaders talk about the ‘slaughterhouse of Aleppo’ in the most extreme terms, the terrorists are on the rampage south of Idlib with their US supplied weapons, fighting the Syrian army and its allies.
If Matt Brown wants to see what ‘our allies’ are doing in Syria, like he does in Mosul, why doesn’t he get embedded with ‘Jabat Fatah al Sham’ – al Qaeda, south of Idlib?

And if Sophie McNeill is interested in the problems for children’s schooling in refugee camps in Erbil (reported on last night’s Lateline), why doesn’t she go to visit some suburbs of Lattakia or Damascus and see how all the refugees from the terrorists are managing there?

Not that the Syrian government would ever give her a visa...

I don’t know what to do about the ABC. When I hear their reports I get furious and think of phoning, but then I remember the last time and the time before, and how they have only got worse...

Bled dry - the fate of greyhound racing's 'wastage'
7.30 recently exposed widespread doping in the greyhound racing industry, and since then they've had a huge response.

Greyhound racing is an industry that a lot of people enjoy, but behind it lies a terrible toll on the dogs. There's a massive toll of injured animals. Many exhibit crate and muzzle sores, and stress from high speed chases. Australia's greyhound industry is the third biggest in the world, and each year Australians wager about $3 billion on the sport.

7.30 Report: Bled dry- the fate of greyhound racing's "wastage"

The ABC has received thousands of emails, calls and Facebook posts, some from insiders who've raised more concerns about the industry, others who claim we didn't show the positive aspects of their sport.

ABC: 7.30 report">Bled dry - the fate of greyhound racing's 'wastage'

In the past year more than 70 dogs have tested positive to banned substances, but insiders say many more cheats go undetected and use popular drugs including cocaine, amphetamines, caffeine and EPO, the performance-enhancing hormone favoured by disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong.

The industry estimates that some 25,000 greyhounds are bred in Australia each year, for a gambling industry.

The greyhounds who do make it to the track may endure harsh training regimes and are put at significant risk of sustaining serious injuries, such as broken legs, paralysis or head trauma, during training and racing. Some even die from cardiac arrest due to the extreme physical intensity of racing. On many occasions the injuries are 'uneconomical' to treat and the owner will instead have the dog killed.

They will finish racing between the ages of 2 and 4.  Of the chosen dogs only about half reach naming and training age. Thousands of puppies and young dogs are routinely killed.  The racing industry use the euphemism that they are  "humanely euthanased", or kept by their owners or adopted as pets.   The grim reality is that campaigners believe that 20,000 dogs are slaughtered every year. 

Many retired greyhounds are dumped, used for medical research or bled to death for their blood.  In a macabre irony, unwanted and dying greyhounds are being drained of their blood to help with the treatment of other dogs!  It's like "farming" spare body parts, from third world impoverished countries, and risking the lives of the "donors" or killing them, for the benefit of the wealthy.   It's predatory as is assumed that greyhounds, being part of an "industry" rather than pets, have less intrinsic value.

7.30 Report has exposed widespread doping of the racing dogs, but even more saddening and grotesque is that veterinary nurses claim they are being forced to kill some of the 17,000 healthy greyhound dogs believed to be discarded by the industry each year.

SELENA COTTRELL-DORMER, VETERINARY NURSE: You get eight dogs dropped off, oftentimes they will be just, yeah, just absolutely bled to death and euthanased, put in a body bag and put in the freezer and taken away for incineration. That's absolutely routine. No-one would bat an eyelid at that being the reality.

VICTORIA LUXTON-BAIN, VETERINARY NURSE: They would be brought in by a trainer. Normally we would get about three or four dogs and then they would arrive and then they'd be bled within about 48 hours of arriving. So they'd be put under anaesthetic and then bled and then euthanased while under anaesthetic.

Animals and entertainment/gambling industries are not compatible, and inevitably lead to exploitation.  The greyhound racing industry cruelly adds to our already abysmal pool of unwanted animals, doomed for "death row".

Like the horse racing industry's over-breeding and high rates of disposals, each year thousands of dogs never make it to the track because they fail to chase - or simply aren't fast enough.  They then become "wastage" and end up being destroyed.

