democracy alert

UPDATE 29 September 2015, Click here for video of speech.SPAVicTas AGM, 5 September 2015, Ross House, 247 Flinders Lane, 4th Floor Conference Room: 1.45 for 2pm. Speaker: Dr Angela Munro, Public Policy expert: "Kennett's 'commonsense revolution' and the Melbourne 'growth machine'. "The unilateral substitution of an appointed commission for the elected Melbourne City Council in October, 1993 by the incoming, neoliberal Victorian Government, was followed by its disempowerment as a democratic institution before reinstatement in emasculated form in 1996. The resounding defeat of the Labor government, in 1992, coincided with an unprecedented global property collapse whose cataclysmic economic and political consequences in Melbourne were conducive to this marginalisation of the City Council and citizenry. A historic dual conflict over the governance and development of central Melbourne between the Victorian Government and the City Council on the one hand, and between central city property interests and citizenry on the other, was immediately resolved. Whereas efficiencies justified council amalgamations statewide, the Melbourne City Council was subject to separate and extreme centralisation of state government power, deregulation of urban planning and de-democratisation as a micro CBD council."

Sustainable Population Australia,
Victorian and Tasmanian branch
Annual General Meeting 2015
On - Saturday September 5th
At - 1.45 for 2.00pm. (if you arrive late and the front door is closed – ring 0405 825769 or 0409742927)
Venue: Ross House, 247 Flinders Lane, Melbourne 3000 Hayden Raysmith Conference Room, Fourth Floor. – (Turn left from the stairwell; or from lift through fire door and then left. It is the corner room).

Guest Speaker : Dr. Angela Munro, Public Policy expert:

"Kennett's 'commonsense revolution' and the Melbourne 'growth machine"

"The unilateral substitution of an appointed commission for the elected Melbourne City Council in October, 1993 by the incoming, neoliberal Victorian Government, was followed by its disempowerment as a democratic institution before reinstatement in emasculated form in 1996. The resounding defeat of the Labor government, in 1992, coincided with an unprecedented global property collapse whose cataclysmic economic and political consequences in Melbourne were conducive to this marginalisation of the City Council and citizenry. A historic dual conflict over the governance and development of central Melbourne between the Victorian Government and the City Council on the one hand, and between central city property interests and citizenry on the other, was immediately resolved. Whereas efficiencies justified council amalgamations statewide, the Melbourne City Council was subject to separate and extreme centralisation of state government power, deregulation of urban planning and de-democratisation as a micro CBD council."

Sheila Newman (Masters by Research in Environmental Sociology, specialising in population and environment), writer and researcher, current president of the SPA VicTas branch whose own research is complementary will add population specific details to fill in the jig saw of the picture of the population pressures we are experiencing in Victoria: "Victoria's population numbers under Kennett."

(Video inside.) Once again Nick Folkes and his Party for Freedom have come up with a very effective way to protest against foreign ownership and overpopulation through invited economic immigration and its impacts.[1] Other groups would do well to imitate these democratic initiatives especially if they differ with Party for Freedom on issues of multiculturalism but care about housing affordability and democracy, rather than simply trying to shut Party for Freedom up and, in the process, allow the growth lobby to destroy Australia. In this video Folkes and his Party continue their campaign to make real estate agents and property developers think twice about selling built property to foreign nationals. They focus on the preponderance of Chinese foreign nationals purchasing Australian property. This cannot help but get attention since the Australian mainstream media constantly popularises this issue, although it does not promote any effective way of countering it. (Note that Fairfax and Murdoch press are heavily invested in property dot coms that market Australian real estate to the world: www.realestate.com and www.domain.com). In the video inside this article Mr Folkes engages effectively with people who show both positive and negative interest in the protest for which he is a spokesperson. What next, Mr Folkes, a protest at an Australian international airport, or on the road towards it?

Party for Freedom's press release with this video

"On Saturday, 29th August 2015, Party for Freedom members and supporters will be carrying out protests at auction sites objecting to foreign nationals purchasing Australian residential property.

Last Saturday, 15th August we held protests or flash mobs at three auction sites. The response was amazing with real estate agents and onlookers totally shocked seeing patriotic Australian arrive with placards and Australian flags reminding both real estate agents and foreign buyers that it is illegal under Australian law to sell existing property to foreign nationals.

Thousands of properties have been illegally sold to foreign nationals yet our government does nothing to stop the buy out. It is economic genocide to transfer assets and wealth to foreign nationals. Also, the impact on housing prices and rentals is huge with Australian property prices being some of the most expensive real estate in the world due to foreign ownership coupled with mass immigration.

Both NSW and Victorian state governments are addicted to stamp duty and will continue to encourage foreign ownership. Last year alone, the slippery NSW Treasury raked in over $7.4 billion in stamp duty. No doubt much of this stamp duty money is ‘dirty money’ from China. The CCP Politburo is on an anti-corruption drive in China so many Chinese nationals with connections to the ‘Chinese Communist Party’ are keen to get their money out of China. China has rules in place restricting the export of undeclared money yet does very little to stop the outflows to Australia and other Western and Asian nations."

The press release also claims, without supplying documentation for the statement, that,

"The Chinese government wants to establish ‘Chinese satellites’ throughout the world giving it control and prestige in many nations. The Chinese government has secret plans to move millions of Chinese nationals out of China to help establish these new colonies.

The press release continues:

The people of Hong Kong have seen their small city-state overrun with mainlanders, this has pushed up property prices and demolished wages and job opportunities. Australia should take notice what is happening around the world and take action but we know that our government is too busy getting intoxicated on lure of easy money."

"It is now up to the people of our nation to take action, and this is exactly what we did last Saturday when we arrived unannounced at three auction sites. The first auction site we arrived at was Chatswood. The real estate agent and prospective buyers weren’t happy seeing us arrive when we reminding them that we do not want to see our nation sold out. Our action caused the auction to be cancelled. Our intention is not to stop or interrupt auctions but to exercise our democratic right of protest and remind all present that it is illegal to sell existing property to foreign nationals. We have a right to be angry and annoyed at seeing foreign nationals steal our economic sovereignty.

The second auction site was Turramurra. Again, the real estate agent and onlookers were totally shocked with some rowdy neighbours calling us “racists’ and “bogans”. There were even more neighbours who quietly gave us support and openly spoke about their own opposition to Labor and Liberal’s foreign sell out. These good people hold the same reservations as we do when it comes to our pimpish real estate industry and government who are more than eager in flogging off our nation to foreign entities."

NOTE

[1] Despite my admiration for the effective democratic protest these Australians are making in defense of housing affordability and Australian sovereignty, Party for Freedom's previous website featured some articles and comments about aboriginals and muslims with which candobetter.net does not agree and with which I cannot agree on anthropological grounds personally, speaking as a sociologist specialising in population, inheritance laws and land-use planning. Furthermore, I think that these comments are antithetical to the Party for Freedom's arguments for sovereignty - which is actually best achieved with a fair dose of endogamy. Here is my reasoning:

These comments and articles use 'scientific' theory against specific groups of peoples. For instance, one article discusses a high rate of cousin marriage in a particular people as if it were unusual or hazardous incest. That is a popular view that does not take into account the widespread role of endogamy in preserving land within a people, and other factors that need to be taken into account when assessing cousin marriage. In fact, a high rate of endogamy need not be genetically damaging; it can be beneficial, both in terms of preserving control over territory and in strengthening positive traits. Depending on the public relations, where one highly endogamous group can be stigmatised for 'inbreeding stupidity' another may be famous for 'inbreeding genius'. When assessing the impact of marriage and land-tenure traditions on genetic inheritance, environment and changes to economy, diet, and social organisation also need to be taken into account. See http://candobetter.net/node/3197 about the importance of dynasties in modern power. There is also a comment on the Party for Freedom site suggesting that a particular group of people have lower average I.Q.s that other people. IQ tests are not reliable when dealing with culture and language differences and this theory also does not take into account mass dispossession and changes to economy, diet and social organisation - and the impact of drugs and alcohol. It's a pity that the Party for Freedom does not seem to be able to see how fighting between groups weakens the ability of Australians to stand up to the powers that have overtaken national control of land, housing and economic benefits.

Despite these reservations, I do not want to fall into the trap of enabling wedge politics, which makes people afraid to learn from positive efforts by other groups on the grounds that those groups also hold opinions of which they disapprove. If I were to engage in wedge politics, I would not publish the Party for Freedom's video, on grounds of my differences with their opinions about issues from endogamous marriages - which are, ironically, also widely held by the general political, scientific and citizen community.

This short article around a letter from Bob Couch, records how the ABC spontaneously contacted a candidate for an alternative political party to tell him that the ABC would not give him any time to talk about his policies. The candidate had not approached the ABC, they approached him. Candobetter.net has run a few articles about how the ABC excludes candidates outside the major parties and we are running this story because the issue is so important. The ABC should be informing Australians of all the political alternatives out there so that we can really choose people who will represent us on issues of concern. See also and http://candobetter.net/node/1159.

The decision by the ABC to allow Zaky Mallah to appear on Q and A has attracted much criticism (Advertiser 25/6 and 26/6)). This has been defended by the ABC on the grounds it needs to represent a diversity of views.

I ran as a candidate for the Stop Population Growth Now Party in the SA Legislative Council general election last year. Barely had nominations closed , and before I had approached any media, I received a letter from the ABC informing me that I would not be granted any time on the ABC to explain our party policies.

I am a law abiding, loyal citizen who has lived in Australia all my life.
I have no criminal record. I was nominated by a legally registered political party (with over 300 members) to contest the Fisher by election.
I paid the $8000 expenses (nomination fee $3000, corflutes , how to vote cards etc $5000) out of my own pocket, as our party was low on funds.
Surely I deserved some consideration.

Yet the ABC sees fit to give national exposure to Mallah, who served two and a half years in jail for buying a gun, and threatening to kill ASIO officers.

I am forced to conclude that the ABC is not even handed, and does not properly represent diverse opinions.

Bob Couch
Marino,SA

Yesterday, as the U.S. Senate resolved to ‘fast- track’ the TPP, in Australia, the Productivity Commission came out all guns blazing declaring the ‘free’ trade agreement ‘preferential’ and ‘dangerous’. Bill Davis and Dr Matthew Mitchell report.Republished with thanks from original article at Independent Australia.

See also: The Day the Earth Died and why Sierra Club, Greenpeace, et al. were virtually silent about it (25/6/15) | Global Research

THESE TWO EVENTS occurring on opposite sides of the Pacific should trigger ring alarm bells with the Australian public because the Abbott government is on the brink of signing away our sovereign rights (ISDS clause) amongst other things.

What is the TPP?

Firstly, what is the TPP? The U.S. trade representative’s official description is:

... an ambitious,21st-century Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that will enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries, promote innovation, economic growth and development, and support the creation and retention of jobs.

Here's why the TPP is such a BFD

The economic growth claims have already been debunked by a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, so if it does not deliver GDP growth, then what is the purpose of the TPP? Professor Jane Kelsey  from the University of Auckland explains the real intention of the TPP [IA emphasis]:

The US aims to revive its geopolitical, strategic and economic influence in the Asian region to counter the ascent of China, in part through constructing a region-wide legal regime that serves the interests of, and is enforceable by, the US and its corporations.

So this proposed TPP “agreement” involves Australia as well as a host of other potential member nations including Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam and the United States. South Korea has also indicated it may sign up.

How far off is agreement on the TPP?

The deal is essentially done in terms of agreement between the 12 countries which make up this bloc and could be signed by end of the year. Fast-tracking the TPP has removed a major impediment in the United States. Fast-tracking is summarised by journalist Dave Johnson as follows:

With fast track, Congress agrees to set aside its duties under Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and vote on TPP within 90 days of it being signed, to severely limit discussion and debate, not to filibuster the agreement in the Senate and not to amend it not matter what problems turn up after the agreement is revealed. Fast track essentially pre-approves the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement (and future trade bills) before the public gets a chance to know what is in it.'

Overnight, Reuters reported that the Senate voted 60 to 38 giving Obama the power to negotiate the TPP and other trade deals and fast track them through Congress. The bill goes next to President Obama for his signature

Australia’s process for approving trade agreements is not so different to the U.S.’s fast-track process.

AFTINET describes Australia’s process as follows [IA emphasis]:

The Trade Minister presents the text to the Cabinet, which is made up of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. The decision to sign the text is made by Cabinet, not the whole Parliament.

The text cannot be changed after it is signed.

Parliament only votes on the implementing legislation, not on the whole text of the agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), for example, has 29 chapters and only a few of these will require changes to legislation.”

However, many other chapters will restrict the ways in which current and future Australian governments can legislate, but will not require legislation. For example, the inclusion of the right of foreign investors to sue governments over domestic legislation (investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS) does not require a change to Australian legislation. Other changes, like changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, could be done by changing regulation rather than through legislation.

As many journalists and commentators have argued, agreements like the TPP have dubious benefits for the populations of the countries involved.

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

Transcript of Kelvin Thomson responds on Multilateral treaties

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

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

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

"Investor state dispute settlement clause"

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

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

Health impacts

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

Environment impacts

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

Settlement of disputes lack normal legal standards

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

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

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

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

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

Abbot Liberal Government has majority on the Treaties Committee

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

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

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

As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes. They need your help today. You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?
Read all about it and take action. Originally published at https://orronggroup.wordpress.com/ as an article posted by Hootville, "Urgent: Council’s plan for parkland next to 590 Orrong Rd".

As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes.

They need your help today.

You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?

Read all about it and take action: As if the development and construction of 590 Orrong Road isn't enough, residents at 'ground zero' are now facing compulsory acquisition of their homes.

They need your help today.

You will also be dismayed to learn that Victory Square is at risk of being yet another sports oval in an area so devoid of passive recreation space. When is enough enough?

Read all about it and take action:

Victory Square under threat, playground demolished, (yet) more cricket facilities planned. 

