The Sustainable Australia Party has prioritised four key issues that unite rather than divide Australians: secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning and a sustainable environment.
Related policies feature in the video.

Why vote for Sustainable Australia?

In short, our party has prioritised four key issues that unite rather than divide us: secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning and a sustainable environment.

We've featured these four issues in our new video:

We need your help

One of the unique selling points of our party is a genuine sustainable population policy. First and foremost, rapid population growth is an environmental problem, but it also impacts on our ability to achieve secure jobs, affordable housing and better planning.

For example, without slowing population growth, desperately needed housing affordability policies around taxation, bank lending practices and overseas buyers are negated by continued rapid growth in domestic demand.

Mainstream media

Unfortunately, when it comes to the mainstream media, our voice is drowned out by the extremes - pro-big Australia and anti-immigration forces. For a combination of commercial and ideological reasons, perhaps the mainstream media wants it that way.

Despite a series of uncontested pro-big Australia articles and opinion pieces in The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian, none of these publications will print an evidence-based opinion piece I offered rejecting big Australia on environmental and infrastructure grounds.

Getting around mainstream media barriers in order to reach voters is one reason why it is so important that you watch and share our latest video.

We need rational voices to rise above intolerant ones. The alternative is even more polarised political discourse. Suppression of moderate voices simply drives people into the arms of extreme parties.

Sharing is caring

Please share our video via social media (Facebook, Twitter, online forums, etc).

Can you also forward it on to relevant family and friends?

Thanks for any help you can give.

William.

William Burke is the leader of the Sustainable Australia Party.

Leading real estate rent-seeker, the Property Council of Australia (PCA), is pushing for another idiotic policy “solution” to fix Australia’s housing affordability woes: offering a government-backed low deposit home loan scheme.

From The Australian:

"A government-backed low-­deposit home loan scheme could help address housing affordability by getting more buyers into the market and adding to the housing stock, according to the Property Council of Australia…

The PCA highlighted the Keystart program in Western Australia, where buyers can purchase a home with a 2 per cent deposit in Perth and up to 7 per cent in regional areas without paying lender’s mortgage insurance…

PCA chief of policy Glenn Byres said the program had been “useful in helping to drive supply” and had helped buyers who would otherwise be locked out.

“The big challenge right now is the deposit gap and people having to save sufficiently to meet the deposit requirements of ­lenders,” Mr Byres told The Australian…

BIS Oxford Economics senior manager for residential property Angie Zigomanis said any rollout of such a scheme might encourage some borrowers to buy better properties than they could otherwise afford, which could drive up prices for more affordable homes…

Digital Finance Analytics principal Martin North… echoed concerns about pressure on pricing, saying that when similar programs had been introduced around the world “it tends to lift property prices higher”.

Earth to PCA: you don’t “fix” housing affordability by sucking sub-prime buyers into the market and raising demand. You fix it by implementing policies that lower demand and boost supply. You know, things like:

• Normalising Australia’s immigration program by returning the permanent intake back to the level that existed before John Howard ramped-up it up in the early-2000s – i.e. below 100,000 from over 200,000 currently [reduces demand];
• Undertaking tax reforms like unwinding negative gearing and the CGT discount [reduces speculative demand];
• Tightening rules and enforcement on foreign ownership [reduces foreign demand];
• Extending anti-money laundering rules to real estate gatekeepers [reduces foreign demand]; and
• Providing the states with incentive payments to:
• undertake land-use and planning reforms, as well as provide housing-related infrastructure [boosts supply];
• swap stamp duties for land taxes [boosts effective supply]; and
• reform rental tenancy laws to give greater security of tenure [reduces demand for home ownership and reduces rental turnover].

As usual, the PCA is using the fig leaf of “housing affordability” to lobby for government subsidies to the housing sector. This shameless self-interest should be resisted on all fronts.