Export

The Australian greyhound racing industry exports hundreds of greyhounds to supply and stimulate racing industries in other countries, where most of them will also be killed after their racing days. One of the biggest markets is Macau, — where the Canidrome racing track does not allow any dogs to be adopted.

Greyhound racing has been recognised as a cruel sport and therefore banned in 6 states of the USA and also in South Africa, with growing opposition in other countries.  Australia's standard as a first-world country, with humane treatment of animals, is failing to give these dogs a "fair go".  

This "sport" that uses, consumes and disposes of dogs in a wholesale manner and needs to be banned, like blood sports.

Greyhounds maybe fast, but they don't need much exercise.  They are naturally docile and gentle dogs and given the chance they make loving and faithful companions.  

Greyhound rescue - dogs available

Recently I noticed that a new study had been commissioned by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) on the subject of animal welfare in the kangaroo industry. The RIRDC kangaroo advisory committee consists primarily of key stakeholders in the kangaroo meat and leather industry such as Brian Topper, Lindsay Packer, Greg Bates and Ray Borda. This committee determines what research is done to make the kangaroo industry develop and become more profitable. Obviously the committee consists of those making the biggest monetary gain from kangaroo exploitation so why all of a sudden do they want to draw attention to the ethics of the industry?

Your average RIRDC study

Grey Joey at Foot

Studies performed by the RIRDC for the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) are (partly) funded by the Commonwealth government. Often the authors of these reports are directly or indirectly employed by the KIAA itself. For example John Kelly, the executive officer of the KIAA has written several reports for the RIRDC which he often quotes when defending the industry. Examples of these are the "Kangaroo industry strategic plan 2005-2010", "The kangaroo industry -- its image and market" and "Extending the sustainable management of kangaroos". The latter report is aimed at increasing the land areas that shooters have access to (including the whole of Victoria) or to put it another way, decreasing the number or size of refugia areas where kangaroos cannot be shot. Peter Ampt from the FATE program also bobs up in RIRDC reports such as "Consumer attitudes towards kangaroo meat".

RSPCA Pressure or EU Ban

I cannot find a single study done by the RIRDC in the past that has focused on the welfare of kangaroo joeys. This is despite calls for this type of research from organizations such as the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups since at least 1985. The joey issue has been raised on every committee involved in the creation or amendment of the Australian Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos (or "the code") yet has never been acted on until now.

At the risk of sounding cynical, I would suggest that this new study has been commissioned by the RIRDC in an attempt to mask the insensitivity inherent in the industry towards the fate of joeys. Could this possibly have something to do with the proposed ban of kangaroo products into the EU? It would appear the RSPCA have finally got the research study they have been requesting for the last 25 years but you have to wonder, why now ? The study does not conclude for another 2 years but the mere fact that it is being done at all gives the KIAA, the RIRDC and the Australian government an opportunity to dampen the issue on the world stage.

I thought the KIAA was happy with the towbar

Back in 2008 when "the code" was being revised the joey issue was raised again by the RSPCA. This time the use of shotguns to kill joeys made the headlines. John Kelly declared that the KIAA was "generally happy" with the new code and defended current killing methods including decapitation of unfurred joeys and a blow to the brain with a metal pipe or vehicle tow bar for larger pouch joeys as "perfectly humane activities". Further he added that "animal welfare is precisely what this code of practice is all about". As Kelly is clearly involved in RIRDC studies involving the kangaroo industry, why has the welfare of joeys suddenly appeared on the radar ?

It may appear that the concerns/demands of the RSPCA have finally been acknowledged but I doubt this is so. Even when the RSPCA openly criticises the code particularly over the joey issue, the KIAA and governments still claim that the industry has broad RSPCA support. In the words of John Kelly:

"the RSPCA itself is on record as supporting the animal welfare outcomes of the kangaroo harvest"

In the broadest sense Kelly is actually correct, the RSPCA has stated that kangaroo culling is a humane practice when done correctly..... the devil is always in the detail. Like Greenpeace, the RSPCA appears to be unable or reluctant to clarify its "true" position on the kangaroo issue in the media. Little wonder the KIAA milk this positive publicity for all its worth.

