overdevelopment

A University of Queensland-led international study released today reports catastrophic declines in wilderness areas around the world over the past 20 years. UQ School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management and Wildlife Conservation Society in New York researcher Associate Professor James Watson said findings demonstrated alarming losses comprising a 10th of global wilderness since the 1990s. The report discovered that a total of 30.1 million km2 (or 23.2% of terrestrial areas) of the world’s land area now remains as wilderness, with the majority located in North America, North Asia, North Africa, and the Australian continent. An estimated 3.3 million km2 has been lost since the early 1990s (approximately a 9.6% loss in two decades, with the most loss occurring in South America (experiencing 29.6% loss) and Africa (experiencing 14% loss). [1]

Environmentalists are right that things are getting worse

A University of Queensland-led international study released today reports catastrophic declines in wilderness areas around the world over the past 20 years.

UQ School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management and Wildlife Conservation Society in New York researcher Associate Professor James Watson said findings demonstrated alarming losses comprising a 10th of global wilderness since the 1990s. These findings are published in Watson et al., Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets, Current Biolog.
y(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049

In his press release, Professor Watson noted that the Amazon and Central Africa were hardest hit.

But the paper shows that in Australia, one of the three countries with the most remaining wilderness left. "Australian rangeland and desert ecosystems, the ecological influence of large spatial-scale surface-groundwater hydrological dynamics is pervasive, and losses in one area can degrade habitat quality elsewhere, with significant, long-term implications for biodiversity."[2]

“The findings underscore an immediate need for international policies to recognise the value of wilderness and to address the unprecedented threats it faces,” Dr Watson said.

“Globally important wilderness areas are completely ignored in environmental policy,   despite being strongholds for endangered biodiversity, for buffering and regulating local climates, and for supporting many of the world’s most politically and economically marginalised communities..

“International policy mechanisms must recognise the actions needed to maintain wilderness areas before it is too late. We probably have one to two decades to turn this around.”

Dr Watson said much policy attention had been paid to the loss of species, but comparatively little was known about larger-scale losses of entire ecosystems.

The researchers mapped wilderness areas around the globe, with “wilderness” defined as biologically and ecologically intact landscapes free of significant human disturbance.

They compared their map of wilderness to one produced by the same means in the early 1990s.

The updated map shows a total of 30.1 million km² (more than 20 per cent of the world’s land area) remains as wilderness, with the majority in North America, North Asia, North Africa, and Australia.

Comparisons between the two maps showed an estimated 3.3 million km² (almost 10 per cent) of wilderness area had been lost since the early 1990s, with a 30 per cent wilderness loss in  South America and a 14 per cent loss in Africa.

“The amount of wilderness loss in just two decades is staggering and very saddening,” Dr Watson said.

“We need to recognise that wilderness is being dramatically lost and that without proactive global interventions we could lose the last jewels in nature’s crown.

“You cannot restore wilderness. Once it is gone, the ecological process that underpins these ecosystems are gone, and it never comes back to the state it was.

“The only option is to proactively protect what is left.”

Dr Watson said the United Nations and others had ignored globally significant wilderness areas in key multilateral environmental agreements, but that had to change.

“If we don't act soon, it will be all gone, and this is a disaster for conservation, for climate change, and for some of the most vulnerable human communities on the planet,” Dr Watson said.

“We have a duty to act for our children and their children.”

The research, Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets, is published today in Current Biology.

It involved  UQ PhD candidate James Allan and UQ School of Biological Sciences honorary researcher Oscar Venter.  

Click here to view a PDF of the paper proof and supplemental information including multimedia, an infographic and video.: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b9yaahssd8jt716/AAAfuEHjDttN0Cwe3CN69c9ha?dl=0 

NOTES

[1] Watson et al., Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets, Current Biolog.
y(2016), , p.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049.
[2] Op Cit. p.3

Why has a Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group Member been vilified as racist and sexist and harassed with threats of expulsion for sticking up for our wildlife against needless rapid population growth? Read what Geoff Dowsett wrote and the response he got from candidate Tamara Ryan (included in the article).

This is what he wrote, asking Greens to circularise Greens candidates:

GEOFF:"As a candidate for John Kaye's Upper House seat how about a strong statement and policy improvement suggestion from you to address the desperate need to stabilise Australia`s population growth? The current "economic"---middle class so called skilled (non refugee) immigration rate of 500,000 per year including 457 Visa (a world record high intake) is not sustainable. Sydney's population is growing by 83,000 net pa under the Liberal Govt's Immigration scam. It is causing excessive impact on inadequate infrastructure-impact on natural eco-systems through urban growth and consumer demand. Increased traffic congestion in our major cities - sky rocketing housing prices. Of course the immigration rate is just what big business wants particularly the housing industry while our quality of life, natural environment and urban environment goes down the gurgler. The immigration rate is also closely linked with the insane growth economy which is addicted to continuing growth in consumption. It is HYPOCRISY of the Greens to have a policy of sustainable economy without a policy for a substantial reduction in immigration. Priority should be humanitarian i.e. for political and environmental refugees NOT wealthy middle class business migrants. When will the Greens members such as yourself bite the bullet on population ? I won't vote for you unless you make a statement indicating a clear commitment to reducing Turnbull's excessive Immigration and 457 Visa intake."(Geoff Dowsett. Member. Hornsby Kuringai Greens. Population/Sustainability Working Group Member. Statement above does not represent the views of all of the working group.)

What do you think of this response?

TAMARA: "Geoff. I understand your membership is being collectively reconsidered for your frequent racist and sexist comments like these Jeff. Your views on climate action via controlling immigration have no place in this party.represent the Environment

I don't care about your vote, but I do care fiercely about advocating for women's autonomy over their bodies, rejecting racism and opening borders. Capitalist structures that promote continuous growth and waste by corporations and governments are responsible for stifling efforts on climate change, not people seeking a place and way to live.

Read more here if you would like some more education on this :) 　Neoliberalism Poisoned Climate Action And Renewables Are The Antidote (2/8/2016) Mew Matilda

Tamara Ryan Candidate

The implied accusation of sexism seemed to be linked to some idea that Geoff was trying to interfere with women's rights to control their bodies. I cannot see anywhere where Geoff suggests this should happen. I also cannot see any reference to race in what Geoff wrote. Tamara makes gestures of support for the unemployed and working class, but for some reason, she doesn't seem to mind the super-rich being imported in hundreds of thousands to Australia as planned invited economic immigrants. Or does she have no idea of the actual numbers and how they are chosen? Does she think all immigrants are actually refugees? Tamara seems to be in favour of completely open borders, not just humane treatment of refugees: "Close the camps, open the borders, free all refugees." (https://www.facebook.com/RefugeesSurvivorsAndExdetainees/videos/1215228178517319/)

Is Open Borders official Greens policy now?

Ms Ryan's unpleasant response to Mr Dowsett seems sexist itself, with an unfounded slur of 'racism', and an implied threat about his membership of The Greens being 'collectively reconsidered'. This is not the only time I have heard of Greens members in population working groups being intimidated, for I have suffered by it personally.

Personal experience

As a committee member of Prosper Australia, around the time of the formation of its ‘green’ Earthsharing brand, I personally experienced, with another committee member, similar treatment from a cluster of new members, vocally hostile about our affiliation with Sustainable Population Australia (SPA). This hostility manifested as a very threatening warning from one of them following a small rally of oddly assorted pro- lifers and claimants to be refugee advocates outside a perfectly innocent but important public meeting on democracy in Australia which we as members of SPA were holding at the premises of Prosper with the blessing of the Prosper committee. As it transpired, our treatment was part of a hostile takeover by Socialist Alliance members of the comparatively wealthy NGO. We had to leave. Some of these people later have thrown their weight about in the Greens on population issues.

I later joined my local Greens, far away from Prosper, but at the mention of population, (myself and) another member (an immigrant from Cairo whom I had only met in that branch) and I were sent to Coventry by a then recent blow-in from the Labour Party, who took over the management of that branch of the Greens email list. No-one now would dare discuss the obvious problem of high immigration, with its huge contribution to high population growth, and the impact on wildlife and the green wedges of expanding suburbs.

Here is someone else’s experience

A few years ago I heard the following tale, which has now been written down for the record:

"This is my recollection of working with a team within the Greens on revising the Population Policy. At that time many of the Greens’ polices were being reviewed by working groups. About eight of us met several times in the city after work to focus on the policy and to improve it.

As I recall there was little or no friction or disagreement within the group on any of the points. We were all focused on sustainability and environment and did our best to reflect this in the alterations to the then policy. This work resulted in a document noting changes on which we all agreed. As I understand , this document was sent to Adelaide for a committee to consider it. As I understand, also, it was rejected completely as it had too many amendments from the original policy. That is what I was told.

Some time after this I was also told that at a large, possibly national Greens gathering or convention in Carlton, that when the issue of population came up, there were very loud intimidating aggressive voices raised to silence anyone who wanted to wade in on the topic. One of the people who had been part of the working group emailed the rest of us after attending this event, saying that he had no further wish to pursue this any further in view of the threatening tone of these people at the meeting. I never heard from this person again and the working group effectively dissolved at that point."

Greens Crucible

[New video version here since last one taken off-line.]

Such censorship and bullying control by people dominating in a group reminds me of Arthur Miller's The Crucible, a play about witch trials in 17th century America. It is a play which has often been studied by high school students with the glaring lesson that free speech can be snuffed out by irrational alliances within the dominant doctrine. It sometimes seems as though the Greens are increasingly defined by people who have taken the role of Puritans accusing anyone they disagree with of witchcraft, except they accuse them of sexism and racism, where none exists. But the implications are similarly terrible, in that they are designed to stigmatise, ostracise, and disempower those they target, thereby silencing their views. In Miller’s Crucible the accusers were themselves guilty of playing at sorcery. They became fearful of being denounced themselves as sinners, and defend themselves by accusing others of attempting to bewitch them.

If this is so then The Greens have gone down a blind alley and philosophically seem to have reached a dead end. What are they about if they cannot tackle the main threat to “green-ness”, environmental sustainability and conservation of nature and wildlife, which is human population numbers in situ?

What are the elders in the Greens doing about the stifling of discussion within the ranks of the party? What do they think of the association between their members, so-called socialist groups and the violent Antifa, who are paid to riot?[1] [No insult intended here to real socialists or anarchists.] They seem to be standing back or even approving while the intimidation grows. [2] Are they in fact also the product of unexamined ideology? Do they agree with its effects, which are to keep Australian political debate confused and unrepresentative, bogged down in imagined racism and sexism (while real racism and sexism continue) and overpopulation and overdevelopment turn our environment into concrete. Are they all globalists? Do they really agree with massive, developed, urbanized import-export economies which destroy the diversity of hunter-gatherers, herders, tribes and nations for this?

What can people who really are environmentalists do when the party that bears their flag provides cover for materialistic land-speculating nature-destroying neoliberalism for which population-dependent economic growth at all costs is God? What can they do about the growing violence and intimidation in the Greens?

NOTES

[1] Internationally: Wrong kind of green.

[2] https://newmatilda.com/2016/02/29/far-right-group-accidentally-confuses-greens-senator-with-random-vaguely-similar-looking-woman/

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/greens-show-their-true-colours-are-a-shade-darker-than-theyd-have-you-believe/news-story/f434f2265f775b5e8016beb21723c024

Mercurius Goldstein is a current candidate for the Legislative Council Preselection in New South Wales. Because overpopulation via mass planned invited economic immigration is a very big concern in Australia, and people wonder why the Greens downplay or even suppress this concern, we have published Goldstein's views on population numbers with an analysis by Jane O'Sullivan.

Mercurious Goldstein's views on population [1]

"Briefly I believe that:

1) Anyone who isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally, isn’t serious about population.
2) Anyone who isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world, isn’t serious about population.
3) Anyone who isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture such as the Greens NSW policy in this area, isn’t serious about population.
I think it’s obscene that we live in a world where lumps of coal, new cars, or live sheep, can more readily cross borders than human beings.

The liberty of people can be arbitrarily denied and they can be indefinitely detained and abused by governments, but we are told we must not restrict the flow of fossil fuels, live animals in misery ships, or any form of cross-border corporate power. That’s the “logic” of neoliberalism, and we need to dismantle it.

I hope the above can serve as a general response to the question."

Jane O'Sullivan's analysis

This is a very interesting response, in a population-denialist psychology sense.

Before looking at the substance of what he is saying, the tone is aggressively condescending. It reads as a put-down to the people raising the population issue.

It uses the same rhetorical device that the Greens' population policy by-line uses: appearing to introduce balance between population and other factors, while actually deflecting and belittling any attention to population.

(That policy by-line says, “Environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live.” It does not say, "Environmental impact is not determined by consumption patterns alone, but also by our population numbers." The wording the Greens have chosen might be argued to be saying the same thing, but actually it is falsely accusing those who raise the population issue of claiming it is the sole determinant of environmental impact, at the same time it completely dismisses population by failing to include the word "also" in the final clause.)

Mercurius' three points use the same trick of reversing the points. It makes it look at first glance as if he is "serious about population" - indeed, more so than all those shallow, naive people who raise the population issue, because they, by implication, don't put sufficient weight on equality, carbon emissions or sustainable agriculture. His logic seems to be that if you are not way too busy pursuing equality, renewable energy or sustainable agriculture to even think about population, then you're not "serious about population".