The words below come to us from members of a new group: No Confidence in Stonnington, many of whom live near “ground zero”. Not only have these residents been lumbered with the gross over development that is 590 Orrong Rd, they are facing compulsory acquisition of their homes – using money from the developer.

That money – which is obligatory by law – is supposed to compensate locals  for the massive impact of the development. Instead it seems that the money will be spent in ways that hurts locals more and benefit one very specific group in the community. If that’s not enough, the group has drawn our attention to a hideous new possible masterplan for the Victory Square space. It seems that people – dog walkers, parents, kids, older people, joggers, those that just enjoy a (tiny) open space – will be ignored in favour of powerful sports clubs. If what you read below upsets you, learn more and take action at their website.  

Stonnington Council proposes to place a Public Acquisition Overlay over three homes adjacent to Toorak Oval and Victory Square (Amendment C 197) (homes at 10 and 14 Aubrey St and 1aFulton Street). They have already spent over $1.4M quietly acquiring 1 Fulton Street in 2014. They are in a position to spend millions of ratepayers’ funds on potentially acquiring homes because of the developer contributions they will receive, by law, from the Lend Lease development at 590 Orrong Road.

The anticipated open space needs generated by this development should have been provided at that land. The local community should not be required to provide land for the public open space needs generated by that development and had understood the development contributions from that development would go to improving existing open space, not acquiring more land.

Another master plan for Toorak Oval and Victory Square

The existing master plan does not contemplate the expansion of the park area. However, the Council proposes to spend money on yet another master plan for Toorak Oval and Victory Square and preliminary plans indicate that they wish to spend ratepayers’ funds to acquire the three homes and turn them into cricket nets and re-allocated car parking spaces. Victory Square will be turned into a mini football/cricket oval and will see the removal of the much used playground. It is likely that it will not longer be accessible for the many dog owners, parents, children and seniors, who use the park all day, every day.

Object by Monday 2nd February If you agree that this is certainly not the best allocation of ratepayers’ funds, nor the best outcome for the wider community, not just the influential sporting groups, please object. More details and an objection form here.

Professional growth spruiker, Bernard Salt of KPMG, says that 80% of Australia does not want population growth. ("Straightening out Bananas", Property Council Congress, 2011) So how come we are being swamped?

There is a theory to explain how unpopular and costly policies survive in a 'democracy' when the benefits are focused among a few people who can organise to protect those benefits, whereas the costs are diffused among many people thus difficult to recognise and organise against. This theory explains why 80 % of Australia does not want population growth for good reasons like the cost of housing and the wrecking of the environment, but we still have it because the Growth Lobby makes billions of dollars (not just millions) out of it. (See Chapter 5 of Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence.)

The cartoon illustrates this, as an organised and wealthy rent-collecting Growth Lobby Inc. swoops with a helicopter, while people look around them, confused about what’s happening.

#CEECF5;line-height:120%;">I must start by extending a vote of appreciation to the Mayor for agreeing to debate population growth with Kelvin Thomson. Both debaters and the Moderator respectfully acknowledged the original owners of the land upon which the debate took place, the Wurundjeri.

Mayor Doyle took the position that would guarantee that the ongoing dispossession of the Wurundjeri should continue at an ever escalating rate because it was "inevitable". Kelvin Thomson's position was more respectful of the Wurundjeri and took the opposite view.

The great disappointment for many of us was the Mayor's premise that, in his opinion, population growth was inevitable and that his job was to respond to that inevitability in his role as Mayor. So he would not provide a frank opinion on whether he agreed that endless extreme population growth was unreasonable. He avoided the issue and would not concede his responsibility to the people of Melbourne who are being subjected to this ongoing process of dispossession.

The Mayor highlighted that we live in a free society where public policy debate allows this issue to be fully aired. He also explained the difference between his versions of dumb growth and smart growth. He didn't mention that a key issue is the RATE of growth - which is what concerns most people.

He praised the virtues of modern Melbourne compared to the Melbourne of the 70s and effectively claimed that we could not live in the halcyon days of the past.

He made no mention of:

• We would not be able to "live in the future" either if Australia continued its autocratically imposed self-colonisation policy indefinitely
• At 2.5% per annum, Melbourne's population growth is comparable to those of the most underdeveloped parts of Africa
• Unlike such underdeveloped countries where growth is "natural", Australia's extreme rate of growth is due to an autocratic policy of extreme self-colonisation without the consent of the Australian people
• The ABC does not support open public policy debate of this issue
• Australian homelessness is escalating at a compound rate of 3.2% per annum (doubling time 22 years)
• Australian unemployment is escalating at a compound rate of 2.3% per annum (doubling time 30 years)
• The above rates, if directly influenced by population growth, are likely to be far higher in Melbourne than the Australian averages
• There is significant evidence that population growth is directly implicated in the deterioration of the Australian economy, and that this is directly related to Australia's reduction in philanthropic aid both at home and abroad

The Mayor's (and the ABC's) approach to the issue is analogous to a public figure regarding homicide using semi-automatic weapons as "inevitable" and then proposing that nothing should be done to investigate ways to reduce this rate of homicide.

The Mayor's claim that population growth is inevitable is contrary to his policy of reducing the speed limit in the CBD to 40 kph. He claimed that this was done because nobody dies when hit by a car travelling at 40 kph or less.

The Mayor is the epitomy of what is wrong with the Australian ruling class. He appears genuinely motivated by the desire to do good, yet excludes rational, analytical, "limits to growth" thinking from his zone of responsibility. It was as if he was saying: "I was only obeying orders. The Feds told me it is inevitable. I am innocent. It's not my responsibility." I disagree. I think it is all our responsibilities.

The question is, what right have politicians and public figures to deny reality in this way? Well you might ask.

The Moderator chipped in to say there was no lack of food (in the world) because millions of tonnes of excess food was being distributed to the needy by SecondBite. SecondBite is a good cause that both the Mayor and the Moderator personally support.

So there you have it. By doing good do these two somehow justify denial of a reality that "inevitably" will do far more harm than any limited good they can otherwise do?

Infinite food in an infinite world with infinite population. Such is the nature of the illogical ruling (and moderating) class. Innumeracy does a lot to cripple analytical thinking. Australia's population will continue to double every 40 years or less, and the Mayor effectively advocates this.

On this basis, in 200 years Australia's population will be 736 million if it compounds at 1.8% per year. In 200 years Melbourne's population would be 628 million if it compounds at 2.5% per year. These are the numbers that will dictate Australia's future.

However, after infuriating many in the audience with avoidance of the real issue, the Mayor fully supported a referendum on population growth at the end of question time after the debate. For that glimmer of reasonableness we extend our thanks.

UPDATE: For the film of debate click here. The debate was attended by a 200 plus audience. The Lord Mayor showed courage under fire as he went down in the debate with only a pea-shooter of light-weight fashion statements like how many coffee shops Melbourne has vs a steady stream of deadly facts from Mr Thomson. The editors of candobetter.net are working to bring you a film of the debate, plus commentary and interviews with people who attended, ASAP. Mary Drost is to be resounding congratulated for achieving this important democratic event and also for calling for a referendum on population increase, which both Kelvin Thomson and Lord Mayor Doyle agreed would be desirable.

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle and Kelvin Thomson MP will debate the topic of Victoria's rapid and increasing population growth at Deakin Edge in Federation Square from 5.30-7pm on 13 October 2014. A few months ago Planning Backlash leader, Mary Drost, challenged Melbourne Mayor, Robert Doyle, to debate much loved Federal Member of Parliament, Kelvin Thomson, who retained his federal seat by a huge margin in an election where most other members of his party lost their seats. In 2014 Mr Thomson established Victoria First, a not-for-profit NGO to safeguard and enhance Victoria’s way of life against overpopulation. He is the only politician in Victoria to represent the people against the big business drive for rapid population growth.

Flyer attached as PDF, Word.

The rate of population growth affects people's lives by stressing services, infrastructure, and putting ever-increasing pressure on Victoria's (and Australia's) fragile environment. Residents' action groups, environment groups, flora and fauna protection groups all demonstrate and otherwise engage frequently to try and stop the brutal impacts of state-planned overpopulation on democracy, property rights, and the built and natural environment of this state. Our environmental and biodiversity protection laws are inadequate in the face of the growth onslaught.

The major portion of Australia's population growth is due to the very high rate of planned invited economic immigration in Australia. This is a situation promoted by the states, which like Victoria, all have government websites that seek to attract high numbers of immigrants to this country. Victoria's website is http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/

Successive Victorian governments from the time of Jeff Kennett's have all deliberately brought on the population squeeze that has driven them to expend resources on successive planning blueprints for the state.

The major driver behind population growth is a number of focused beneficiaries which have formed organisations in order to keep those benefits coming. Property developers, mortgage financiers and their mass media representatives predominate in the growth lobby. The mass media has interests in population growth in stimulating business for property dot coms like www.realestate.com.au and www.domain.com.au and is the growth lobby's corporate mouthpiece. Therefore Melbourne's The Age, the Financial Review and the Herald Sun constantly talk about population growth but report it in a biased way, pretending, as the government does, that it is inevitable.

Melbourne’s Mayor Robert Doyle will represent the growth lobby position by saying that growth is inevitable in urban centres and must be 'planned for'. The Mayor’s opponent, Kelvin Thomson, is advocating for a reduction in the rate of population growth, which is currently 1.82% compared with the world average of 1.1%, Russian Federation 0.2%, Korea 0.4%, China 0.5%, France 0.5%, UK 0.6%, US 0.7%, Sweden 0.8%, New Zealand 0.8%, Samoa 0.8%, French Polynesia 1.1%, India 1.2%, Indonesia 1.2%, Canada 1.2%, Haiti 1.4%, Malaysia 1.6%, Singapore 1.6%, West Bank and Gaza 3.0%. Australia's population, at its current rate of growth of 1.8% per annum, would double in 38 years. At 0.5 % per annum, France's would take 138 years to double, but France's rate is more likely to decline, so that its population will never double, whereas Australia's rate has been higher and the government intends to increase it.

The forum will address the pros and cons of population growth. There will be an opportunity to ask questions.

Presented by Planning Backlash and a coalition of resident groups.

Where: Deakin Edge

When: Monday 13 October, 5.30pm - 7pm

Price: Free

John Joseph Madigan, Independent Senator for Victoria: "Job seekers are in a tough job market. One only has to do check the Ballarat Courier or the Latrobe Valley Express from Saturday to see how many jobs are being advertised. When the government allows the employment market to be flooded with 457s, what do we expect? When the government goads industry upon industry to leave our shores, what do we expect? When the government cannot figure out how to manage its defence procurement needs over a long period, what do we expect? When the government cannot figure out how to use our abundance of natural gas for our own cheap electricity, what do we expect?" Full short speech inside, made October 1st, 2014 in Federal Parliament. Headings were added by candobetter.net editor.

Senator MADIGAN
(Victoria) (11:27): I rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No.1) Bill 2014. I have been critical of this government's budget. It is quite possibly one of the most divisive and unfair budgets we have ever seen in modern Australia. And I am not alone in this view. I have received hundreds—no, thousands—of emails and letters and phone calls from angry, disaffected Australians. They have told me this budget is unfair, unreasonable and ideologically driven. I and many others accept the government has budgetary challenges. But why should those with the least have to pay the most? Why should thousands of good hardworking Australians—those with families, those with mortgages, those who each day step up and step out to do the right thing—pay the most? Why should those who are struggling, those looking for work, those impacted by disability, those who care for others, those who are sick, those on the pension pay the most? Why should those Australians on low incomes be targeted by this ideological—some would say pathological—numbers driven budget? Why should those with the least pay the most?

Over the past six months I have received a clear message from people across Victoria and across Australia. This is a bad budget. People have told me they are angry and distressed about the changes to the Newstart waiting period. They are angry and distressed about changes to family tax benefit part A and part B. They are angry and distressed about changes to pensions. They are angry and distressed about the increase in the pension age to 70.

Unreasonableness of raising retirement to 70 yrs especially for demanding physical occupations

I have often spoken about a constituent I know called Phil. Phil works in a forge and is supporting five children. He lives outside of Melbourne. Phil earns $43,000 a year, with another $8,000 on overtime. Phil's is backbreaking work. Phil is a big and strong man, with the strength and resilience of a draft horse, but he has often said to me, 'John, I'll never last until I'm 70.' Treasurer Joe Hockey expects Phil to keep doing what he is doing for another 24 years. I say to Mr Hockey: 'Mate, you're dreaming.'

As usual, I will be brief in my remarks today. I will let my voting do the talking. But, as this legislation affects families and job seekers, I cannot help but share my view. Families are the building blocks of strong societies. A strong family makes a strong individual. Strong people are the backbone of a strong country. The relationship between government and families should be one of mutual respect. Governments should support families.

Forcing both parents into workforce when children young

Forcing both parents to be in the workforce when the youngest child turns six is not the kind of help families need. It is not the kind of thing our nation needs either, because the nation and the family are interdependent. Families are doing it tough. Most parents, particularly those in the paid workforce, recognise the importance of spending time with their children. But, for hundreds of thousands of Australian parents, the financial concerns they face overshadow their ability to do this. This is something our tax system, and my amendments, can address.

House prices add to family burden - need to look at negative gearing and other factors

House prices add to a family's financial burdens. Single- and even dual-income family first home buyers are forced to compete with baby boomer investors as well as foreign nationals to buy their home. Today in Australia, families are often second-class citizens in the housing market. Why don't we look at negative gearing, amongst other things?

Growing job insecurity prevents families from taking care of themselves

When we look at the economy and job security, we must further consider how Australians can focus their energy on their families. But we in this place are not discussing legislation which will make it easier for these families. Instead we are discussing how we can take more of their taxes away from them by doing away with benefits which were originally given to them in recognition of the important role they play. Take, for example, the removal of the current end-of-financial-year supplement, the freezing of the indexation of the family tax benefit allowance or the removal of the child add-on supplement. This legislation is not about supporting families. It is about making life harder for them.