Anna Bligh doing her bit

The Russian ban on kangaroo meat last year could also be a driving force behind the industry trying to improve its image. The Russian decision however was officially based on public health issues, it had nothing to do with animal welfare concerns. Perhaps Queensland premier Anna Bligh needs that point explained a little more clearly. Earlier this year anti-roo industry activists, kangaroo shooters and even the KIAA itself were understandably puzzled by her "introduction" of a ban in trading of kangaroo carcasses that had not been head-shot. Supposedly, all Australian states with a kangaroo industry have had this ban in place for many years now, she either hasn't got a clue or maybe she knows more than most after her time spent in Russia trying to overturn the decision. In her attempts to get more Queenslanders to eat roo meat she has resorted to publicity shots of herself biting into kangaroo kebabs. This cheap form of publicity was recently used by Canadian politicians when they tucked into plates of seal meat. Perhaps Bligh was inspired by the Canadian governor general who last year ate raw seal heart directly from the carcass of a seal pup in front of the cameras. Monkey see, Monkey do....

John Kelly's definition of humane

The comparison of commercial wildlife killing methods with those used on domestic animals is always a subject that crops up during any kangaroo debate. The herding of sheep or cows followed by queuing for the slaughterhouse is often claimed to be more distressing for the animals involved than being head-shot in your natural environment. The subject of joeys rarely rates a mention when this oversimplified comparison is drawn. It is an argument used by the KIAA and its supporters, many of whom are environmentally aware to a varying degree. Of course this is also a view held by John Kelly and this provides us with an opportunity to understand what passes as humane in his world. Kelly's other interests include a possum abattoir that was secretly filmed in the late 1990's resulting in a legal battle between his company and the ABC. When questioned on the "7.30 Report" about the method used to slaughter brushtail possums in his abattoir Kelly replied :

"We've developed a code of practice to ensure that possums are placed under minimal stress and we believe they are placed under actually less stress than most sheep and cattle processed in a domestic abattoir"

This code of practice involved the stunning of possums in a holding cage before they are thrown down a chute into an area where their throats are cut. At the time of the interview Kelly was unaware of the secret recording. The reporter then played him a copy of the tape and asked him whether the possums that were running along the chute (and on the ground) into the bleeding area were stunned or not. His reply was :

"If an animal moves at the point when it is about to be stunned it can be missed to some extent"

Is leaving a joey to starve to death after its mother has been shot more humane than cutting the throat of a fully conscious possum ? I shudder to think. It does seem obvious that animal welfare is not Kelly's strong point and any sentence uttered by him containing the word "humane" should be treated with due scepticism

.

A RIRDC study on the welfare of joeys is like a tobacco industry study on lung cancer

John Kelly (left) loves possums,
especially the stuffed, guitar playing
variety.

Which takes us back to this new study being commissioned by the RIRDC and headed up by Dr Steve Mcleod. It appears they will trial the use of spring-loaded captive-bolt guns to stun joeys before they are killed and I assume they are not getting advice from John Kelly to do this. This research is partly funded by the levies they collect from kangaroo shooters for each carcass. I would have thought an independent study more appropriate for this subject as industry based research is conducted to develop an industry, not hinder it. The subject of kangaroo industry RIRDC reports from the past such as those outlined earlier have been carefully selected by Kelly, Packer, Topper etc using the development funds currently available to them. Why would they direct that funding towards an aspect of the industry they would rather gloss over unless they plan to just give it another coat. I was however encouraged by Dr Mcleod's comments on the ABC:

"Because they harvest at night and the young at foot might not be close to a mother that's shot they sometimes might not get seen....... We don't know the extent of that problem and we don't know what actually happens to those young."

By John Kelly's estimate the extent of the problem is that it affects around 0.1% of the kangaroo population. I would suggest that statistics are not Kelly's strongest point either but undoubtedly the cost of Kelly's calculation will turn out to be significantly cheaper than Dr Mcleod's study. Like Anna Bligh, cheap appears to be John Kelly's style.

"We are in the business of selling meat and images of dead animals don't do so" ..... You said it John.

On ABC TV Jan 28th 7.30 report the Australian PM appears to have backtracked on the idea of a "Big Australia" for which he said previously that he would make "no apology"

Are stages of governmental and media spin and treatment of forced population growth akin to the stages of grief-predictable and identifiable?