Of course, he's not serious about population at all. He doesn't seem to have any awareness of the issues, other than that the people raising it often want to reduce immigration and therefore they are evil and dangerous in his view. He does seem to be serious about silencing the population issue within the Greens agenda. That's what this statement is designed to do. He hopes "the above can serve as a general response to the question." It doesn't "serve" as anything, it just deflects the issue.

To illustrate, would it be acceptable to anyone, if the Greens said "Anyone who isn't serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy isn't serious about equality"? Would people really accept that these issues are linked to the extent that we shouldn't actually do or say anything about equality until we have achieved a carbon-neutral economy? Of course not. We can and must do both at once. But apparently not when it comes to "population".

However, it would be entirely valid to say:

1) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally. (The fact is, family planning programs, through both their direct impact on changing attitudes toward women and their role, and by reducing the burdens of childrearing and the crowding of schools through population growth, has enabled far greater empowerment and education for women than any non-family-planning agenda to help women in high-fertility countries.)

2) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world. (Do I need to explain this one?)

3) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture. (Regardless of whatever the Greens NSW policy in this area is, agriculture can't be indefinitely intensified to feed indefinitely more people - and its further intensification comes with greater environmental costs.)

Sheila [Newman] asks [2] "Are the Greens actually an open-borders party?" Certainly, there are quite a few Greens members who appear to support open borders. There are a great many more who wouldn't actually support open borders if they thought a lot of people would use them, but delude themselves into thinking that the refugee inflow will remain a mere trickle, and the economic migrants will continue to be only those we really need to fill skills shortages (as if they ever were), even if we let anyone come and stay for ever and access our welfare system if that's what they want to do. Such nonsensical beliefs are cultivated by ensuring that there can be no open and honest discussion about the implications of "open borders".

To emulate Mercurius,
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about democracy.
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about protecting the environment.
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about indigenous rights;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about housing affordability and homelessness;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about a welfare safety-net;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about decent pay and secure jobs.

Perhaps these statements could be taken as "hypotheses" which the Greens should either disprove, or openly distance themselves from advocating open borders. That means, they have to actually come up with workable policies on immigration, not just heap scorn on the government's position.

NOTES

[1] The context of statement from Mercurius Goldstein is explained in this email: On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Geoff at Eco Bushwalks Sydney wrote: I received this email below the dotted line today from the candidate. It was as you can see addressed to the group via me. [...]"
.................................................................................................

[...]
As you may be aware, I am currently a candidate for the Legislative Council Preselection that is being run.

For the information of members of the group, could I please ask for this opportunity to share my views on population?
I was asked about population recently in another forum, and this is the answer I gave then, and it remains my view.
I have also cc:'d a couple of other GNSW members for whom this matter may be of interest.

Briefly I believe that:

1) Anyone who isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally, isn’t serious about population.
2) Anyone who isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world, isn’t serious about population.
3) Anyone who isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture such as the Greens NSW policy in this area, isn’t serious about population.
I think it’s obscene that we live in a world where lumps of coal, new cars, or live sheep, can more readily cross borders than human beings.

The liberty of people can be arbitrarily denied and they can be indefinitely detained and abused by governments, but we are told we must not restrict the flow of fossil fuels, live animals in misery ships, or any form of cross-border corporate power. That’s the “logic” of neoliberalism, and we need to dismantle it.
I hope the above can serve as a general response to the question.
---
With thanks for your consideration,
Yours sincerely,

MERCURIUS GOLDSTEIN
New England Greens (Glen Innes Region)
I live and work on Ngarrabul land and pay my respects to Elders past and present.

[2] Sheila Newman (Researcher and editor of candobetter.net in correspondence with Geoff Dowsett about Mercurius Goldstein's statement) wrote: "Is this guy a globalist? Does he agree with massive import export economies and with destroying the diversity of hunter-gatherers, herders, tribes and nations for this? What is his timeline for educating all women and how does he reconcile this with the problem of suburbs being built over our bushland and the rights of other species? Are the Greens actually an open-borders party?"

[a] Due to a garbled email, I erroneously gained the impression that Mercurius was the convenor of a population working party in the Greens, but he is not.

Victoria Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.

The Council’s intention is to:

sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.

In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.

Dear Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. members and friends

Here is a message from the Friends of the Queen Victoria Market. (PPL VIC is a great supporter) "You are invited to a meeting which is about building a community campaign with market traders, its customers, the wider community and the NUW (National Union of Workers) to protect the Vic Market, its people and its history. See https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket. where you will find the flier and good background on the issues. The Friends of QVM Facebook page is a community page and everyone who is interested is welcome."

Meeting details are:

Date & time: Wednesday 20 July at 10.30am
Venue: Victorian Trades Hall Council Chambers, Cnr Lygon and Victoria Streets, Carlton
Location: Melways ref: Map 2B F12, Trams along Victoria and Swanston Sts, Buses along Lygon & Swanston Streets
Contact: Mary-Lou Howie M 0401 811 893
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket

The message from Friends of QVM continues: Just in case you don’t follow the Friends of Queen Victoria Market Facebook page which I co- author and now has a huge following, the Vic Market traders and supporters are having a big meeting at Trades Hall this Wednesday at 10:30 am.

As you must be aware, the Vic Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.

The Council’s intention is to:

sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.

In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.

The Lord Mayor has said this is the largest project ever undertaken by the City of Melbourne and an implementation strategy is now in place, yet no comprehensive plans detailing what is to be implemented has ever been revealed to the public.

Friends of Queen Victoria Market have a healthy readership of around 2,000 - 5,000+ people who want the market to continue as a sustainable, functioning shopping space for all people in Melbourne. We support revitalisation of the market and believe in proper independent consultation that leads to appropriate change, always mindful of QVM’s history, heritage and importance to our community.

If you are available, I would love to see you at Trades Hall on Wednesday. Cheers, Mary-Lou Howie M: 0401 811 893

Circulated by Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.PO Box 197 Parkville 3052 Mobile 0408022408

The OpenAustralia Foundation, the charity that runs a more accessible Hansard, has made an announcement about the progress of its Planning Alerts service. This is a free and community commons service. It gives citizens some ability to keep up with what the developers and mum and dad subdividers are up to. This, in turn, will give ordinary citizens and residents more insight into the impact of population growth, more information to make political decisions, and more control over its rapid creep.

PlanningAlerts makes it easy to impact what happens to your local buildings, parks, streets, and infrastructure. Over the last 7 years almost 40,000 people have signed up for alerts and thousands of you have made official comments on development applications for everyone to see.

But there are more ways to impact what gets built and knocked down. There are people at the council whose job is to understand their community and advocate for people like you who care about it. These people are your local councillors and they work for you.

If you want to help shape how your community changes then these are great people to talk to. They can make sure you’re heard at council meetings, find and request information for you, help you organise locals around the issues that matter, and much more. These are powerful ways to have a direct impact—but working with your councillors hasn’t been part of PlanningAlerts … until now.

Start a conversation

You can now easily ask your local councillors about a development application you care about in PlanningAlerts. This is a new feature that we’ve worked hard to make as simple as possible for you.

People living in over 70 council areas around Australia will now see an option to write to their local councillors in PlanningAlerts. Since we switched this feature on, dozens of people have used it and councillors from across Australia have responded.

Lots of people do currently write to local councillors about planning, but these conversations all happen in private.

In PlanningAlerts the full exchange is public. You can share and discuss what is (or isn’t) said, and hold the people you’ve elected responsible for their action. Everyone can benefit from your questions and the work councillors do to respond. People who’ve never taken the step to make contact themselves can see how easy it is and how helpful councillors can be.

A handful of brilliant volunteers have collected councillors’ contact details for 70 of the 150 councils in PlanningAlerts (thank you Pip, Daniel and Katska!). Let us know if your council is missing and we’ll prioritise making this new feature available to you. If you’d like to help collect local councillor information, please contact us—we’d love your help to make this available to everyone.

Now it’s time to put your councillors to work for you through PlanningAlerts.

Thanks for your support

The PlanningAlerts Team,
OpenAustralia Foundation

–

OpenAustralia Foundation

The proposed solution for bandicoots (SBB) in the Botanic Ridge and Devon Meadows urban development area has a number of problems. Bandicoots are expected to cross extremely busy roads via inadequate corridors. I ask, "Would it not just be so much more cost effective to simply exchange SBB’s from the RBGC to the Pines and from the Pines to the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne? (RBGC)"

The Department of Environment, Land,Water and Planning (DELWP) believes that 30m wide corridors for SBB’s to other areas will compensate for the loss of habitat and lack of contact with other bandicoots . This is my response.

The corridor from the RBGC to the Pines is about 8 km long and has to cross Pearsdale Rd, Cranbourne-Frankston Rd, the extremely wide Western Port HWY (double road), Potts Rd and McClellend Drive in order to lead into the Pines and this reserve needs to be fenced in with a predator-proof fence and no dog walking allowed in the reserve.

Road crossings are not only costly but also create bottle necks and it is every ones guess how SBB’s can cope with the extremely wide Western Port HWY underpass alone.

Four to six times a year of fox baiting on both sides of the corridor on an ongoing basis is not only extremely expensive but there is no guarantee that it will be successful.

There is also the need for a fence on both sides of the corridors in order to guide the SBB’s to where they are expected to go.

A further question is whether the whole length of this corridor can be properly provided with suitable vegetation.

If one walked the whole length of it there would be surely some more difficulties encountered. A Population Viability Assessment would surely cause laughter at all of this.

And what about the yet unspecified and prohibitive costs involved?

Would it not just be so much more cost effective to simply exchange SBB’s from the RBGC to the Pines and from the Pines to the RBGC?

Further more, such an extremely narrow and long corridor is still untested and there is definitely no proof that it will work. SBB’s deserve much better than this and need to be treated with dignity in large reserves.

The corridor from the RBGC to the Western Port Bay is also an extremely narrow corridor and is about 10 km long and has to cross Browns Rd, North RD, Smith Lane, Baxter-Tyabb Rd and many more smaller roads and finishes up at nowhere in particular near Western Port Bay. It encounters the same extreme difficulties as the corridor above.

The rest of the proposed corridors will surely encounter very similar problems.

This nationally endangered species needs to be properly protected within large reserves and protected within a predator proof fence, rather than to try to condemn them into these corridors.

Entirely predictably, the Murray Darling river system is toxic with effluent again, host to masses of poisonous cyanobacteria. As the Weekly Times reports, "WATER will be switched off to hundreds of farmers and town residents in the Mallee this week as the Murray River blue-green algae emergency worsens. The toxic outbreak now involves almost 500km of the Murray River and has claimed reservoirs, rivers, wetlands and parts of Victoria’s two biggest irrigation districts. Taps were turned off to towns and farms in parts of the southern Mallee late Friday when the algal bloom reached key Wimmera Mallee pipeline pumps near Swan Hill, catching most residents unaware. Experts said a record autumn heatwave, with temperatures soaring above 40C in northwest Victoria this week, was expected to grow the algal bloom until it choked almost all of the Murray River along the NSW-­Victoria border within weeks."[1] But these problems have been known for so long now, it seems foolish to believe that we can hope for any resolution that would keep the vast Australian desert from claiming on our only major inland river system. Certainly we should not meddle with the northern river systems, but unfortunately our psychopathic leaders have already started.

People have asked me to republish a letter written in 1937 about this very problem. I have done so below, but if you really want to understand the horror of this phenomenon, get hold of a copy of Rodney Barker's tale of a scientist trying to blow the whistle on the pfisteria infestation on the Mississipi in the mid 1990s and probably still today. There and here it is the product of too much fertiliser and effluent going into too little water. This is among the best pieces of science writing I have ever read. The life-forms that toxic algae take and their ability to affect the nervous systems of animals large and small - notably humans and baby humans - outdoes the monster from the Black Lagoon and is very very real and very little recognised.

Russell Grimwade urges National Awakening in 1937 - but we are sleeping even more deeply today

Letter to the editor of the Argus Newspaper, 6 February 1937: Sir. - Your leading article "Nature Takes Revenge" in the Issue of Saturday is a valuable history of man's expansion to the outer continents from Europe. It states the basic laws under which man is allowed by Nature to add to his wealth and comfort. It also states the inevitable disaster that follows the contravention of these laws. The final sentence leaves the way open for constructive action in a manner which impels me to contribute a suggestion for the urgent consideration of my fellow Australians.

This isolated continent is the most recent of the earth's land masses to suffer the occupancy of civilised man. It is undeniable that in the century and a half that we and our antecedents have been here we have made a success of it - if success be measured by material and social progress. It is also undeniable that we have a duty to leave our
successors as good or a better land than we have enjoyed. If we do not learn by the mistakes that time is now revealing in other countries we are falling in our trust. The repeated stories of floods and disaster that come to us from .America are clear evidence of the errors of the systems of occupation of a few centuries ago. Are we yet taking action
to avoid those mistakes?

There is ample evidence that we are not.