I have circulated amendments which address these issues in a reasonable fashion. Most Australians are happy to do their bit, I believe. Most Australians are happy to take part in some of the heavy lifting our nation needs right now. But no Australian should be expected to break their back in the process.

Newstart inequities and 457 visas, rising cost to business of electricity

I would now like to address the issue surrounding the government's proposed changes to Newstart. Job seekers are in a tough job market. One only has to do check the Ballarat Courier or the Latrobe Valley Express from Saturday to see how many jobs are being advertised. When the government allows the employment market to be flooded with 457s, what do we expect? When the government goads industry upon industry to leave our shores, what do we expect? When the government cannot figure out how to manage its defence procurement needs over a long period, what do we expect? When the government cannot figure out how to use our abundance of natural gas for our own cheap electricity, what do we expect?

For these and many other reasons, Australians' expectations of government are at an all-time low. Why should it be job seekers, people who are prepared to work, people who want to work, people who are trained, equipped and able to work, who are punished because of successive governments' poor decisions which have led or contributed to their redundancies?

If people opt to work for the dole then they should be entitled to their full allowance during the six-month waiting period. If people have spent years studying as a student then that period should be recognised as work to be deducted from the exclusion period. If people would prefer to spend the exclusion period not working for the dole but rather concentrating full time on finding a job then they should still be able to receive 40 per cent of the Newstart rate.

We must create hope. We must create opportunity. We must increase the cake, not diminish it. The future of our country and the welfare of our people depend on it. We often hear about business and individuals being told to innovate. It is about time the government innovated.

Melissa Parke, ALP Member for Fremantle, West Australia, was the only MP to dissent against the passing of the new so-called anti-terrorism laws in Australia, which make huge changes to our privacy and civil rights. Ms Parke (10:45am) — I wish to start my comments on this Bill by making reference to a case that came before the House of Lords in relation to the detention of foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial under the UK's Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, where Lord Hoffman, in a dissenting judgement, said:

"This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community.

Published on Wednesday, 01 October 2014 10:44

... The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

Tony Abbott made a speech to the IPA in 2012 in which he referred to the Coalition as the "freedom party". However, as Prime Minister Mr Abbott now believes that "the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift" and that "there may be more restrictions on some so that there can be more protection for others."

I do not support a number of key elements in this Bill, and I am aware there are further even more controversial Bills coming before the parliament in the near future.

I question the premise of the government's general approach to this area of policy, which is essentially that freedoms must be constrained in response to terrorism; and that the introduction of greater obscurity and impunity in the exercise of government agency powers that contravene individual freedoms will both produce, and are justified in the name of, greater security.

So far the debate on this issue has occurred within a frame that posits a direct relationship between, on the one hand, safety and civility in our everyday lives and, on the other, the powers that impinge upon and make incursions into individual freedom.

If we want to continue our lives free from terrorism and orchestrated violence — so the argument goes — we have to accept shifting the balance between freedom and constraint away from the observance of basic rights and towards greater surveillance, more interference, deeper silence.

Let me say that no one should be fooled into believing it is as simple as that.

The truth is that the remarkable peace, harmony, and security we enjoy in Australia is in fact produced and sustained by our collective observance of freedoms and human rights, rather than existing in spite of such values and conditions. It is wrong to say that we have been complacent about security on two counts. First, because we have strong, well-resourced, and competent security agencies, and second because our commitment to a way of life that puts faith in freedom, respect and tolerance, that puts faith in democracy and the rule of law, is itself productive of peace and shared security.

These are the reasons we must be so careful when we legislate to constrain those freedoms — because contrary to the reductive argument that says we're making a straight trade of less freedom for more safety, the reality is likely to be, and indeed has proved to be many times in the past, that constraining our fundamental liberties achieves nothing more than making us less free and in fact does ourselves harm through licensing the abuse of powers.

In the wake of the past few weeks' delivery by government, assisted by many media outlets, of "existential threat" and "panic/don't panic" messages, many people in the Australian community feel understandably confused and anxious. Members of Australia's Muslim communities may fear that the PM's 'restrictions on some' message applies particularly to them. If that is the case, then surely it is an approach that can only foster fear, mistrust and division, the very opposite of what is needed in terms of investing in community harmony, safety and human security in its broadest sense.

[Speaker], I recognise the process by which this Bill has come forward – and of course I understand that it contains a number of amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act that represent unobjectionable adjustments put forward off the back of the Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia's National Security Legislation.

I am also grateful for the recent consideration of the draft Bill provided by the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security (JCSIS), and I believe the amendments the Committee has recommended represent improvements – but not, in my view, sufficient improvements.

One critical point to grasp is the fact that the proposed laws are not a response to recent events involving the emergence of Islamic State, and the existence of people with criminal intentions based on their adherence to an extreme and deranged world-view.

It was a surprise therefore to see the editorial in The Australian on Monday where, under the heading 'Homegrown terror threat needs new tools to fight it', it rushed to conclude, "The new counter-terrorism laws are not an attack on free speech; they are a protection against an evolving threat" before acknowledging that "Any new counter-terrorism laws should be scrutinised by the parliament" and that "There is also a role for the media and other non-government groups, to offer analysis of proposed laws alongside laws currently operating".

That analysis and commentary certainly should be occurring, but it's hard not to have the sense that there is too much fierce agreement in this space at the moment as a result of people believing that we currently face some completely new and unprecedented terror threat.

The reality is — as we have seen from very well publicised operations recently — that law enforcement agencies have clearly been able to operate effectively on the basis of existing laws and there has not been convincing evidence of inadequacies in the existing legal framework that warrant the broad extensions of powers we see here. I am particularly concerned that this Bill entrenches and amplifies the lack of protection for whistleblowers regarding intelligence information and penalise with up to 10 years jail the legitimate actions of journalists and others doing their jobs in holding the government to account in the public interest.

There have been numerous examples of governments, defence, intelligence and law enforcement agencies here in Australia and elsewhere abusing their powers that have only come to light via Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers regarding for instance the improper mass surveillance of civilians, the misuse of our aid program, and spying on foreign governments, including for the commercial benefit of corporations.

There are concerns that the legislation does not make any distinction between someone acting to sabotage a security intelligence operation and potentially putting security officers' lives at risk, which should rightly attract significant penalties, and persons disclosing information in the public interest where no such danger is present, but which may for instance be politically embarrassing.

It is no comfort from the Explanatory Memorandum that there will be a prosecutorial discretion to consider the public interest when deciding whether to prosecute a person — this kind of consideration should attract a specific exemption in the legislation — otherwise there is a very real danger that the provisions will produce a chilling effect on the willingness of the media to report legitimate matters of public interest.

We are assured that the significant impunity for breaking the law that is granted to security officials engaged in SIOs only applies when the officers are carrying out their duties as authorised and is not a green light for corruption or abuse of power. It is unsatisfactory in my view that the external oversight of special intelligence operations is limited to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, rather than the more extensive oversight that applies to the AFP's controlled operations. The Member for Denison has highlighted the deficiencies in Australia's oversight of intelligence services relative to other countries such as the UK.

On the question of press freedom and media scrutiny, the editorial in The West Australian yesterday took issue with the new specific provisions, arguing that "they fail to strike a balance that does not unduly limit the ability of journalists to report on matters of national security. Any controls of this sort must be carefully considered and minimised. In this instance, there is a concern that the impetus to act on the terrorist threat may have led to the proposed laws being rushed and not considered as fully as they might have been."

And I would contrast the curious yet telling gulf between the nicely timed, neatly packaged and government facilitated media access to the recent AFP anti-terror operations and the utter silence, stonewalling and denial of access to operations that involve asylum seekers.

On this I agree with Mark Day, who wrote in Monday's Australian that,

"Last week we saw much commentary about how state and federal police provided on-the-spot video and still pictures of their raids against a terror group believed to be planning a random beheading in Australia.

How fortunate it was for the government that the raids came precisely as the parliament was considering new anti-terror powers — tougher laws to protect our freedoms by removing them. Raids of this nature involving 800 coppers for one arrest are obviously newsworthy. Police PRs were beside themselves with delight. You want pictures? How many? They fed the narrative of a government alert and anything but insouciant.

Now make the obvious comparison. For more than a year the government has refused to give any detail about any "on sea" activity related to people smuggling or asylum-seekers. This is because secrecy suits it. Secrecy is the government's starting point."

I understand that one of the legitimate bases for this Bill is the necessary adjustment to cover the kinds of technological change that have occurred over the last twenty years and I note the considered comments of the Shadow Attorney-General in this regard. I nevertheless have concerns about the scope of the provisions, especially in relation to computers and computer networks, including access to third-party hardware or communications. These provisions are the equivalent of a physical search warrant for a house that allows you to search an arbitrary number of other houses.

The JSCIS Report notes that public submissions were made by the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law calling for two categories of improvement in this area: the first being a 'minimal intrusion' test requiring other options for acquiring the required intelligence to have been used before ASIO has recourse to a computer network or third-party asset or communication; and the second being a further refinement in terms of scope so that a warrant would only access those parts of a target computer that are reasonably necessary for the acquisition of the relevant intelligence.

Unfortunately neither of these sensible proposals were taken up as recommendations. Instead the broad requirement that access must be 'reasonable in all the circumstances' was considered sufficient.

In my view, this is one of the clear areas where we may be licensing the potentially improper infringement of privacy and the possible misuse of personal information and communications without due consideration to the dangers involved, and without due care and restriction when it comes to those powers.

For an example of how this government regards the so-called balance between security and freedom, one can look to the proposed abolition of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. The Prime Minister announced the abolition of this critical office and function earlier this year as part of its 'war against red-tape'. Other casualties of this bizarre war of self-harm include environmental protections, financial services safeguards, and the framework to address climate change and encourage the development of renewable energy. In this way, the so-called war on red tape is unpicking the vital threads of our social fabric, our social compact.

With this Bill, the essential oversight of security legislation and powers is being undermined when it should be strengthened.

As others have noted, the Attorney-General was an active member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security when the Committee issued a report with respect to the very legislation we debate here, calling for the assessment of the draft bill by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Of course, thanks to the government, that position has been vacant since April, and was to be scrapped.

I am glad that as a result of the outcry on this aspect of security oversight in particular, the government has reversed its position – though unfortunately not in time for this Bill to have been appropriately scrutinised.

I believe that at the very least this legislation should incorporate sunset clauses so that the provisions can be subject to review and discontinuance if not found to be necessary.

[Speaker], I want to conclude by returning to the point I made at the beginning about what is really at issue when we expand the capacity and power of state agencies to infringe upon the privacy and freedom of citizens, and at the same time constrain the ability of citizens to examine and discuss the use of those powers.

There is a lot of talk about the danger of complacency when it comes to security threats, including terrorism. I don't see evidence of that complacency, and none has been put forward. Australia is a remarkably secure and peaceful nation. Our law enforcement, intelligence, and defence agencies and personnel do excellent work on our behalf.

If there is any complacency, it is in relation to the very real dangers that lie in failing to recognise, value and speak up for our fundamental rights, values and freedoms. We have seen what happens when state agencies exercise improper power without effective safeguards; without effective oversight and accountability mechanisms.

We'd do well to reflect upon this now as we consider changes in this Bill and in others that seek to re-set our laws and values in ways that may not only be ill-designed to protect us from the dangers and horrors we seem inclined to over-state, but might in fact wear and fray the fabric of our freedom, trust, and faith in government.

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/

Is Australia governed by morons? Australia preaches about the Asian Century but behaves like the 18th Century British colonists who originally invaded Terra Australis. If Australia understood what it means to be Asian it would realize that most Asian countries have predominantly indigenous populations. For example, Indonesia, China, Japan, Korea, Myanmar, Thailand and the Philippines to name but a few.

None of these countries run mass migration programs like Australia’s. Australia leads the world in this category. Asian countries are not selling off their assets and housing to foreigners like Australia does; while crying crocodile tears about carbon emissions as they rapidly expand their fossil fuel exports to pay for population growth that the country cannot afford. With one of the highest costs of living of any country the annual growth of the Federal Budget combined with growing Government debt far exceeds the capacity of the growing economy to finance.

Asian populations grow at varying rates, depending on the level of development and the rates of natural births and deaths. None of these countries subject their people to mass migration as a tool to drive GDP growth in irrational contempt for the social, environmental and economic consequences.

If China used mass migration at the same rate as Australia's, it would be flooding the country with over 16 million migrants per year. China's reported population growth rate is 0.6% per annum. Australia's deliberately engineered population growth rate is 1.8% per annum.

Australia is a dishonest, hypocritical country built on a lie that government media fully supports while it preaches about humanity and the environment.

The death cult of Migration Assured Destruction is alive and well in Australia. Even the US example of how to screw up a country is not enough to educate Australia’s ruling class. This is a unique recipe for a cock up.

The argument that population growth is inevitable is as defeatist as the argument that the human race must destroy itself together with the environment that supports it.

The 20th century saw the developed world set the example of fossil fuel consumption for the developing world to follow. Now, in the 21st century, Australia insists on continuing to set the example of ridiculous and unsustainable, migration-based population growth as an example of how underdeveloped countries should behave once they have developed?

The premise of most demographic gurus is that population growth will slow as developing countries become wealthy. If that is true, then why does Australia deliberately drive population growth rates as high as those of some of the most underdeveloped areas of Africa and roughly 4 times the OECD country average? It certainly isn't about prioritising refugee intake.

Australia is an insult to the intelligence of most Australians. The primary responsibility for this reckless stupidity lies with both Government and its tool the ABC; both of whom are beyond the control of the Australian people.

There is no democracy in Australia when it comes to open public policy debate of population growth management and maximising Australia's potential to act humanely and sustainably both at home and abroad. It's just not up for discussion; and that is the essence of what Australia's autocratic "death cult" is all about. Cut philanthropic aid at home and abroad and destroy the environment; all in the name of profit - otherwise misdescribed as "economic growth".

