democracy alert

Kelvin Thomson writes, "Malcolm King’s article, "Fortress Australia: green wasting the future", in the Sydney Morning Herald [1]makes numerous claims which are ... so far divorced from reality that one wonders why he makes them. He describes himself as director of a PR Business. It is time he disclosed his clients, which may help us understand the answer to that intriguing question."

Claim: “Australia has a low population but the western suburbs of its two largest cities are growing under the load of poor infrastructure and a total lack of urban planning”.

Reality: Growth boosters always claim the problems could be solved by better infrastructure and better planning. If it is capable of being solved, how come it never is? Why can no government of whatever political party, in any fast growing city, get infrastructure or planning right? The reason, pointed out brilliantly by Queensland academic Jane O’Sullivan in her work on the costs of infrastructure in a growing population, is that population growth of 2% sound innocent enough but in fact it doubles the infrastructure task of any government or council.

Claim: “The real story is that the environmental movement is under attack by the anti-populationist and anti-immigration forces who are “green washing” their anti-immigration policies to make them more palatable to the electorate”.

Reality: I got interested in Australian birds, plants and animals when I was just 10 years old. I got interested in conservation and environment issues when I was a teenager, and interested in politics as a result. I first talked about climate change in the mid-1990s, and when I was Shadow Environment Minister between 2001-2004 I successfully proposed that Labor adopt the Kyoto Protocol, increase the Renewable Energy Target, introduce an emissions trading scheme to put a price on carbon, and return water to the ailing Murray-Darling Basin. And I have found similar priorities among the people I have met at Sustainable Population Australia. It is precisely their concern at the impacts of habitat destruction and climate change on our birds and plants and animals that cause them to believe that we should try to stabilise our population. Claims of ‘greenwashing’ are pathetic and laughable.

Claim: A stable population “would have radical implications for Australian society and capitalism”.

Reality: In fact it would have positive implications for society and capitalism. The wealthiest GDP per capita countries in the world are not those with large and rapidly growing populations, they are those with small and slowly growing populations, such as Scandinavia and northern Europe.

Claim: “Advocates of population stabilisation want a one in/one out immigration system, stop building houses for first home buyers and stop Kiwis arriving.

Reality: None of these claims is true of me. I propose net immigration of 70,000 each year (not net zero), and a cap on New Zealanders arriving which would still allow for a similar number to that we have seen since the Trans-Tasman Agreement was introduced. As for first home buyers, I am the one blowing the whistle on the way rising house prices are denying first home buyers the chance to enter the market. I support first home buyers and oppose rising house prices driven by population growth.

Claim: That the reason it takes an hour to get to work is not growing population, but because every single person drives a car.

Reality: Mr King accuses Sustainable Population Australia of having a social engineering agenda, yet he apparently wants everyone to stop driving their cars! Just how does he plan to accomplish that? Either utterly naive, or utterly insincere.

Claim: “Over the next 30 years almost 6 million baby boomers will pass on….The population of much of eastern Europe and Japan is falling”.

Reality: Australia’s population is growing faster than ever before. When I went to school and learned about population Australian was 14 million. Now we are 23 million. Treasury projections are that we will hit 36 million by 2050, and keep rising. Same for the global population, which hit 7 billion in 2011, having trebled in a little over a century, and is tracking for 9 to 10 billion by mid-century. I used to believe those demographers who claimed that population would take care of itself. But their predictions are always wrong – the population always grows by more than they predict – so I have stopped listening to them.

Claim: The solution to the traffic jam on Punt Road is to ride a push bike.

Reality: Melbourne is on track to go from 2 million cars now to over 3 million cars by 2036. If you think the Punt Road traffic is bad now, wait till Mr King’s vision for Melbourne arrives!

Conclusion: Mr King’s claims are so far divorced from reality that one wonders why he makes them. He describes himself as director of a PR Business. It is time he disclosed his clients, which may help us understand the answer to that intriguing question.

NOTES

This growth-lobbying article has been syndicated by the Murdoch Press (which has a huge property.com and investments in many areas of the property development industry, upstream and downstream). See, for instance: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/fortress-australia-green-washing-the-future-20131021-2vwzy.html (Brisbane Times) ; http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/fortress-australia-green-washing-the-future-20131021-2vwzy.html (W.A. today).

Jenny Warfe went to the Westernport Catchment Committee meeting yesterday 18th October 2013 to hear the PoHDA CEO Mike Lean’s presentation about the proposed Hastings Port expansion. It was all about business as usual, ignoring resource depletion, seeing growing the economy as the only way to provide jobs, unwilling to contemplate the ceasing of engineering population growth upwards. Here is a report.

I went to the Westernport Catchment Committee meeting yesterday 18th October 2013 to hear the PoHDA CEO Mike Lean’s presentation about the proposed Hastings Port expansion. Some of his memorable (predictable ) statements included, according to my notes:

• There are no other options
• Construction phase 2018-2025
• Will serve Victoria's trade for the next 70,80 to 100 years
• It is fundamental as a gateway for the State
• Australians overwhelmingly want their children to have jobs
• Westernport highway would be upgraded to 6 lanes with dual train track in centre
• Project would also require the metro train tunnel to be built to allow for better movement of passenger trains on the Dandenong line, freeing up space for freight trains
• Shipping lines are now moving to wider container ships and steaming slower [so much for the PoMC’s Channel Deepening rationale that the Heads must be deepened because container ships would always be getting deeper and it was uneconomic for ships to wait for tide assistance]
• Container trade is growing at 5-7% compounding annually
• Planning for a minimum of 9 million containers per annum by 2060, ramping up from 2025
• Victoria is growing at 1500 people per week [it is actually 100,000 per annum at present, 60% of which is elective immigration]
• We are many years from having an outcome in the business case
• Compared with any other Australian port, Hastings has the largest amount of port related zoned land close to a port
• If you put it in a container we will move it
• Aiming for maximum automation at the port, so that flood lighting at night is not required, so that birds won’t be disturbed – might only be a few dozen people on site [so much for jobs then.]
• There will be positive impacts as well

[et cetera]

Clearly the plan is predicated on a business as usual scenario, reliant on a doubling of the state’s population and a quadrupling of trade by mid-century and of course abundant fossil fuels to power the juggernaut.
When asked, Mr. Lean denied any knowledge of coal export through Hastings as part of the business case- although acknowledged that he had “read something about it recently.”

There was quite a bit of concern expressed in questions from the meeting and amazement at the numbers of containers, ships, trucks and trains that his “vision” would entail. .....And quite a bit of defensiveness in his replies- perhaps reverting to his former Army Lieutenant Colonel days. Prior to PoHDA, Mr. Lean was responsible for the Williamstown shipyard and the Maritime Business Unit at BAE Systems Australia working on the Air Warfare Destroyer and Landing Helicopter Dock projects.

The Mornington Peninsula has been under continuous assault from forced population growth in the face of lax environmental protection now since the time of Jeff Kennett, who made it part of 'Greater Melbourne', thus taking Victorian environmentalists 'beyond blue'. A few years ago plans to intensively industrialise Hastings on a scale previously unknown in Australia came to light. (See Candobetter has a whole site topic devoted to these.. Now the use of Hastings to export coal is being mooted.

Documents Blue Wedges obtained under Freedom of Information last year revealed that the former Brumby government’s plans for Hastings included coal exports in the business case. Given the Napthine government’s project costs and projected trade volumes released so far for an expanded Hastings are almost identical to the Brumby plan, it’s pretty likely that coal is still on the agenda.

An Exergen (power company claiming to have clean coal credentials) 2011 document obtained by Environment Victoria under FoI also builds a case for coal to be transported as slurry in a pipeline from the LaTrobe Valley to the Port of Hastings, and then treated/de-watered on site at the Port of Hastings, for export through there. (Brown coal cannot be exported in its natural state due to its high moisture content and risks of spontaneous combustion).
Exergen states that the upgraded coal would be exported to lndia, Japan, Korea and other locations in North Asia.

"What a hideous vision for Hastings – and what an appalling contribution to our planet’s Greenhouse gas emissions." (Jenny Warfe, leader of Blue Wedges campaign against Port Phillip dredging)

The Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council (WPPC) is having a rally on November 9th 2pm-3.30pm Hastings Foreshore. WPPC have organized it with Environment Victoria and Quit Coal. People from Corner Inlet and 90 Mile Beach who are opposing their own coal port proposals will be travelling to the rally. Farmers who face having their excellent farms turned into a coal mine will also be present. There will be talks from VNPA and Blue Wedges too.

Start inviting your friends.

The East-West Link (EW Link) Preliminary Assessment by Geoff Lawler, Director of City Planning and Infrastructure, spells out in graphic terms to Council the wide scale damage to Royal Park likely from the EW Link. It is, therefore, difficult to understand why the City of Melbourne Mayor and Councillors have not apprehended the significance of this report and voted to publically oppose the destruction of the City by the East West Link. Submission from Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC)

When a vote was taken recently on whether approval would be given for the exploratory drilling in Royal Park, Councillor Stephen Mayne voted for it to proceed saying that there was time for a decision to be made in the future concerning the dangers of the EW Link. Hence Councillors voted for the drilling – and the project – to proceed. (6 to 5.) DDAY has arrived and the City of Melbourne must now take a stand against the EW Link. It is disappointing that the City of Melbourne has not taken a stand earlier whereas the following municipalities have voted to say “no” to the East West Link: Darebin, Glen Eira, Moonee Valley, Moreland and Yarra.
.
Our organisation prepared a list of reasons why the City of Melbourne should say “no” to the East West Link and “yes” to public transport in particular rail to Doncaster and the airport.

No Satisfactory Business Case for East West Link: The previous Federal Government refused to provide funding to the State Government due to the flimsy case presented. Questions are being raised as to how the project attract funds without a satisfactory business case being made.

No Funds for Key Public Transport Rail Projects: The East West Link may cost $10 billion plus and so suck Treasury dry of funds for long-demanded rail projects, namely Doncaster, Tullamarine, Rowville and extension of the South Morang Rail line. Also Melbourne Metro Rail.

No Satisfactory Traffic Modelling: It has been established recently that VicRoads traffic statistics have not been used to justify predicted traffic increases but a private consultant employed by the State Government. Suspect figures have been provided.

Not in City of Melbourne 2008 Transport Strategy or MSS The project runs contrary to the Council’s own 2998 Transport Strategy and the transport objectives of the Melbourne Municipal Strategy recently signed off by Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

Blowout in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Increased Car Use Encouraged: The proposed project involves construction of 4 lane tollway concrete road tunnels and aerial roadways or cut-and cover-roadways for 18 km., which will blow out Victoria’s green house emissions. Provision of new roads will encourage increased vehicle usage, whereas in other States rail lines are being extended for commuters and for freight transport.

East West Link = Truck Not Commuter Route: The road tunnels are first and foremost a city by-pass for trucks and therefore do not serve commuters. The EW Link is reportedly going underground at Hoddle Street and, with one turnoff/on at Elliott Avenue to Flemington Road, emerges in Royal Park, travels through the Ross Straw Field and joins CityLink in or over the Royal Park wetlands. A later addition is the aerial roadway from Racecourse Road to the Port. As most traffic off the Eastern Freeway is headed south or north - including for the city – not east-west, the road tunnels do not serve the majority of commuters off the Eastern Freeway.