Erosion, flood, and soil drift are three terrors alone that we are beginning to experience in the same way as other countries of comparatively recent settlement. To avoid these disasters, are we taking all the action possible that trained men recommend?

It is a sad fact that we are not.

There has been a remarkable growth this century in the universal education of our people in regard to the value and functions of trees and forests. But it is incomplete, and has not yet led to the necessary political action to safeguard the future.

Do Australians realise what uncontrolled settlement has done to their great river, the Murray?

Ninety years ago 51 per cent of its annual flow came down in winter months and 49 per cent in summer. Today 76 per cent is winter flow and 24 per cent, summer.

This is a unique illustration of the regulating value of forest-clad watersheds. Do Australians know that, since the Burrinjuck dam was finished, 12,000,000 cubic feet of silt has accumulated in it? Do the taxpayers who have built the Hume weir realise that only half its watershed is under control, and that the other half, in private ownership, may be cleared and burnt as cleanly as its owners wish, and that such operations must inevitably hasten the silting up of the huge lake, so that perhaps in 100 years it will not exist and cannot be remade? Do Australians realise that settlement in all States has taken place, and is still taking place, under Lands departments which dominate the trained officers of the Forests departments?

Do Australians realise that the chief product of their forests is not the lovely timber that they yield, but water and its regulation, which is the factor limiting the immediate population and future prosperity of their continent? ? Is it known that each year trained forest officers make an analysis of the causes of the fires that occur in our forests, and
that each year they report that more than half of them are caused deliberately? It is known by every interested party that for a few thousand pounds collected each year by Lands departments, holders of grazing licences or their agents, or their delayed-action candles, cause fires that burn out mountain sides of perfect watershed in return for precarious grazing for a few head of cattle.

Do Australians mind? Do they wish to save these appalling yearly losses and attain a balance that will prolong the future indefinitely in progress, prosperity, and peace from flood, fire, and denudation? If they do wish these things, much can be done to that end, but it must be done in the next few years. In a few more years it will be too late.

The first thing to be done is political. Let each State that wishes to ensure its future place all its Crown lands under the absolute control of its Forests Department. Let the forest officers of the State-men who are trained in the great fundamental science of forestry be the only authority who shall say what is to go on in those areas, and who shall enter them.

If tourists, graziers, settlers, or even Lands Department officers want access to those areas, let it be only with the approval of the Minister for Forests on the recommendation of
his experts.

This is the obvious first step to avoid the appalling mistakes that other countries have made and this country is still making. Such a step is above the factions of party politics, and far above the feelings and jealousies of departmental officers. It is no censure on Lands departments that the administration of Crown lands should be removed from their control. It is an archaism that they should so remain.

When Lands departments were given control of Crown lands the great science of forestry had not formulated the laws that govern the fundamental requirements of modern national life. For example, the urban consumption of water has Increased tenfold a head in the last 100 years, and cities are larger, and likely to become larger and even more extravagant. It is only by the application of the principles of sound forestry that supplies of the necessary volume will be available to the population this country may be called upon to sustain. It is no shame upon Lands Department officers that they have not the expert knowledge to provide these requirements. It is not their job.

It is shame upon us that we allow, by an inverted system of administration, the experts to be subservient to the layman. Should this change be wrought by public clamour or far-seeing governmental action, I believe that within 10 years the fire-loss alone would be so reduced that the people of our country would be encouraged to feel that the awful damage of the past was being reclaimed, and that Australia was doing something to reclaim the unrelenting desert creep that threatens us today.

Russell Grimwade, 6 February 1937.

NOTES

The introduction to this article cited from Chris McLennan, "Water crisis worsens as Murray River blue-green algae spreads," Weekly Times
March 8, 2016

Estonian House, West Brunswick, 24th February
……………………………………………………………………………………
The crux of this meeting, as presented by Moreland planning staff, is that the previous agreement was voided root-and-branch by the State Government, and in the newly planned Neighbourhood Centres, the allocated zones have been changed somewhat (no-one seemed to recall being given prior notice) and also the previously agreed 3-storey limits (all achieved by quite verbally violent public activity!) have morphed into 4-storey. In the course of the meeting it turned out that 4-storey was not 4-storey mandatory but 4-storey discretionary! The council "hoped" they could make them mandatory. It was impossible despite direct and explicit questioning to find out what was the actual upper height limit is right now, or even if there is an upper height limit.

As previously, there was the muffled threat that this new version of suburban planning, which can only increase occupier density in a municipality with the highest or second highest density in greater Melbourne, was driven by State Government (of a different stripe, but the threat remained the same), and the heavy implication that it might be worse if we did not agree.

There was much volatile discussion around the apparently arbitrary re-drawing of new boundaries---there must always be unfortunate residents who end up next to or surrounded by, possible huge overshadowing apartment blocks whereas across the road it is different.

The Planning guy ( who seemed rather embarrassed; I felt a bit sorry for him) admitted the historically, and also recent, appalling standard of erections in Moreland and also said the Council wished to enforce more stringent standards of good design and superior build quality, but again admitted on questioning that these would also be discretionary.

Others raised the issue of the effect of massive 1-2 bedroom blocks on the current family demographic of this pocket of Moreland. And obviously the failure to account for parallel improvement in infrastructure, most notably public transport but also water, sewage etc. was acknowledged but this point was avoided because all this was a matter for the State and not the Council. Likewise the effect on rates was avoided.

Others had direct stories of fighting developers, achieving modifications on paper which were ignored in concrete, and achieving no redress because what standards there were could be flouted. The stress and anxiety caused by these fights at council and VCAT levels, and the necessity for constant vigilance, were raised quite emotionally by a couple of unfortunates.

An interesting but telling tiny detail was that there were a number of booths set up in Estonian House with Council brochures (the ones with the ridiculously scaled artist's impression illustrating the wide and gracious Boulevarde de Melville). Some residents (who had after all paid for the rent of the hall) also placed sheafs of counter-suggestions and blanks for letters of objection to the proposals in these booths. These disappeared immediately, some were replenished and again they vanished within a minute or two. The presumption is they were taken by council staff who were roving around at all times.

Another interesting detail was that, as far as was visible, we were not graced by the presence of a single councillor.

Bearing in mind the recent Crib Point tragedy - a suspected arson attack, with wildlife loss yet to be detailed, one home destroyed and one home damaged plus several sheds destroyed, we have to be more vigilant about how and whether we develop our bushland neighbourhoods more densely. Planning laws allow property owners to remove large amounts of vegetation without permission from their land citing their reason as 'fire protection'. After the vegetation is removed, those property owners may apply to the council for permission to intensify development on the land. Council usually does not deny permission for individual cases. But such individual cases mount up and create a danger which councils and planners may not have seen. The risk is that the granting of denser housing development in a bushland area means that, if there is a fire in the remaining bushland, there will be an increased number of residents needing to evacuate. Increasing population density means that more roads are needed to cope with a fire emergency evacuation. However, densification is being allowed to happen in an ad hoc, case by case fashion, without the building of roads in advance of significant development. No-one is overseeing the total impact.

Vegetation clearing on days of total fire bans

477 Waterfall Gully Rd Rosebud 3939 Victoria.

Clearing took place on Friday 15/1/16, Monday 18/1/16 and Tuesday 19/1/16 thus far.

To date up to 45 trees and shrubs have been removed, including 4 manna gums. One which was a hollow bearing tree and one on a neighbouring property. Most of the other vegetation removed was coast tea-tree.

I called the Mornington Peninsula shire council's planning department, on the 18th and 19th of January about the clearing of vegetation. The officers I spoke to on both days confirmed that there are no permits for either vegetation clearance or an application permit for a building extension/residential development. The planning department said that the vegetation clearance was legal without a permit. As the vegetation in question was within 10 meters to the residence or 4 meters within the property boundary.

As the primary reason that fire regulations allows for the vegetation clearance. I have raised the following concerns;

No 477 Waterfall Gully residence has been unoccupied since November, when it was sold. That the first action of the owner is to remove all trees and shrubs from site would suggest it is being cleared for a development - an opinion shared by the professionals clearing the vegetation and by the surrounding neighbours.

Two of the three days the vegetation being cleared were days of total fire ban. The 18th and 19th of January were days of total fire bans. The use of multiple heavy industrial petrol operated equipment on days of total fire ban, I believe, makes a mockery of fire prevention laws.

The planning department understand my concerns and have been as helpful as they can. However there is nothing they can do to address this issue due to current regulations. So I ask your assistance in addressing flaws in the fire regulations that allow developers to exploit them. These flaws are:

To ban activities such as clearing vegetation or activities that could cause fires on days of total fire bans,
Close loop holes that developers use to clear vegetation under false pretences, which cost the Shire revenue.

Further considerations on this matter

Neighbourhood character

The character of a neighbourhood defines the people and families that live in an area. Many of these people who live in community make real value contributions to the neighbourhood character by volunteering their time. It is of great disappointment that potential developers ( who more often than not, do not live in the neighbourhood) use inequities in planning laws to change a neighbourhood character for financial gain.

Health and Wellbeing

Waterfall Gully Rd/ South Rosebud is a bushy area and as such creates a certain atmosphere to the suburb. Residing in a beautiful neighbourhood therefore contributes to a mentally healthy state of its residents. The removal of trees for more dwellings creates a heat island. As our population ages heat stress related illnesses is becoming a more of an issue. Noise pollution from vegetation clearance and building is another factor of having a major impact on health and well being.

Overdevelopment and emergencies

Planning laws allow property owners to remove large amounts of vegetation without permission from their land citing their reason as 'fire protection'. After the vegetation is removed, those property owners may apply to the council for permission to intensify development on the land. Council usually does not deny permission for individual cases. But such individual cases mount up and create a danger which councils and planners may not have seen. The risk is that the granting of denser housing development in a bushland area means that, if there is a fire in the remaining bushland, there will be an increased number of residents needing to evacuate. Increasing population density means that more roads are needed to cope with a fire emergency evacuation. However, densification is being allowed to happen in an ad hoc, case by case fashion, without the building of roads in advance of significant development. No-one is overseeing the total impact. Most people who choose to live in bushland area would not approve of significant intensification of development. They would need to be alerted to any plans to build new roads for a planned increase in population and would probably object to significantly increased population plans. They are not being alerted, the roads are not being built, but the densification is happening in an unplanned fashion. This is dangerous. If a fire emergency was to threaten South Rosebud, Jetty Rd is the main route to escape!

Wildlife

Even though wildlife are protected, there never seems to be any enforcement to protect them. Up to 45 trees and shrubs were cleared at 477 Waterfall Gully Rd. What happens to those animals who have now lost their home?

The function of Australian mass media seems to be to inveigle listeners into complicity in the terrible transformation that is being visited on us in Australia (turning what were once pleasant capital cities where most of us now live, into dystopian megalopolises) by inviting them to 'choose' between distasteful solution A or unpleasant solution B.

I am fed up.

I am fed up with the fact that nearly all the air time on local ABC radio is filled with discussion of the symptoms of rapid population growth and human overpopulation with scarcely a passing reference to the actual cause. For example, today I caught a discussion of wind farms on the Basalt Plains in Western Victoria. A woman called Jon Faine’s program with a concern that there are only 500 brolgas left in the area and that wind farms impinge on the birds’ territory by around an 8kms margin from each wind farm. Host, Jon Faine as devil's advocate pointed out that the brolgas could go somewhere else as the wind farms were not really taking up a lot of space. The next caller ridiculed the brolga advocate with the opposite argument that if coal continued to be used to generate electricity then there would be no environment for brolgas or anything else. Neither caller mentioned that with increasing population, more and more electricity needs to be generated either by coal or by wind farms or whatever will do the trick. The human environmental footprint in Victoria is growing from a size 10 to a size 14 with no end in sight.

I’m also fed up that the Leader newspaper was delivered to my letter box this week with the front page headline “Please ease squeeze” plastered over a photo of South Yarra railway station exit/entrance presumably at peak hour in the afternoon as the crowds are walking away from the station. According to the article the station is a daily bun fight with too many passengers for the capability of the station. Prahran State Greens MP, Sam Hibbens “has lodged a Freedom of Information request with the department of transport to find out what improvements are being considered for the bustling hub.” This same MP in 2010 as a Federal candidate was invited to reply (both in writing and by phone) to a questionnaire on population for Sustainable Population Australia but no reply was received. In a nutshell, Hibbens is calling for improvements in the station to accommodate an “extra 5000 people expected to move into the Forest Hill precinct adjacent to the station in the next 15 years.” I feel exasperated to know that it is already overcrowded, so the improvement would have to provide an enormous increase in capacity if it were to accommodate the continuous increase in population which is expected. This increase in population ensures continued discomfort and stress for passengers. This is a big deal as it is an essential part of their daily lives and we only get one life each, as far as I know. Governments don’t seem to be about improving lives at all, only talking about it, staving off complaints, and controlling what should be uproar about the completely avoidable destruction of the reasonable lives we used to lead and could have continued to have led.

I am equally fed up with the articles in the daily media such as The Age in Melbourne (several this week) about booming population growth as though it is news. To me it is just a constant feed of reminders to the readership of a decreasing quality of life due to socially engineered population hyper-growth.