Jill Redwood, as coordinator of Environment East Gippsland, conducted a landmark environmental court case that saw her group awarded damages against the Government Forestry corporation, VicForests, who were told to conduct proper investigations for the presence of threatened species in areas they logged and to design and enact plans to safeguard them according to the law. Three years later the Giant Trees Walk on Brown Mountain, which EEG had created in order to develop awareness of the rape of East Gippsland's forests, has been destroyed by persons unknown, equipped with heavy equipment and chainsaws.

"All the way along here to our Brown Mountain forests - which was the test case in this court case - they have cut down every big tree along the way."

The case proved that VicForests were not abiding by the government's own rules. They have to do prelogging surveys before they go in and log areas that might have threatened species in them. Prior to the court case they were not doing this at all. "If they couldn't find them, that was better. They didn't want to know about them."

They've changed the law for poteroos. Where they used to find them, they have to protect 450ha. then they changed the law, so now they only have to protect 50ha and this doesn't have to be in the detection sites. So, if one is found right in the middle of where they plan to log, they can protect 50ha somewhere over the other side of the gully. This law was changed under the current (Baillieu then Napthine) Liberal government, but the case began under the Bracks (Labor) Government in 2009. The Liberal Government carried on the bad work of the Labor Party. The Liberal Party wanted to change the Code of Forest Practices, which is a mess of laws and management plans and codes which interconnect, but the Code did say that they have to abide by the management plan and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. So what this Liberal Government wanted to do was to change the code or the wording in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, so that a minister could just say, "No, where you find threatened species, you don't have to protect them; go in and log." So they were going to change the whole thing just by adding one extra sentence in. But they probably haven't done that because they realised that would open up more legal cases to challenge that change. All the laws are interconnected, so if they change that one, then it will may then contradict or contravene another law or laws. It goes back to the RFAs and all sorts of things.

At the moment they are carrying out pre-logging surveys, but EEG calls them 'mickey mouse surveys' because they are so poorly done and poorly financed. The people doing the pre-logging surveys might find a tenth of what is there because they just don't have the time and the resources. That suits VicForests very well. That's how they are getting away with logging areas that have threatened species now.

The court case took a huge toll on the Environment East Gippsland group. They had saved up $40,000 which was not really enough but once that people heard that there was a court case to save the forests, they were able to access huge public support.

Nothing has really changed, unfortunately. A few areas have been protected, probably where they did not want to log really. Recently EEG found them logging protected rainforest sites of significance. EEG threatened to sue them over this but VicForests gave in before they got to the Court steps.

The logging industry is a huge liability for the Victorian Government. VicForests is a government-owned logging monopoly now. It has cost the government millions to defend it in court.

It's really another form of public land-grab

It's about a land-grab. It's the real-estate they want, not the old growth forest. The old growth forest doesn't have very good timber for logging needs because the trees are old and twisted. But, where old growth grows and where these nice rich, lush, wildlife rich and valuable forests grow is on the highest productivity land. That is, land with flat topography, deep soil, high rainfall - perfect for plantations. Hey, and it's public land! Public money! Clear the forests, put in these nice single-species tree farms ... Sucker public has to pay for it. That's what's been happening for 40 years. Where we used to have this landscape of beautiful old growth diverse forests, with the threatened tiger quoll, the owls, all these wonderful creatures here, with little pockets of logging. Now, it's these little pockets of old growth in this sea of tree-farms for the overseas pulp industry.

EEG, whilst preparing their case against VicForests, set up infrared photography in the forests and were the first to film a long-footed poteroo gathering brush for its nest by carrying it under its tail. We don't know half of what we have in these forests. Gippsland is still such an unknown area. The number of threatened species here, both plant and animal, is 7 times the state average. Jill describes it as 'a Noah's ark' which should be protected as such and says that, if only the government could realise the value in this. Ecotourism is the part of the tourist industry that is just growing phenomenally. People want to come out here. They want to experience nature. They want to see the wildlife. So much money is being spent to prop up the destructive industry of logging - which, if it were a person, would be a 'welfare bludger' and a vandal, says Jill - to destroy these areas that could be the showcase of Australia. It could be globally important to take these international visitors and take them on night walks and show them the gliders and stand at the base of this massive big tree that's 15m around. Instead the government's loggers are just cutting them down every day! They're just destroying them!

For example, the Ukraine is geopolitically important for many reasons; including its value as a food bowl and as an export route for oil and gas. The Ukrainian people are secondary to the interests of the foreign powers that seek to influence or control the territory and its resources.

The current turmoil in Syria and Iraq has been preceded by French and British military intervention respectively in the early 20th century, combined with imposition of new territorial borders. This was arguably an autocratic foreign assault on the region. People subject to somewhat arbitrarily defined borders have different histories and different vested interests little understood by the foreign autocrats. The same was true of the foreign assault on Australian Aborigines when their territory was first invaded in 1788. Have a look at any capital city in Australia. There are "Boundary Roads" everywhere.

#comments">Armchair experts #comments">sit around hypothesising about what should or should not be done, based on their subjective versions of humanitarian and strategic principles. Many know little of the history of the regions they discuss and use terms such as "democracy" and "territorial borders" to define right and wrong.

In Australia in particular, neither the Government nor the people have the ethical credentials to justify interference in geographically remote regional conflicts.

Australia is a country founded upon the principles of invasion and dispossession of "indigenous" peoples. That foundation remains the cornerstone of government policy to this day. It is an autocratically imposed policy that has nothing to do with democracy. This "invasion" does not prioritise humanitarian intake. In its current form it focuses on attempting to cherry pick healthy and relatively wealthy, educated people for their alleged "financial" value; at the expense of refugees.

Government media seeks to justify a government policy of invasion and dispossession in the interests of something it vaguely refers to as economic growth, although the economic impacts of extreme population growth are not investigated in the public interest. Politicians control decision-making on what lines of public inquiry deserve due diligence. Mass migration has always been the "robot-mode" status quo in Australia and politicians don't even question a policy that many other countries would regard as outlandish.

Between 1788 and 1900 Australia's population rose to 3.7 million. From 2002 to 2014 it rose another 3.8 million. This invasion is accelerating. This is extreme, unsustainable, Government imposed, amoral, financially motivated "developed world" population growth.

The ABC is not governed by any laws that can be enforced to hold it accountable for failing to comply with its Statutory Duties of impartiality and integrity. ABC agendas appear set by politicians rather than by analytical thinking.

The ABC's approach to the climate change debate has been the ABC–branded Carbon Tax debate, analogous to a doctor advising a patient that the only therapy for treatment of obesity is exercise (economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions), while encouraging the patient to eat fattening food (extreme population growth driving extreme emissions growth) from a company the doctor owns. The doctor also deliberately conceals the fact that eating is the primary cause of explosive weight gain.

So we have a lawless, government sanctioned, propaganda machine purporting to act as a humane and democratic voice of the people, while failing to address some of the most pressing moral and environmental issues in Australia. Population growth stands out as an issue of critical importance.

The Challenger Space Shuttle disaster occurred in similar circumstances. The Solid Booster Rocket seals failed causing a catastrophic explosion because NASA approved the launch at an unacceptably low ambient temperature in full knowledge of the risk. The 7 astronauts killed in the explosion were not informed of the risk.

NASA abused its position of dominance by prioritising a political desire for launch over competent risk management.

The ABC is a news and current affairs broadcaster. It has limited, if any, expertise in the sciences or in risk management. Yet it uses opinionated bias as a basis for concealing critically important information from public policy debate. Whether that bias is driven by Government or the ABC itself is immaterial. It is clearly contrary to the public interest and it is defined as unlawful, if not criminal, by the ABC Code of Practice.

The relationship between the adverse humanitarian, social, environmental and economic outcomes of population growth and the rate of that population growth is off the ABC agenda.

#F5F6CE;line-height:120%;">The latest propaganda inundation to force people to accept overpopulation as a fait accompli is coming from the so-called "Bradfield Oration",₁ which is to be inaugurated by that mass-media propaganda horn, Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. The University of Sydney and Lend Lease have been described as 'key partners' in this 'initiative'₂ which will steer university students their way by awarding an associated prize. So much for independence in academia, eh?

The current publicity machine anoints some architect from New York to tell Australians how to suck eggs for their greedy masters.₂ Vishann Chakrabarti is being used to frighten the people of Sydney with a "build up or else" and to market the idea of selling air-space to developers so that they can build the residential towers residents have been fighting for generations. This concept of selling airspace is obscene in the context of human rights as well as Australian values of freedom and nature accessible to all. Australia's self-appointed leaders are in the business of making everything for sale by privatising all natural rights and resources. They should be put on trial for this as a criminal conspiracy to advantage a few at the expense of the many citizens whose taxes they abuse for their own ends. Unfortunately they also make the laws.

“If you don’t plan, those folks in Western Sydney will have their worst nightmares come true,’’ Chakrabarti told The Daily Telegraph, threatening that Sydney "would also struggle to create good jobs and fall behind East Asian cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai".

That is the awful benchmark our enemies who call themselves our leaders seek to impose on the rest. It is indeed our worst nightmare, to compete with Hong Kong and Shanghai. Only psychopaths like warlords and corporate landlords would wish such a nightmare on Australians. Good leaders would lead us against it.

Bad leaders stand on a rubbish heap of trashed human rights

How could any self-respecting media dignify such authoritarian drivel as the basis of planning policy? Is this what inevitably happens in a capitalist system that privileges bullies and psychopaths by making them rich enough to dominate the public messaging system? If it cannot be made democratic then we can only hope the system will be brought down. The sole reason most of those talking up development and population growth are even heard is that they stand astride a skyscraping rubbish-heap of trashed human rights which they have helped to bury through land-speculation on an industrial scale.

The mass media that purveys this propaganda and invests in real-estate, keeps any dissenting views to a whisper. The ABC follows suit in a conspiracy to protect the beneficiaries of propaganda. Australians hate what is happening, but because so many still rely on the mainstream media to understand what is happening and to represent their views, they fail to connect on the ground and therefore fail to organise. Most people reading these transparent propaganda tracts marketing population growth and infrastructure explosion as inevitable must feel alone in their horror.

I believe that I have shown in Demography, Territory, Law: the Rules of Animal and Human Populations, that growth is not inevitable and that about half of the first world nations are planning to adapt positively to smaller populations by the 2050s.

Chakrabati is also reported to have said that the selling of airspace to highrise developers is, “a very viable model as areas around train stations are very, very valuable.’’ Fighting highrise development above a local station was where Marvellous Melbourne came into being, with the help of Planning Backlash. Marvellous Melbourne sought to publicise what the speculators who have taken over our government had planned for Camberwell Station, in Melbourne, Victoria. As well as the imposed massive changes to the local visual and experienced environment, there was the abrogation of democracy of local residents. The situation has since greatly deteriorated with VCAT, the Victorian Court system, now imposing impossible costs on citizens to prevent them from exercising self-government.

Coming up from the wings in the two party fixed horse race _{#fnAirSpace3" id="txtAirSpace3">3} towards impossible living conditions is the growing unaffordability of land-rates. As well as driving up rental costs, elderly residents innocently living in homes they bought and paid for decades ago, find that rates based on speculative land-values are pulling them into debt at a time of life when wages and pensions do not keep up with the related inflation. And it is not just the elderly, young renters and young home-owners face lifetimes of enslavement to debt with little prospect of retaining equity in purchased property as these costs rise.

Of course, this suits the predators who pass for parliamentarians and their friends, because it means that a proportion of those people will be forced to sell-up and move out, creating a dynamic that will favour subdivisions, making housing even less affordable.

"Policies which promise to build low cost modest housing, or any policy which increases density will only drive prices higher and worsen the situation. By reducing dwelling size, the premium paid for land increases and land price increases." (Dennis K in "The Housing market and the death of Australia.")

Whilst building high-rent slums, the person or corporation that buys the 'air-rights' around the stations servicing increasingly congested suburbs will make billions of dollars, far more than is needed to buy parliamentarians and political parties.

We are told that the Planning Department estimates Sydney’s population will increase by 1.6 million over the next 20 years, requiring 664,300 new homes. Chris Johnson, of Urban Taskforce, an organisation that represents the interests of property developers, is quoted predictably as saying that 'Sydney will need to build 100 new high-rise apartment towers a year for the next 50 years to accommodate a third of the increased population.' Only if Mr Johnson and his allies get away with their political push to bulldoze Australians' rights.

Australia's population is increasing at an unsustainable rate, impacting on democracy, the environment, and civil rights, only due to immigration policy at both Federal and State levels. All the states have websites inviting people to come and live in them and all the states pretend they have no control over the situation. The Australian government is trying to induce young people to move to the north of Australia in the context of high unemployment. The aim is to give young people no choice but to work for the predators who are moving in on the north to cover it in mines, roads, dams and suburbs. There will be no natural environment left at this rate. The high immigration that permits all these abuses is not Australia's friend. But it's not terrorism from overseas we should fear most; it is the terrorism of the developers inside and outside parliament who are removing our rights in order to promote growth for their selfish profits.

Probably the only way to change this kind of situation is through a revolution that redistributes land and decommodifies it. With the mass media working so successfully to keep Australians ignorant and isolated from each other, this would be almost inconceivable, except that there is also a good possibility that petroleum depletion and the inadequacy of alternative sources of power and of nuclear will undermine the awful profit system we are groaning under. The result will be a decline in the ability to travel long distances and a return to the family and clan unit, interacting locally. The family and clan unit has an organic power structure, rooted geopolitically in its local environment. _{#fnAirSpace4" id="txtAirSpace4">4}

Did Vishann Chakrabarti, touted as a 'leading New York architect' willingly lend his name to this subversion of democracy by the new Australian squattocracy? Such a man could use his position to denounce the hidious transformation of the world into New York-style ghettos divided by desert, or he can use it to help Australian Prime Minister Abbott to further privilege corporate power and wealth, in an entropic race to the bottom.