[email protected]

Article first published by Unconventional Economist in Australian Property at 8:33 am on January 12, 2018 by Leith van Onselen at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/01/another-idiotic-housing-affordability-solution-emerges/

Are you sick of politicians stuffing up our country? We are - and we’re doing something. We're serious about:
- Secure #jobs
- Affordable #housing
- Better #planning
- Sustainable #environment and population

Watch our new NSW membership video:

If we all work together, we can reach the 750 NSW members needed to register our State party - and a seat in Parliament will be ours for the taking.
If you're already a party member, sign up family and friends in NSW.
If you're not a member, join today. It's FREE!
We’re trying to raise $5,000 to advertise this on Facebook to over 100,000 people in NSW. Can you help with a small or large donation?
Let's do this, together!

If you’re sick of politicians stuffing up our country, support Sustainable Australia today - we campaign for secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning, and a sustainable environment and population.

There's never been a more important time to get involved.
See facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/VoteSustainable/?hc_ref=ARS0fMp2yrAbzHM5FAtel4tT4v89pIKNUg4Kdgyhny8q6kAbDVk2taDTHjt5IS4SNNA&fref=nf

Add up all the neglected costs of downsizing and retirees have good reason to be wary of making the move. It’s time to debunk the myth of zero housing costs in retirement if we want to understand why retirees resist downsizing. Retirees have at least five reasons to be wary of the costs of downsizing. [Article first published at https://theconversation.com/downsizing-cost-trap-awaits-retirees-five-reasons-to-be-wary-80895 on 31 July 2017.]

Retirees living in middle-ring suburbs face frequent calls to downsize into apartments to free up larger allotments in these suburbs for redevelopment. Retirees who fail to downsize into smaller units and apartments are viewed as being a greedy, baby-boomer elite, stealing financial security from younger generations.

It also makes sense to policymakers for retirees to move into less spacious accommodation and make way for high-density housing. Housing think-tank AHURI fosters this view. Yet seniors remain resistant to moving, in part because of the ongoing costs they would face.

The concept of zero housing costs in retirement is based on a 1940s view of a well-maintained, single dwelling on a single allotment of land where the mortgage has been paid off. This concept is incompatible with medium- and high-density housing and refusing to acknowledge ongoing housing costs may cause significant poverty for retirees.

Reason 1 – upfront moving costs are high

When a house is sold the owner receives the sale funds minus the real estate and legal fees. When the same person then buys a different property to live in, they pay legal fees plus stamp duty.

For cities such as Melbourne and Sydney, these costs are likely to exceed A$70,000.

These high transfer costs may mean it is not cost-effective for the person to move.

Reason 2 – levies are high

Because apartment owners pay body corporate levies, people often assume this is just the same as periodic payment of rates, water, insurance and other costs. It is not.

Fees remissions for low-income retirees for rates, power, insurance and water are difficult to apply within a body corporate environment. As a consequence, these are usually not applied to owners of apartments.

The costs of maintaining essential services, such as mandatory fire-alarm testing, yearly engineering certification, lift and air-conditioning inspections, significantly increase ownership costs.

When additional services are supplied, such as swimming pools, gyms and rooftop gardens, these also require periodic inspections. Garbage collection, cleaning, gardening, concierge and strata management services also must be paid.

Owners of standard suburban homes choose whether they want these services, with those on fixed incomes going without them.

Annual levies for apartment buildings vary, but expect to pay between $10,000 and $15,000. They may be more than this.

Reason 3 – costs of maintenance

Apartments are often sold as a maintenance-free solution for older people. The maintenance is not free. It needs to be paid for.

Maintenance costs are higher in an apartment than a standard suburban home because there are more items and services to be maintained and fixed. Lifts and air conditioning need periodic servicing and fixing. This is in addition to the mandatory inspections listed above.

Reason 4 – loss of financial security

It is a mistaken belief that the maintenance costs that form part of the body corporate fee include periodic property upgrades. This relates to items that are owned collectively with other apartment owners.

Major servicing at the ten-year mark and usually each five-to-seven years after that include painting, floor-covering replacement, and lift and air-conditioning repair or replacement.

Major upgrades may also include garden redesign or other external building enhancement including environmental upgrades. All owners share these upgrade costs.

Costs of upgrading the inside of an apartment (a bathroom disability upgrade, for example) are additional again.