Turning to the radio, the function of chat shows especially on the ABC seem to be to inveigle the audience into complicity in this terrible transformation that is being visited on us in Australia (turning what were once pleasant capital cities where most of us now live, into dystopian megalopolises) by inviting them to feel they are being heard by calling in with suggestions and their views on whether they’d like distasteful solution A or unpleasant solution B. Alternatively, the programs feature trivial topics as a brief distractions from the reality of where we are heading. (As I write this, the program I can hear is dedicated to personal coincidences.)

I’d love to know what instructions the columnists of the daily newspapers are given to guide them in their articles on population growth. It must be something like “Make sure that you don’t let anyone know that high population growth is a government choice. Make it sound like a trend you are following and reporting on that has no rhyme or reason."

With Victoria going to the polls on Saturday, Jenny Warfe and Dr Matthew Mitchell present compelling evidence the real reason for the East West Link is not road congestion but a superfluous new port project. (Article dated 27 November 2014 republished from Independent Australia)

Victorian Premier Denis Napthine’s figurehead multi-billion dollar road project, Melbourne’s East West Link, does not make financial sense — at least, not in the way it is being presented to the public.

Even the Victorian Government’s top planners believe a rail tunnel would be a better investment. So why is Napthine pushing it so hard?  It seems the East West Link is part of a much larger plan — a plan based on unsustainable growth and dubious business models.

The East West Link is part of the Napthine government’s 2013 Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan. This plan also includes the Port of Hastings development.

The plan proposes (page 17) to

‘… secure Victoria’s position as the leading State for freight and logistics.’

As part of this plan, it is expected (page 29) that the Port of Hastings

‘… once fully developed, will be the largest container port in Australia’.

The Hastings port and the East West Link projects are linked by Premier Napthine in relation to port services in his video update on the Freight Plan launch, when he says:

“The plan encompasses two of the largest investments undertaken in the state's history: the expansion of the Port of Hastings and the development of East West Link. And these are vital for the future of our state.”

The relationship of the Port and the East West road network are shown in the Freight Plan as follows:

The Plan argues that the proposal to develop both the Port and the East West Link is sustainable. However, strong evidence suggests the modelling the Plan is based on is not accurate.

For example, The Age on November 11 reported an independent study that suggested the East West Link will cost $17.8 billion:

‘A report by 10 leading transport planners and financial analysts from three Melbourne universities concludes the East West price tag will be "comparable" with the Wonthaggi desalination plant.’

But that is just cost for the road — added to that is the cost of the port development. A development that questioned by former Toll Holdings boss Paul Little (and still largest private shareholder) who was last year quoted as saying the Hastings Port option:

"… would not deliver the best outcome for Victoria, would be a financial disaster for the freight industry... the proposal is deeply flawed.

"The high cost of building a standard-gauge rail link to Hasting and the construction of suitable freeway access would be excessive and difficult, if not impossible, to justify."

A further concern in this regard is that it appears that ports in general are based on a somewhat vulnerable business model. Two of the companies involved in operating Australia’s ports ? Patrick - Asciano and DP World Australia ? almost went broke after the Global Financial Crisis, with headlines such as:

‘Price collapse makes Asciano shares virtually worthless’

And they seem to have struggled to recover since, with reports that Asciano suffered a bottom-line loss of $244 million in 2008-09, quadrupling in 2009-10 to $976 million. This ‘successful’ growth business also received $18 million from taxpayers in 2014, yet still laid off 30% of its workforce.

For its part, DP World made losses of $74 million in 2011, $32 million in 2012 and $68 million in 2013.

And these losses are on top of the fact that the most expensive port expansion projects are paid for by Victorian taxpayers — such as Channel Deepening, $1 billion; Webb Dock expansion, $1.5 billion and so on. Of course, if there is a major oil spill or contamination by exotic organisms ? something that, according to Dr Tim Lowe, costs the planet over $10 billion annually ? then costs may escalate substantially. Not to mention the pollution from both trucks and ships, which burn a particularly dirty form of fuel in our bays of coasts, producing pollution equivalent to 350,000 cars.

Finally in regard to sustainability, the Government’s proposal seems to take no account of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with shipping. Only the U.S., China, Russia, India and Japan emit more carbon dioxide than the world’s shipping fleet.

Taking into account that the Port of Hastings model depends on a massive growth projection of imports, the “sustainability” claim looks dodgier and dodgier.

The Port of Melbourne currently handles around 2.5 million containers a year. The Port of Hastings proposal anticipates handling nine million containers a year, with double the number of truck trips on Melbourne roads — thus the need for the East West Link.

This projection by the Government’s plan is also not consistent with expected population growth. The plan anticipates a 360% increase in container traffic, yet Victoria’s population growth over the same period (to 2060) is only projected to be a 62% increase.

A strange irony is that the East West Link may yet be funded by the sale of the Port of Melbourne.

So what should happen?

Well, without the Port of Hastings proposal, the case for the East West Link road seems much weaker than it already is. It is really doubtful that such a port is necessary, or that it will reach the expected freight targets.

Every state in Australia has similar plans for ports; there is no shortage of ports and port growth plans.

The problem seems to arise from the lack of a national port strategy. It may make far more sense to develop ports in the north of Australia and then rail freight containers down from there.

This is the proposal put forward by the Port Philip Conservation Council in which they suggest (PPCC Policy Statement 17):

• Loading and unloading larger ships at Hub port Singapore, or existing deep water ports (Darwin, Fremantle, Brisbane etc.), which are all much closer to Australia’s present major Asian trading partners.
• Running smaller fuel-efficient ships to and from those ports.
• Much more interstate rail and also ‘dry ports’ (Brisbane-Melbourne rail link, Parkes Inland Port etc), and
• Port operators being required to have a national approach in siting assets, and in investing in Australia-wide rail and joint port operations, noting that Tasmania is a special case, but that its scale will continue to be very small.

But will any of our politicians, state or federal, explore these options?

Will they even consider the issues above? Or will they instead take the advice of the IPA on how to deal with people who raise environmental concerns?

That is:

“Let’s call them fruitcakes. Let’s call them nut—nutters …. let’s absolutely go for them.”

Let us assume that with goodwill something can, and will, be done. Then if as a nation we are going to pursue never-ending growth ? what George Monbiot calls ‘the insatiable god’ ? we need to consider the role of state government competition.

Note, such competition is not unique to ports. Water is another area where states compete with each other. In both cases state competition complicates already difficult issues.

In the case of ports, however, this has led to our overabundance of ports, all seeking to expand their traffic. Indeed, this is discussed specifically in relation to Queensland in a Centre of Policy Development 2013 report called Too Many Ports in a Storm.

So, progress on our problem with ports may require similar thinking to that applied to our river systems. And perhaps the only way to eliminate state competition is through major Constitutional reform.

Such reform has been argued for by Professor George Williams in regard to river systems.

Until we overcome the self-centred ambitions of our state governments, the negative effects can be expected to continue. These are increasingly impacting us in a variety of ways ranging from global climate change to our local roads and, finally, to our individual health.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

The Federal Government is not the sole responsible for Australia's planned and economic immigration; in fact the States seem to be leading it. State governments and political parties tend to try to mislead Australians on this very issue, so I felt it was time to write an article. Now is the time to head to your local member's office and ask him or her what he or she is going to do about this. If you don't get a sensible answer, vote small parties before Lib, Lab or Green.

Your most telling examples of how the States impact on immigration are the State migration websites. The States 'nominate' migrants. I think the Feds just pretend to 'vet ' them. In Victoria it is www.liveinvictoria.gov.com.au, in WA www.migration.wa.gov.au/, South Australia, https://www.migration.sa.gov.au; in Queensland, migration.qld.gov.au/, ACT: www.canberrayourfuture.com.au/, Northern Territory: www.australiasnorthernterritory.com.au/; Tasmania, www.migration.tas.gov.au/
And there are the national pages: www.immi.gov.au/Work/Pages/Work.aspx

The States pressure the Federal government for immigration. They organise to redefine areas of the states as regions in need of migration. Jeff Kennett managed to reverse Victoria's negative population growth in the 1990s in part by doing this. He made it possible for rural people to sponsor nephews and other distant relatives as immigrants because they were places in need of migration for workers etc. I think following on from him, State governments around Australia did things like make their CBDs 'regions in need of immigration'. Note that on the NT site above, for instance, there is a display that explains that it is a "designated area Migration Agreement".

The States are in charge of land, water and power. They earn money from land-sales through stamp duties and rely a great deal on this. The political parties are invested in land, development and finance (including banks) as well and States have institutions which facilitate private investment in public land for property development. It is all quite incestuous.

The States also earn money from private public development, over our protests. How many of you knew that "Places Victoria" is actually the Victorian Government's public-private property development arm, and that it is a payed up member of the Property Council of Australia - which heads up the Australian growth lobby. And, for those who care about the homeless, the Department of Human Services, Office of Housing, is also a member. Truly, in the land of the not so lucky anymore, the foxes are credentialled chicken guardians.

Draft Planning and Development Bill 2014 (P&D Bill) and Planning and Environment Court Bill 2014 (P&E Court Bill) now in progress within the Queensland Dept of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) threaten all that has been achieved in defeating Rainbow Shores Stage 2 so far. The Bills would provide our local Govt. with the power to make future planning changes, and take decisions regarding this development (as well as many others) without any public scrutiny or control. We know how woeful their performance on RS2 has been to date. They cannot safely be allowed these additional planning and approval powers.

I apologise for the extremely late notice on this matter but I have only just been informed of the situation. This lateness is itself a direct result of the across the board funding cuts by both State and Federal Govts. to community Environmental networks and the resultant lowered capacity these networks now have to respond quickly and adequately to such things.

If you have a bit of time this weekend to make a quick comment on the two bills it would be greatly appreciated. Attached is a submission template drafted by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO). This template allows you to easily respond to both draft Bills. Please simply follow the instructions provided in the grey highlighted sections. Do this to the extent that you can in the time available and reword the listed points of concern to the extent you feel comfortable doing. Please remember to delete the grey highlighting and instruction statements before sending.

Please also consider that something at this late stage is better than nothing at all. Even a brief extract from the attached summary put into the process in your name will be helpful.

Your comment should also request an extended comment period due to this existing unfair limitation on informed public comment.

On a more optimistic note, it is likely that these new Bills will not be implemented until after the 2015 State election. This provides yet another sound reason why a concerted community effort must be made to vote out this intractably non-consultative Government. A term in opposition, and a need to re-win their place in office, might make them sincerely and humbly commit to governing for everyone, and not just for property developers and mining corporations.

Please enquire by email to info[AT]saveinskip.org.au or call on 0422 260 169 if you want any more info.
See also: http://www.saveinskip.org.au/

Environment and community groups from across Australia are calling on Federal Environmental Minister Greg Hunt to save the fragile environment of Westernport Bay amid ongoing concerns over the Coalition’s One Stop Shop policy.

The massive Hastings port expansion plan and associated land transport corridors will not only devastate the internationally important Ramsar-listed wetlands of Westernport, but also impact on the liveability of Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs, the groups say.

“The Napthine Government wants to push through its expansion plans under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 – the same fast-track process that approved the East West Link project, which is about to face a Supreme Court challenge,” said Ariane Wilkinson, lawyer at Environmental Justice Australia.

“The only way Victorians can prevent the destruction of this protected wetland, home to many threatened species, is by appealing for Greg Hunt to intervene under federal environmental laws. Yet even this avenue of last resort is under threat from the Federal Government’s One Stop Shop policy.

“If the One Stop Shop policy is implemented, Minister Hunt can simply hand over his powers for this project to the Victorian Government.

“The Victorian Government has a clear conflict of interest in this project as both the proponents and regulators.

“The One Stop Shop policy will remove the last vestiges of federal oversight.

“We have no confidence that Victoria’s major projects legislation will provide adequate protection for the nationally important environment in Westernport.

“The Victorian Government has a clear conflict of interest in this project as both the proponents and regulators.

“And just like with the East West Link project, the road and rail connections to an expanded port will be assessed by this major projects legislation, which will be a real concern to communities along the transport corridor,” Ms Wilkinson concluded.

Simon Branigan, Marine and Coastal Projects Officer at Victorian National Parks Association, commented:

“The port expansion will not only impact the home of our iconic fairy penguins, but also the homes and lives of residents in Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs.”

“According to the State Government’s Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan a rail transport corridor will need to be built from Dandenong and run through the middle of suburbs such as Caulfield, Toorak and Richmond, potentially requiring compulsory acquisitions.

“All this for a project that is an environmental disaster in waiting.

“Oil spill modelling shows that even a relatively minor oil spill would spread quickly throughout the bay, threatening fish, penguins and the beautiful beaches between Somers and Flinders.

“Under the One Stop Shop, the approval of the Hastings port expansion will be a fait accompli.

“We are urging Minister Hunt to stay true to his promise that if there is clear conflict of interest in major developments, he will not hand over his powers under federal environment laws.”

Jeff Nottle, chairman and spokesperson for Preserve Western Port Action Group, warned the project threatens the local tourism industry and jobs.

“The Victorian Major Projects Act means a big rubber stamp hangs over this project, unless Minister Hunt retains his powers to assess it.”

“The project threatens our $600 million tourism industry and the 5000 jobs that rely on that industry. It has already impacted whales in the area due to underwater drilling. Fewer whales mean less income for tourism operators.