Footnotes

#fnAirSpace1" id="fnAirSpace1">1. #txtAirSpace1">↑ Bradfield was a founding member of the Australian Engineers Institute and famous for being the engineer in charge of the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He was also famous for pushing schemes to turn Australian rivers inland to animate the desert. Someone decided to attach his name to give some ersatz gravitas to this grande bouffe for greedy developers. However, I note that his great great granddaughter, Holly Parker, won a young scientist prize for a kind of packaging that can be replanted after use, which sounds like a generational turn for the better.

#fnAirSpace2" id="fnAirSpace2">2. #txtAirSpace2">↑ See, for instance, article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph: Sydney Harbour Bridge engineer John Bradfield: A great legacy to live up to in our city.

#fnAirSpace3" id="fnAirSpace3">3. #txtAirSpace3">↑ The ALP saw that Bill Shorten, rather than the membership favoured Anthony Albanese, was pushed to the top of the heap after the last election. Shorten, like Abbott, will push population growth on behalf of the ruling and wealthy classes, whereas Albanese actually said he preferred for Australians to democratically decide on immigration numbers. See "Numbers man” Shorten apparently open- ended on Australia’s population numbers."

#fnAirSpace4" id="fnAirSpace4">4. #txtAirSpace4">↑ Demography, Territory, Law: the Rules of Animal and Human Populations

The farce of the 'world's most livable city'. Overpopulation drives both sides of parliament to attack each other publicly but privately to support draconian reconstruction of Melbourne, because they have created a situation that makes it inevitable if they don't stop population growth. Nonetheless, this speech by Ms Kanis, the ALP Member for Melbourne, on 4 September 2014, still picks up the Government on the detail of the mammoth assault on democracy and the public purse that is the proposed East West Link. Following on her speech, Liberal Member, Ms Ryall of Mitcham, constructs a half-knitted jumper of motherhood cliches about 'our children's future', before abandoning it to choose attack as the best means of defense, evoking the equally scandalous Desal Plant of the recent Labor Government. The 'world's most livable city' is, of course, a cynical business marketing construction designed to give authority to the forces overseeing the increasingly brutal deconstruction of Victoria's democracy.

Source: Proof Parliament of Victoria Legislative Assembly Daily Hansard, Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Ms KANIS (Melbourne) — The new ABC satire Utopia provides plenty of laughs about poor government planning. [...] Unfortunately, the reality is not terribly funny. The state of Victoria has been writing its own script for an episode of Utopia. It involves an $8 billion road tunnel, more than 100 property owners facing dispossession, hundreds of residents whose homes will be next to a roaring toll road with no compensation and vast swathes of heritage parkland and precious sportsgrounds under threat.

The plot of this episode revolves around a government intent on building the ultimate infrastructure white elephant, against all planning, economic and transport advice. The government spends millions advertising its road, promising that it will reduce congestion, improve public transport, improve pedestrian routes and deliver enormous community benefits. The government then spends millions of dollars defending its project in a 30-day expert committee, and then ignores the majority of recommendations made by planning experts. The government ducks and weaves through FOI cases and is brought before the Supreme Court to defend its unpopular project.

The twist in the plot is that, despite all this, the government refuses to produce evidence of the economic benefits of the project, the east–west link.

The government hides the business case in a box in a courtroom. ‘Trust us’, the government tells the community. I, along with thousands of residents in the electorate of Melbourne, do not trust the coalition government and its secret business case.

This real-life episode of governmental secrecy, spin, misrepresentation and wastage is not at all funny. For hundreds of residents who have been told their homes will be acquired, this episode is heartbreaking.

It should not be the case that residents in my electorate of Melbourne are living with the possibility of a concrete flyover being built within 5 metres of their homes, but this is the scenario facing residents of Bent Street, Kensington. Residents of Parkville and North Melbourne do not know if a tollway exit slated for Flemington Road will emerge on or nearby their properties. Members of the Friends of Royal Park do not know if wetlands, trees and open space will be demolished. Sports clubs have been left without playing fields while the coalition charges ahead with its wasteful east–west link. Nothing about this episode is at all entertaining or beneficial for residents of Carlton, who will have a tunnel dug beneath their homes and ventilation stacks puffing exhaust fumes, for the Friends of Royal Park, for heritage flora and fauna sites, for residents of Manningham Street, for residents of the Flemington housing estate or for properties and residents in Kensington.

A few weeks ago the Premier tried to convince people that travel times on the toll road will defy reality. He argued that people will be able to travel at 75 kilometres per hour through the tunnel during peak hour. This tunnel, which will carry an estimated 100 000 vehicles per day, will connect a congested Eastern Freeway to a congested CityLink, yet somehow cars will be able to zip between those two congested freeways. Maybe that is because it will be so expensive that very few people will choose to use it. The Premier cannot have it both ways. He cannot say the road is needed for thousands of cars and that travel times will be exceptional. That is a plot inconsistency that does not fool anyone.

It is worth noting that traffic projections for the east–west link hardly make the case for its necessity.

The government has predicted that somewhere between 80 000 and 120 000 vehicles will use the east–west link every day. There are over 4 million registered vehicles in Victoria. If 120 000 use the east–west link, that is a total of 3 per cent of Victoria’s vehicles. There are 1.5 million cars in Melbourne, and the government expects only 8 per cent of them to use the east–west link. CityLink carries 800 000 vehicles per day; the east–west link is projected to carry 120 000 at best. This project will use up billions of dollars that could be spent on public transport, schools and hospital beds but will service, at best, only 3 per cent of Victoria’s vehicles.

Who will benefit from this project? Most of the residents of my electorate of Melbourne certainly will not benefit, and at best only 8 per cent of Melburnians and 3 per cent of Victorians will use the road.

I want to make something very clear to the coalition, to the Linking Melbourne Authority and to Melbourne: I do not support the east–west link. The Labor opposition does not support the east–west link. A Labor government will not support the east–west link, because it will do nothing to reduce traffic on our roads; because it will steal money from schools, hospitals and public transport; because it is not warranted by traffic data; because the planning processes have been hasty, chaotic, slapdash and flawed; and because no-one other than the government has seen the secret business case.

The project has been marketed by the coalition as a second river crossing. I am not sure which maps the Premier is consulting, but on my maps there is no river between Parkville and Collingwood, so I am not sure which river stage 1 of the east–west link will cross.

The assessment committee report made public in June highlights dozens of concerns about the project and recommends that part B — a four-lane duplication of CityLink from Flemington to Footscray — be removed.

The Minister for Planning ignored this advice and requested a development plan for this section. We are now just weeks away from the advertised starting date for the construction of the project, and the Linking Melbourne Authority has said it has not even started drafting a plan for part B.

Labor MPs, community members and councils have worked tirelessly to challenge the completely substandard planning that is propping up the coalition’s east–west link. The coalition has been challenged by two FOI cases, two court cases, a Senate motion and thousands of community members taking action. Even the Productivity Commission has spoken out against infrastructure projects that are not subjected to rigorous public scrutiny. The commission wrote this year Properly conducted cost-benefit studies of large projects, and their disclosure to the public, is an important starting point for guiding project selection and improving the transparency of decision-making.

Further, the commission said that processes should be immediately reformed for planning and selecting public infrastructure projects, including rigorous and transparent use of cost-benefit analyses, evaluations, public consultation and public reporting of the decision, so as to maximise the net benefits for the whole community.

A transparent cost-benefit analysis and genuine consultation are missing from this project. In opposition, the now planning minister said he respected consultation. He said When we had public consultation, people meant it. I remember being an adviser in the Premier’s office — in the Kennett years, when — we actually did take things into account, particularly from industry groups and from councils, and those submissions meant something. Nowadays, it’s just done as part and parcel of spin.

Yes, nowadays it is just part and parcel of spin. The planning minister wrote recently … we have reformed our planning system to give real certainty to investors, councils and residents so that our suburbs are protected once and for all … That is not so when it comes to the east–west link.

There has been no protection for wetlands, trees, parkland, homes, Vision Australia, Urban Camp, the Flemington Community Centre, the Debneys Park playground, Manningham Street residents, Clifton Hill residents and Bendigo Street residents. None of these have been protected.

Members of the audience for this episode of real-life infrastructure planning are not laughing. This episode of Victoria’s Utopia needs a satisfying ending. The east–west link should not be built. A Labor government will not allow such cavalier disregard for people’s homes, parkland, community facilities, sports grounds, planning law, heritage and taxpayers money. Along with the thousands of community members who have fought this economic flop and planning and transport fiasco, we will continue to fight the coalition’s east–west link. We demand that this project be taken to the election so that Victorians can vote on it. Let us see what people actually think about it.

Liberal Party member, Ms Ryall (Mitcham) responds:

Ms Ryall trots out cliches about 'our children's future' whilst ignoring the herd of elephants in the room that the Liberal Party is unleashing to trample every child's future into the dust and despair of an overpopulated city in a petroleum depleted world.

Ms RYALL (Mitcham) — From the outset it is important to establish what the east–west link is about.

The east–west link is about the future. It is not just about us sitting here today. It is about our children and our children’s children and making sure that they have a city that works. It is not just about the political expediency that we have seen from those opposite.

There are significant benefits to the east–west link. As many members know, I live adjacent to the Eastern Freeway. I am very familiar with the amount of traffic that uses that freeway.

When I look back, I see that it was Labor that in 2008 commissioned the Rod Eddington report which recommended the building of the east–west link. It was Labor that trumpeted the east–west link. It made sure everybody knew about it. It was on the lips of every Labor member. In fact on 15 August 2008 former Premier John Brumby said I think what is undeniable, in Rod Eddington’s report, is that the city does need a second east-west crossing … So, one way or another we’ve got to address this issue of a second east-west crossing … The member for Lyndhurst said in 2008, and I quote from Hansard … the Greens have told motorists in the middle and outer west to ‘stick it’ — no new river crossings and no new roads for them. Car drivers in the west are to be punished, sacrificed on the altar of green ideology.
Who is telling who to ‘stick it’ now?

The Leader of the Opposition in a speech to the Melbourne Press Club in October 2012 said A back-up for the West Gate, which currently handles more than 165 000 vehicles a day as well as the significant commercial and residential growth in the west, makes the case compelling.

The member for Tarneit in his former role as roads minister said WestLink is an important project for Melbourne that will reduce over-reliance on the West Gate Bridge, cater for the planned expansion of the port of Melbourne, remove cars and trucks from local roads, create more jobs and improve our way of life.

Federal opposition leader Bill Shorten supported the east–west link. Bill Shorten and Cesar Melham stated in a document entitled Submission to Study by Sir Rod Eddington East–West Link Needs in 2009 The Australian Workers Union (AWU) believes that the new east–west link is crucial to jobs and economic growth. A new transport link from Melbourne’s booming west to the south east and eastern suburbs has the AWU’s strong support because the Victorian economy relies on the efficient movement of freight and people.

You have got to ask: what has changed? What has changed in that time that would suddenly make those opposite change their minds from saying, ‘This is what we need. There is a compelling case. The unions say it and the federal opposition leader says it’. What has changed? Nothing has changed apart from there being a few inner city seats at risk for those opposite Richmond, Northcote, Brunswick and Melbourne.

Labor has no choice but to oppose the east–west link because of those inner-city seats. There is no choice.

There is nothing scientific about this change. There is no sense to it other than political advantage.

This was a report commissioned by Labor when it was in government, trumpeting a second east–west river crossing and detailing all the reasons why it was important. Now members opposite want our kids and our grandkids and future generations to be relegated to Bangkok-style traffic congestion. That is what they want for our future generations. Do they think for a moment that our kids are going to thank us for it? Will they say thank you for the massive congestion on our roads? In my community this is about building for future generations. In my electorate we only need to look at the level crossing removals — the Mitcham and Rooks Road level crossings are gone, and every week I have people coming up to me saying thank you for removing that level crossing. The removal of the Blackburn Road level crossing is funded. The preliminary work on the level crossings at Bayswater Road and Scoresby Road in Bayswater has been commenced. The new Mitcham station has been completed. The tender for work on the Ringwood station and bus interchange has been let.

It has taken this government to deal with the road congestion in the Mitcham and Ringwood areas. It has taken this government to relieve and reduce that road congestion. Now people are saying, ‘Get on with the east–west link. Deal with it’. Week after week when I am out the community people are telling me to get it done. Tradies, businesspeople, workers and families are all saying, ‘Get it done’. They also want to see work being done for the Melbourne rail link, which will move an additional 35 000 people per peak hour. They are saying, ‘Get that done’. They are also asking, ‘Is the airport link going to happen? We have wanted it for so long’. They are saying, ‘We are so grateful that you are the only government that has committed to it. You are the only government that is putting our money where your mouth is’. Other infrastructure includes Box Hill Hospital.

Mr Angus — Hear, hear!

Ms RYALL — I agree. It is very much a ‘Hear, hear!’ for our community. The Box Hill Hospital is an incredible new facility with more than 200 additional new beds. There is the expansion of the Maroondah Hospital. There is the rebuilding of Blackburn Primary School, Mount Pleasant Road Primary School and Eastwood Primary School, as well as upgrades to Mullauna Secondary College, Ringwood Secondary College, Ringwood North Primary School and Ringwood Heights Primary School. This is what this government is doing to build for the future of our children and our children’s children. It is not just for now. It is about the future.

My father loved Slim Dusty. Slim Dusty sang a song called Looking Forward, Looking Back. On this side of the house is a government that looks forward to what needs to be done, not just now but in the future. Those opposite are looking back in the rear-vision mirror. It seems they were looking forward back in 2008 and 2009 when the Eddington report came out, but now they are looking back and saying, ‘No, we won’t do it’.

This government looks forward. It is planning for the future, building for growth and making a city and state that works. That is where we sit. If we followed Labor’s agenda, this state would be full of white elephants — just to complement their existing white elephants.

Mr Angus — Desal!

Ms RYALL — The desal plant! The member for Forest Hill talks about the desal plant, which is costing $1.8 million a day. Do members think that Victorians would rather spend their $1.8 million a day on their water bills or on hospitals, schools, rail and roads? Over the course of one week $1.8 million a day is sufficient to build an entire primary school, and on top of that it is providing no jobs. With our east–west link, our Melbourne rail link, our airport link, our Tullamarine Freeway widening and the Pakenham-Cranbourne train line upgrade we are talking tens of thousands of jobs.