Once the body corporate committee members pledge funds towards an upgrade, all owners are required to raise their share of the funds, whether they can afford it or not. Communal choice outweighs an individual owner’s need to delay upgrade costs.

Owners who buy apartments that are part of a body corporate effectively lose control of their future financial decisions.

Reason 5 – loss of security of tenure

Loss of security of tenure is usually associated with renters. However, the recent introduction of termination legislation in New South Wales gives other owners the right to vote to terminate a strata title scheme. When this occurs, all owners, including reluctant owners of apartments within that scheme, are compelled to sell.

There are valid reasons why termination legislation is desirable, as many older apartment complexes are reaching the end of their useful life.

Even so, as termination legislation is rolled out across the states, owner- occupiers effectively lose control of how long they will own a property for. They no longer have security of tenure, which means retirees may face an uncertain housing future in their old age.

---

Further reading: Why strata law shake-up won’t deliver cheaper housing

---

Downsizing raises poverty risks

Because current data sets do not adequately take account of ongoing costs associated with apartment living, the effect of downsizing on individual households is masked.

Downsizing retirees into the apartment sector creates ongoing financial stress for older people. Creating tax incentives to move does not tackle these ongoing costs.

Centrelink payments for of $404 per week are well below the poverty line. Yet we expect retirees to willingly downsize and to be able to cede most of their Centrelink payments to cover high body corporate costs.

Requiring retirees to downsize for the greater urban good will shift poverty onto retirees who could barely manage in their previously owned standard suburban home.

Failing to understand the effect of high ongoing costs associated with apartment living and reinforcing the myth of zero housing costs in retirement will continue to lead to poor policy outcomes.

Referring to the HILDA Report, the author suggests that, if immigration were reduced, a precipitate decline in house-prices could probably be adequately buffered by local buyers who currently cannot afford to enter the grossly inflated housing market.

Yet another report about homelessness in Australia

Melbourne University Faculty of Business and Economics this week released a report entitled,"The Household, Income and Labour dynamics in Australia survey," (HILDA for short).

The main disturbing and most publicized finding on the day it was released was that home ownership in Australia is in steady decline and the steepest decline is in the state of Victoria. In Victoria I see the extreme manifestation of this trend, homelessness in the streets of Melbourne, every time I venture to the city or inner Melbourne areas such as Carlton. I actually know personally two people, one older and one young, who have experienced homelessness in Melbourne.

It seems obvious that for home ownership levels to recover, growth in house prices urgently needs to slow and stop. For the good of our society, prices even need to fall. Author of the HILDA Report, Professor Roger Wilkins, offered as a solution to the catastrophic decline in home ownership, the very meagre suggestion of an abolition of the capital gain tax discount, presumably as a disincentive to investment in housing. I would however maintain that people will still want to invest if a certain capital gain is to be had, even if they do pay tax! They would still be ahead!

Would a decline in Australian house prices be a concern?

For home owners with only one property and who are mortgage-free, a drop in the $ value of their houses really wouldn’t matter as long as it were part of a general, overall decline in property values. For those who are servicing a mortgage, a significant drop in property prices could be a problem, as their equity becomes less as a proportion of the amount owing.

So, can we escape a populating growth fueled housing Ponzi nightmare without collateral damage?

Initially, stabilising the $value of houses would not be as painful as a sudden decline.

I will take it as read that house price increases are due to a greater demand than there is supply. Demand has increased as net overseas migration has increased. A dramatic increase in Net Overseas Migration (NOM) dates back to John Howard’s time in power and has hardly let up. This number needs to come down.

One can also base the potential housing demand on the number of young adults in the population. In the 'best of all possible worlds, local young adults will want to establish their own households, whether singly or as couples, or with friends or siblings, as a first step. Immigrants, young or old, all need accommodation immediately on arrival.

If, for young Australians, buying a house is manageable and they enter the housing market (for many it is not affordable now) then that will actually increase demand from that age group. So reducing immigration dramatically would not be the only factor affecting prices. Lower immigration would have a downward effect and local young adults entering the market would tend to keep prices buoyant. The two effects would not necessarily at all be equal to one another and this balance would depend largely on the amount by which net overseas migration decreased.