“This is Greg Hunt’s electorate. He can’t turn his back on the livelihood of his constituents or the importance of the Ramsar wetland.

“Greg Hunt must intervene immediately to stop the Victorian Government ruining the future of Westernport."

The environment groups calling on federal environment minister Greg Hunt to intervene are the Victorian National Parks Association, Environmental Justice Australia, Preserve Western Port Action Group, Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council, Blue Wedges Coalition and French Island Port Stoppers.

For comment

Ariane Wilkinson, lawyer at Environmental Justice Australia –
0403 364 771
Simon Branigan, Victorian National Parks Association – 0409 087 278
Jeff Nottle, Chairman at Preserve Western Port Action Group – 0419 158 232

Download media backgrounders

Oil spill impacts on Westernport bird species
Oil spill impacts on Westernport seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh

Download reports

Impact of proposed Port of Hastings expansion on the birdlife of Western Port

Impact of proposed Port of Hastings expansion on seagrass, mangroves and salt marsh

Western Sydney residents are up in arms about having an urban rail line, a freight rail line and a mega motorway through their communities and bushland. Hundreds will be protesting 6.30 pm Thursday 7 August, 2014, at the St Marys Community Centre, St Marys, NSW, Cnr Mamre Rd & Great Western Hwy., where Transport for NSW and Tanya Davies the local Liberal MP have reluctantly agreed to hold an extraordinary community consultation drop in session. They want to know what we think of their plan so we intend to let them know loud and clear: 'We don't like it'.

"Its not just a South West Rail Corridor its also the Outer Sydney Orbital which consists of the M9 motorway and an attached freight train rail line. 24/7 through our communities and bushland. The majority of protesters will be disgruntled Liberal voters"

"STORC therefore is very concerned that all these projects, in combination, becomes an infrastructure bomb that people, communities and the environment will never recover from. All these projects are being assessed and approved individually, in isolation to one another. Where’s the assessment of the cumulative impacts?"

"Of great concern is that the NSW Government can reserve the South West Rail and the Outer Sydney Orbital corridors and lock in the route through critically endangered bushland and people’s homes without the need to do an EIS. So once the land is acquired and community is out of the way and worn out the government then does its EIS and only has to exhibit it for 30 days. What a joke."

"So STORC wants the clock stopped on the SWRC and OSO process. We want to know the impacts of these projects before the corridor is reserved. The NSW Government and Local Government should therefore carry out a thorough environmental and social assessment/study (separate to an EIS process) to determine the cumulative impacts of these projects. The NSW Government and Local Government should also call that the EIS for a Badgerys Creek Airport come first and that it include the impacts of the infrastructure projects STORC has mentioned as they are all part of a Badgerys Ck Airport package."

"The residents of outer Western Sydney deserve to know from the NSW Government what the cumulative impacts will be on them and the environment."

PUBLIC PROTEST

WHEN: 6.30 pm Thursday, 7 August 2014

WHERE: St Marys Community Centre, Mamre Rd

WHAT: Meeting with Tanya Davies & NSW Transport Dept.

Flyer

Do you live in Orchard Hills, Claremont Meadows, Werrington, Llandilo, Windsor Downs?
Are you aware of what has been planned for your suburb?

1. MEGA M9 OUTER SYDNEY ORBITAL CORRIDOR

2. INDUSTRIAL FREIGHT TRAIN RAIL LINE CORRIDOR

3. DOMESTIC TRAIN RAIL LINE CORRIDOR

4. 24/7 AIRPORT, FLIGHT PATHS – WITHOUT CURFEW!

NO CONSIDERATION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THESE FOUR MAJOR

PROJECTS WILL HAVE ON RESIDENTS & OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

- WHOLE COMMUNITIES IMPACTED

- 24/7 IMPACT NOISE (TRUCKS, TRAINS & PLANES)

- POLLUTION

- OUR WAY OF LIFE LOST

- OXYGEN-GENERATING GREENSPACE DESTROYED – REPLACED WITH UGLY HEAT-TRAPPING CONCRETE & TARMAC

- OUR REMAINING GREENSPACE LOST TO DEVELOPERS & MORE URBANISATION

- LAND TAKEN

- RESUMPTION OF HOMES

- PROPERTY VALUES TRASHED

- CONSERVATION LAND DESTROYED

NO IMPACT STUDIES UNTIL AFTER APPROVAL!

10,000 ha OF FARMLAND CLEARED FOR FACTORIES & WAREHOUSES. MEGA INTERMODAL

BUILT SOUTH OF ORCHARD HILLS TO FILL THE M9 MOTORWAY WITH TRUCKS!

BRING YOUR PROTEST SIGNS, YOUR QUESTIONS, FAMILY & FRIENDS

SEE YOU THERE!

STORC Action Group – Stop The Orbital & Rail Corridor

www.facebook.com/STORCActionGroup www.wsca.org.au [email protected]

SUPPORT US BSB: 814-282 Acc: 50444587

Backgrounder

Stop the Orbital and Rail Corridor Action Group (STORC)

Is anybody assessing the cumulative impacts of multiple government infrastructure proposals on western Sydney’s people and environment? NSW Government must stop the clock.

The April 15, 2014 announcement by the Federal Government that it will construct Sydney’s second International Airport at Badgerys Creek was followed days later by a NSW Government announcement that it would reserve a corridor to extend the South West Rail line. The proposal is for the South West Rail Corridor Extension (SWRC) to go north from Narellan to the western line near St Marys. A station is proposed to be built at Badgerys Ck.

This line would also connect to Leppington and the southern line.

The NSW Government has commenced community consultation about a preferred route and during this process community concern has risen and a community group Stop the Orbital and Rail Corridor Action Group (STORC) has formed to oppose a likely route that puts economic growth ahead of protecting the public interest.

STORC’s concerns stemmed from a Penrith Council submission to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) that urges they approve a route that connects new stations at a proposed Sydney Science Park to the UWS Werrington Campus. The Council map was overlayed on Google Earth and was shown to go through critically endangered bushland at the Defence Establishment Orchard Hills and also homes and properties in Orchard Hills. Orchard Hills residents were blindsided by Councils submission as they were not even aware TfNSW first 6 weeks of community consultation had been and gone.

Penrith Councils submission was written after meetings with TfNSW, UWS and other Councils. So it has provided the community with a lot of information of likely impacts.

From Councils submissions STORC learnt that the proposed Outer Sydney Orbital (OSO) was also imminent and that it would consist of an M9 motorway and an adjoined freight rail line.

A Penrith Council report of June 23 states TfNSW wants the SWRC and the OSO reserved as separate corridors. Council maps also showed the OSO and when overlayed on Google Earth going through the Defence Establishment Orchard Hills and homes. The impact of the OSO however is greater as it is proposed to run from South of Camden to the Central Coast. The Google Earth overlay in the Penrith Region shows it also runs through million dollar homes in The Vines Estate, through urban Claremont Meadows and Werrington, through the critically endangered bushland at the ADI Site (Wianamatta Regional Park that the community fought for over a decade to protect), through rural Llandilo and Berkshire Park and through million dollars homes at the Windsor Downs Estate.

So residents are up in arms about having an urban rail line, a freight rail line and a mega motorway through their communities and bushland.

Then when you drill down into the Penrith Council report you see these infrastructure items are to serve a proposed 24/7 Airport at Badgerys Creek and also the proposed Broader Western Sydney Employment Area (BWSEA). The BWSEA is a proposal to rezone 10,000 hectares of rural land to industrial. So 10,000 ha of green space are to be covered by factories and warehouses. Productive farmland gives way to a sea of cement and tarmac.

The BWSEA zone includes the Badgerys Ck Airport land in the south and runs all the way north to border onto the Orchard Hills Defence Establishment.

You drill down further into Penrith Councils report and you see advanced discussions have been had about the building of an intermodal facility west of the BWSEA. Council urges TfNSW when reserving the OSO corridor to reserve sufficient land for the new intermodal.

Add in Tony Abbott’s funding to widen Bringelly Rd, Elizabeth Dr and large parts of the Northern Rd to facilitate more car and truck use.

STORC therefore is very concerned that all these projects, in combination, becomes an infrastructure bomb that people, communities and the environment will never recover from. All these projects are being assessed and approved individually, in isolation to one another. Where’s the assessment of the cumulative impacts?

Penrith Council states that the NSW Government intends having the SWRC route locked in by the end of 2014. The NSW Govt in this financial year proposes to reserve the corridor for the OSO. So we have projects located parallel to one another for large stretches of their route being conducted and assessed and approved in isolation to one another. The approval of the SWRC will be used to justify approval of the OSO. Running these approvals together appears designed to fatigue the public so they just give up.

Of great concern is that the NSW Government can reserve these corridors and lock in the route through critically endangered bushland and people’s homes without the need to do an EIS. So once the land is acquired and community is out of the way and worn out the government then does its EIS and only has to exhibit it for 30 days. What a joke. And this could be 2 or 20 years down the track.

So STORC wants the clock stopped on the SWRC and OSO process. We want to know the impacts of these projects before the corridor is reserved. The NSW Government and Local Government should therefore carry out a thorough environmental and social assessment/study (separate to an EIS process) to determine the cumulative impacts of these projects. The NSW Government and Local Government should also call that the EIS for a Badgerys Creek Airport come first and that it include the impacts of the infrastructure projects STORC has mentioned as are all part of a Badgerys Ck Airport package.

The residents of outer Western Sydney deserve to know what the cumulative impacts are on them and the environment.

The impacts

1. Badgerys Creek Airport

• Federal Government proposal for a 24/7 International Airport

• No EIS

• No determined flight paths

• 24/7 air pollution, noise,

• polluted water catchments, planes over wilderness areas

• Traffic, trucks, trains

• Loss of critically endangered bushland

2. South West Rail

• Communities destroyed

• Compulsory acquisitions. Land values trashed

• 24/7 noise, loss of visual amenity

3. Outer Sydney Orbital

• Loss of critically endangered bushland

• Communities destroyed

• Compulsory acquisitions. Land values trashed

• 24/7 air pollution, noise, loss of visual amenity

• 24/7 trucks and freight trains

4. BWSEA

• Loss of critically endangered bushland

• Loss of thousands of hectares of Sydney’s rural land

• Loss of oxygen generating green space

• Zoned for industrial

• Trucks and car use massively increased

• 24/7 air pollution, noise, loss of visual amenity

• 24/7 trucks and freight trains

• Flooding impacts (permeable surfaces replaced by roofs, roads and concrete)

• Urban heat island effect increased

5. Intermodal west of the BSWEA

• 24/7 trucks and freight trains

• 24/7 air pollution, noise, loss of visual amenity

6. Road widening Elizabeth Dr, Bringelly and Northern Roads

• Facilitates more car and truck use

• 24/7 air pollution, noise, loss of visual amenity

Contacts

Geoff Brown 0431 222 602

Lauren Taylor 0479 166 140

Bruce Downes 0401 052 033

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has caved to the mining industry and approved Indian mining giant Adani's monstrous Carmichael Mine, threatnening the Great Barrier Reef. The coal mine will be the biggest in Australia. It will pollute our climate with massive CO2 emissions for decades. It will mean massive and continual dredging and dumping in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and will fill the Reef with thousands of coal ships every year. Original article and petition from GetUp. Note that, if you sign, GetUp puts you on two mailing lists, however the situation is serious and their campaign may be effective.

The good news is that while Adani may have the approval, it still needs to find up to $10 billion before it can proceeed. This means the battle to protect the Reef from Adani is down to who can persuade investors, us or them.

Adani will try and convince investors to lend it $10 billion to wreck the Reef. We'll try and convince them Adani is a company with no public support who cannot be trusted. Game on.

Donations here on GetUp.

If you are concerned about 457 visas, local unemployment and population growth, planning issues, over-development, and the loss of wildlife and residents rights in Frankston and the Peninsula, please come along to this meeting of Victoria First. Special Guest Speaker will be Public Transport advocate Mr. Ian Hundley. Ian Hundley will speak on "The transport crisis in the Frankston area: issues of economy, ecology and social connectedness." This public meeting will be from 2-4pm at the Frankston Life Saving Club, on Frankston Foreshore. (More details of location inside article.) There will be opportunities to make statements from the floor if you let the organisers know in advance. Contact 03 9350 5777.

The Hon Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member for Wills, invites you to come and join Victoria First Inc. Public Meeting. Mr Thomson received the most votes of any Labor Minister in Australia at the last election. He is very popular in a very multicultural electorate of Wills, where he has a lot of support for his pioneering and courageous stance for the environment and peoples' rights against overpopulation.

What is Victoria First?

Victoria First is a new not-for-profit NGO, established to safeguard and enhance Victoria’s way of life. Victoria First is fighting to halt rapid population growth, over-development, reduce traffic congestion, stop the increasing cost of council rates, rising utility bills, and seeking to protect Victoria’s unique animals and plants.

You do not have to be a member to come.

Meeting details

When? Saturday 2nd August, 2pm – 4pm.

Where? Frankston Life Saving Club, Frankston Foreshore, end of Wells Street, near the intersection with Nepean Highway. (McDonalds is on the corner.)