It is not just about now, it is about the future and about job creation. We have to put all the factors in, based on very sound economic management — thanks to the Treasurer of this state — to make sure we have the funds to create jobs and build the infrastructure of the future. That is what the east–west link is about; it is part of an overall plan that is funded to make sure we have a state that works, to make sure that our kids and their kids can look back and say, ‘Thank you’, like we look back at Henry Bolte and say, ‘Thank you for the vision you had. Thank you for setting apart that land around the port of Hastings. Thank you for having the vision that we would have another port there’. People look back on coalition governments and say, ‘Thank you for the Bolte Bridge, thank you for the West Gate Bridge, thank you for CityLink’.

I think the member for Melton talked before about the amount of traffic on CityLink. We can only imagine that traffic being stuck there without CityLink. We have a mountain of people who need to get from A to B, and we have got Ringwood Secondary College that absolutely needs infrastructure.

SOURCE: PROOF PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DAILY HANSARD Wednesday, 3 September 2014

#F8ECE0;line-height:120%;">"This issue is not the cost of building nor dwelling sizes, but the economic and political conditions which are fuelling the bubble. Policies which promise to build low cost modest housing, or any policy which increases density will only drive prices higher and worsen the situation. By reducing dwelling size, the premium paid for land increases and land price increases. After all, the bulk of the cost is the land, as houses can still be built for under $200,000. The high land price due to flooding the market with credit and speculation, not the size of the houses built. So reject any policy about increasing density or providing smaller "more affordable homes". [...] In the current climate the only result of making dwellings smaller, is to make people take $600,000 loans for 2 bedroom units instead of three bedroom houses. The market will simply price the smaller properties at the same price as the larger ones they replaced."

The housing bubble is one of the the biggest financial threats to Australia, and is still inflating [1]1. Our banksters still refuse to admit that there is a bubble, preferring to state that there is just a bit of "froth" on the market.

"I don't think we have a housing bubble overall, but there's some froth in the Sydney market and some of the potential house purchasers need to be wary,"

says HSBC bank's chief economist for Australia and New Zealand Paul Bloxham.[2]
When you hear language like this, where euphemisms replace straight talk, you can be sure that you're being served buffet proportions of horse manure. Mr Bloxham is either lying or ignorant, and therefore either no longer feels it necessary to make an attempt to give legitimacy to the lie, or is so out of touch with our economy one has to wonder how he could have even have an entry level job at HSBC let alone be chief economist. It is not just mere coincidence that the West is struggling financially and in economic decline and that neo-liberal economists like Mr Bloxham are relied upon for advice and commentary.

Australia is now a one or two trick pony, relying on increasing private debt to keep our economy afloat (in this respect, we are not unique) and mining. With our banks greatly exposed to the real estate market, we cannot supposedly afford a popping of the bubble. So it is expected they will deny a bubble exists, no matter how ridiculous and laughable such a statement may be. The banks simply cannot admit there is a bubble, that would be suicide for them.

The Australian "property" market (these are our homes) has been in a bubble for years now and has defied, so far, predictions of a crash or severe correction. The fundamentals behind these dire predictions were sound, but didn't take into account Australia's specific peculiarities, or that the government would take further measures to prevent a correction. If this was any other country, the market would have corrected by now, but it hasn't, and this is due to the following factors.

• High immigration rates which push demand. There are many reasons for high immigration, but finding new debt fodder is undoubtedly one of them.

• Cultural obsession with property. Property has an image of being a guaranteed wealth generator and property investment is almost part of the culture. Criticising property as some kind of miraculous credit machine is tantamount to criticising the very core of Australias success and pride. Another aspect is that the industry conditions people to accept property and features which would be considered ordinary and banal overseas, as exceptional here, thereby giving the impression that a premium should be paid. Backyards, once typical are now attracting premiums and pushed as exceptional features than a basic fixture.

• Negative Gearing. Negative Gearing allows investors to bid up house prices, knowing that the tax payer will cover the shortfall. A property purchased for rental returns would have its value weighed up against its earning ability. With negative gearing, the property can be overvalued and the tax payer subsidises the overpayment.

• Lack of information and transparency. Banks, the media, the Real Estate Industry and the government itself have obfuscated the market, spreading misinformation thereby giving buyers misplaced confidence that prices are based on "fundamentals", and not based on debt and cheap credit. The media push articles to 'spruik' the market, using nonsensical phrases such as "sideways growth", "softening" as well as fear and speculation to push people into the market. The threatened removal of the First Home Buyers grant causes people to purchase before the grant ends to take advantage of it. The FHB grant has ended how many times now?

• Low interest rates. There are other reasons for this, but the necessity to keep rates low to allow people to afford a bigger debt cannot be overlooked. Rates cannot return to their historical mean without upsetting the market. Add to this, Australia's willingness to take on high levels of private debt and an odd lack of fear of doing so. We have among the highest level of private debt in the world.[3]

• Poor urban planning. This includes limited land release, poor planning of infrastructure and likely cronyism and corruption between government and developers.

• Escaping the GFC, which has enabled further cheap credit to flood the market and therefore allowed Australians to ignore the risks of taking on crushing debt.

Where to from here

So where will this lead? What will burst the bubble?

The most important factor here is the obsession with property, and the 'mania' that Australia, and its establishment have with it. It is from this, that the baffling continuation of Negative Gearing, sky high immigration rates and poor planning stems from. Any other market would have corrected itself by now, leading to a deflation of prices, but the irrational mania surrounding our market has prevented this, aborting sound analysis and realisation of the problem. The market is irrational, and its participants are determined to remain irrational.

Being blinded to the major financial risk and refusing to acknowledge the irrationality, we've chosen to march ahead. As Australians are unlikely to push for a political solution for various reasons, including apathy, acceptance of the Real Estate spin and fear, the situation will continue.

This leaves two possibilities from here on in.

The staggering propaganda effort regarding property will continue, as the Australian market is small and easily coerced in such matters. Concentration of media power, and lack of media diversity inhibits the flow of information, and complicity in most levels of power and influence keeps the message uniform and monolithic. Therefore a correction is unlikely to result from investors realising the risk and bailing out. The correction will be forced, that is, we will hit a brick will with regards to one of the fundamental drivers fuelling this bubble.

These drivers are new entrants into the market who can go further into debt to pay higher prices. Subdivision has done much to push this further along. Dividing traditional 1/4 acre blocks into units, each of which is priced carefully to be just within the level of affordability can keep prices at the "sweet spot", which is just within the level of affordability, just low enough to be affordable, with free standing houses priced high enough to be only within reach of investors. It is for this reason that the market is now largely investors, many of whom are subdividing. Free standing properties are largely unaffordable, and those who afford them subdivide them for profit, further raising prices. This could potentially go on as long until the last free standing property is remaining, but quite likely to hit a limit sooner.

It is important to note here, that subdivision is a self defeating investment activity. A property which is worth money to an investor (due to the ability to subdivide) is turned into a property in which investors are less likely to purchase, due to the fact they can't be subdivided further. Investors are relying on owner occupiers and new home buyers in the current market to purchase the produce of their investments, but the market is only worthwhile for investors to enter and not first home buyers (who may be better of financially renting). A ponzi scheme needs new entrants, and this market is shutting them out.

But prices can't go up too fast, not faster than the ability for people to service debts. That "sweet spot", which investors in a tight market can price their poorly built hovels at, has to go up fast enough to bring enough money into the market, but not too fast as to leave out home buyers. With stagnating wages, this leaves few other options for people. These are, assistance from parents and pooling with siblings and friend, both of which have increased in the last few years, a sure sign of an overpriced market. Also, foreign investment has kept the bubble afloat. Without foreign investment and the corruption and flouting of FIRB guidelines, the market may have corrected some time ago. Foreign investment makes up for a potential shortage of people able to go into debt Australia, be essentially off-shoring the debt creation. Foreign residents are doing the job Australians won't or can't do, that is go into ridiculous levels of debt for basic homes. This is also reliant on interest rates remaining low (they can't go up at all now), or lowering, which puts the RBA in a problem. They need to use the lever of interest rates to control the economy, but now can only go one way. Do not expect to see any significant interest rate rises. Interest rates will remain low until the next financial disruption.

Essentially, the bubble will continue until it hits a brick wall, when the rise in price finally pushes out enough home buyers. The crash will therefore be forced due to the inescapable financial reality, rather than a correction due to changing market conditions. It is not clear when this will happen, but there may be a few years left. The end result will be a disaster for Australia. Our banking sector will have lost much credibility and Australia has little going for it other than mining and the FIRE industries. Without prior economic reforms or economic restructuring, this burst has the potential to push Australia into very hard economic times. Also possible, is an external factor, such as a worldwide GFC, or economic trouble in China.

The second option is that the bubble will not burst, and that Australia will continue to subdivide, use mass immigration, and that social and cultural changes will occur. These are, smaller and smaller dwelling sizes, reduced quality of life, more and more house sharing, where multiple couples live under the one roof and a general decline towards third world conditions. Foreign investment, and a reluctance to enforce regulations with regards to this matter, could increase, resulting in us put into a situation where we are paying foreigners and foreign banks rent to live in our country (this is already happening now). Do not underestimate the level of treachery our officials will go to. In this scenario, rather than wear the cost of the housing bubble financially in terms of economic costs, the cost is worn through loss of quality of life and loss of sovereignty. After all, the massive prices and 'profits' is merely the selling of our future quality of life, with the proceeds of the sale being brought forward and pocketed by a few. All Australians are essentially giving up quality of life, having it liquidated and sold, and turned to cash profits for the investor/parasite class. This alternative scenario allows the bubble to remain, with the price paid for maintaining the bubble being the conversion of quality of life and of social cohesion back to money. Whereas previously we have spent money to improve the quality of life, we are now doing the reverse, converting that hard earned quality of life back into cash payments. It's easier to concentrate this wealth into a few pockets when it is in the form of transferable funds. We can sell social stability, community continuity, space, health, mental well-being, social mobility, pride, culture and freedom to prop up the bubble, which will transform Australia from an egalitarian society to one resembling the landlord/serf arrangement of feudal Europe, but with modern trappings and far better propaganda engineering consent from people. Lets hope this doesn't happen, but an indefinite continuation of escalating property prices will have far reaching, negative social consequences. While European countries can make landlord/tenant arrangements work (due to the ability to sign very long term leases and protections for tenants and a view of housing as a right), Australia doesn't have the culture to make such an arrangement successful here.

These two scenarios seem extreme, but the housing situation as it is today, is extreme, and extreme problems force extreme solutions, however they may end up being solved. If only Australia had the foresight or sense to keep the market in check. Either way, our economy cannot survive if the market is continually geared towards serving the parasitic class (specuvestors) over the productive class (workers trying to house themselves).

Possible Solutions

So how do we solve this problem?

I think that lobbying government by now is a useless endeavour. There is simply no way that politicians, who are personally profiting from property investment will take a personal loss, let along go against their backers and mates. It is indeed cute to see Australians who think that politicians may still act in their interests in this day and age, but there is too much at stake for any political solution to be considered feasible.

These are recommended courses of action.

Firstly, vote for parties which offer to resolve this issue by means other than providing cheaper built housing. This issue is not the cost of building nor dwelling sizes, but the economic and political conditions which are fuelling the bubble. Policies which promise to build low cost modest housing, or any policy which increases density will only drive prices higher and worsen the situation. By reducing dwelling size, the premium paid for land increases and land price increases. After all, the bulk of the cost is the land, as houses can still be built for under $200,000. The high land price due to flooding the market with credit and speculation, not the size of the houses built. So reject any policy about increasing density or providing smaller "more affordable homes" or any policy indicating the necessity of doing this to improve affordibility. Policies which consider increased density and smaller homes as a means of increasing affordability, only continue the problem, as it proposes an ameliorating measure as a solution. Look for parties which address the factors driving up house prices as listed earlier in the articles. Parties which address our globally high growth rates, tax concessions for investment (Negative Gearing, CGT Concession), debt based banking system and foreign investment. It is critical that the party recognises that it is land price, not house price which must come down to improve affordability.
In the current climate the only result of making dwellings smaller, is to make people take $600,000 loans for 2 bedroom units instead of three bedroom houses. The market will simply price the smaller properties at the same price as the larger ones they replaced.

The failure of providing smaller homes to ease affordability is clearly evident. Despite the proliferation of subdivided units and apartment towers, prices are still going up, and housing affordability is still degrading. Clearly, as evidenced by what is happening around us, making smaller, "cheaper" units to help people isn't working at all. Worse still, property spruikers convince investors who buy up decent family homes and bulldoze them to make units, that they are doing the market a favour by providing a 'cheaper' home.

This rules out Palmer United, the Greens[4], One Nation[5], and the Labor party[6] , and obviously, the Liberal party. The Greens do have a policy of partially implementing the Henry Tax review, but likely not to go far enough. The Sustainable Population Party have a reasonable policy and Family First do well highlighting the cause of the issue and provide good discussion and analysis, but with a simplistic solution. [7], [8], [9]
Secondly, the property mania should be undermined. Undermining the mania doesn't mean spreading lies, but exposing the problems within and giving buyers and investors a clearer image of the problems. This can involve attending open for inspections and auctions, and passing out flyer's highlighting the social issues, or highlighting the bubble nature. Information should be disseminated regarding the true extent of foreign investment, and the complicity of the Real Estate industry in turning a blind eye to possible flouting of our Financial Investment Review Board (FIRB) regulations.

Also as part of this, is reinforcing and publicising the fact that the current panacea to the affordability crisis, having investors bulldoze large homes to build multiple small ones, is not working at all and that subdivided homes cost more per square meter of space than the original free standing dwelling cost. Further to this, the subdivided property is not likely to be sold to an investor, who is the one most likely to be able to pay a decent price. The propaganda that is spread to people, that this activity helps people must be countered, and the argument put forward that activities to 'help' people into homes (such as buying investment properties to rent out, subdividing) have no evidence of them working and are doing quite the opposite. Many investors are suckered into believing that they are doing the nation a favour with this activity. This lie should be busted.