In 2015 there were 1,054,565 people in Australia in the age group 24-26 (inclusive). At this age let’s assume young people have finished their post school education and are ready for the work force. They really need to leave home and either buy a house or rent. In 2011 (https://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552283) 29% of young people 18-34 were still living at home. All the young adults still living at home with their parents are potential home-grown consumers of housing.

Are vacancies as a result of deaths an adequate source of housing supply?

In Australia there are about 150,000 deaths per year. Not all these deaths release accommodation, as not all deaths are of people living alone. Some may leave a family behind! But even if 50% of them did result in a house coming for sale or rental, i.e. 70,000 houses or apartments, then there is still that potential demand from 1,054,565 people in the 24-26 age group alone (2015 ABS) and, if the cost of housing stabilized, maybe all young people would be seeking accommodation away from the family home. Even without immigration, there is still, from these figures, a much higher potential demand for housing than there is existing housing which may become vacant. This is because the present age group needing to establish themselves in their adult lives is much larger than the older group. For example, in the Baby Boomer age group in 2015, arbitrarily aged 60-63, there were 775,971 people (2015 ABS) . This is a much smaller number than the potential house hunters in the 24-26 age bracket. Even then, people in their early 60s can expect another 20 years of life and will need their homes in the interim. Even if they left their houses there would still not be enough houses for the more numerous early 20s group. If one were to expect an imminent bonanza from the group 20 years older than the Baby Boomers, one would be disappointed because there are only 223,430 in a three year age bracket in their early 80s!

Where does demand for housing come from?

1. Emerging young adults needing housing away from the family home either as newly formed couples or other arrangements. The actual number depends on which age group is selected but it is a larger number than in the age brackets where downsizing or death are likely

2. Net overseas immigration – about 200,000 every year 3. Investment – local or overseas. 4. Holiday houses or units.

Of the investment properties, many of them will be available for rental. Although this does not help home ownership, at least it means, if rents are affordable, that people may be housed.

If foreign investment in Australian real estate were prohibited and net overseas migration reduced to levels say of the 1990s - 70,000 to 90,000 or lower, it would take extreme pressure off house prices. Then local young people might have a fighting chance of getting into the housing market. Young Australians who are now living at home with a parent or parents would get an opportunity to enter the market which would keep prices buoyant but not in the extreme.

Further demand for housing in Australia is surely waiting in the wings from people now sharing dwellings who would prefer less crowded arrangements. They would, in fact, become a new market for house sellers. The housing market would become more stable and gradually Australians could get used to a climate where a house was somewhere to live and not a speculative investment. The housing sector does not need to worry. If houses are on the cusp of affordable, I maintain there are local customers who will want to buy them or rent them. People would start to be able to exercise choices with respect to housing.

We are now in a dangerous cycle of price rises and of buyers, possibly in a defensive move, taking on enormous debt (relative to income) because they expect prices to go ever higher. A crash in prices would be wonderful for some and catastrophic for others, but I believe this situation can be avoided in Australia even with a significant cut to demand from overseas because of the age distribution of the population and the 'pent up' demand from young adults in the population.

Victorian voters could on Saturday 29 November begin to take back their state Parliament from the vested interests that are now running Victoria. If presented with open, informed discussion there is every reason to hope that a far larger proportion of Victorians than in previous years will vote for good independent or small party candidates and not for either of the two major parties.

The policies listed below are much of what I would like to see from the new Victorian government after 29 November. I believe that, if presented with the policies listed below, most Victorians would support them or, if not at first, would after open debate and discussion. So this document is intended to be guide to Victorians as to which of the candidates to vote for on 29 November, depending on the candidates' response to my survey, which I intend to publish here in coming days._{#fnVElec1" id="txtVElec1"> 1}

If you support these policies, and you know of a candidate in your electorate who also supports these polices, please consider offering to help him/her. Alternatively, if there is no candidate who supports these policies standing in your electorate or upper house region, the why not consider nominating yourself?_{#fnVElec2" id="txtVElec2"> 2}

The policies

More government participation in the economy

#VicElecPolicy1" id="VicElecPolicy1">1. No privatisation of any asset in which large numbers of Victorians have a stake, for example the Port of Melbourne._{#fnVElec3" id="txtVElec3"> 3} No privatisation of public buildings and public land. As the means to do so become available, reverse privatisations which have occurred since the time of the Kirner Labor Government in the early 1990's. Conduct a pubic audit of these privatisations.