Melways 102 C2. Nearest railway station is Frankston.

Disabled parking available. Metered parking at the venue 2 hour maximum. Free parking available short distance away in the shopping centre carpark.

Please note this is a non-smoking venue. As residents live nearby, please respect noise restrictions in and around this venue.

Tomorrow, Saturday 28 June 2014, thousands are expected to pour onto the streets to take a final stand against the monstrous $14 billion East West Link (EW Link) project about to be foisted on the long suffering people of Victoria by - in our view - the incompetent and increasingly unpopular Napthine Government. Demands of the rally are: scrap the E W Link Toll Road; rip up the contracts if/when signed; and invest in public transport.

Additionally the call has gone out for the Coalition to make the EW Link an election issue and to resist signing contracts before “the people” have spoken. Protestors will rally outside The State Library at the corner of Swanston and Latrobe Streets by 1 pm tomorrow, hear speeches and then march to Flinders Street Station.

Julianne Bell PPL VIC Secretary comments:

“Many of our allied groups will be forming one contingent to march together to draw attention to the looming threat to Royal Park and the many inner city parks along the route of the E W Link and City Link. We expect that a legion of children together with parents and grandparents who are concerned over the impact of the EW Link on the Zoo in Royal Park be marching alongside the parks groups. This project will, if it proceeds, cut an enormous swathe through Royal Park.

The City of Melbourne has estimated that, in this park alone, 5,200 trees will be axed for this project. These include 100 year old River Red Gums and the line of Moreton Bay Fig Trees in Macarthur Road planted by the famous Baron Ferdinand Von Mueller in early colonial days. We regard construction of the E W Link through Royal Park as an act of
gross environmental vandalism by the Napthine Government. Would the Mayor of London permit Hyde Park to be treated as free land to accommodate a new road through the city?

Rod Quantock President of PPL VIC points to the destruction of heritage suburbs from Collingwood through to Kensington along the route of the EW Link. He says:

“Not only will whole streets in Collingwood, West Parkville and Clifton Hill, where some families have lived for generations, be demolished but contractors plan to work on the excavation of the tunnel and construction of giant interchanges 24 hours round the clock. This will mean that huge areas of Melbourne will be rendered uninhabitable for years with the dust, noise, vibration and obtrusive lights and difficulty of access to some streets. All these advance plans have been made even though the Minister for Planning has not yet made his pronouncement about the findings of the 6 week long enquiry into the EW Link and advised whether the project has been approved.”

Numbers attending the protest tomorrow in the face of wild weather conditions will be an indication of the strength of public opposition to what is regarded as the most expensive and environmentally damaging infrastructure project ever proposed in Victorian history.

Contact: Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Mobile: 0408022408

Source: Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) 27 June 2014

Inside is the video of the Open Microphone session for members of the audience, including members of community groups for Must Melbourne keep growing. Motions passed calling for a national plebescite on population numbers and for a national conference on sustainable population taking into account State of the Environment reports.

We may replace this film with one taken from another angle which recorded the size of the audience, the applause and the show of hand on the motions. In the meantime this gives the content of the Open Microphone session.

In this report, Ernest Healy, spokesperson for the Moreland Planning Action Group, concludes that VCAT, together with the MCC, have created a precedent which overrides the intended meaning of government policy. He argues that the meaning of the Victorian government’s Policy on Commercial 1 zone can be interpreted to mean that, if the commercial potential of a commercial 1 site is poor, then its suitability for medium density residential development should also be deemed poor.

Moreland City Council – Density at all costs

On April 7th and 8th, 2014, the Moreland City Council opposed an application for the development of 14 three-storey townhouses on a Commercial 1 site in Xavier St Oak Park at VCAT. It did so on the grounds that the commercial site included a public road, for which the City claimed responsibility.

Despite this objection relating to the road, the MCC submission to VCAT made it clear that Council had no serious objections to the project proceeding on planning grounds.

In fact, the Council submission went to some lengths to discredit local resident objections to VCAT, which largely addressed planning criteria – parking, congestion, visual bulk, out-of character development.

Part of Council’s argument for the suitability of this development related to the site’s proximity to the Oak Park shopping centre and railway station.

However, Council’s argument to VCAT, that the townhouse development was suitable because of the close proximity to the Oak Park shops, flatly contradicted its own previous assessment of access to the Oak Park shops from the western side, published a month earlier, when Council staff assessed the Oak Park shopping centre’s suitability for inclusion as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre. The Oak Park shopping centre was rejected by Council officers as unsuitable for inclusion as a NAC because of poor accessibility from the western side of the shopping centre.

Because the proposed townhouse development was to the western side of the Oak Park shops, where access had been deemed to be poor, one would expect that Council would advise VCAT that the development did not have good access to the Oak Park shops and railway station. But, they did not. Consider the following two sets of statements

Again, the relevant statements relate to the question of ease of access to the Oak Park shopping centre from the proposed development site in Xavier St to the West.

Moreland City Council submission to VCAT, March 18, 2014- including response to objectors (residents) grounds:

“The proposal is an appropriate renewal of land that is currently underutilised given its commercial zoning and reasonable access to transport and shops.” (my emphasis)

“The subject land is located in an established urban area with good access to a range of infrastructure and services.” (my emphasis)

“The site is approximately 300 meters walking distance from Oak Park Railway Station. The Oak Park Village shopping strip is located just east of the station, providing good access to local shops.” (my emphasis)

Moreland City Council assessment of access to the Oak Park Shopping Centre, Published February, 2014:

“Access to the centre is provided via Snell Grove and Waterloo Road on the eastern side of the railway which is considered the catchment for this centre. The railway and topography to the west makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the centre from the west challenging. (my emphasis)

… the steep topography of western side of the railway results in poor pedestrian and vehicles access to the centre (i.e. steep, concealed underpass and no vehicle crossing point) from the west. The catchment would principally be east of railway line given this.” (my emphasis)
(MCC, MORELAND ACTIVITY CENTRE FRAMEWORK, REPORT 1 - FEBRUARY 2014, p. 53)

1. The MCC undertook to undermine resident objections to this development when a plausible case on planning grounds could have been made against it, in support of resident concerns.

2. In its submission to VCAT, the Moreland City Councils’ assessment of access to the Oak Park shopping centre from the Western side of the Oak Park Station flatly contradicted its recent, detailed assessment which deemed access from the west to be poor.

The Bigger Picture:

This instance raises serious doubts as to how the Victorian government’s Commercial 1 zone will be treated in cases where the commercial potential of the site is deemed to be poor – as is the case with many dilapidated shopping strips.

Having decided that the Xavier St site had little or no commercial potential, VCAT simply decided that, by default, the site could be treated almost solely as a residential development.

VCAT was simply not interested in discussing the meaning of the Victorian government’s
Policy on Commercial 1 zone, which can be interpreted to mean that, if the commercial potential of a commercial 1 site is poor, then its suitability for medium density residential development should also be deemed poor.

Commercial 1 zone:

‘Purpose

To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment
and community uses.

To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the
commercial centre.’

(34.0115/07/2013 VC100)

One reading of this is that where the role and scale of the commercial centre is low, the potential for medium-density housing development will also be low. Here, ‘Complementarity’ relates to the creation of mixed-use centres, and does not mean that one use can be simply substituted for another where the other use is deficient.

VCAT, together with the MCC, have created a precedent which overrides the intended meaning of government policy.

Why is Melbourne's population projected to skyrocket, all of a sudden? What is driving this? Why are people confused between refugees and economic immigration. Why can't we communicate and organise in order to bring the government into line? Why do our governments ignore the people?

#transcript" id="transcript">Taking back the talking stick

"The talking stick, also called a speaker's staff is an instrument of aboriginal democracy used by many tribes. It may be passed around a group or used only by leaders as a symbol of their authority and right to speak in public. In a tribal council circle, a talking stick is passed around from member to member allowing only the person holding the stick to speak. This enables all those present at a council meeting to be heard, especially those who may be shy; consensus can force the stick to move along to assure that the "long winded" don't dominate the discussion; and the person holding the stick may allow others to interject. "[1] An open mike is the same kind of thing. This talk is about how elites have got control of the talking stick and how to get it back.

Speech for Must Melbourne keep growing? by Sheila Newman June 14, 2014

The question is does Melbourne have to keep growing? My response is that it is not a natural inbuilt requirement that populations constantly increase in size. Many developed and undeveloped countries and regions are not growing like Australia. Pacific islanders had stable populations for about 60,000 years. Although most industrialised countries ballooned with industrialization and access to cheap fossil fuel, many reset their population growth downwards after the game-changing 1973 oil shock. But countries that inherited the British land-tenure and political system – the United States, Australia, Canada – did not reset; they borrowed to continue population growth and expansion. Secondly, there is no economic imperative to keep population growing, as is being done, via high immigration. Plenty of countries survive well with small stable populations.

So why is Melbourne’s population projected to skyrocket? Unfortunately, the problem is that population increase is being engineered by sociological forces that are responding to focused benefits from the very things that cause suffering to the rest of us and damage the natural world. By this I mean that, via high immigration policies, powerful people in various business groups are successfully enacting pro-growth ideologies. All that the counter-growth movement is really asking is for the growth lobby to desist and allow our population to evolve naturally and democratically. We are not the population controllers; they are.

These pro-growth forces are highly organized, very determined, and very wealthy. They own and control most of the assets and resources, including the mass media and, arguably, large parts of Australia’s parliaments. The rest of us are relatively disorganised and poor because of this political system which concentrates land, resources and power in fewer and fewer hands.

Some traditional avenues of resistance exist, although all are compromised in this system. One new one is present – the Internet. The traditional options are:

• power in public institutions and utilities;
• power of employment connections;
• power of family communication;
• power of local government;

Power in public institutions and utilities: Historically, even though our system placed much power in private hands, in the 19th and 20th centuries we built up public institutions that safeguarded citizens’ rights to affordable water and food, electricity, housing, education, reliable employment, regulated banking. Most of these public institutions that protected our rights have since been privatised and taken beyond our influence.

Power of employment connections: Unions once brought together workers with common cause to preserve financial and other easily identifiable benefits, but the supportive industrial relations and law institutions have largely been dismantled and Australian workforces are now dispersed and temporary.

Power of family communication: One of the problems of population growth and infrastructure expansion is that it means that planners constantly insert new people and groups and buildings and roads and activities among us, interfering with established human networks. Family communication is also an uphill battle with TV, Facebook, school, commuting to work, and if you are one of many isolated Australians going from one rental to the next, couch surfing or sleeping rough. Ironically, wealthy families and clans that stick together, like the Dennis Family Corporation, the Murdochs, the Packers and the Winsors, rule the world. As more Australians become unemployed and cannot afford housing, the upside is that they will default back to family, clan and locality and communicate with neighbours on issues of mutual convenience and grow food and trade at the same level. Direct power at local level, accessed by well-networked families and clans together with neighbours is probably the most effective way to counteract the growth lobby on the ground and decisions by unrepresentative distant central governments. Women seem to lead most of the coordinated actions against overdevelopment and overpopulation in Melbourne, heading democratic planning groups, public land defence groups, ecological and wildlife protection groups, contributing to alternative media, attending parliament and organising demonstrations. They are our great strength. Their political engagement is under-reported in the mainstream media as you would expect.

Power of local government: Most people believe that immigration is entirely managed by the Federal Government, but it is at the level of local government that population control actually starts. Local Government traditionally controls building permits to control population numbers by limiting subdivisions and land clearing. This mechanism gave Australians direct control over the size of their communities. State governments in Australia have been removing this very important local government power over decades, with local government amalgamations, administrative control and laws reducing local power. Local power is the most direct and potentially useful form of democracy, more likely to unite people with a stake in the same bit of the real world.

State Government: 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 largely taken over immigration policy decisions from the Federal government by calling themselves regions in need of migration and setting up websites and industries to market housing, business investment, and citizenship to prospective economic immigrants all over the world. All the states do this, but in Victoria the website is www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au . Obviously this website needs to come down.

The National Government makes decisions to support wars and sets policies for humanitarian and economic immigration. The public messaging system has erroneously convinced many people that most immigrants are ‘refugees’, using the issue as a wedge tactic to prevent people speaking out on numbers. At the same time, the media fails to critically examine the fact that many of our refugees and asylum seekers come from the places where we are engaged with NATO in what are arguably illegal resource wars. The Australian public is given no say in whether we support such wars.

The pro-growth forces control the mass media – that is, the public messaging system, which seems largely to control election choices and politicians’ policies. The effect is that, although the majority of Australians do not want population growth or its impacts, their opinion is not clearly reported and they are not aware of each other. Most of the Australian media and much overseas media are owned by Packer, Fairfax and particularly the Murdoch corporations which have vested interests in massive population growth, most obviously in their property dot coms (realestate.com.au and domain.com.au) , which sell Australian land and housing all over the world in a market that is enhanced by the promise of continuous population growth. CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera, the ABC and SBS and generally all mainstream Anglophone press share biases and syndicate reports.

The Internet: So, how do we overcome a commercially compromised and unresponsive public messaging system that repetitively purveys this propaganda, making us believe it is both irresistible and true? By going around it and creating media that is far more relevant to most people, on the principle that real news is of real interest and that people, although schooled to passively absorb anointed opinion, if they wake up, don’t want to go to sleep again.