Planning on the Run: No proper plans have been produced only dotted lines on aerial maps and Mickey-Mouse animated videos. The State Government has demanded that the Eastern Section of the EW Link be expedited. By contrast three years were spent planning Westlink when it was a stand alone project. It is now the western end of the EW Link. Turn offs at Elliott Avenue in Royal Park and at Arden and Macaulay Street Kensington have been added only recently to the EW Link.

Congestion Will Remain: The current congestion and gridlock experienced in parts of the city will worsen as city commuters avoid the road tollway and turn off at Hoddle Street, Clifton Hill, turn off at Elliott Avenue for the Flemington Road to the city; and filter through the inner city or continue on existing roads above ground. Congestion on CityLink is predicted at the junction with EW Link over the Royal Park wetlands.

Destruction of Melbourne’s Major Park - Royal Park and the Moonee Ponds Creek: The EW Link will cut a swathe through Royal Park and in the process of tunnel or roadway construction over four to five years it will be transformed into giant quarry sites and its bushland (used for passive recreation), sports fields, community facilities, wetlands and water storage tanks ripped up by the EW Link construction. The remnant bushland in West Royal Park is the only area of this kind of vegetation left in Melbourne. An aerial roadway to the Port is now planned over the Moonee Ponds Creek.

Destruction of Wetlands and Water Storage Facilities: The Royal Park Wetlands which supplies water for Melbourne’s parks and street trees plus the Royal Park Golf course will be completely destroyed, including the vast water storage tanks under the Ross Straw field.

Loss of sports fields and club rooms: The sports fields in west and east Royal Park plus Princes Park which serve thousands of people - school children as well as adults – from across Melbourne will be requisitioned for construction for the tollway and probably never restored. This is at a time the population is growing rapidly and sports facilities are already in short supply. This will have a negative impact on people’s health. Will areas of parkland used for passive recreation be converted now for sports fields?

Loss of the State Netball and Hockey Centre plus Urban Camp for Children: The 4 lane EW Link will come within metres of the SNHC and will wipe out the Urban Camp. Two giant vent stacks will we positioned on the escarpment over the railway line not far from the SNHC. Brens Drive will be closed off during construction which will take 4 to 5 years. It is doubtful if the SNHC can survive despite assurances from Linking Melbourne Authority that access won’t be blocked. (Will another road be built through parkland?)

Compulsory Acquisition of Homes and Loss of Residential Amenity: Whole neighbourhoods will be severely affected by construction of road tunnels and elevated roadways on the route. We know that properties will be subject to compulsory acquisitions in Collingwood, Nth Melbourne, Clifton Hill, Kensington, West Parkville and Ascot Vale, plus the threat to residential amenity.

Threat to the Melbourne Zoo and the Royal Children’s Hospital: These institutions are threatened not only during 4 to 5 years of construction with vibration and noise but from long term pollution from vent stacks and obtrusive lighting. . It is not known whether the EW Link will be open “cut-and-cover” through Royal Park. The Elliott Avenue on/off ramps for the roads to/from Flemington Road are near the Zoo wall and is expected to harm the captive animals. The EW Link will be only a short distance - some 300 metres away - from the Royal Children’s Hospital. In their wisdom City of Melbourne staff members have extended the children’s discovery playground into the grass lands area of Royal Park. It will, therefore, will be extremely close to the E W Link as well as next to the helipad.

Yours sincerely

Julianne Bell
Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

Community Rally! Say 'No' to the East-West Tunnel! Say 'Yes' to Public Transport! 11am Sunday October 13, Corner Brunswick St & Westgarth St, Fitzroy.
- Say no to the $8b government handout to private road companies and yes to real investment in the expansion and improvement
- Save hundreds of local residents homes from demolition or damage
- Save Royal Park for future generations & protect the Moonie Valley Creek
- Protect the Royal Melbourne Zoo

This will be a family friendly event with food available by donation and speakers from various community groups who have been campaigning against the $8b East West tunnel. The rally will also be celebration of the peaceful community pickets that have been disrupting East West tunnel drilling.

Speakers include:

Freda Watkin (YCAT)
Amanda Stone & Steven Jolly (Yarra Councillors)
Keith & Mike (Local Residents)
Anthony Maine (Community Picket Coordinator)
More to be announced

Endorsements:

The community picket disrupting the test drilling
Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport (YCAT)
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (coalition of 80 environment, heritage and transport groups)
If your organisation would like to endorse this protest contact Liz Walsh on 0405 736 265

Get involved:
To get involved in the campaign that has successfully disrupted East West tunnel drilling:
Txt 'tunnel' to 0432 447 036 to receive daily picket locations

For campaign updates 'like' on facebook
- Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport
- No East-West Tunnel - Take the Pledge
- Trains Not Tolls

Visit www.ycat.org.au
Follow our social media hashtag: #tunnelpicket

One should be aware, however, that the Times values are rather commercial, pro-globalisation, and overly respectful of professional peer-review, which has attracted its own criticism.[1]

Recently my father asked me to guess what the second most important export industry is in Australia. I failed to guess. He informed me that he had just learned that it was universities from the Insiders program on the ABC.

On reflection, I was not surprised. An 'export industry'; that is what our institutions of higher learning have become important for. It seems hardly worth saying that the commercialising of knowledge makes its corruption inevitable because everyone I know that has anything to do with higher education has been deploring what has been happening to higher education now for a couple of decades. Every year it gets worse.

We are selling a shonky brand called Australian education to the high bidders on the world market. The last time I was in a university the foreign students outnumbered the locals at about 98% to 2%. Although the lectures were conducted in English, it was clear from the accents and the anxious faces that English was not the first language and Australia was not the first home of most of the participants.

That was not the only thing that had changed from the days when Australian universities were principally for the higher education of Australians and we felt that we had ownership of them, as taxpayers.

Instead of the old laid-back lecture theatre style, the lectures in this commercialised 21st century course were multi-media to a ridiculous point. The lecturer did not just stand at the front and talk, he simultaneously delivered in powerpoint. As he spoke, the lecture and powerpoint were being filmed and recorded for upload to the course website. Students with passwords could download their lectures later. In fact, lectures were supposed to be uploaded a couple of days to a week in advance.

Coursework was assisted and, in many cases actually done by the lecturer/tutor.
The course was a graphic interface design course in the C# programming language (pronounced C Sharp) based on an incredibly expensive proprietary platform, which the university in question provided to the students at special student prices. There were continuous problems with versions and permissions. These problems meant that students were frequently prevented from studying, doing prac-work and completing assignments. So many were affected that the people running the course seemed to have decided to bring the students in and 'coach' them through one to one, which really meant doing their work with them and for them. Such was the rate of problems with the software that it had to be constantly and individually troubleshooted.

I was amazed to realise that an open-source platform - Java - very similar to this expensive and very poorly performing proprietary $4000 commercial software platform was available free on the internet. I also discovered that universities that taught information technology now tended to require students to use proprietary software, which they would once have built and designed themselves. Until recently, universities eschewed proprietary software as a matter of professional good judgement, wary of making their research and skill base vulnerable to restrictive commercial licencing. All proprietary software is based on free and open-source software, much of it developed in universities then bestowed to a world where it has since blossomed into a million new forms. It is only good sense to keep things that way. Anyone can use proprietary software, but only if they can afford it - which leaves out a few billion people. Whole countries now use free and/or open software for their public services and in schools. See, for instance, this list of linux using countries, which includes the US Department of Defense. The list does not include the Australian public service, schools, or universities, however. I have heard Australian children described at Linux meetings as among the worst prepared for computer engineering in the world.

Only the licensed few can analyse, develop and change proprietary software because the software is locked up by the owners. It is therefore pretty useless for anything except routine work. Why would universities lock their students into proprietary software? The only reason I can think of is that universities have become so profit- oriented that they accept information technology hardware and software packages that come with commercial incentives. That is, they receive money from proprietary software and hardware manufacturers to train students only on that brand. The upshot is that, in order to pursue info-tech careers, students are forced, once they graduate, to pay full price for these often very limited technologies. Furthermore, they are tied to working only with those brands. The brand that the university in question was working with used graphical interfaces [windows] rather than code, so the students were being taught in a special language that would give them little insight into the basic developer building blocks that are the free currency of the internet.

The above is just one example of how the profit motive has corrupted universities. It can be expanded to things like sociology and marketing, where 'research' that will make money attracts university support, making Australian universities corporate-friendly instead of democracy-friendly. See, for instance, The Australian Multicultural Foundation and the Institute for Global Movements in Scanlon Report underpins threat to Australian democracy. This is about the huge amount of resources directed into justifying and funding high immigration, despite its manifest unpopularity with the electorate.

Many Australian students can't compete financially with foreign students. It is hard to know why foreign students would pay so much to go to an Australian university when there are so many other universities in the world. One reason could be because of the immersion in English. Another reason is, of course, that the Australian state government lures high fee-paying students here with more or less covert promises of permanent migration and citizenship - a doorway to a second nationality and a 'first world' bolt-hole for wealthy internationals. We've also adopted the ridiculous North American practice of expecting people to work part-time and full-time while they do full-time and part-time courses.

Foreign students represent a large proportion of incoming migrants to Australia, both temporary and permanent. Along with other migrants, they are able to buy houses here. They are used and abused by commercial strategists to create part of the inflationary force that keeps housing unaffordable, along with universities, for Australians born here. Australian jobs are also affected, of course, because a large proportion of foreign students gain permission to work just by completing degrees here. Less well-known is that Australia imports foreign doctors and nurses who are then expected, not only to staff our hospitals, but often to study while they work in our universities. In the meantime Australian-born graduates cannot get positions in these hospitals. If you have recently worked as a nurse, you may have noticed that anyone with any status on a ward is probably also studying full or part time, even though they are working full-time. If these were substantial degree courses and/ or they were working responsibly and professionally, this would not be possible. The demands of university degrees or postgraduate degrees should be too great to allow for this and would have been so 30 years ago. There are obviously some commercial arrangements going on between hospitals, universities and recent immigrants, that most of us have no entry into and barely a clue about.

Australians had little or no democratic say in what has happened and in what is happening to their universities. In 2013, if you want to do a research degree then you had better be doing it for a commercial reason and be able to show that you will bring money to the university. That leaves precious little opportunity and almost no financial support for pure research in science, politics or the arts. Yet these things are the stuff of knowledge, civilisation and democracy.

NOTES

[1]
"The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers.[31] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[32][33] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[34][35][36] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[37] and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[38] Experts have also argued that invited papers are more valuable to scientific research because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.[39]" (From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Allegations_of_bias_and_suppression (Yes, I've cited Wikipedia - and why not; there is really active peer review in Wikipedia, and the summary here covers the main points and references them well.)

Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Land Victoria Inc, has approached both ALP leadership contenders on the issue of the East West Link. Albanese OPPOSES the EAST WEST LINK, questions the 'business case' and points to public transport. Despite several attempts no view has been forthcoming from Shorten.

(1) Calling Members of the ALP re Voting on Leadership

PPL VIC wishes to advise that we have tried to establish the views of the ALP leadership contenders Mr. Bill Shorten and Mr. Anthony Albanese on the East West Link.. At a recent public meeting at the Wheeler Centre in the city I asked Mr. Albanese about his support or otherwise for the East West Link. He said that he opposed it on the grounds that there was no "business case" for it. He made it clear last year in March when Minister for Infrastructure and Transport that the Government would not provide funds to the State Government then led by Ted Baillieu for a "review" of the East West Link. He pointed to the substantial funding by the Federal Government of the Victorian Regional Rail Link. I have tried unsuccessfully to establish the views of Mr. Shorten. I have have no response to requests for him to contact me on the subject. I have asked a number of people conducting his campaign, including a former Rudd Government Minister, but did not get any information or a response from Mr. Shorten. ALP members have until Friday next to get in a vote on the leadership of the party.

(2) News on Drill Site Pickets in Carlton North and Fitzroy:

SP sent a message on Friday 5 October in the early afternoon saying the following: "Hi all this morning our picketers disrupted drilling on Station Street for a few hours. We now need to use the next few days (over the weekend presumably drilling has stopped) to build more support for our campaign. we want to increase our presence at campaign HQ caravan on crn Brunswick Street and Westgarth Street in Fitzroy but we need your help! If you can come down for a few hours today or over the weekend pls contact Kat ASAP on 0421742452. Thanks!"

On Friday at 6 pm Channel 7 and Channel 9 news covered the protest at the drill site in North Carlton with police hauling off protestors. The Herald Sun on Saturday 5 October yesterday featured an article on Page 4 "Protest Site Turns Ugly" with very indistinct photographs. It is worthwhile having a look at these drill sites. It is quite shocking that quiet suburban streets are invaded by these colossal machines as part of the construction process for the East West Link.

(3) Why Drill in Streets Some Distance from Alexandra Parade and The Tunnel?

I raised the question about why Linking Melbourne Authority is drilling streets in Westgarth and Emma Streets which are some distance from Alexandra Parade and the route of the Tunnel. Jill Koppel of CARA (Collingwood and Abbotsford Residents' Association) wins the prize for finding out what might be the truth of this exercise. She says: "He - a representative of Linking Melbourne Authority" - explained that they were doing the additional drill holes wider away from the route to get an idea of the lay of subterranean features such as a known paleo-channel (ancient waterway leaving a cavity in the otherwise sold rock). He denied that it was in any way to move the route sideways or to construct more off ramps eg 3 additional Holes south on Emma st Collingwood we had begun to surmise (incorrectly) that there might be an off ramp onto Smith St." This illustrates that the EW Link project is a massive monster taking over our suburbs!

Source: Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

Update, 24 Sep 2013 : The Sydney Morning Herald reports, "Mr Moylan was committed to the Supreme Court and will be appearing there on November 1."
See also: Hunter Valley food bowl plan faces urban development pressures of 1 Oct 2013, stopcsgsydney.org.au (last updated, 25 Aug); Stop CSG! Illawarra (last updated, 15 Sep). Paul Craig Roberts mentions the threat to underground water supplies as a result of fracking in the US in The Real Crisis Is Not The Government Shutdown of 2 Oct 2013.

In January this year, Jonathan Moylan sent a press release on ANZ letterhead to the ASX stating that the bank will withdraw financial support from Whitehaven’s Maules Creek open cut coal mine on ethical grounds. The case has now gone to the Supreme Court and Jonathan is facing up to 10 years jail and more than $700,000 in fines under s1041E of the Corporations Act. Jonathan's supporters feel that this is the exercise of might against right and point to ASIC's failure to prosecute big offenders in corporate crime. Anglophone law and industrial policy have a long history of persecuting democratic activism and have made it much harder for local people to organise against power than under the Roman Law (Napoleonic) system in continental Europe. This needs to change.

You can contribute to a fighting fund here: http://www.standwithjono.org/donate//www.standwithjono.org/donate

Context to ASIC prosecution of Jonathan Moylan

This case against Jonathan Moylan is the first time an individual has been prosecuted under s1041E of the Corporations Act.

ASIC is currently subject to a Senate Inquiry investigating its inaction in relation to prosecuting major corporate white-collar crime.

Last week, former Gunns chairman John Gay, who was prosecuted by ASIC for insider trading, received a $50,000 fine for an offence which carries a maximum penalty of $220,000 or 5 years’ jail. While ASIC praised the result, the Shareholders Association slammed the fine as “too lenient”, saying Gay “clearly profited at the expense of shareholders”, and that “where a director has pleaded guilty to insider trading we would have thought that there would have been the potential for a jail term...”.

Moylan acted on a matter of principle for no personal gain. The impact of Moylan’s action on shareholders has been exaggerated and should be seen in context. An investor who held $10,000 in Whitehaven shares and sold at the low point on the day of Moylan's action you would have lost $881 (shares fell from $3.52 to a low of $3.21 before recovering). Had the investor not acted and held their shares, at today's share price of $2.01 the investment would be worth just $5710.41, a drop of some 43%.

Cumulative Environmental Impacts

The mines will clear the largest remnant of bushland left on the Liverpool Plains, Leard State Forest, which is part of a national biodiversity hotspot.

The mines will impact on habitat for up to 396 plant and animal species and as many as 23 threatened species.

It is estimated that the mines will lead to a 5-7m drop in the water table and up to 18,000 tonnes of dust being dropped on surrounding farms each year.

Total greenhouse gas emissions from the coal produced will, when burnt, exceed 60 Mt/yr of CO2 equivalent - a total greenhouse impact greater than that of 165 individual nations, including Sweden, Hungary and Finland.

This is the context in which the Maules Ck coal mine was the subject of a media release by Jonathan Moylan which has now led to his prosecution by ASIC.

Today we heard the outcome of the Orrong Towers development case where Stonnington council went to the Supreme Court to try to have residents' and citizens' opinions heeded in planning what happens in their immediate environment. The Court completely failed to recognise this fundamental right to self-government. Having been present at the first hearing, I cannot imagine how this was justified and await the ratio dicendi.

Victorian ABC mainstream media was inadequate to the situation:

"I have just heard Jon Faine (presenter) on ABC radio speaking to Margot Carroll who has led this battle. Today the Supreme Court after a 5 minute hearing dismissed Stonnington Council's case against the proposed development. The distressing point that Margot made was that the court did not consider the number of objections to lend any weight to the case so that 10,000 objections was the same as 10. Interestingly on the same radio station the same presenter is discussing planning issues with a panel of "experts". The first question was about the ingredients of a livable city and the answer was "community involvement" in planning! I also heard one of the experts saying that growth was an "opportunity" (in livability I presume)! Someone also said that not all developers want to maximise profit at the expense of "design"." (They must be the public benefactor developers.) - Comment by Quark to candobetter.net

The contrast between the reality of the planning dictatorship we live under and the psalmodious platitudes we hear from its media mouthpieces is fundamentally confusing. Today I came home to yet another government pamphlet asking for public comment about new zoning laws. In the light of the Orrong Towers decision and comments like those quoted from Jon Faine's show, it was disturbing to realise that the smiling politician featured on the pamphlet is only a mask on the face of raw and brutal power. One knows that any comments will be ignored and that laws are being changed and reinterpreted for state policy to permit the removal from the community everything that made this country pleasant and easy to live in.

There must be many planners ashamed to be associated with this psychological and legal bulldozing of communities, but they are all too scared of losing work to stand up to the bullying of communities and individuals. Capitalism has made most people too vulnerable to speak up and the comments of those who do speak up do not have value in the eyes of the law. It's official.

As Montesquiou wrote: "There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice."

A devastating decision for Stonnington and Victoria

Source: Orrong Group media release: Thursday September 19, 2003

"Supreme Court decision further erodes objectors’ democratic planning rights.

re: Case – VCAT ruled that `the extent of resident opposition is irrelevant `.
Respondents – Stonnington Council V Lend Lease & Larkfield Pty Ltd
Project – 590 Orrong Road Armadale proposed development.

The Orrong Group is devastated at the Supreme Court decision delivered this morning. The finding supports the VCAT ruling that `the extent of resident opposition is irrelevant’ to their consideration of the merits of a development.

Based on this ruling the voices of the community will not have their collective concerns given due consideration in the planning process regarding inappropriate development in any neighbourhood, anywhere.

Stonnington Council, the responsible authority will have its planning powers diminished and residents input and support further eroded.

The disastrous Supreme Court ruling, further compounded by grossly increased VCAT fees, will result in vastly reduced objections and community views not fully reflected in VCAT deliberations. The Stonnington community and all Victorians will experience increased inappropriate development with permanent deleterious impact on neighbourhood character and community cohesion.

Members of the Victorian Government directly involved in this matter should now act to deliver more than simple platitudes regarding respect for all communities’ democratic rights and views regarding how their neighbourhood will develop.

Orrong Group is now in its fourth year and will continue to fight the towers. Orrong Group wishes to express its gratitude to City of Stonnington which decided to appeal VCAT’s decision and fight the towers."

Help needed, and it won’t take but a moment of your time. Here in Macedon Ranges Shire we have a terrible council. It thinks it can operate and make decisions in isolation of and without consulting its community, while making the community pay for its decisions. Recently Macedon Ranges council took this culture a step too far. It deliberately resolved (not once, but twice) to apply for funding for a conference centre (and other large-scale development) at Hanging Rock and to not consult the community on the development or funding.

Hanging Rock does not belong to Macedon Ranges’ council officers and 5 of 9 councillors! It is an international icon; it belongs to the people of Macedon Ranges, Victoria, and Australia. Yet our council has shut everyone out. It’s making big decisions on our behalf – and on yours – without us having a say. We want our council to know this is not acceptable, and to rethink its decision.

The first favour we ask of you is PLEASE, PLEASE SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION “HANGING ROCK FOR SALE – HAVE YOUR SAY” by going to
http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/hanging-rock-for-sale-have-your-say
This petition has been authored and started by local residents in the Hanging Rock area community. MRRA is supporting this initiative.

The second favour we ask is PLEASE, PLEASE SEND THIS EMAIL AROUND TO YOUR FRIENDS AND CONTACTS AND ASK THEM TO SIGN THE PETITION AS WELL.

Here’s what some people are saying:

“If you have visited the Rock at some stage in your life you know the beauty and mysteriousness of the area, if you have not visited the Rock please google it and you will see what I mean. I live near the Rock and drive past it every day to and from work and it never ceases to amaze me because I see the same view but it’s different. I implore you to sign this petition to put a stop to the suggested development around the area of the Rock; Landcare has spent 10 years building up the wildlife corridor here and as usual greedy people just want to tear the bush down and put in concrete. Once you have signed it please email this to all your friends so we can save a natural beauty so close to Melb for visitors.” Toni

“Development such as that being proposed by MRSC in an area protected by an environmental overlay is totally inappropriate. It goes against all that this Landcare group has been working towards over a 10 year period! The East paddock area was purchased to buffer the reserve at Hanging Rock - a haven for wild-life and city-weary folks. So please add your name to the petition Luke has prepared and send it [the link] to your friends.” Penny

As you can see, this awful decision affects many people and impacts many (irreplaceable) values.
Many thanks for your help.