#VicElecPolicy2" id="VicElecPolicy2">2. Expand the size of state government work force. The goal is for each Victorian who needs work to be offered work in a occupation which provides useful services to the community and which matches his/her interests and has on-the-job training and career structure. Private employers to be encouraged to do likewise.

#VicElecPolicy3" id="VicElecPolicy3">3. Public Bank of Victoria to be established. It is to be run like the Bank of North Dakota in accordance with the principles of the United States Public Banking Institute._{#fnVElec4" id="txtVElec4"> 4}

Full employment in secure and fulfilling occupations

#VicElecPolicy4" id="VicElecPolicy4">4. Oppose high immigration and dismantle the Live in Victoria website._{#fnVElec5" id="txtVElec5"> 5}

#VicElecPolicy5" id="VicElecPolicy5">5. No section 457 visas where there are local tradespersons. Employers must prove that they have attempted to train local workers before they are allowed to import new workers with 457 visas.

#VicElecPolicy6" id="VicElecPolicy6">6. Abolish sweat-shops in which illegal foreign workers are exploited. Employers found to have illegally exploited foreign workers in such factories to be prosecuted and jailed. Any public officer found to have been complicit in these sweatshops to also be prosecuted and jailed.

#VicElecPolicy7" id="VicElecPolicy7">7. Immediate reduction of working hours to 35 hours_{#fnVElec6" id="txtVElec6"> 6} with further reductions in the near future.

#VicElecPolicy8" id="VicElecPolicy8">8. Flexible part-time working hours to be offered to government workers who wish to work less than a full week's work._{#fnVElec7" id="txtVElec7"> 7} Private employers to be encouraged to do likewise.

#VicElecPolicy9" id="VicElecPolicy9">9. Create government enterprises to compete with private business. This will provide incentives for privately owned business better services and charge less._{#fnVElec8" id="txtVElec8"> 8} Government enterprises to include: real estate, funerals, car dealerships, equipment hire and land development.

#VicElecPolicy10" id="VicElecPolicy10">10. Re-build Australian manufacturing in Victoria._{#fnVElec9" id="txtVElec9"> 9} The government to plan the rebuilding of manufacturing with the private sector. Protective tariffs to be imposed to protect manufactured items as agreed to in the plan.

Effective town planning

#VicElecPolicy11" id="VicElecPolicy11">11. Reduction of commute times through better town planning and better public transport._{#fnVElec10" id="txtVElec10">10}

#VicElecPolicy12" id="VicElecPolicy12">12. End approval for high rise apartments._{#fnVElec11" id="txtVElec11">11} At most, allow medium density housing of heights of no more than 3 stories close to parkland, bushland, shops, schools and other amenities.

#VicElecPolicy13" id="VicElecPolicy13">13. Preserve spaces for community activities._{#fnVElec12" id="txtVElec12">12} Re-establish community spaces where they don't exist.

#VicElecPolicy14" id="VicElecPolicy14">14. Public liability insurance funding to be established for community events as done in NSW.

#VicElecPolicy15" id="VicElecPolicy15">15. Secure shelter to be provided as a right._{#fnVElec13" id="txtVElec13">13}

Reduce waste, make Victoria sustainable

#VicElecPolicy16" id="VicElecPolicy16">16. No over-packaging, demand effective recycling._{#fnVElec14" id="txtVElec14">14}

Computers, information technology and the Internet

#VicElecPolicy17" id="VicElecPolicy17">17. Free open source software_{#fnVElec15" id="txtVElec15">15} to be used in all government departments, statuary authorities, TAFE colleges and schools. Private companies and institutions to be encouraged to do likewise. The Victorian government to make generous financial contributions to the providers of open-source software.