This will attract a lot of negative attention and accusations of people being 'bitter renters', or 'losers who are upset they can't afford a home', and suggestions that people simply move further out. There is enough information to demonstrate that the property market is in a precarious bubble, and people should stay on message and continue to disseminate this message, than get sidetracked answering spurious accusations. It may seem mendacious to engage in such acts, but the earlier the correction, the less the impact. That is to say, the sooner people come to their senses, the better for all of us.
Thirdly, the plight of young Australians should be brought to the fore. Most people my age and younger, are deeply concerned about house prices, yet despite this being one of the biggest issues we face, the media are conspicuously silent. At best, they put a tepid "we feel your pain" article every year which proposes no solution, nor even suggests that a solution should be sought or demanded. This silence has to be broken, and it will only be broken by forcing the media to address the issue, and this can be forced by creating media worthy events (such as activism at open for inspections, etc), or social media chatter too big to ignore. Unfortunately, prominent mass activist groups don't seem to care, as housing affordibility doesn't come under the typical repertoire of concerns that activists have.

Australia is in a reasonable financial position currently, as we should use this opportunity to bring a controlled correction rather than wait for an uncontrolled, chaotic and unpredictable correction. It would be far better for the government to use policy to deflate the bubble, as it would then be able to have some control over the process to minimise the disruption to people and the shock to the economy. Deliberately done, by phasing out Negative Gearing, various concessions, reducing immigration according to a timetable which is rigidly stuck to, those invested in the market would have time to adjust and plan from the transition from an economy based on speculation on property to some other, hopefully more productive model which will have other ancillary benefits. Investors could divest their portfolio on their own terms and those who have property as a nest egg would have time to consider alternative options. Banks could plan for the reduced prices. Without this controlled correction, we are essentially at the mercy of circumstance, with unpredictable results, and the chaos that would result from this.

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/house-prices-strongest-winter-in-7-years/story-fni0xqe4-1227043581623
[2] http://www.theage.com.au/business/spring-in-the-property-market-may-be-a-leap-too-far-20140829-109vrm.html
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/household-debt-the-big-threat-to-australian-economy/5435844
[4] http://greens.org.au/housing
[5] http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/policies_housing.html
[6] http://www.alp.org.au/cm4_210813
[7] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/Housing-Policy.pdf
[8] http://www.vic-familyfirst.org.au/housing/
[9] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/Home-Truths-Revisited-May-2013.pdf

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

This is a huge scandal with far reaching serious National consequences and implications. The following represents my personal view on the 457 visa scandal and its ramifications. The recently exposed corruption is the last bit in the jig saw puzzle of my understanding. I cannot "prove" much of what follows, it is supposition not fact, but I believe that I am fairly close to the overall truth.

See also: Napthine complains that population growth outstrips job growth.

What I think is this This scandal, has huge far reaching serious National consequences and implications. With perhaps more serious consequences that anything we have previously seen in the history of the Nation.

1. The nub of the matter: There has been serious corruption involving Department of Immigration and Border Protection(DIBC) employees. (Fact)

Question 1. Why were the allegedly corrupt perpetrators allowed to return to India (with the loot)?
Question 2. Why has there been no obvious DIBC or Government response to internal reports of serious mismanagement going back to 2008?

Further background details here http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/visa-fraud-suspects-fled-after-wiring-1m-overseas-20140807-3dbmu.html and below http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/journalists-uncover-rampant-visa-fraud/5657050

This corruption does not come as a total surprise to me (or to DIBC). Corrupt procedures in the immigration industry have become almost standard procedure within the industry, and an essential and an accepted component of attaining the immigration numbers required. This is compounded by the impossibility of enforcing any compliance measures. In short, there has been tacit acceptance of corruption to further immigration goals. This is the problem.

I am suggesting that DIBC and this Government wish to close down publicity and Public discussion of this issue. (The previous Labour Government was equally culpable, and therefore they can be expected to support any cover up measures). Both major Parties have had involvement in misusing and abusing the immigration system for their own narrow advantage, mainly political, and over many years (decades), in ways which they would prefer the Public not to know about. (a more serious version of the recent Labour Government approach to HSU fraud and corruption issues).
This misuse may be of the types exemplified by the Slipper/Comcar/winetour or the Labour mates/Obeid/NSW Coal mine licences, (which though serious are fairly inconsequential in the long term, however they do set the tone) . Or they may be more serious, such as those they would be individually be held to account for, if matters became public, say through a Public or Judicial inquiry. Governments will avoid this at all costs (as with the HSU and Liberal party cash donation issues).

Put simply, I believe that there has been widespread political misuse and abuse of the immigration system mainly for political ends; but possibly also for other corrupt reasons, including financial corruption.

A test of Government intentions and its integrity will be whether there is a purposful response to obvious corruption within the Public Service. Similarly, whether the current 457 visa integrity Review (http://www.immi.gov.au/pub-res/Pages/reviews-and-inquiries/skilled-visa-programme.aspx) will address the corruption issue, and Government's possible response to this.

2. How did the current situation arise?

I suggest this started in about the mid to late nineteen eighties , when population boosting by immigration was introduced by PM Hawke (in 1985, after about 2 years in office) to boost immediate economic growth, (1989 had the highest immigration number since the World War). It is possible that Hawke was unaware of the longer term implications of his actions, but I doubt that his advisors (Treasury and the Public Service) were unaware. Perhaps, he was advised to ignore the long term consequences. Similarly the case with PM Fraser and the Vietnamese Boat people issue of the 1970's. Perhaps his only thoughts were "humanitarian".

Perhaps our Leaders were like that.

But once embarked on this National growth trajectory it became self perpetuating. (see also references below.)
This informal policy was picked up and enlarged by PM Howard (assisted by the resources boom) and later by PM Rudd (Big Australia) Governments.

It was a magic pudding policy, wherby benefits could be obtained ( and prizes bestowed) at no immediate, or only minor short term, cost. The perfect political formula. Since the major fiancial and social costs would be delayed for many years eg infrastructure and health/age care. Thus all the major costs were medium to long term and would be carried by others in the future (pass the parcel), and could safely be ignored in the short term.

The "magic pudding" approach was only achieved because of a refusal to conduct essential economic analysis and risk asessment. There was no critical examination of the justifications. Successive Governments, Ministries and Departments and the Media (including our fearless ABC) have done everything possible to avoid essential analysis; in fact they have impeded and disrupted analysis, partly through using selective inquiries, with predetermined conslusions and favourable terms of reference.

This approach has been very successful, aided by energy surpluses and low energy costs at the time, (boosting productivity), and apparently cost free in the very short term.

This process was supported and promoted by the overwhelming power, dominance and influence of the combined business/media (a Business/Government/Murdoch/ ABC/media combination) gives pro growth policies an unstoppable and huge advantage. Most of these parties obviously or indirectly stood to gain from this growth.

Unfortunately this developed into a ponzi immigration scheme, simply because once started the scheme had to be maintained at levels sufficient to maintain its limited benefits and avoid its disadvantages.

In the process, and as an adjunct to this, Governments have allowed, perhaps encouraged, DIBC to become an immigration factory, and not an impartial Public Service Department to safeguard the Public interest. In fact quite the opposite. This process has incidentally created the perfect conditions for official corruption.

An early example of political abuse of the system might be the actions of Liberal Politician Philip Ruddock who as a backbencher, and later as a Minister, managed to persuade immigration Authorities to boost Lebanese migration into his electorate. Possibly his main intention was for a political advantage ( 'buying' loyalty) in a marginal electorate, but allegations of financial corruption also were raised later in respect of "payments" for visas.

About 9 million people (60% increase) have been added to the population since 1980 (14.6 Million)much of this by immigration.

Thus about half the national wealth (eg Resources and existing infrastructure) has been given away in that time to overseas persons, with a further 50 % to be given away in the next 20 years or so. Incredible. So that in a period of about 50 years about 75% of the original total of National wealth (eg. resources and infrastructure) will have been distributed to overseas citizens. And for what?

Many of these new persons are now approaching retirement or old age with major cost implications for health, welfare and aged care services. This financial burden will become increasingly unaffordable in its present form. ( The Treasurer and PM are aware of this, hence the budget panic).

The Australian Public are not blameless in this, but most have been indoctrinated into new thinking; many have apparently done well from the situation, unfortunately most believe that it can go on forever and that they can hold onto their gains forever. Sadly not.

Many put too much store in the honesty of Government, and the Public Service and our Media.

Unfortunately the media, including the ABC (the last bastion), was so busy dancing to the Government tune that they forgot why they existed.

3. What are the consequences?

Well, firstly all the local benefits were for short term gains (mainly political) or to the overseas migrant beneficiaries of these actions.

However, the national consequences are long term. All Australians will be affected, not just for 10's of years, but for 100's of years and possibly for millenias ahead, by, for example, huge public expenditures as yet unacknowledged, a broken economy and intergenerational poverty and misery.

Poulation growth now appears to be uncontrollable, for political and economic reasons. Regarding the political reasons, too much power has been conceded to interest groups and marginal electorate minorities). Governments might like to do something, but the Public and interest groups, will not allow it, ( eg the current situation where even modest budget changes are impossible).

To change the current rate of population growth and immigration levels to the levels required in the shortest possible time frame, would seriously affect the whole economy and the immediate loss of some industries (eg Overseas Education, which would collapse overnight without a favourable PR Based visa system , Shopping Centres and Retail shopping, and City Unit Development). I cannot think of a single Industry that will not be impacted. I cannot see any Government choosing, or being allowed, to do this.

So they, and we, are doomed if they do, and doomed if they don't.

The best we can hope for is modest amelioration; any actions are 20 to 30 years too late for even modestly positive outcomes. The die is cast, irrevocably.

On any sensible assessment, Australia will find its current population overload impossible to manage into the future, in every way imaginable. (eg principally Food, Climate and Energy security; employment, education, health, welfare being secondary problems). Risk Factors such as cultural diversity and security will also be relatively minor issues in the overall problem, but will become totally unaffordable and unmanageable in any conventional sense.

References

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/populationpuzzle/immigration.html and book: Critical years in immigration

#F7F8E0;line-height:120%;">On the 13th of May Environment Minister Greg Hunt purportedly answered a simple question about Australia's dangerous and undemocratic population growth put to him by Kelvin Thomson. Minister Hunt's response should be a source of great concern for all Australians. It shows no respect for the very serious consequence to democracy or the environment of continuous population growth. The response is cavalier and disrespectful to Australians who have major and justifiable concerns on this matter. Below we quote the short dialogue in Hansard, and then we publish two observant comments about the Minister's failure to take the question seriously.

House of Representatives Question No.0101

"Mr Thomson asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing on 13 May 2014:

Is he aware that past and current open ended population growth policy creates the inevitable prospect of imposing continual infrastructure projects on the public, each one more invasive and destructive of the social and natural environments?"

Mr Hunt's reply was a monument to obfuscation and unreality, surpassing anything you have seen on Yes Minister:

"Mr Hunt: The answer to the Honourable Member's question is as follows:

Setting a fixed population target can mask the complexities of the issue. For example, there are many aspects of population change in Australia, such as changes in fertility rates that cannot be accurately predicted or directly controlled.

The Australian Government has in place a range of commitments to infrastructure, services, jobs and the environment which will provide for Australia's currently growing population including a commitment to better plan for and sequence infrastructure development across Australia, and to develop a White Paper on the development of Northern Australia. These policies will support environmentally, socially and economically responsible growth and cultivate resilient, productive and fair communities."

Quark: "Not an environment minister's bootlace"

Candobetter's Quark's analysis of the logic involved was breathtaking:

Quark wrote: "Mr Hunt is making something sound more complex than it is.

It's as though Kelvin Thomson had asked if Mr Hunt was aware that if you add 5 to 6 you get 11 and Mr Hunt had answered that it is more complex than that because 2 and 3 make 5 and 2 multiplied by 3 makes 6 and 11 can be reached by adding 1 to 10, 2 to 9, 3 to 8 etc.

It also sounds as though endless infrastructure for Mr Hunt is a good thing

Mr. Hunt is not an environment minister’s bootlace.

I wonder what would emerge if Kelvin asked the same question over and over in different ways to try to corner the little ponce.

Jack Roach: "We should be very worried"

Jack Roach of Boroondara Residents Action Group (BRAG) wrote, in response:

"It is no wonder that Australia is headed for a massive jump in the rate of our population growth with woolly thinking like the Minister for the Environment’s attached reply to a question on our population growth. Our population is set to double within the next 30 to 35 years because we have no clear immigration policies. There is no set annual immigration intake and visas are issued with no limit as to numbers. (And most are issued by licensed agents not by the immigration department – where is the control?)

When a senior Minister says that “setting a fixed population growth target can mask the complexities of the issue” (refer attached reply to a question asked in Parliament on May 13) we should be very worried. He is falling back on the politician’s ploy of trying to confuse the issue by talking about “fertility changes that cannot be predicted”. That is not the concern, it is the number of new migrants that is the issue. The numbers just keep on increasing very year. In the late nineties and early 2000’s our immigration numbers were around to 70,000 to 80,000 but these have steadily but surely increased to 250,000 now and there is no indication that there will be any curbs in this increasing trend. In addition we also have in our country over a million long stay visa holders who put further pressure on our infrastructure. By a well understood visa swapping process they extend their stay and many eventually gain permanent residency.

And who pays for all this new infrastructure required to cope with this growth? Certainly not the new arrivals to this country, it is you the taxpayer that foots the bill. Who benefits from this massive population growth. The productivity Commission has issued a statement that it is not the existing general population, the main beneficiaries are the new arrivals themselves and, of course, the development industry.

Kevin Rudd’s BIG AUSTRALIA was a con but it is still being pushed by many of today’s politicians and the growthists. The time has come for an Australia- wide debate on our lack of any real immigration policy and the increasing rate of our population growth. What we need from now on is a properly planned rational and sustainable migration policy.