Christine Pruneau,

It’s been a saga with revolving doors,
First Kevin 07 with all his flaws
Then out as PM in election 2013
But there was another PM in between!

Here’s how it played out: what does it mean?

was it real ?

has it really been?

Kev said he wanted “Big Australia”

Put wool in ceilings and all that paraphernalia

The polls went down,

He wore a frown,

We survived the fallout from the USA property bubble

But it seemed our government was in trouble

To most of us it was as a bolt

The day that Gillard called a “Halt”!

A tap on the shoulder “It’s all over”

A ballot for leader? No. It would be a walkover.

A tight election barely suited

A minority government with help recruited

That's how a woman first came to power,

She had no reason to shrink and cower

But her reign was fraught;

with fashionistas she fought ,

Gillard was not the media’s darling,

Unmarried, atheistic but in reality charming

The press despised her

Were very unkind to her

every slip exposed,

she was goaded, teased

and soapie parodied

Every victory, achievement excluded,

Hard work covered, and buried,

By a press hell bent on virtual asphyxiation.

The deposed PM in retaliation,

treating parliament a bit like recreation

danced and twirled, a constant distraction

bathing in the press reaction

When the media king said “off with her head”

from that point on her leadership was dead,

Rudd who stuck just like molasses

was back to perform for the receptive masses,

The result of this absurd confection

Was for Kev to lead Labor to another election !

BUT Alas for Labor, Kev’s not Rupert’s favorite,

And Abbot’s recipe goes down like chocolate

He’s the new PM, the one we expected,

an ex- priest, a catholic he’s so well connected !

Sustainable Population Australia, Green Wedges Coalition, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria and Planning Backlash are four of the peak planning and environmental groups that have produced a Sustainable Population Charter for Victoria because the government seems unable to do so. It recommends that net overseas migration be reduced from the recent 232,000 immigrants in a year to 70,000 net per annum. See "Peak Community Groups advocate for Population size as an election issue."

This useful democratic initiative could save Melbourne from chaos, but it has been reported in a slanted kind of way by Murdoch's Herald Sun, which gives quite unmerited authority to a disrespectful and ill-informed response from the government.

Government response irresponsible and disrespectful

Planning Minister Matthew Guy's response, as quoted below from the Herald Sun, seems to show a shameful disregard for the facts of a problem for which he is responsible by switching to questionable and irrelevant figures from the 1950s and 60s in response to a clearly emerging overpopulation crisis today in Victoria. In so doing, he has thumbed his nose at respected women community leaders who have stood up to represent concerned citizens in the absence of any fair representation from Mr Guy or his ilk on population. Instead of having the honesty to admit what is happening, Mr Guy raised an irrelevancy that is almost impossible for the average person to prove or disprove or sensibly situate in the debate.

“Planning Minister Matthew Guy said that the state's population growth was higher in the 1950s and 1960s and migrants should not be singled out by community groups." (The Herald Sun)[1]

Check the facts for your self in the graph above, which takes figures from Australian Government year books and the ABS from 1945 to 2009. Does it look to you like immigration was higher in the 50s and 60s? No, of course not. And figures continue to climb since 2009. Between 2006 and 2011 immigration has contributed 60% of Australia's population growth. No-one is 'singling out' migrants.

In the face of the environmental planning groups' carefully worded and researched document, Mr Guy has referred vaguely to conditions in the 1950s and 1960s (when world population was between 2.5 and 3.5 billion instead of its current size of 7.1 billion and energy resources were hardly tapped.) What kind of intellect are we dealing with here?

He did not bother to provide the figures he claimed to be alluding to, nor did he say why they were relevant. He failed to take on board that it is the duty of citizens to form alliances to restrain his government from its constant attack on democracy, property and environment. And that it is his duty to respond rationally and democratically.

"We are living longer, we are having more children, there are a whole range of factors in population growth," said Mr Guy.

http://betaworks.abs.gov.au/betaworks/betaworks.nsf/projects/demographyVideo/frame.htm Note that in this video, even the Australian Bureau of Statistics is now politically massaging growth, saying that Australia's population is 'growing stronger' - instead of 'increasing faster'.

Well, yes, of course there are a 'whole range of factors in population growth', but immigration is the biggest and a multiplier of fertility opportunities. (See Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law: The rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2012.) Mr Guy also does not say that the few people and corporations pushing for higher population growth derive the narrowly focused but huge financial benefits that the rest of us pay so dearly for in the loss of parkland, in homelessness, in lack of education and jobs.

Politically intimidating put-down

"Simply targeting overseas migration is simplistic and it won't solve population growth problems," Mr Guy reportedly said.

This put-down of the careful work that the peak planning and environment groups have actually done looks like an attempt by a powerful politician to intimidate democratic and highly relevant comment by slurring its spokeswomen.

The graph showing immigration from 1901-1944 shows our earlier immigration patterns, where during both World Wars and during depressions, more people left the country than came in.

This is not 'good management'

"Mr Guy said growth had to be well managed which was why the Government was pushing ahead with the East West Link and a metropolitan planning strategy.” [1]

If that is good management, then why is Melbourne's oldest park (Royal Park) targeted by the growth lobby to receive a concrete horrendoplasty and why are there protests on the steps of parliament, as even usually tame councils call for a sane alternative in rail? See "Melbourne Protestors demand: Trains not Tollroads!"

Mr Guy's 19th century ideas similar to Ethiopia's Mennilik II

Mr Guy reminds me of Mennilik II in Ethiopia, who decided to develop the country in the late 19th century, when the population was only 4 or 5 million and people lived in stable economies among clans on their own land. After Mennilik's modernisation programs, which included massive land 'reforms' - driving people off their own land into cities - Ethiopia's population climbed to 10 million. In 1950, as development continued, the population climbed to 18.3 million. In the 1970s there were more huge land reforms. In the 1980s there were mass government resettlements. Now in 2010 Ethiopia's population is 83 million and climbing rapidly still.

Mr Guy is pushing the very same process as his government promotes more bad laws to prevent people from having any say over how they live and what is done around them in their own country. Like the Ethiopians, we are being rounded up for the sake of economic ideologies of benefit to a very few. Those who dare to protest are attacked with lies about numbers, fatuous pronouncements about living longer and having more children, and innuendo such as 'don't blame immigrants'. But Mr Guy, who is not deaf, blind or illiterate, knows that his government constantly advertises for immigrants and that Australia's population is growing mostly because of immigration, which is now so high that it is driving the destruction of local ammenity in the form of unwanted and costly infrastructure that his government is imposing on its constituents, just like some primitive dictatorship.

In 1994, when I began to research what drove population growth, Australia's population was 17m and our net overseas immigration numbers averaged about 80,000. We did not need desalination plants and homelessness was an unusual problem. But the Murdoch and Fairfax Press and corporate Australia were already baying for growth. By 2013 we have already reached well over 22million - a dangerous growth rate that has caused cost of living to skyrocket and quality of life to deteriorate.

Mr Guy says, "Simply targeting overseas migration is simplistic and it won't solve population growth problems."

The fact is that the Murdoch and Fairfax Press promote politicians who make misleading statements like that one by Mr Guy because Murdoch and Fairfax have huge investments in population growth.[2] ABS figures show that stopping high overseas immigration would go a long way to solving population growth problems because it is the major driver of population growth in Victoria and Australia.

Mr Guy should pay attention to that sustainable population charter.

[1] John Masanauskas, "Don't blame migrants on suburban boom, warns Planning Minister Matthew Guy," Herald Sun, August 30, 2013.

[2] The mainstream press are part of the corporate lobby. As well as both the Murdoch and the Fairfax press owning huge property dot coms (realestate.com.au and domain.com.au) and constantly beating the populate or perish drum, owners, board members and their associates can position themselves to benefit from the influence of journalistic reporting on the value of resources, commodities, and manufactures, as well as influencing who gets elected by choosing who and what gets publicity. By the way, David Williamson's new play, "Rupert", does a magnificent job of showing how this happens.

Another activist writes:

In my voluntary role with WERA [West of Elgar Residents' Association Inc], I have attended hearings on more occasions than I care to remember. Whilst all my experiences were associated with the City of Whitehorse, on ALL those occasions the Council had refused the application. Often the original proposal failed so many of the local planning scheme objectives that it was refused under delegation.

I was also involved in Justice Bell's review of VCAT - [submission and meeting]. Despite his review, there remain real problems with VCAT from the community's point of view.

I list the major problems which I have encountered-

* Substitution of plans at the last possible time before a VCAT hearing. Often these are not minor. In one recent case,[original directly refused by Council], I counted over 60 alterations. Surely, this should have gone back to Council as a new proposal.

* Lack of independence of "Expert" witnesses . So many times they have been employees of the developer, or involved in the development of the proposal.

* VCAT Member acting as a Planner -altering the design of the application, and then setting aside the decision of the Responsible Authority.

After Whitehorse Council had rejected an application on 14 grounds, the Tribunal RE-DESIGNED 19 of 32 units set in a Surrey Hills side street, imposed 28 planning conditions and gave approval.

Further, in the years since I first represented WERA [i.e the local community] at VCAT, the type of developer and the size and density of the proposals have changed. Originally, a proposal was by a local builder wanting to erect up to 3 units on a block. All of WERA's most recent applications have involved overseas consortiums acquiring relatively cheap [compared to activity centre] land in local streets and then applying to erect 25 -36 apartments, wall to wall and 3-4 storeys high. Such massive proposals make it even more daunting for ordinary residents, as these developers come to VCAT with barristers and supporting staff and their own witnesses.

The current classic example is in a short side street near me:

No shops, no bus, no units, Californian bungalows, tree lined -family community. An application for 6 x 3 storey townhouses + 20 units in 3 back yards - 3-4 storeys high, minimum set-backs.

This application was totally rejected by Council under delegation,so now we are off to VCAT - with apprehension in our hearts.

If we could believe that planning substitution was not allowed.[ie the plans put to Council are being judged], that witnesses were truly independent, and especially that local planning schemes were to be respected, then maybe we could be more hopeful.

The onerous charges inflicted on citizens attempting to access rights to control over their local environment and government are increasingly medieval. With the Judiciary now almost uniquely serving the corporate sector, one gets the sense that developers truly think they are Lords and that the state government thinks it is a King, and that both see the suburbs as their frontiers and their inhabitants as some insignificant race of beings. It seems clear that capitalism, as practised in Australia, is antithetical to democracy. It is clear that VCAT supports government policy of growth at all costs and that citizens are paying most of those costs, but not getting justice in return.

From the Macedon Ranges Christine's description of VCAT charges on citizens evoke Charles I's star chamber. She says that there is a case in the area, initiated by objectors against a council approval, which was lodged before the changes on 1 July.