#VicElecPolicy18" id="VicElecPolicy18">18. Establish a free social network on the Internet as an alternative to Facebook, Google and Twitter. That social network is to respect the privacy of its users and be free, transparently run and without commercial advertising._{#fnVElec16" id="txtVElec16">16}

Open Government

#VicElecPolicy19" id="VicElecPolicy19">19. End government secrecy._{#fnVElec17" id="txtVElec17">17}

#VicElecPolicy20" id="VicElecPolicy20">20. No "commercial in confidence" contracts_{#fnVElec18" id="txtVElec18">18}.

Consumer rights

#VicElecPolicy21" id="VicElecPolicy21">21. Outlaw built-in obsolescence. Manufacturers and importers of products with built-in obsolescence to be prosecuted._{#fnVElec19" id="txtVElec19">19}

#VicElecPolicy22" id="VicElecPolicy22">22. Encourage food self-sufficiency. Wherever possible, make land available to local communities so that they can emulate extant local initiatives such as Down's Estate at Seaford Wetlands. Available members of the Down's Estate group and others with expertise to be hired by the government to instruct other communities.

Biodiversity protection and respect for other species

#VicElecPolicy23" id="VicElecPolicy23">23. Preserve remaining native flora and fauna. Re-vegetate urban areas to provide additional living space for endangered wildlife.

#VicElecPolicy24" id="VicElecPolicy24">24. Avoid disturbance of established wildlife populations so that their social organisation and local biofeedback is preserved since this will tend to regulate their population in line with territorial and migratory rules

#VicElecPolicy25" id="VicElecPolicy25">25. Outlaw the harassment of possums, such as the banding of palm trees with bands of steel by the St Kilda Council to prevent possums being able to climb the trees.

#VicElecPolicy26" id="VicElecPolicy26">26. Protect wildlife with strategic underpasses and overpasses on freeways. To protect wildlife, these are to be mandatory on all new roads and retrofitted to older roads within 10 km of green spaces in order to maintain migratory pathways.

Improving the health of Ordinary Victorians

#VicElecPolicy27" id="VicElecPolicy27">27. Fund research to determine if processed food
bought from food retailers is harmful to our health_{#fnVElec20" id="txtVElec20">20}

#VicElecPolicy28" id="VicElecPolicy28">28. Government employees to share office duties with outside manual workers to remove health hazards caused by long hours of physical inactivity_{#fnVElec21" id="txtVElec21">21}, Private employers to be encouraged to do the same for their workers.

Protection of civil liberties, freedom of speech

#VicElecPolicy29" id="VicElecPolicy29">29. Outlaw indiscriminate telecommunications surveillance_{#fnVElec22" id="txtVElec22">22} of Victorians as revealed by Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and others.

#VicElecPolicy30" id="VicElecPolicy30">30. Acknowledge the debt of gratitude that the Victorian people owe to fellow Victorian Julian Assange and protect him from unjust persecution._{#fnVElec23" id="txtVElec23">23}

#VicElecPolicy31" id="VicElecPolicy31">31. Acknowledge the debt of gratitude that the Victorian people owe to Edward Snowden._{#fnVElec24" id="txtVElec24">24}

About the author

I stood in the 2009 Queensland state treasurer in the seat of Mount Coot-tha against then Treasurer Andrew Fraser. (prior to that on 15 March 2008, I had also stood against the current Queensland Premier Campbell Newman for Lord Mayor of Brisbane.) Articles about that election and my campaign can be found here. The reason I stood was I wanted to stop the further privatisation of Queensland's public assets which had started under the previous premier Peter Beattie. Amongst other assests Beattie privatised the State Government Insurance (SGIO - as it was then know, it is now known as 'Suncorp') and the Golden Casket lottery corpration, neither with any electoral mandate. I feared that then Premier Anna Bligh planned to privatise more public assets and that no other candidate was going to raise the issue. Sadly, I was right about both concerns (although one member of the Queensland, Dorothy Pratt, the independent member for Nanango until she retired in 2012 spoke, in Parliament against privatisation).

Whilst the Greens had stated their opposition to privatisation, they did not raise that issue during the election campaign as far as I was aware. Had they done so, they would almost certainly have a received a much better vote and considerably improved the prospects for success of the subsequent campaign against privatisation.