The traditional media relies a lot on distant authorities and events, which we cannot verify or affect. The alternative media can convey news from people on the ground, almost anywhere in the world.

The traditional media creates ‘stars’ and elevates as ‘authorities’ people who continually tell us that we must have growth. It is hard to get the attention of family, neighbours, colleagues and friends to our divergent point of view because they are conditioned to give more respect to mass media stars and opinions than to direct communication and experience.

The alternative media can identify our own real heroes and authorities – like the many women in Melbourne who head up groups to fight overpopulation and its impacts us. We can use the internet to do this, as many grass-roots organisations and BRICS countries now do.

The traditional media syndicates news and feature articles. We should do the same by republishing each other’s work on our various websites, by reciprocal interviewing and by inviting each other to speak at events, thus raising our mutual profiles and amplifying our impact collectively. Whilst it is often helpful to get a ‘mainstream’ celebrity to speak at an event, try to put some of your own on the stage as well, so that they will become known in their own right. Present them as ‘experts’. This is what the Property Council of Australia and APop do.

The Candobetter.net website, where I write and edit, promotes population activists and their activities where the mainstream press ignores them, preferring paid spokespeople from big business who tout growth. Our articles get thousands and tens of thousands of reads over time. One recent article got 12,000 reads in 3 weeks. We are actually a website for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy.

Publishing on Candobetter.net is a lot surer than writing letters to the Editor at the Age, or the Herald Sun, or the Australian or the Fin Review. Try it some time.

Ideally Candobetter.net would like to be one of the alternative sites that together will replace the mainstream media middleman with more direct and diverse analysis and reports from the field.

Direct and Reliable sources of information

Instead of just reacting to mainstream disinformation, population writers and activists can access direct sources of information. Hansard is a superb direct source of politics, laws and news providing great speeches, hilarious examples and insights into our parties and politicians. Scientific sources include the CSIRO Futures program which produced the Australian Resources Atlas project and the report, Future Dilemmas. The State of the Environment Report Australia 2011 is still a good guide, and is pessimistic about population impacts even though its population projections of 100,000 net migration vastly underestimate our current population trajectory. The State of the environment reports [for]Victoria are increasingly politicized, so that the conclusions of the 2010 one did not make sense in the light of its content. The most recent one, for 2014, lacks comparability with the 2010 one, which defeats an important objective of these reports. ABS projections are a very necessary source of important information and part of public education. They rely, however, on past trends and on getting good information. They do not or cannot predict or allow for changes of policy or influence of lobby groups, except in general terms of higher or lower projections. You Tube is another direct source of information, and of course there are independent blogs and videos all over the web. As well as this, instead of just hearing the NATO line, try getting the other side from RT (Russia Today) which has great interviews, documentaries, and news and war coverage. Some other well-known alternatives are Press TV, Global Research, Voltaire Net, PaulCraigRoberts.org, the
Land Destroyer Report and the Syrian Arab Newsagency (SANA). If you speak another language you can search foreign amazon sites for books with different perspectives then order them without the usual publisher restrictions via eBay.

Resource Depletion: Sustaining growth depends on fuel. For a while there it looked like people were beginning to wake up to the finitude of petroleum and the difficulty in replacing it, but recently there has been a desperate con-job called US shale oil independence. This petroleum energy renaissance can be shown to be a wild exaggeration and has been reported as such by Bloomberg in "Dream of US Oil independence slams against shale costs." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/dream-of-u-s-oil-independence-slams-against-shale-costs.html, which costs shale oil production at $1.50 for every $1.00 produced.[2]

It is really important for activists to get their heads around this because, if people believe that – first gas, now coal seam gas and shale oil – will keep business as usual, they will not resist unsustainable population growth as hard as they must.

NOTES

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_stick

[2] "Just a few of the roadblocks: Independent producers will spend $1.50 drilling this year for every dollar they get back." And, "Shale output drops faster than production from conventional methods. It will take 2,500 new wells a year just to sustain output of 1 million barrels a day in North Dakota's Bakken shale, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Iraq could do the same with 60." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/dream-of-u-s-oil-independence-slams-against-shale-costs.html.

Videos of KELVIN THOMSON and all panel speakers have been added to this article. Open mic part now published here too. Today, June 14, 2014, a packed hall with people standing at the back in the Hawthorn Arts Centre voted for a national plebiscite to ask the people what size population they wanted. The forum interacted with a panel of four speakers: Kelvin Thomson, MP for Wills; Sheila Newman, Evolutionary Sociologist and Candobetter.net editor and writer; Clifford Hayes, former Bayside Council Mayor and planning activist; and William Bourke, Leader of the Sustainable Population Party. There was a queue for the open microphone and the meeting closed later than expected. All motions passed with an overwhelming show of hands.

Packed meeting in Hawthorn backs vote on Victoria’s population

We will probably replace this film with another from another angle which recorded the size of the audience, the applause and the show of hand on the motions. In the meantime this gives the content of the Open Microphone session.

The Hawthorn Arts Centre was the venue for a large public meeting today asking the question “Must Melbourne keep growing?” Speakers, Hon. Kelvin Thomson MP, Ms. Sheila Newman, evolutionary sociologist, Mr. Clifford Hayes, former Bayside mayor and Planning activist and Mr. William Bourke president of “ Sustainable Population Party” all addressed the meeting with the ultimate message that Melbourne does not have to keep growing. The audience was given the floor for the open mic second hour of the program and took full advantage of this. The meeting voted unanimously for the federal government to hold a national vote on Australia’s population aiming to stabilise by 2040:

''That, on the basis of State of the Environment reports and in the interests of democracy, the meeting calls on the federal government to hold a national vote on population at or before the next federal election, with a proposal to allow Australia to stabilise its population by 2040. A working group will be formed by concerned citizens in order to draft an appropriate question."

Meeting voted for Gov to have scientific conference re long-term sustainable population

Additionally the meeting voted unanimously for the Victorian Government to convene a scientifically based conference to establish the long term sustainable population for the state, on a motion proposed by Ms Julianne Bell, of Protectors of Public Land:

"That this meeting calls on the Victorian government to convene a scientifically based Victorian conference on what constitutes a long term environmentally sustainable population for Victoria, with reference to the Victorian State of the environment reports of 2008 and 2013 indicating environmental damage from current population levels."

According to the President of Sustainable Population Australia’s Victorian and Tasmanian branch, Ms. Jill Quirk, ”The first resolution is to give the Australian people the right to determine their own quality of life and quality of the environment for the present and future. The second is asking the government to undertake its absolute responsibility and to stop the reckless, irreversible destruction caused by needless rapid population growth and over development happening now.”

The following article by wildlife biologist Hans Brunner comments on an unrealistic environmental policy statement from Frankston Council. Yet again, an Australian local council behaves as if it believes it can have its environmental cake and eat it. Surely the councilors and staff at Frankston are not really this naive. But if this isn't naivety, what is it? Some think that most people who have responsibility for environment in government mistakenly believe it is about a marketing exercise to develop 'customer' satisfaction; they really don't have a clue about thermodynamics or by what the environment is, that it includes nature, and that our impacts are enormous. - (Candobetter.net editor)

“Reasons for the strategy”

On page 11, under, "reasons for this strategy", the Council admits that “Human demand for natural resource is 2.7 global hectares per person, whereas the planet only has 1.8 gha bio-capacity available per person.”

This says it all.

Yet, Australia's and Frankston's population is still rapidly increasing, due to government policies to boost numbers. As a result, Frankston is under siege from developers in order to accommodate another projected16,000 people. Surprisingly, the council seems not to have a problem with this and so it was not included in their strategy for “Greening our Future”. From experience I can say that the Council stand on the Green Wedge is shaky at best.

P. 22-23. The glowing description here exaggerates and misrepresents Frankston’s environmental situation. Remarkably, there is no mention of the damage done to wildlife through the enormous loss of habitat when the Peninsula link was built. Frankston’s largest wildlife corridor was destroyed.

P. 31. Frankston Council claims to be “ensuring that all native wildlife are protected from cats, dogs, foxes and rats, intrusive human intervention such as bikes, fishing and unsupervised parting.” In spite of this we are still rapidly losing wildlife species and especially the nationally endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot. Furthermore, it was the grass roots people who had to fight extremely hard to keep bikes, fishing and dog walking out of the Frankston Reservoir Reserve. This was after the council invited people to say what they would like to do in this reserve, engineering responses that resulted in asking for bike riding, dog walking fishing, canoeing, jogging, parting and many many more such activities, instead of simply being able to walk and enjoy nature without molesting it. I hope they never do this again!

P. 32. Instead of “Further opportunities to protect wildlife,” it should read, 'Urgent and Realistic Actions should be taken'. This does not seem to happen.

P. 40. Whilst stating that people pollute creeks and water ways, the Council fails to warn that if more people come to Frankston, this will exacerbate the already serious problem.

P. 42. The Council agree that water is already a scarce commodity. However they don’t forecast that an increasing population will make it even more scarce. I feel that the less water everyone uses, the more people the government invites to share what remains.

P. 54. More housing, however environmentally planned in construction, will, in most cases, still create the loss of green space and wildlife habitat. It is not the solution to 'greening our future' and these negative consequences have not been mentioned in this document.

P. 56. Advocates bike use rather than car use. Elderly people cannot ride a bike and most people with heavy shopping bags cannot easily use a bike or public transport (when it is available). They have to use their car.

P. 61. Asking to reduce consuming is OK but there is a limit. Asking to restrict consuming and then promote an increase in the number of consumers is hypocritical and defeats the purported purpose of reducing environmental impact.

P. 65. To increase business and promote capital growth is definitely not greening our future.

P. 72. Under “Targets” there is no mention of protecting and enhancing of biodiversity. It seems that, for the Council, nature has nothing to do with “Greening our Future.”

P. 74-76. 'Indicators for biodiversity' fails to recognise or admit to the drastic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. This is especially the case of the Bandicoots in Frankston, but also for many other species less conspicuous, such as moths and butterflies etc. I have never heard the Council complaining about the loss of wildlife. Maybe my hearing is bad.

P. 84. Just to adapt to climate change is not good enough. However, climate change is a worldwide issue and Frankston is only a small piece of a jig-saw puzzle and has no influence in reducing global warming except to set an example in how to slow it a little.

Sadly, these proposed efforts will really only infinitesimally slow down the process of the eventual disaster. The council should come to terms with, and the public should be made aware, of the seriousness of the issues.

P. 87 “Education”. Everyone, including school children, should be informed of the truth about our dim future. Young people have to know the reality of what we are leaving them with to inherit. Finally, while Frankston Council appears to be trying to do their best, they should not mislead the community with a false security by using the word SUSTAINABILITY and make people believe that whatever the Council recommends is good enough to save the world. Far from it!

Finally, I need to add that there should definitely be no dog walking in Nature Conservation Reserves especially such as the Pines.

In 2013 foreign investors obtained permission from the Victorian government to build or to buy 4,500 houses, amounting to some $18b worth of approvals. Numbers of houses falling into foreign hands are increasing, with the Chinese the biggest buyers and builders, followed by the Canadians, Americans and Singaporeans. There were 12,025 applications to invest in Victorian real estate according to an annual report for 2012-2013. Not one was rejected. On Wednesday 19 March 2014 the Treasurer, The Hon Joe Hockey MP, asked the Economics Committee to inquire into and report on Australia's foreign investment policy as it applies to residential real estate.

Although the date for submissions seems to have passed, the committee is still receiving them. Since most submissions have come from professional organisations with a financial interest in promoting more houses, there is a great need for members of the public who cannot afford housing to make submissions. Submissions

The Committee invited interested persons and organisations to make submissions addressing the terms of reference by Friday 9 May 2014. However it looks as if they are still accepting submissions.

Inquiry Status

Accepting Submissions

Saturday June 14th at 2.00pm
Hawthorn Arts Centre,
360 Burwood Rd Hawthorn,
Chandelier Room (Melways 45 D10)

Public forum with Kelvin Thomson, William Burke, Sheila Newman, Clifford Hayes and numerous community groups. Sustainable Population Australia & Victoria First are hosting a panel discussion and open mike on Melbourne's population future. The event will be filmed to use as a document to show how Melbourne people feel about overpopulation. "Melbourne's population growth is treated by the media, by governments and by planners as though it is inevitable, giving the impression that the fate of Melbourne is to be a city of 7 to 8 million by mid-century. What the public seldom hears is that Melbourne's huge growth rate is not inevitable, nor that growth of the population does not magically stop at mid-century unless changes to existing trends are made. If present growth rates continued, Melbourne would be a city of about 20 million by the end of the century. The truth is that Melbourne's future could be largely in our own hands. This meeting is a chance for the people of Melbourne to question the ideology that "Melbourne must keep growing"" (Jill Quirk, President SPA Vic & Tas). "Melbourne has been growing by 200 people a day, 1,500 a week and 75,000 each year for some time now. The latest projections are that this rapid growth will escalate still further. But Melbournians are not asked whether this is what we really want for our city." (Kelvin Thomson, President, Victoria First)

Panel

Federal MP and President of Victoria First, Hon. Kelvin Thomson;
Clifford Hayes, former Bayside Mayor
Planning activist, Sheila Newman, population author and editor of candobetter.net
William Bourke, President of Sustainable Population Party.