The objectors are a group, and another individual (i.e. there are two formal ‘objectors’).

The group asked for 3 hours. They have just been told it is a 5 day hearing, with the developer asking for 21 hours.

The objectors have to pay $2,000 in daily hearing fees for this (split between objectors), on top of lodgement fees.

They have to pay every day before the hearing day because if they pay in advance, and the hearing is deferred or cancelled, they lose their ‘hearing day’ money.

The developer apparently pays nothing.

How VCAT was meant to function:

When Justice Bell first took up the position of President of VCAT he said:

“Local government is the primary decision-maker and we are truly a review tribunal, that’s our statutory purpose.”

“I would be disturbed if it were true
that we had become a default state
planning tribunal; if , for example,
the power of amendment we have is
being abused by developers such
that they are not presenting their
true case to council and are
saving it for VCAT.”

Justice Kevin Bell
August 2009.

Link here for Macedon Ranges Residents website

Read this letter sent to the principle registrar of VCAT by a resident from Knoxfield:

Dear VCAT,
I won’t be attending this hearing as I have already wasted too many days off work at previous VCAT hearings.

There is no point in putting in a written submission based on my own objections to this development as VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) have publically stated that concerns/objections by members of the public do not count and won’t be taken into consideration.

In every VCAT[1] case that I have been involved in across our local area the developer has always managed to have the council refusal overturned despite council rejecting their applications and many local residents posting valid objections.

The developers legal council are extremely well prepared and no expense is spared in the preparation of their case. They can hire lawyers & barristers to search every loophole and rubbish every legitimate objection by council and members of the public. They regularly submit revised plans at the VCAT hearing, at the last minute, to win favor in their cases (I have seen this on many occasions).

VCAT is not the unbiased umpire that it was originally intended to be. It is now a defacto planning approval body with no real interest or knowledge of the local area where these inappropriate developments will be built.

VCAT is responsible to no one and answerable to no one.

If VCAT were truly unbiased then the majority of rulings would confirm the local councils professional planning assessments. Instead we see the majority of council rejections overturned in favour of the developer despite them not meeting local council approval.

There is a huge public groundswell of resentment across Melbourne at the way developers can use VCAT to circumvent valid local council decisions and completely ignore local residents objections and concerns.

VCAT must be drastically overhauled before residents and councils can have any faith that it is a fair and just umpire in planning review decisions.

ABC news report on council anger at VCAT powers.

[1] [CAT stands for the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It is supposed to dispense justice cheaply and democratically for Victorians. But it has become expensive, biased and corrupted to satisfy developers.

France has banned fracking, but the United States is allowing lateral mining to utterly demolish democracy and people are facing destitution and starvation because of the lack of citizen rights in the United States to protect farm and town water. Here are some quotes from the film: "Using our resources against us"... "Greed and money: they're just sucking all of the water out of the ground. Why can't I have a say? Why can't these oil companies understand?"..."We've got to have some restrictions on mining... "If we run out of water, we're going to have to pump it in and it will cost more than oil. So why do you think the people of this town should be quiet about it?" In the face of a winner takes all, some farmers are caving in and trading farming in for mining and selling off their water. "... If you've got to have the oil you have to use the water. The demand is out there." Australia's government is going the same way as the United States.

On 7 March 2013, Kevin Rudd was a lead speaker at a pro-population growth meeting held by the "Urban Development Institute of Australia", which is a property developer body that lobbies continually for higher immigration to grow Australia's population. Now Mr Rudd is our Prime Minister, but he still sounds as if he is working for a bunch of property developers.

It's sustainable if you say it is

"I believe in a sustainable Australia," Mr Rudd said. "If you've got the sustainability settings right, on land use, on water use and on infrastructure provision, then of course the country can grow, so I believe in a sustainable Australia."Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-poll-bounce-boosts-labor-20130628-2p366.html#ixzz2XYX4kOhx

Rudd and Murdoch: one setting only

Mr. Rudd is in favour of a Big Australia. I believe (after much reading on the subject) that it will be unsustainable and will put our population in real peril. Australia is a desert continent with very poor soils. Because of fossil fuels we have been able to produce more food than ever before from this continent, but this will come to an end. 2 reasons 1. fossil fuels are finite and there are strong indications that global oil production has already peaked 2. Unless scientists are wrong about GGEs and climate change, we must stop using Fossil Fuels or we won’t have an environment as we know it.

Population policy under Julia Gillard

Mr. Rudd is glib and fanciful in what he says. Julia made a good start when she said she was in favour of a “sustainable Australia” rather than a “Big Australia” but then the whole issue was buried in Tony Burke’s report which recommended population be regionalized – thus sweeping the problem of population numbers into another realm and the government went on to preside over a huge migration program which is more than our natural increase and thus more than double our population growth rate.

Rudd’s intention to continue “ Big Australia” is contained in the quote “ then of course the country can grow”.

Population growth doesn't pay for itself: we do

A sign that our existence in Melbourne is going down hill is that Victorians are already paying more and more for water because of the desalination plant which would not have been necessary had the government not anticipated high population growth and that Melbourne will be a megalopolis. I can see a time when people won’t be able to pay for the water they need.

WA uses almost exclusively desalinated water and ground water. This is a recipe for collapse. Perth has the highest population growth rate of any capital city and comparable to many 3rd world countries.

The Victorian State of the environment Report 2008 showed that all environmental indicators in Victoria were declining because of human activity and population pressures. Since then the population has kept on growing. I understand all reports from other states have shown the same.

A national tragedy

We are already in environmental decline. The country is so delicate, so immensely biodiverse and intricate but since the European invasion we have been stomping all over it with hob nail boots.

Macedon Ranges Shire Council has a very short survey on its website about the future of Hanging Rock, asking if you support large scale concerts being staged on this deeply iconic place of legend and film. The survey closes tomorrow, Friday 28 June 2013. There are some things you should know before you allow this site to be changed irreversibly. Here’s a link to the survey, but please first see our recommendation.

http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Council_the_Region/News_Media/Latest_News/Hanging_Rock_Concerts_Community_Survey Please take a moment to complete the survey. Only identification it asks for is post code (e.g. 3442 for Woodend).

But before you click, here are some things you may not know:

• The ‘East Paddock’ at Hanging Rock used for concerts was acquired by the old Shire of Newham and Woodend to protect Hanging Rock. Now Council is proposing large scale commercial use of that land.
• The Hanging Rock development is a project promoted in the draft Loddon Mallee South Regional [Major] Growth Plan that the Macedon Ranges’ community wasn’t consulted about.
• Council (i.e. Macedon Ranges’ ratepayers) spent $200,000 (as part of a $600,000 project) on the East Paddock in 2011/12.
• Macedon Ranges Council recently received $2m Federal funding towards the $4m cost of the development currently proposed at Hanging Rock. Council is borrowing $550,000 this year, with another $1 million to come ($1.6 million full cost to Macedon Ranges’ ratepayers).
• Total cost of concerts to ratepayers so far: $1.8m.
• Council is always talking about ‘flow-on’ economic effects but not how much ratepayers get out of the concerts (the Wrecking Ball concerts in Australia made $25m in ticket sales [Billboard.com]).
• The promoter of the concerts, who apparently isn’t contributing to the development, is accredited in local papers with saying this development is only stage 1, there is more to come.
• According to Council’s 4 April 2013 media release, 34,000 people attended the two Springsteen concerts but only 3,000 were from Macedon Ranges Shire, so it’s not really about locals.
• This survey is the first time Council has ‘consulted’ the Macedon Ranges’ community about how Hanging Rock is and will be used.
• Plans of the proposed development have not been made public, but apparently include connecting the East Paddock to infrastructure and services, and construction of a hard surface stage area.

Comment and Recommendation:



If you are OK with local Macedon Ranges’ residents paying high rates and going into debt to subsidize “large scale” concerts, and undisclosed development, at Hanging Rock, without the community being consulted, by all means support future “large scale” concerts. That’s what our Council wants.

On the other hand, we think it’s pretty rude that Council still hasn’t asked us if we want any development or commercial use at Hanging Rock; still hasn’t provided any information about what it plans and what it costs; doesn’t seem to be making anything out of it all; and the best ‘consultation’ Council can manage is asking a couple of leading questions after it has committed to spending our money and developing our land.

Our #recommendation" id="recommendation">recommendation: Click ‘no’ to large scale concerts, and tell Macedon Ranges Council to come clean about everything that is going on at Hanging Rock.

What really drove the so-called leadership crisis in the Federal Government, which has gone on for about three years? Tonight, as Julia Gillard steps down, who really benefits, and how?

Tonight many of us have been watching, with some horror, the latest awful changes in the Federal Government.

So, what was the policy agenda that supposedly drove Rudd's challenge to Gillard? In fact, no policies were mentioned, as many media commentators have just acknowledged.

There may, however, have been a barely iterated agenda - that of the mainstream press - to have an earlier election.

How would that advantage the power elites? Well, in these days where real debate is possible on the internet, a long election lead-up might just have led to some real democracy - obviously the last thing that the corporate press, which also leads the ABC, want.

Julia Gillard just showed herself to be as capable a leader as any male politician I have seen in over a decade of federal politics.

There is an Orwellian new Bill on the brink of being passed in Victoria's Parliament. (Debate 27 June) The Bill justifies reducing public rights to consultation and objection by narrowing the scope of consultation, by reducing the scope of information given to the public in respect of revocation of reserves of public land and compulsory acquisition of land, public and private. It allows enormous discretion on the part of the Minister with regard to what information and consultation he allows, even with local government bodies. The really Orwellian part of the Bill is the circular justification of these reductions in citizens' civil rights on so-called grounds of 'efficiency' and 'time saving'. In this case 'cutting red tape' means 'cutting out democracy'.

This new Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment (East West Link and Other Projects) Bill 2013 is to be debated on 27 June in the Legislative Assembly. The Bill, by its very name, shows that it has been drafted to push through a particular hated series of private toll-roads that will horribly scar our green landscape and drastically reduce habitat for native animals. We refer to the East-West Link, which Kelvin Thomson has described as "con job". This legislation is part of a frightening trend to remove public land, particularly green, natural land and parks from Melbourne and its surrounds.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc say that it is very important that the public attend Parliament for the second reading and debate on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment (East West Link and Other Projects) Bill 2013 in the Legislative Assembly on Thursday 27 June 2013.

Government and Opposition need to see large numbers of the public in attendance in the public galleries. It is important to signify public vigilance and opposition to the East West Link and support for the Doncaster Rail Project, which the public actually want and which represents a true alternative.

Thursday 27 June 2013 is the last sitting day of Parliament before the winter recess. The Bill will go to the Upper House - the Legislative Council - to be considered on the first day of the new term of Parliamentary sitting i.e. 20 August 2013.

By next Tuesday afternoon there should be an estimated time for the Bill to be heard in the Legislative Assembly on the Thursday 27 June and therefore when to attend. The public can ring the Legislative Assembly Papers Office by ringing the Parliament House switch phone: 9651 8911 or try [email protected].