After the election Queensland Premier Anna Bligh claimed that she had suddenly discovered that debts owed by the Queensland Government and that necessary public expenditure on government programs made privatisation of a number of assets necessary. These assets included:

• Queensland Motorways Limited (Operating the Gateway Bridge and Logan Motorway tolling systems);
• The Port of Brisbane Authority;
• Forestry Plantations Queensland;
• Abbot Point Coal Terminal; and
• Coal carrying rail lines, currently owned by Queensland Rail (QR Passenger services will remain nationalised).

Sadly, I had been injured almost fatally on 10 May 2010, when a four wheel drive ran into me on my bicycle on my way to work. I was lucky not to be killed. My brain was concussed and I suffered #js">diffuse axonal brain damage. Consequently I am not able to work as effectively as I once could (although people tell me that my intellect, if not my memory, coordination and stamina, is about as good as it was before my injury).

Because I was disabled, I was not able to stand in the Australian Federal Elections of 21 August 2010 and the Queensland state elections of 24 March 2012. If I had, I would surely have got a much higher vote in both.

As a result of public outrage at Premier Bligh's asset sell-off, the Labor Party was routed by Liberal/National leader Campbell Newman in the 2012 state elections. Since then, contrary to the clear wishes of Queenslanders, Queensland Premier Campbell Newman is now proceeding with his own program of yet more privatisations.

This sad experience demonstrates that neither of the major parties offer any real alternative to voters, who will have to find an alternative elsewhere.

Footnotes

Planning Minister Matthew Guy has told the Surf Coast Shire Council that ''ministerial amendment'' to planning controls for the land is warranted to ''respond to the urgent need to address housing affordability....and proactively manage growth for Torquay-Jan Juc''.  In other words, the Surf Coast Shire Council must cave into State government demands, or they will be forced to!  ("proactively"!)    It will become another ubiquitous part of Melbourne's sprawling housing estates.  It's an attack on democracy, public opinion, and is ecologically destructive.

Matthew Guy's Ministerial Amendment to override Torquay Council

Mr Guy has told the Surf Coast Shire Council that ''ministerial amendment'' to planning controls for the land is warranted to ''respond to the urgent need to address housing affordability, facilitate the establishment of new schools, and proactively manage growth for Torquay-Jan Juc''.  In other words, the Surf Coast Shire Council must cave into State government demands, or they will be forced to!  ("proactively"!)    It will become another ubiquitous part of Melbourne's sprawling housing estates.  It's an attack on democracy, public opinion, and is ecologically destructive.

Mr Guy plans to rezone about 240 hectares of farmland west of Torquay for housing. The council estimates the land near Spring Creek could provide 1900 new homes with an expected population of 4500 people.

Releasing land from agriculture is short-term foolishness when we in Australia have only 6% arable land, and will be harder to produce food without artificial fertilizers. Mr Guy's feigned concern about providing “afffordable housing” is all spin, and something that nobody could argue about. However, it's all deliberately manipulated so that population growth will continually outstrip available housing, and land.

This takeover of land, and the land rezoning process in Torquay is not about being sustainable or ecologically sound.  Developments will mean bulldozing farmland and sensitive coastal areas.  It's about more urban sprawl, something that the Liberals said they would curb.

2008 Torquay's growth planned

(Sunset at Torquay - there are some places that should be reserved for special occasions such as reflection, holidays and recreation- not for everyday living!)
The pressures for coastal development are increasing, with the number of applications for consent under the Act increasing by 32 % since 2003/04

A draft urban development plan for up to
6400 houses on a 600-hectare site west of Torquay, known as Spring Creek, has ignited a furious local response, with more than 1000 submissions sent to the Surf Coast Shire.

The plan could mean that Torquay more than double in size, with 14,000 residents moving in to the development area in the next 20 to 30 years.

All these submissions and objections are simply so that planners can tick the box “public consultation” and do what they like!

Growth outstrips schools

Back in April this year, the government with its election promise to build a new $20 million secondary college at Torquay North - said the plan to convert the existing school into a prep-to-year six school would go ahead despite public opinion to the contrary. Without a second primary school, Torquay College would swell to about 1300 students by 2015, leading to overcrowding, traffic congestion and a lack of playgrounds.