Please come and have your say!

Contact: Jill Quirk, President, Sustainable Population Australia,VicTas branch
vic [ AT ] population.org.au ph. 0409742927 or Julianne Bell, Secretary, Victoria
First jbell5 [ AT ] bigpond.com ph. 0408022408

I don’t have kids but I am disturbed about the Heart Foundation’s Active Healthy Kids very poor report card for Australian children last week. It said that Australian children are largely unfit because of a lack of exercise and that this deterioration has happened in the last couple of decades. Natasha Schranz author of the Foundation's inaugural report has graded Australian children at a disgraceful D minus. Contributing to this terrble score was a D for "active transport", meaning not nearly enough walking or bicycle riding to and from school.

Prisoners of chair and screen

81 % of Australian children do not get the required 60 minutes of physical exercise per day. 26% are not involved in organised sport, 71% are too sedentary, Discussion in the media focused on the seduction of screens such as tablets, computers television and phones. As an adult , I know how screen activities can sap the time in which one could be outside in the sunshine exercising, however there is more to this than the wonders and availability of very attractive technology.

Deprived of open space and adventure

A generation ago and before that, there was a lot more open space which enticed children outdoors when they were not in school. Incidental activity, exploring interesting places in nature or in the local neighbourhood is not just beneficial but essential to children in developing their imaginations, experiencing and dealing with unpredictable situations without rules and the directions and supervision of an adult. This used to be easy to access in the street, in vacant land, parks and the private backyard and friends backyards. There was plenty of space to explore in the suburbs.

There is a huge difference between sitting on the couch in front of a screen from 4- 6.30pm and actively playing in the local environment. It is not necessary to have a strenuous game of basketball for the body and mind to register a level of exercise and a 3 dimensional experience . Furthermore sitting is supposed be the most unhealthy thing to do for hours on end and it makes you fat! For that reason I will not make this a very long article.

Victims of blinkered planners and growth lobby

The push to make our cities more crowded by increasing the population very fast, densifying suburbs and removing private space including backyards is not going to help this terrible situation with the health of Australia’s children. It has to make it worse. Our politicians show no care at all for the welfare of Australia’s citizens. I understand that many of Melbourne’s’ private schools have built all over their playing fields and now have to bus their students to public areas to play sport. I suppose the children just sit during lunch hour because with no sports areas they could not spontaneously start a ball game.

Unnatural

It’s unnatural, anyway for children to sit all day at desks listening to teachers and severing all their avenues of expressing themselves physically adds insult to injury.

A child living in an apartment, will naturally turn to his/her tablet or phone for entertainment if the only outside alternative is a concrete balcony. A trompe l'eouil on the back wall of the 2x3 metre couryard, however far it backons cannot acccommodate the need of a child to run. We have not made Australia better over the past 50 years. The "age of entitlement is over" and for what? What really have we gained as a society?

Massive decline in children's fitness

Two generations ago, we had a nation very well represented in international sport partly because, I believe most children had a chance at participating even if it was just making a “100 in the backyard at Mum’s” or hitting a tennis ball on a broken -down asphalt court, but now it seems we have a generation of unfit young people unlikely to live as long as their parents. The social engineers and economists are always complaining about the aging population but if people start dying younger, the achievement of longer life expectancy will be just a nostalgic memory.

For an Australia going the way of the Philippines, we should take heed. Rural Filipinos are being murdered by real estate developers. Even those who survived the recent typhoons are being harassed by developers.Filipinos have been struggling for land-rights for centuries now, against colonisers. Although they are nominally a republic now, they are overrun by violent corporate forces, which are forcing them off rural land and turning it over to rich immigrants and housing estates. The history of the Philippines is another one where an idyllic Pacific island existed for centuries with low populations until colonisation.[2] The Philippines were invaded and ruled by Spain from 1821 until the end of the Spanish–American War in 1898, except for a brief period of British rule from 1762 to 1764. The Filippinos finally overthrew Spanish rule in August 1896, establishing the First Philippine Republic. In tragic irony, the United States took them over the next year as an outcome of the Spanish–American War. 1.4 million Filipinos died trying to defend themselves against the U.S. , in a war lasting six years until 1902. This period has been described as massive genocide perpetrated by the United States and also as its 'first Vietnam'. [1] The Catholic Church Has played a leading and shameful part in facilitating these problems since the initial Spanish invasion. Now the corporate developers of resorts and housing estates are continuing this scurrilous business.

How and why this rural land defender was killed

Article-obituary first published at http://focusweb.org/content/justice-ka-melon-and-his-family-stop-attack-peasants-and-peasant-leadersWe grieve with the family of Menelao (Ka Melon) Barcia, as we join the entire rural social movement in mourning the tragic and senseless killing of a peasant leader whose life was dedicated to the struggle for agrarian reform and social justice. We express our indignation towards the shameless perpetrators who committed this heinous crime.

Ka Melon Barcia, 58, was killed on May 2, 2014, at around 10 in the evening. He sustained four gunshot wounds, three on the chest and one on the head. Aboard an owner-type jeepney, Ka Melon with his wife, Maria Barcia, 55, and niece Romella Mallari, came from a neighboring town when two unidentified men riding a motorcycle ambushed them in front of a church at Sta. Cruz, Manibaog. Maria, 55, sustained two gunshot wounds in the leg and arm and is still in the hospital; Romella was wounded in her arm and leg. The two men tried to steal Ka Melon’s bag which contained important documents of his local farmers’ organization, ANIBAN-KATARUNGAN but Romella defended it and shouted for help. When people present in the scene rushed to their aid, the suspects fled.

Ka Melon, who served as the secretary of ANIBAN tirelessly and fearlessly fought to reclaim their 700-hectare lands being grabbed by real estate developers: FL Properties and Management Corporation/LLL Holdings, Inc. (FL/LLL), and more recently, by Ayala Land, Inc.. This land is located in the villages of Hacienda Dolores and Sapang Uwak, Porac, Pampanga. It was exempted from agrarian reform in 2006, despite being an agricultural area planted to rice, fruits, and root crops. More on this see http://focusweb.org/taxonomy/term/217

The assassination of Ka Melon, regarded by many as a person of commitment and principle, is the latest attempt to sow fear and to push farmers to give up the fight for agrarian reform. For years, farmers of Hacienda Dolores have experienced systematic harrasment and violations of their human rights—from verbal threats, physical attacks and intimidation, to criminalization, forcible eviction, destruction of crops and other properties, killing, and enclosure of the land, in which more than 200 farmers were refused entry into the lands they have tilled for years. ANIBAN’s president and the village captain Tony Tolentino has also been charged with different criminal cases.

Ka Melon’s murder is the latest episode in the unabated killings of farmers fighting for their lands. The increase in human rights violations, land enclosures and landlord impunity in the countryside has been happening in the context of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program’s looming ‘death’ and uncertain future. These atrocious acts might well be the new form of land dispute resolution of corporate land grabbers and government.

We add our voice, in the most emphatic way possible, to the public outcry against this brutal and senseless killing.

We call on the Philippine government, especially the Commission on Human Rights, Department of Justice, and the security sector, to have a sense of urgency and immediately order an investigation of Ka Melon’s killing, file appropriate cases against the perpetrators, and investigate why up until now, there is still no police blotter of the incident. We urge Philippine President Benigno Aquino III to lead the search for the truth and justice and put an end to these atrocious acts and other cases of human rights violations.

We call on the Philippine authorities to stop the land grabbing of agrarian farmlands and ensure the continuity, effective implementation and completion of the agrarian reform program as guaranteed by the country’s Constitution. Restore the farmers’ rights and control over their lands.

In the Philippines and elsewhere, small and peasant farmers produce much of the food and nurture the world’s collective ecological wealth. An attack on peasants is therefore an attack on society. This must be condemned in the strongest possible way by all.

We hold the Philippine government accountable for the rising incidence of extra-judicial killings and landlord and corporate impunity in the countryside. They must be investigated and punished under the law if found responsible for the death of Ka Melon and of other farmers and advocates of agrarian reform

Many have been widowed and orphaned by the continuous and seemingly unending killings of peasants and farmer leaders. We continue to hope that justice will be served.

Justice for Ka Melon and his family!
Stop land grabbing!
Save agrarian reform!

NOTES

[1] E. San Juan, Jr. (March 22, 2005). "U.S. Genocide in the Philippines: A Case of Guilt, Shame, or Amnesia?"

[2] Aram A. Yengoyan describes the easy ways and low density of the swidden farming Mandaya people in the Philippines in, "The effects of cash cropping on Manday land tenure," The Philippines, Chapter 13 from Ron Croncombe, Ed., Land Tenure in the Pacific, OUP, 1971

The Moreland Community Against the East West Tunnel will be setting up tables to lobby those attending the ALP State Conference this weekend at the Moonee Valley Racecourse to reject any contract(s) signed before the State election to build the East West Link. MCAT members will distribute and discuss the attached flyer that argues: The absence of a mandate for the project, the lack of transparency surrounding it and the serious flaws being identified at the hearings before the Assessment Panel lend support to the view that the responsible course of action is to publicly state that any contracts entered into will not be upheld by Labor.

East West Link – The Case for Labor to Terminate the Contracts

The majority of Victorians are opposed to the East West tunnel project. It is not the winner that Denis Napthine had hoped. The public has made it clear that it believes infrastructure spending should be directed towards public transport not roads. They are becoming aware that the tunnel project is in fact a massive misdirection of public funds which does not make economic sense, which will not resolve traffic congestion on the Eastern Freeway or elsewhere, and which will have the effect of denuding much needed funds for public transport infrastructure.

Given

• the absence of a mandate to enter into such a massive project;

• the lack of transparency in the Government’s handling of the project;

• the fact that the whole process has been conducted in secrecy and haste, and

• that it is now clear that the process being conducted is the product of a government acting in bad faith to bind its successors to a contract, which in the ordinary course of planning processes would not be signed until 2015 we believe that Labor’s commitment to honour the contracts if signed is no longer a fiscally responsible nor electorally wise course of action.

Labor therefore needs to state upfront that it will not uphold the contract for the Napthine government’s EW Link proposal because there has been no attempt to define the project in the context of a future for the city that the community wants.

Accordingly, the ALP needs to come up with a visionary comprehensive 21st Century transport infrastructure plan that is economically and environmentally sustainable and which reflects global best practice.

Arguments about sovereign risk are misleading. Visiting ANU Professor Nick Sneddon, Australia’s foremost expert on government contracts has made it clear that there are no legal impediments to state governments cancelling contracts entered into by their predecessors and believes that any compensation arising would be minimal.

A statement before contracts are signed that the ALP will not continue with the contracts will make the situation completely clear to tenderers.

The absence of a mandate for the project, the lack of transparency surrounding it and the serious flaws being identified at the hearings before the Assessment Panel lend support to the view that the responsible course of action is to publicly state that any contracts entered into will not be upheld by Labor.

There are electoral benefits for Labor in taking a stronger stand against the project. The community is hungry for a well-planned and fully comprehensive public transport plan. Labor can mark itself out as a truly alternative government and can damage the current Government by exposing what is essentially a shonky deal being rushed through the Parliament. Investment in comprehensive public transport will create more employment than Labor's target numbers.

Labor must announce that it is not prepared to support this dubious and discredited project, which will be a burden for generations to come.

MCAT Moreland Community Against the Tunnel

For further information Contact: Moreland Community Against the East West Tunnel

E: [email protected] M: 0417 354 169

For further information

Moreland Council: Cr Sue Bolton, mobile 0417 583 664

Moreland Community Against the (EW) Tunnel: Michael Petit, mobile 0417 354 169

Moreland Community Against the (EW) Tunnel: Riki Lane, mobile 0400 877 819

When: 2 pm for a 2:15 pm start on Saturday 10 May 2014

Where: Flemington Community Centre in Debneys Park, 25 Mt Alexander Road, Flemington.

Guest Speaker: Kenneth Davidson will speak on "Kleptomania and the Contract State: the political threat to Melbourne’s liveability."

Kenneth is a senior columnist with the Age and a leading writer on economics and public policy. See his Age articles over the past year on State Government contracts and the question of "sovereign risk" also on the follies of the proposed East West Link Toll Road project. His latest Age article dated 25 April 2014 is entitled "Sovereign risk does not apply to Victoria's desalination plant".

Also see attached article "Can Governments Break Contracts?" This is a paper by Nick Seddon, adjunct professor, ANU College of Law, presented at the "Melbourne Forum on the EastWest Link - 16 April 2014"

Transport: Melways Map Reference 43 B1. There is ready access by tram, train and bike. There is parking on site. (This may be limited, however, due to another event on the site over lunch time. If the car park is full turn left out of the Flemington Community Centre carpark onto Mt Alexander Road and go left again into Victoria Street where there are usually car spaces. Walk back to the Flemington Community Centre across Debneys Park.)

Future campaign strategies concerning the East West Link and the contracts will be discussed at our meeting, We welcome everyone interested in the EW Link to the meeting!

Regards

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

Mobile: 0408022408