See also: "Rudd facing a Queensland backlash" by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily of 30 Jan 10, "Rudd cools on a 'big Australia'" in the Age of 29 Jan 10, "Rudd on a 'big Australia'" on the 7.30 Report of 28 Jan 10, "Future Australians could face starvation: Dick Smith" on ABC online of 25 Jan 10, "Population debate needed: opposition" in the Mackay Daily Mercury of 25 Jan 10 (also published in the Shepparton News), "Poll shows Australians do not share rudd's vision for 'Big Australia'" of 10 Nov 09 by Bruce Billson MP, (former) Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities, "Population to now hit 35 million by 2049" in the Australian of 18 Sep 09.

On ABC TV Jan 28th 7.30 report the Australian PM appears to have backtracked on the idea of a "Big Australia" for which he said previously that he would make "no apology".

Are stages of governmental and media spin and treatment of forced population growth akin to the stages of grief-predictable and identifiable?

1. Most of us would be familiar with the 5 stages of GRIEF:
2. Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
3. Anger (why is this happening to me?)
4. Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
5. Depression (I don't care anymore)
6. Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

With respect to Population growth in Australia , media and government spin goes through stages too but there are twice as many of them as there are for GRIEF ! One could identify them as follows:

1. Denial-Newspaper articles and politicians talking about our population plummeting - whilst all time it climbs -( during this stage maybe 10 years ago whilst driving past a new outer suburban housing estate my innocent passenger exclaimed "but where all the people coming from?"
2. Propaganda and indoctrination - Peter Costello a prime example talking up the population and encouraging a higher birth rate - a sickening article in the Herald Sun last Friday harked back to PC 5 years ago holding 6 babies with a look of glee -reunited with 4 of them the day before, another photo and of course "no apology" in the Rudd-ian sense of the expression.
3. Recognition - Pollie rhetoric and media speak is as though amazed and surprised (after the population supposedly being in "free fall) that the population is in fact rising but no acknowledgement that this has anything to do with government policies or advertising.
4. Convincing - the public that much of what they have always held dear to them about Australia- its democratic processes , its relatively egalitarian and relaxed way of life, has to change to make way for a socially engineered higher population and overcrowding.
5. "Consultation" with the public who is having great difficulty keeping up with changes in the environment and way of life- This stage involves meetings , forums, butcher's paper and submissions to government Green Papers as the long suffering public does the work of government- trying to find the best solutions and the least damaging ways of adjusting to at least twice the rate of population growth we would otherwise have- with no guarantee, no matter how much of citizens precious time and brain power is taken up with these processes that any heed will be taken.
6. Concealment and denial of any part governments play in the cause of the problems that beset our daily lives because of rapid population growth.
7. Garnering expert opinion to support what governments are doing - pushing population growth.
8. Embracing what's happening and what the next generation will have to deal with as though it has some abstract hidden benefit ("I'm in favour of a Big Australia" Kevin Rudd).
9. Underplaying it at a dose just less than lethal (Kevin Rudd says 35 million by 2050 but if the current rate of growth continues it will be nearer to 50 million) to prepare Australian for what will be even worse.
10. Backtracking and backpedaling when it is clear that one has gone too far in force feeding this issue to an unwilling public and in the face of warnings from independent experts. (Kevin Rudd on 7.30 report).

When we reach 50 million and head on to 100 million possibly 35 years later, if the environment has not already totally collapsed we can then collectively go through the 5 stages of grief of the loss of what could have been a beautiful country to live in for both people and wild life.

See also: "Rudd facing a Queensland backlash" by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily of 30 Jan 10, "Rudd cools on a 'big Australia'" in the Age of 29 Jan 10, "Rudd on a 'big Australia'" on the 7.30 Report of 28 Jan 10, "Future Australians could face starvation: Dick Smith" on ABC online of 25 Jan 10, "Population debate needed: opposition" in the Mackay Daily Mercury of 25 Jan 10 (also published in the Shepparton News), "Poll shows Australians do not share rudd's vision for 'Big Australia'" of 10 Nov 09 by Bruce Billson MP, (former) Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities, "Population to now hit 35 million by 2049" in the Australian of 18 Sep 09.