A housing development at North Torquay was expected to attract another 14,000 people to the area.

2009 Submissions dismissed

The council received 2843 submissions on the Spring Creek Urban Growth Framework Plan, with only about 20 in support. As each councillor rose to reject the plan the crowd burst into applause. The Surf Coast Shire voted overwhelmingly to reject the proposal covering 600 hectares west of Torquay and to review future development policy.

Surf Coast Mayor Libby Mears said that
residents were concerned about how their quality of life and amenity would be affected by Torquay's growth. As a growth area, rates would inevitably increase to pay for the extra services needed to be delivered, and the infrastructure for swelling numbers of people.

Our coastlines are valuable

People enjoy our coastlines for their intrinsic and recreational value.   This is an example of a government bereft of economic and productive ideas.  Grabbing land, and developing it, brings short-term profits, but long term implication and destruction.  Any "vacant" land is now under threat.    Without housing or other structures, it will be vyed for "development", for economic short-term gain.   

This is not a nimby issue, but one for the greater community of Melbourne, and Victoria.  There is no end to urban sprawl and land grabs while our population is being pumped up continually.   The housing and land "shortages" will never be solved while our government take the easy route to economic growth - via population growth. 

Torquay has been a popular destination for day-trippers and sight-seeing and picnics from the days of Cobb and Co in the 1800s.

It is thought that the Wathaurung Aborigines occupied the area prior to European settlement. Picnickers began to frequent the spot from the 1860s. When the first land was sold in the mid-1880s the locality was known to Europeans as Spring Creek,

It will become a generic sea of roofs, housing estates and towers, thanks to successive State Government “planning” regimes! Plans for overdevelopment along Spring Creek in Torquay could lead to multiple sets of traffic lights along the first 2 kms of the Great Ocean Road! This will kill tourism and destroy any sense of community residents have in Jan Juc/Torquay and Bellbrae.

Environmental Threats of developments

Invasive weeds as the greatest threat to the coast's natural values - dwarfing all other biodiversity management issues combined -and developments will bring more people to the area, more weeks, more traffic and threats to coastal birds and marine wildlife. 

The Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) Nature Conservation Review: Marine Conservation Priorities and Issue for Victoria.   (April 2010)
Development and urbanisation is a major threat to intertidal and coastal environments. 

Subdivision and urbanization of coastal areas is increasing in accordance with population growth. This is largely occurring around the fringes of existing coastal towns. An immediate consequence has been the reduction of coastal vegetation communities, however there are also direct implications for water quality (storm water, commercial wastes and sewage) and visitation to shore habitats.

Shipping transport tonnage is continually increasing, in accordance with population and economic growth. Some of the increase in international shipping may be negated through the use of bigger vessels. Associated threatening processes include oil spills, groundings, litter/rubbish and effluent dumping at sea, translocation of marine pests and release of toxic antifouling substances, including tributyl tin. Higher density shipping lanes are within Port Phillip Bay, as well as between Port Phillip Heads and Cape Otway, Wilsons Promontory and northern Tasmania.
With our manufacturing industries largely gone overseas, Victoria depends on service industries and commerce. It means we rely heavily on imports, and shipping goods via shipping.

Marine pests and climate change have the potential to catastrophically impact marine and coastal values in the future.  As human populations increase in coastal areas, coastal vegetation is under increasing pressure from urban sprawl, coast developments, weed invasion, disease, ecreational activities and changing fire regimes. Many habitats have become highly fragmented and some, such as coastal moonah woodland, exist only in a small portion of their pre- settlement range.

The economic model based on perpetual and destructive growth

With priorities based on cash-flow and immediate economic benefits, the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience, social relations, and aesthetic values are being denied and destroyed.

While our economic growth is based on population growth, the wave of land takeovers will destroy Victoria's precious Great Ocean Road coastlines - all justified under the smokescreen of the need for "affordable housing" - something that our government could easily solve if they stopped pumping up our population! 

An economy based on a reliance on population growth is totally flawed, environmentally destructive, economically and ecologically unsustainable and fatalistic.

(Torquay surf beach - the way it should be)