Community Activist groups monitoring these proposed reductions in democratic rights to object to unwanted development are Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) and Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport (YCAT)

Below we have emboldened key comments in the parliamentary 'statement of compatibility with human rights' of the bill. Below that we have reproduced the second reading of the bill.

Page 2162

MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT (EAST WEST
LINK AND OTHER PROJECTS) BILL 2013

Statement of compatibility

Mr MULDER (Minister for Public Transport) tabled following statement in
accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006 (charter act), I make this statement of
compatibility with respect to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation
Amendment (East West Link and Other Projects) Bill 2013.

In my opinion, the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment (East West
Link and Other Projects) Bill 2013, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly,
is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter act. I base my
opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The main purposes of the bill are to:

amend the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to reduce
procedural delays and red tape in relation to major transport projects; and

amend the Transport Integration Act 2010 to improve the operation of that
act.

Human rights issues

Section 15 of the charter act protects a person's right to freedom of
expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart
information. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute; lawful
restrictions reasonably necessary to protect the rights of other persons, or
for the protection of public order and public health, are permissible under
the charter act.

Restricting a person's ability to receive information in the form of
Government Gazette notices could engage the right of freedom of expression.
Clauses 7(2), 11(1), 12(1), 15, 17(3), 22, 51, 52 and 65(1) in the bill remove
requirements to publish certain notices in the Government Gazette from the
Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009.

However, the bill does not limit the right of freedom of expression because it
requires or does not affect the requirement to publish notices on websites of
agencies and, therefore, the relevant information remains widely accessible to
the public and potentially in a way that is more accessible and user friendly.
In some cases (clauses 6 and 14(2)), the requirement to publish information on
the departmental website is new and therefore positively promotes the right to
receive information.

Clauses 16(c) and 23(c) of the bill change requirements relating to
documentation for assessment under the impact management plan and
comprehensive impact statement respectively. The changes remove some
information requirements for those documents which could engage the right of
freedom of information as it affects the ability of the public to receive
information.

[Ends justify the means? (Ed.)]

In so far as these amendments limit the right to the freedom of information,
in my opinion the limitation is justifiable and proportionate to the bill's
objective of reducing red tape and procedural delays. In addition, the
restrictions are limited in nature as the information is still provided in
accordance with scoping directions (the publicly available requirements for
project assessment documentation) issued by the planning minister and sections
27(a), (f)-(h) and 39(a), (f)-(i).

Clause 21 of the bill also engages the right to freedom of expression by
amending the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to allow the
planning minister to confine the scope of any public hearing to specified
matters. Clause 21 may also engage the right to take part in public life by
limiting the degree of involvement during a public hearing, if the minister
exercises his or her discretion to confine the scope of a hearing.

Section 18 of the charter act provides that every person has the right, and is
to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct
of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, for
example by exerting influence through public dialogue and debate with elected
representatives.

However, members of the public are not restricted from making written
submissions to the assessment committee and verbal submissions to the
assessment committee where a confinement does not apply. Therefore, although
clause 21 of the bill limits these rights, in my opinion the limitation is
justifiable on the basis that the limitation reflects the purpose of the bill
to reduce procedural delay and cut red tape in relation to major transport
projects. It is also a limited restriction as members of the public are still
able to convey their views and participate in the engagement process required
by the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009. Therefore the public
can still participate in influencing the final approval decision of the
minister.

Section 19(1) of the charter act provides that all persons with a particular
cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background must not be denied the
right, in community with other persons of that background, to enjoy his or her
culture.

Clause 59 of the bill allows for reservations of land under the Crown Land
(Reserves) Act 1978 to be revoked and therefore engages cultural rights
generally. The Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 enables Crown land to be
permanently or temporarily reserved for a range of purposes, including
purposes which involve the creation, protection or preservation of places of
cultural significance.

However, revoking a reservation for the purpose of an approved project will
only occur following an assessment and approvals process under the Major
Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 and a transparent and public process
under division 5 of part 3 of that act. Therefore, the bill maintains cultural
rights by providing groups whose cultural rights may be affected and the
public generally with an opportunity to participate in the decision-making
process where a reservation is revoked.

Clause 59 also engages the right to take part in public life as impacts on
public participation on the basis that reservations can be revoked. However,
again the limitation is proportionate and justifiable on the basis that the
revocation must occur in accordance with the proper processes under the Crown
Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the public participation mechanisms in the Major
Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009.

Section 20 of the charter act provides that a person must not be deprived of
his or her property other than in accordance with law. Any law that deprives a
person of property must be accessible, sufficiently precise and should not
provide for an arbitrary interference with property. Clause 73 of the bill
inserts a new section 138A into the Transport Integration Act 2009 which
allows the Linking Melbourne Authority to compulsorily acquire land required
in connection with the performance of its powers or the exercise of its
functions.

Compulsory acquisition of an individual's land is a deprivation of property
for the purpose of the right to property. However, the acquisition of
interests in land under the bill requires ministerial approval.

[That's sure to be a big comfort! - Ed.]

The compensation requirements in the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 2009
also apply, with minor modifications.

A person deprived of their land under these clauses must be properly notified
and compensated, and may test the lawfulness of an acquisition through
judicial review. In addition, clause 55 does not limit planning compensation.
Accordingly, in my view, compulsory acquisition of land under the bill would
be in accordance with the law and these provisions do not limit the property
right.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I consider that the bill is compatible with
the charter act.

Terry Mulder, MP

Minister for Public Transport

MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT (EAST WEST
LINK AND OTHER PROJECTS) BILL 2013

Second reading Title MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT (EAST WEST LINK AND OTHER PROJECTS) BILL 2013

House ASSEMBLY
Activity Second Reading
Members MULDER
Date 13 June 2013 Page 2163

Page 2163

MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT (EAST WEST
LINK AND OTHER PROJECTS) BILL 2013

Second reading

Mr MULDER (Minister for Public Transport)

-- I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Transport context

Victoria is growing and changing. The demand for travel and the need to
efficiently move people and goods is growing every day.

The coalition government is committed to delivering major transport
infrastructure projects. They are essential to our economic future and our
livability.

Congestion on roads and on public transport hurts our economy and affects all of
our day-to-day lives.

The government is taking decisive action to cut red tape to allow for the
assessment and delivery of major transport projects more quickly and
efficiently.

Legislation has a key part to play in cutting red tape to address the
infrastructure backlog. This is central to transforming our transport system.
Put simply, this bill will deliver much needed infrastructure sooner, and at a
lower cost.

The coalition did not oppose the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act when
it was introduced into this house in 2009.

There are, however, a range of improvements that need to be made to the scheme
to cut red tape and boost productivity for the assessment, and delivery of
declared projects.

The benefits to major transport projects

The east-west road link, the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel and the port of
Hastings are transformative projects. The quicker they are delivered, the
quicker Victorians and Victorian businesses will see the benefits.

The east-west road link is a city-shaping project for Victoria. The new
18-kilometre cross-city freeway-standard link will provide an alternative to the

---

Page 2164

M1 corridor, alleviate chronic congestion and improve travel time for motorists
and allow freight to be moved around more quickly. The government has committed
to fund stage 1 of this project, which has an estimated capital cost of between
$6 billion and $8 billion.

The Melbourne Metro rail tunnel will untangle the rail network and unlock the
capacity needed to expand the network and increase services to Melbourne's
growth areas in the north, west and south-east. Creating capacity, particularly
in the city loop, also means that more trains can run on all the lines, not just
those running through the new tunnel. In 2012, the government made the first
state contribution to the project, allocating $49.7 million.

Subject to the Premier's approval the legislation will also enable the port of
Hastings development to be delivered.

This project is essential for Victoria's future and the government has provided
$110 million in the budget to kick-start the development.

This act, with the substantial improvements before you, is the foundation on
which these crucial projects can be delivered.

It would also be a mistake to think that the bill is only for
multibillion-dollar projects. It is not just about capital expenditure, it is
about the value to the community that new and upgraded parts of the transport
network can bring. Cycling networks, for example, face the same barriers as
other linear projects in road and rail and the issues associated with getting
projects delivered.

This legislation provides an alternative to the environment effects statement
process and the multiple approvals required to deliver state-significant
projects.

Delivering major transport projects is a very costly exercise. This bill is
designed to cut down on bureaucracy and channel state funds to where it can
deliver the most benefit -- the transport infrastructure on which we all rely.

Policy context

The changes before the house are a cornerstone of the government's budget
commitment to deliver better value in infrastructure planning and delivery.

As the budget papers state:

The government is driving better value for money, streamlining project
approvals and cutting red tape to expedite major projects coming to market.
The government is continuing to implement rigorous processes to improve
infrastructure project delivery and ensure the cost pressures that affected
major projects in the past are not repeated.

This is precisely what this bill is designed to do.

In December last year the government released its economic statement, 'Securing
Victoria's Economy -- Planning, Building, Delivering'.

The strategy outlines the government's vision for public sector reform involving
controlling costs, reducing internal red tape and improving management within
the public sector.

This bill exemplifies this government's commitment to work harder and to work
smarter to cut red tape so the benefits of major transport projects can be
delivered sooner.

The bill

Part 1 of the bill deals with preliminary matters.

Part 2 of the bill makes changes to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation
Act 2009 to:

introduce a more risk-based assessment regime;

enable early works on projects, including the

east-west link;

shorten statutory time frames to improve productivity and speed up projects;

simplify administrative processes;

enable more efficient land assembly and project delivery; and

extend the scope of the act.

Part 3 of the bill addresses other related amendments.

Key changes to the regime

Moving progressively to a risk-based assessment enables a more proportionate
approach to different risks. This will improve assessment efficiencies and
deliver a more practical and focused assessment report for public exhibition and
consultation.

Early works on projects can provide an opportunity to structure projects to
maximise efficiency and create jobs sooner. This bill makes clear that
declaration of a project does not prevent the delivery of early works outside of
the act's provisions. The act expands, rather than replaces, the methods of
obtaining the necessary approvals for a major transport project. For projects

---

Page 2165

with early works, it is simply a matter of obtaining any required planning or
environment approvals in accordance with existing applicable laws.

This bill makes significant cuts to time frames for decisions in the assessment
and approval process. Time frames for decisions around pathways, scoping,
release of key documents and approvals have all been halved or more than halved.

The bill not only cuts time frames for decision making, but changes the scheme
to allocate resources more efficiently and shift the focus to the project,
rather than the process itself. An example of this is the simplification of the
administrative steps required to have a project declared.

What the bill does not do is reduce the time frame for public exhibition -- the
onus is on government and government agencies to work more efficiently. This
power does not prevent government from consulting with councils, where relevant.

The bill extends an existing provision to make clear that councils cannot
frustrate projects once that project has been approved by the Minister for
Planning.

The bill introduces a statutory duty on state agencies to act and make decisions
expeditiously to avoid delay.

The bill also enables more efficient project delivery by reducing red tape to
improve the arrangements for land assembly.

Conclusion

The changes cut red tape to boost productivity in the assessment and delivery of
projects under the act.