Send a copy of this [...] to your local state and federal politicians and demand a debate on this issue before it is too late."

Anthony Murphy of Brunswick, represented by Ron Merkel QC, has filed a case in the Supreme Court against the government, claiming they have misled the public about the toll road business case and its economic justification. The significance of this case cannot be overstated. Please share this article and invitation widely - and note places at the function are limited. RSVP by Monday 11 August directly to: murphyvewl[AT]gmail.com
For more information about how you can support Murphy vs. East West Link: http://www.murphyvewl.org

As you may be aware, our battle against the East-West toll road reaches a crucial moment in time. As the Napthine government pushes hard to sign contracts before the November state election, communities across Melbourne are united in opposition.

Anthony Murphy of Brunswick, represented by Ron Merkel QC, has filed a case in the Supreme Court against the government, claiming they have misled the public about the toll road business case and its economic justification. The significance of this case cannot be overstated.

Even with the excellent pro-bono legal assistance provided by Fitzroy Legal Services and Shine Lawyers, court cases are expensive and we are relying on community support to fund this challenge.

I would like to invite you to an evening in support Anthony Murphy’s Supreme Court challenge.

Our guest speaker will be Ron Merkel QC.

Monday 18 August, 6-7:30pm
Fitzroy Town Hall

Places are limited, so I urge you to please RSVP by Monday 11 August via reply email to [email protected]

Thank you as always for your support of this important campaign and I look forward to seeing you there.

Kind Regards,

Harriet Mantell
On behalf of the Murphy V East-West toll campaign
www.murphyvewl.org

This appeal has been organised by the following:

Harriet Mantell, Residents Against the Tunnel (http://www.rat.org.au)
Cait Jones, Public Transport Users Association (http://www.ptua.org.au)
Chris Star, Yarra Campaign For Action on Transport (http://www.ycat.org.au)
Danae Bosler, Public Transport Not Traffic (www.ptnt.org)
Andrew Kelly, Tunnel Picket
Alison Clarke, Former Mayor, City of Yarra

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.

Message from YCAT and the RAT re the outrageous proposed acquisition of property by the State Government in the path of the East West Link and a meeting organised for affected residents and traders. Education session with lawyers on issues of compulsory acquisition.

Know your rights as residents! Property acquisition and the East West Link

Tuesday August 5th
Clifton Hill Primary School, 185 Gold Street,
Clifton Hill

Residents of Clifton Hill, Collingwood, Fitzroy and Carlton are invited to a meeting convened by the Residents Against the Tunnel (RAT) to enable discussion and to inform you about the various issues raised for home owners and tenants by the proposed East West Link.

The discussion will cover:

• home owners notified they will be compulsory acquired
• those outside the project boundary wanting voluntary acquisition option
• those above the tunnel sections having their title rights acquired
• people wanting to have property inspections to protect,their position if there is damage during works
• people who are tenants in buildings to be acquired

There will be lawyers from major firms present to explain the legal issues and take your questions about what
your rights are and what you need to do to get the right outcome for your situation.

Download leafet: Property acquisition and the EWL- Eastern section (pdf) Property-acquisition-and-the-EWL-flyer-Eastern-section.pdf

The Linking Melbourne Authority has indicated it will start issuing "Notices of lntention to Acquire" in early August and will take ownership of the properties by October - although residents may be allowed to rent these back until August
2015.

It is coming to crunch time. The East West Link is coming under unprecedented criticism from all corners and is subject to two Supreme Court challenges.

Contracts may not be signed by the election and the road may never go ahead. However the Government is intent on ploughing ahead and will start the legal process to take homes before the required legislation has been passed.

This meeting will explain the complex situation and outline your options. Come along to find out the
facts.

Report about last Monday's information session on Macedon Ranges Localised Planning Statement, which represents a disaster for Victoria's iconic Macedon Ranges, immortalised in the movie Picnic at Hanging Rock. Inside find the report plus planning attachments. This kind of thing is happening all over Victoria as the government tries to insert population growth into any and all communities, including country towns and regions, whilst continuing to cram more people into the cities in a population engineering regime.

Macedon Ranges Residents' Association (MRRA) has updated its website (www.mrra.asn.au) with a report on last Monday’s information session on Council’s Localised Planning Statement. Council’s LPS is a disaster for Macedon Ranges. It’s not what the State government promised – to protect Macedon Ranges and keep Statement of Planning Policy No. 8. Macedon Ranges Council ‘s Localised Planning Statement does neither. This means that, without your help and ministerial intervention, the Macedon Ranges will lose what little protection they have, and be worse off than today.

MRRA has produced a Background & Action Paper about Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 (Clause 22.01 in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme); and what you can do to stop Council replacing SPP8’s “must” policy, which has been in place for 40 years, with Council’s “may” policy (draft LPS) – designed to support and facilitate substantial development of a size, type and in locations not supported in Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 (remember Hanging Rock?). A link to downloads, and submission and contact details, is available from the top of MRRA’s Home Page (Statement of Planning Policy No. 8).

If you love Macedon Ranges’ environment, landscapes, open spaces and rural character, thank SPP8 for them still being here. If SPP8 is lost, these values will also be lost.
What you can do:
• Read Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 (Clause 22.01) – compare it with Council’s LPS “policy” (the difference will be immediately obvious).
• Make a submission to Council by August 8th (copy to all councillors): (1) rejecting Council’s LPS, (2) telling Council to replace its policy with SPP8 policy and (3) supporting application of SPP8 policy (as the LPS) to the whole Shire.
• Send a copy of your submission to the Minister for Planning Matthew Guy, and Amanda Millar MLC. Tell them we were promised State policy protection and SPP8 - if the LPS isn’t SPP8, it’s not protection.
• You can also send a copy of your submission to the Shadow Minister for Planning, Brian Tee, and Joanne Duncan MLA.
• Ask candidates in the upcoming State election where they stand on SPP8 as State policy, and protecting Macedon Ranges.
• Tell your family, friends, neighbours and social media contacts how important this is, and ask them to make a submission.
• Write letters to local and Melbourne media.

Please circulate this to your friends, family, networks and contacts. It’s important not only to Macedon Ranges but to Victoria. There’s not much point saving Hanging Rock if the rest of Macedon Ranges falls to development.

Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Land Victoria will be the speaker at a meeting of concerned citizens "Protecting Heritage and Public Interest in Banyule," Sunday July 6th, 2.00pm for 2.30pm, Seddon St. Community Centre, Ivanhoe. Ivanhoe Civic Precinct Master Plan includes demolition of the current library and privatisation of three lots of civic land. You can attend the meeting and be listed to speak at the start of the meeting.

Ivanhoe Civic Precinct Master Plan includes demolition of the current, iconic, ‘mid-century modernist’ design Library and privatisation of three lots of civic land!
Two of the sites are adjacent to the Civic Precinct. i.e. (1), a well landscaped CAR PARK - west of Upper Heidelberg Rd and off Ivanhoe Parade (west) and (2), Lot 14, Ivanhoe Parade (west) – including both the Ivanhoe Senior Citizens Hall and the Arts Community Space buildings and (3), residential development within the Civic Precinct site.

Currently all three are council/ rate payer-owned land!

What you can do:

You can attend the Banyule Council Meeting Monday July 7th - 7pm for 7.30pm

And be listed to speak at the start of the meeting,

and/or write -

To All Councillors, the CEO, and relevant officers - PO Box 51, Ivanhoe 3079/ [email protected]

You can be added to Councils email list to be updated by contacting Ben Smith 9490 4222: [email protected]

Also see http://www.fairyhillsivanhoe.com

And attend the meeting:
"Protecting Heritage and Public Interest in Banyule"
Sunday July 6th
2.00pm for 2.30pm
Seddon St. Community Centre, Ivanhoe

Our speaker is

Julianne Bell “Protectors of Public Land”

Everyone welcome / Gold coin donation

More Information 0427 949 951/ 0411 154 914

Join us to discuss these important issues of our time.
The first part of the meeting will cover the Proposed Plan for the CIVIC PRECINCT and actions people can take regarding the Plan; the second part will cover the Proposed Council Lease of CHELSWORTH PARK to a private school for 30 years

Extra information:
http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Services/Parks-and-Facilities/Ivanhoe-Senior-Citizens-Hall

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Services/Parks-and-Facilities/Hatch-Contemporary-Arts

http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/160053/banyule14ho.pdf

(Lot No’s and Heritage Overlays in Ivanhoe Parade and the Civic Precinct area of the Ivanhoe Shopping Centre)
http://www.fairyhillsivanhoe.com/

Ivanhoe’s much loved Chelsworth Park, on the Yarra flood plain near the southern entrance to Banyule, is currently being considered for a 20 +10 year Commercial Lease between Banyule City Council (BCC) Ivanhoe Grammar School (IGS) - A commercial entity.

A Commercial Lease threatens the ability of our Community to decide how the park will be used, over a period of expected high population increase in Melbourne and Ivanhoe and a growing reduction in private residential space - as the number of multi-unit dwellings increase due to Government policy.

Many residents of Banyule oppose this move and believe that

1. Restrictions on the availability of the park, for both passive and active use - if leased to a private entity, are not in the community’s long-term interests.

2. Banyule City Council needs to step up to the mark and provide first-rate facilities for the ratepayers of Banyule in all its parks and for all its schools to share equally - rather than over-use some parks (nearby Ivanhoe Park) and under use and under support others (Ford Park). Council needs to do more to ensure that passive recreation, and the riverine environment for which Chelsworth Park is famous, are protected into the future.

3. More transparency is needed – Governance and Financial Reporting conditions under the current IGS peppercorn lease, have NOT been met (- despite fees from the Clubs using the Park going to IGS); In addition, Chelsworth Park continues to receive favourable infrastructure funding from Council - while other Parks miss out.

Current Griffin Ward Councillor Jenny Mulholland has given little support to major community concerns.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Write : To All Councillors, the CEO, and relevant officers
(PO Box 51, Ivanhoe 3079/ [email protected] ) and
Phone: Current Ward Councillor, Jenny Mulholland, and current Mayor, Craig Langdon
Jenny: 0413 986 912; (PO Box 51, Ivanhoe 3079; [email protected])
Craig : 0401 097 032; (PO Box 51, Ivanhoe 3079; [email protected])

Insist Council rent the land at commercial real estate rates over the short term*, (- say 5 year maximum renewals) where spare time and playing surface capacity exists, and after community needs are met . (*This could involve IGS marking, mowing, and watering the grounds as now, - as payment in kind, but with Council managing all infrastructure and community bookings)

Insist BCC control all signage, bookings, payment and community liaison (as with its other parks )

Insist that NO EXTRA business use be granted; Instead, over time, business use will be reduced while increasing community needs are met.

Ask to be notified: - of any BCC Chelsworth Plans, relevant Council Meetings and Plan exhibits - Contact Tom Zappulla : [email protected] : 9490 4222

And see: http://www.fairyhillsivanhoe.com for more info – Email contact available on the CONTACTS page

Attend the Upcoming Community Meeting:

‘Protecting Heritage and Public Interest in Banyule’
Speaker Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands
Sunday July 6th
2.00pm for 2.30pm
Seddon St. Community Centre Ivanhoe
Gold coin donation / More Information 0427 949 951 / 0411 154 914 (Robyn / Paul)

Chelsworth Park is our Park - Community asset, not private takeover!

Join us to discuss these issues of our time.

#A9F5D0;line-height:120%;">Congratulations to all who organised, prepared, worked for and took part in the rally yesterday Saturday 28 June . It was a monumental task and a great celebration of community spirit. What was so impressive was the amazing diversity of groups and spread of ages of marchers and participants.

One leader of a community group who has been to lots of protests speaks for many when she commented yesterday after the march in an email:

"That surely was a great rally today in Melbourne, I was in awe during the march from State Library along Swanston St. It was conducted so very well with police on their horses beautifully standing to attention outside Flinders Street station while the speeches continued. Was this really democracy in action?? And how about the beaut little middle-aged lady in a red jacket holding up high a very large poster with a simple six-word message which read STICK YOUR TUNNEL UP YOUR FUNNEL !" Also the writer said: " I have never been to a rally as large, powerful and widely representative. All credit to the organisers and speakers too!

"

See the Gallery of Photos (9 in all) in the Age: http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/national/east-west-link-tunnel-protest-20140628-3b0h9.html This is entitled "East West Link protestors marching through Swanston Street in Melbourne on Saturday 28 June 2014. Photos by Luis Ascui." Note on Page 2 of the Age the photograph of the sign held by a resident of Travancore "5200 trees Axed for EW Link - Say No Way!" (This is referring of course to Royal Park.)

The photos illustrating this article were taken by Jill Quirk. They are of the banner with the iconic message "Trains not Toll Roads" (with the Royal Park banner in the background) and of the children of the Save The Zoo contingent, dressed as Zoo animals gathered outside the State Library waiting for the rally to commence. I would particularly like to thank the Moreland Community Against the East-West Tunnel (MCAT) and their Save The Zoo Children's group. Also Rod Quantock our PPL VIC President who did a Pied Piper act and led the children and Royal Park groups at the front of the march. I understand that Channel 2 and 9 covered the rally but have not yet seen the record.

Julianne Bell
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (Inc.)

This song contains photos from protests in multiple US states as well as some from Europe. The footage is very impressive. Music is a great way to communicate, so send this round if you want to help resist the technology that is fracking democracy as well as razing entire landscapes. Fracking costs more than it is worth in terms of production as well, according to Bloomberg. See inside.

Bloomberg: Cost of fracking in the US greatly exceeds returns

On 25 October 2013 in "EIA should provide data on cost of North American shale gas exploitation to make balanced reports," I asked EIA spokesman, Dr Fawsi, to tell me what the cost of production in fracking was. He said the EIA had the information but would not release it. However Bloomberg obtained the relevant information and published it in February under the headline: Bloomberg"Dream of US Oil independence slams against shale costs."

"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."