The burden of red tape in the system is shouldered by the community and by
business. Every week a project is tied up in administration is another week of
congestion on our transport system. Congestion increases business costs and
decreases the amount of time we all get to spend with our families.

This bill cuts red tape for projects. This bill cuts the time taken to assess,
approve and deliver major transport projects. This bill gives that time back to
the people of Victoria.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr SCOTT (Preston).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 27 June.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 12 May 2010

Ausfis is one of many private immigration agencies in Australia promoting a problematic political message that sounds like they are representing all Australians and the Australian government and which many Australians would disagree with. Should migration agencies aggressively promote immigration? It's another case of advertising taking over democracy.

https://www.ausfis.org/Home.aspx

Ausfis's talk about 'a new land of opportunity' belies the biogeophysical reality of Australia - the oldest, driest continent.

This is a link that was sent to an immigrant from Peru from someone living in Peru - about inviting migrants to come to Australia because we have opportunities and skills shortages!

It not only refers to skill shortages, but it suggests that its lawyers will get applicants citizenship after four years and encourages immigrants to bring their dependent family members to live here as well, receive health care and use the public education system.

"What are the benefits of receiving a visa via the General Skilled Worker Visa program?

The grass is greener in Australia. If you are planning to make a move outside your home country, Australia should be on the top of your list as a place to make your dreams a reality. Besides legally living and working in Australia, a Australian General Skilled Visa has other benefits,
such as:

Bringing all dependent family members with you
Receiving healthcare
Using the public education system
Applying for citizenship after 4 years!"

Immigration greatly accelerates ageing of Australia's population: FECCA

Note that FECCA has only recently published a paper "Immigration speeds up Australia's rate of aging - FECCA"calling for special funding for aged immigrants because of the way immigration ages the Australian population. Every immigrant comes here older than anyone born here, but this fact is grossly magnified by the effect of bringing dependent adults as extended family here. Between 2011 to 2026 ethnic people over 80 will increase by 59% compared with 29% in the Australian-born population. Continuing high immigration threatens to make this problem unmanagable, with stress on housing, employment, water, food and power supplies undermining democracy, health and life-expectancy.

Ausfis looks very official and could easily be mistaken for an Australian Government website and message, but it isn't. It is a private business composed of people who make money out of processing migration applications. In fact, it does clearly state what it is at the bottom of the page and the agency promotion style seems responsible. It is not doing or saying anything illegal or misleading; it is, indeed, apparently promoting government policy.

Currently immigration to Australia outweighs births over deaths. It is the main source of population growth here.

"Increased migration and fertility (2007–2011)

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2071.0main+features952012-2013
Despite the economic impacts of the global financial crisis which started in 2007 and the ongoing repercussions within global financial markets, Australia experienced strong and sustained population growth throughout the period 2007–2011 (see the graph of Annual population growth above). In 2009, the addition of 394,000 people was the highest single annual increase to Australia's population, and the annual growth rate of 1.8% was unmatched since 1972. Migration was a significant factor in the population growth during this period. For the first time since federation, migration consistently contributed more to population growth than the contribution from natural increase. However, much of this recent increase has come from increased numbers of long-term temporary migrants; those with student, holiday and business visas (for more information see Migration, Australia (cat. no. 3412.0). The effect of this high level of migration can be seen in the 25–29 years age group in 2011, where there were an additional 385,000 people compared with the numbers in this cohort when they were aged 5–9 years in 1991. "

The recent announcement of yet another new suburb on the outskirts of Melbourne is nothing to celebrate despite its upbeat name of ‘Merrifield’, according to the Victorian and Tasmanian branch of Sustainable Population Australia.

“As Melbourne continually bursts what were once its boundaries, open space for wildlife, agriculture and escape from the metropolis are being swallowed up in a sea of homogeneous suburbia," said President Quirk.

'It is disturbing that, despite our widespread distaste for urban sprawl, the growth machine keeps rolling it out,” she observed."

Ms Quirk described the opening of the new suburb as "a very serious matter." And she said that there is in fact, no end to this very rapid process unless we rein in our population growth.

Myth that Growth is Inevitable

“It is a widely held belief that population growth is inevitable but it is not. Australia and thus Victoria could stabilise their populations by the end of this century by immediately reducing immigration to more modest levels and maintaining our current fertility rate over the long term.” says Ms. Quirk.

Myth that Growth is Good

President Quirk identified another myth - that we must have some growth for its own sake or for some sort of economic benefit. She explained:

There is no benefit in population growth to the people already living in Australia without at least equal growth in both economic output and at the same time an improvement in quality of life. This is not happening, especially with respect to quality of life in this country which has one of the fastest population growth rates of any developed nation.

Quality of life diminishes with overpopulation

She drew attention to the fact that:

Traffic congestion renders many people’s lives utterly miserable in their daily commutes to earn the means to service the mortgages for their unaffordable housing. Natural light is dealt out in meager proportions to those taking up residence in higher density areas of Melbourne closer to the CBD.”

“The promise of 20,000 temporary jobs in Merrifield during construction is an example of the extent to which - in our defective economic system - employment depends on continuing population growth and consequent construction, a process like a dog chasing its tail.

Drawing upon the reliance of human life on the health of the natural world, she said that this process needs to stop "for environmental and thus survival reasons."

Responding to the latest spin from some of the growth lobbyists - that we cannot stop population growth quickly because some people might lose jobs - (Bernard Salt on the ABC on Tuesday 21 May, RN Drive with Waleed Aly), she said that purportedly we have been increasing overseas immigration because there are not enough people to do those jobs.

The bigger and faster population growth, the harder to stop

She stressed, however, that:

"The real problem with deliberately accelerating our population growth now is that it will make the job of stabilising our population in the future an increasingly slow, painful and difficult task, like turning the Queen Mary around. By that time the necessity will be obvious to everyone.”

“In the interests of all, a clever Victorian government should be planning for a stable population in Victoria, as cheap energy becomes more scarce, as our environment deteriorates as a result of population pressure, and as climate change reduces the state’s human carrying capacity."

She concluded by saying that a far sighted Victorian government would get us off the growth merry-go-round - sooner rather than later - out of consideration for younger and future generations who will be left to pick up the environmental, economic and social pieces of our population excesses.

"An amazing start to the supreme court case. It was a packed courtroom with standing room only, more than 100 of you came to show resident opposition to VCAT saying that our objections don't count. The outcome of this hearing will affect us all. Barrister Stuart Morris presented the case for the council. It has been suggested that if this case goes against the people that people should write to the Attorney General demanding that VCAT be abolished and they set up a proper simple appeal body for planning issues. The hearing continues tomorrow, Wednesday, and the barrister Chris Canavan will be speaking for the developer. If you have time do go to hear what he has to say for the developer. " (Mary Drost of Planning Backlash).

Stonnington City Council v Lend Lease Apartments (Armadale) Pty Ltd & Ors.

Well, an interesting day at the Supreme Court, conducted at the High Court building. This was the third venue given since the day before. Nonetheless the court room was packed, with standing room only for about 8 people, others sitting on a table at the back and another 8 or so allowed to sit in the jury box.

Another consequence of privatisation

You could say that all the trouble started with the privatising of public land, involving a building and site that used to belong to state water, which was later purchased by a corporation. Now, years down the track, Lend Lease and a partner want to build a series of massive towers on this site which seems to be located between two areas of parkland in an area largely without other green open space.

Stonington Council, represented by barrister Stuart Morris, was appealing a decision by VCAT which gave the green light to Lend Lease to build - if I heard correctly- at least 19 buildings ranging in size with 11 to be of 4-12 stories on or adjacent to parkland in a neighborhood where the highest residential buildings are around two or three stories.

Naturally the community objected. There were a total of around 618 or 627 objections and only 3 letters of support for the project. However, despite this manifest opposition to an obviously disruptive development:

"VCAT, in its determination of 10 July 2012 to grant, in full, Lend Lease’s Planning Permit Application, ruled that the extent of the community’s opposition to a planning application was irrelevant.

“We (VCAT) are exercising an administrative review power. It must be exercised in accordance with law. We
must not have regard to irrelevant considerations. The extent of the opposition per se in one of these” –
i.e. irrelevant.[Source: http://www.orronggroup.com/]

Whereupon:

"Stonnington Council, with support of the Orrong Group, recognised the implications that such a ruling would have on all planning applications for all Victorians. Council has succeeded with the first stage of the appeal – the Supreme Court [...] granted Council the right to appeal the matter to the full court on Tuesday16 April."

The Orrong group say, rightly:

The Council is commended for taking this brave step. Because of the widespread ramifications of the VCAT ruling this is a case that justifies the cost of the appeal. It has the possibility of being a “watershed case”. We must support the Council in its action."

The whites of their eyes

We are supposed to live in a democracy. A 'democracy' implies self-government and control over what happens in one's community. But reality in Victoria (and the rest of Australia) is that the corporate sector has far more influence over government than the people and usually wins over real communities. This is becoming more and more problematic in Australia, as open space becomes a civil battle field because of government- and corporate- engineered population growth that is driving unwanted development everywhere.

Economic theory behind our predicament

It takes being caught up in the undignified, expensive and painful reality of turbo development for people to begin to grasp just how mad our laws are and how weak our democracy. You can spend a lot of time trying to argue sensibly, writing submissions and getting nowhere. Meanwhile some corporation is making a lot of money out of your misery.

The economic theory behind this goes back to the 18th century in Britain, the time of the Restoration, where a particularly predacious kind of land-tenure law replaced an earlier kind that gave people more rights. Although enclosures had happened since the time of the Normans, the 18th century was particularly fierce.

“In the eighteenth century, when the British economy entered an unparalleled era of expansion, Britain’s Parliament began operating according to Coasian principles and reorganized property rights en masse. In the nineteenth century, when most common-law doctrines reached their modern form, doctrines of equity (enforced through the Chancery Court) dominated the conveyance of land. These doctrines were designed to protect beneficial interests, not to maximize productivity. Efficiency became a dominant doctrine in the English legal system only after Parliamentary intervention.”(Source: Bogart, Daniel E. and Richardson, Gary, 2008, June. "Making Property Productive: Reorganizing Rights to Real and Equitable Estates in Britain, 1660 to 1830."NBER Working Paper No. W14107, p.7)

Coasian economic theory was originated by Ronald H. Coase in “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 144, 1960. The theory assigns value arbitrarily, according to the highest dollar profit probability. It takes no heed of non-monetary values and therefore is unresponsive to social cost or individual equity. [Extracts from book close to publication: Sheila Newman: Demography, Territory, Law 2: Land Tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press.]

And that is the key:

Coasian economics takes no heed of non-monetary values and therefore is unresponsive to social cost or individual equity

This works out to mean that big business can almost always claim to be benefiting the community because of large financial through-puts, and that residential or small business objectors are NIMBYs, with much lesser financial sums at stake. This method of appraisal of a situation almost completely ignores every non-monetary interest affected and lesser monetary interests of small businesses. Residents cannot claim financial costs that might be incurred, for instance through loss of sunlight rendering solar panels useless or vegetable gardens unproductive.

Importance and Elements of this case

So this case begs those conventions that dispossess us of our individual rights to enjoy our properties and our neighbourhoods and participate in local self-government - the very essence of democracy.

Below I list some of the issues I understood from Barrister Stuart Morris's arguments, which occupied most or possibly all of the first day. [Candobetter did not remain for the rest of the day and supposes that the Lend Lease barrister (Chris Canarvan) will present his case tomorrow.]

- Stonington Council had unanimously vetoed the Lend Lease project after receiving approximately 620 objections

- The parties to the proceeding should be taken to include people who made petitions, including those who were did not come in to the tribunal. The responsible authority must consider all objections not withdrawn.

-It must consider environmental impact and any significant social and economic effects. Environmental impact, particularly under the Planning and Environment Act could extend well beyond the immediate neighborhood.

- Participation is a key factor: The Tribunal must where appropriate take account of the extent of which persons owning land nearby participated in the decisions before granting the permit. It was suggested that this provision carries over from an older Act which actually goes back itself to the Planning Appeals Board Act 1980. It's all about participation. John Caine's (Victorian Premier from 1982-1990) ammendments in parliament form some of the history of this part of the law.

- In case the defendants seek to narrow the scope and leave no room for the actual operation of the principle, the scope has to be broad, the triggers to be generic in nature.

- The Tribunal is required to consider all objections.

- The substance of the objection can be important

- The number of objections can be important

- The number of objections plus the substance is relevant to the purpose of the Act to include embracing public participation and fairness

- There needs to be ability to participate in the objection procedures (noting the fact that it is commonplace for applicants to be exempt from third party rights and therefore not to advertise their projects)

- The fact of participation is crucial

- The extent to which persons participate makes relevant the number of persons who participate

- Evidence of social effects: suggestion that one is not lawfully considering a matter if one excludes the number feeling strongly enough to object

- There has been an error of law when a party who has made a written submission is ignored.

- A planning decision is informed by the degree of community response which may still be relevant if not determinant

The above points are a very sketchy rendition of some very detailed citations and arguments made over the course of several hours. The case continues on the 17th of April at the same venue. The counter arguments of the Lend lease barrister will then be heard.

Candobetter.net is interested in receiving opinions and notes on tomorrow's presentations.

Details of court and case

Supreme Court List for Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Hearing commences at 10:30 AM, but be there at 10:00AM. _#fn1">1
Court 2, Ground Floor
Old High Court
450 Little Bourke Street, Melb.

Justice Emerton
Valuation Compensation and Planning List
Stonnington City Council v Lend Lease Apartments (Armadale) Pty Ltd & Ors.

Footnote[s]

#fn1" id="fn1">1.#fn1txt">↑ Be there at 10:00AM to go through security screening.

NOTE! Venue changed to Court 2, Ground Floor, Old High Court, 450 Little Bourke Street. LAST MINUTE REMINDER ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT APPEAL - TUESDAY 16 AND 17 APRIL 2013. This is about your fundamental property and citizenship rights - the very basis of democracy. Come and sit in the gallery.This involves the Orrong Group. The fact that this case has arisen is a consequence of commercially driven population growth in Victoria and Australia. The Supreme Court has changed the venue for the Hearing tomorrow, commencing at 10.30am.

WHAT IS BEING CHALLENGED?- VCAT'S DETERMINATION :-

THAT THE EXTENT OF RESIDENT OPPOSITION IS IRRELEVANT IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Test Case!

If you could spare an hour or two the Orrong Group (of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) residents would greatly appreciate your presence in the gallery as this vital hearing proceeds.This may well prove to be a test case for many future community issues and we the community need to be seen to have a voice.

The hearing will begin at 10.30am in Court 2, Ground Floor, Old High Court, 450 Little Bourke Street.

The Listing Judge may then allocate the case to another courtroom.If you arrive late check with the Supreme Court Registry Level 2. Phone number 96036111 - The case number is SCI 2012 045 07.

As the Court has 'airport like' security in place for entry to the court we suggest you arrive around 10 am. We hope to have media coverage before the hearing. We will have an Orrong Group member at the Court entrance to assist with directions. We can meet at the court entrance.

Should you intend coming to the hearing on Wednesday 17th we recommend you check the supreme Court "Daily List" on the internet from 5pm on the 16th, to confirm that the hearing is continuing.

Margot Carroll of the Orrong Group says, "THIS IS CASE WHERE WE NEED THE COMMUNITY TO COME TOGETHER AND SHOW DETERMINATION AND STRENGTH.
PLEASE JOIN WITH US AT THE COURT.

Express your views if opportunities arise in any talkback programs.

www.orronggroup.com

mlcarroll[AT]netspace.net.au

0409 174 194 & 9 5104845

There will be a public forum a Kuringai Town Hall to discuss the problem of overdevelopment, overpopulation, and the crushing of democracy in its wake TODAY. Sunday 7 April 3:00 pm to 5:30 Where: ku-ring-Gai Town Hall, 1186 Pacific Hwy, Pymble.

If you care about the future of NSW, you are urged to come to the forum, understand the full impact of the proposed changes, and voice their concerns.

The proposed legislation will grossly favour developers over ordinary people and, significantly, over local councils. We are appalled that Barry O'Farrell is set break his promise to the people of NSW, because, when he was campaigning for government, he criticised Part 3A and promised that his government would "bring planning back to the people". The proposed legislation makes Part 3A look mild in comparison.

When: Sunday 7 April 3:00 pm to 5:30 Where: ku-ring-Gai Town Hall, 1186 Pacific Hwy, Pymble.

Speakers: David Shoebridge, Greens MLC; James Ryan, Nature Conservation Council; Corinne Fisher, Better Planning Network.

Please contact as many friends as you can - our voice needs to be loud and clear.

.

The residents of Wyndham are distressed as their council is building a mountain, literally a mountain of rubbish, from theirs and other councils and it smells. It is blocking their views and rising up on a flat horizon in a ghastly kind of monument to the folly of our consumer society and our overpopulation predicament. You are invited to show solidarity with Wyndham citizens at a meeting on Tuesday 9th April, at 7.30pm at Wyndham EcoLiving Centre, 28 Ridge Drive Wyndham Vale, (Mel.205, A5).

Growth economies grow garbage

Growth economies depend on growing populations and encouraging them to consume more, faster. Mechanical refrigerators, which used to last 30 or more years, have been replaced by electronic ones that use far more energy and last only a few years.[1] Clockwork watches, which lasted for years, have been replaced by throw-away digital watches. These facts demonstrate the fallacy of the idea that humans progress forward in time and that our societies are growing more intelligent and more able to solve the complex problems they are constantly compounding.

Mountain of garbage festers on horizon

Here is another example of the tragic and absurd consequences of our consumer and growth society.

The residents of Wyndham are distressed as their council is building a mountain, literally a mountain of rubbish, from theirs and other councils and it smells. So if you in that area they would love some support at their council meeting. This is not good planning and certainly not good development.

Many of you may have have heard about the massive “mountain of Waste” that Council proposes to create at the Wests Road tip (“Refuse Disposal Facility”). It is proposed to increase its height to 130m (110m above surrounding ground level) and its footprint ten-fold (see artists rough representation in the photo below).

Recalcitrant, undemocratic Wyndham council

There have been growing complaints about the first stage of this development which has already risen to approx 24 meters above ground level (see first photo.) Council refused to meet to discuss this issue with residents.

Below is the overall representation of the proposal (note that the existing 24m ‘mountain’ is already obscuring part of the You Yangs).

It looks ugly: makes us a dumping ground for Melbourne’s rubbish: encourages waste dumping instead of recycling: and it smells!

If you think this is a bad idea then come along to the meeting next Tuesday and help us tell our elected councillors that this is not the sort of image Wyndham wants.

Meeting

When: 7.30 pm, Tuesday 9th April

Where: Wyndham EcoLiving Centre, 28 Ridge Drive Wyndham Vale

(Mel. 205, A5)

[1] To understand this phenomena, try looking for a new refridgerator with more than one efficiency star lately. Very hard to find. There are some exceptions, such as Sunfrost refrigerators.

Here is a fairly good article about energy efficiency in refrigerators - http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/icebox2.htm.

The “Outcome principles” as set out in the discussion paper, are aspirations with which no-one would disagree but they do not encompass an overall vision for Melbourne. Furthermore, they are, in our view in reverse order of their actual importance! Confining this part of the submission to what is before us we will examine the importance and substance of each “principle.” Firstly it is necessary to look at the rate of growth which underpins the whole strategy and discussion paper. The present rate of population growth should not be “non negotiable.” [...] One must ask “How much harder does a high level of growth make the achievement of any of the aims underlying the principles?” [...] While the Minister invites the public to “talk” about Melbourne's future, its growth is considered inevitable and non-negotiable. That is, “Over the next 40 years, Melbourne will continue to grow, both geographically and in population.” This is not compatible with the overall aims and objectives of preserving and enhancing the 5 principles stated above.

Submission of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch to the Metropolitan Planning Strategy for Melbourne

[Dated:] 28 3.13

By Vivienne Ortega Secretary and Jill Quirk, President SPAVICTAS

[The submission begins by referring to statements in the Government document:]

Melbourne, Let's talk about the Future:

"What we want to achieve

The discussion paper refers to five outcome principles:

Principle 1: A distinctive Melbourne

Principle 2: A globally connected and competitive city

Principle 3: Social and economic participation

Principle 4: Strong communities

Principle 5: Environmental resilience"

[The Government document asks the following questions, which SPAVICTAS responds to in ordinary font:]

Question 1. What do you think of these outcome principles?

The “Outcome principles” as set out in the discussion paper, are aspirations with which no-one would disagree but they do not encompass an overall vision for Melbourne. Furthermore, they are, in our view in reverse order of their actual importance! Confining this part of the submission to what is before us we will examine the importance and substance of each “principle.”

In reverse order: We take Principle 5, “Environmental resilience” to mean an aspiration to maintain a healthy environment and not to degrade it , this is essential to our long term survival and present health and well being. The environment in an urban context refers to plentiful fresh water, adequate vegetation to reduce urban heat island effect (especially in light of changing climate ) , open space and gardens- public and private, excellent air quality and biodiversity- especially in adjoining natural areas. Environment is a primary concern. Due to urban expansion and the stretching of the urban growth boundary, more people are being put at risk from bushfires, food bowls are being buried under housing, our green-wedge buffer zones are being invaded, and natural water production has been overshot, necessitating a desalination plant.

4 “Strong communities” should go second. A society will have problems maintaining its environment if it is not united in its efforts to do this. Factors that fragment communities, e.g. frequent need to move house, homelessness, unaffordable housing, factors that impede people from using local amenities and facilities – e.g. parking restrictions and traffic congestion will break down communities. A lack of common facilities for local sport and passive recreation as well as venues for community meetings mitigate against strong communities. Living in high rise apartments and housing estates increases social dis-connection, and stigma. There are many stairs, balconies, limited emergency escapes, limited space for gardening and outdoor exploring for children, stranger-dangers, and noise disturbances. High rise affords little opportunity for environmentally advantageous options such as water harvesting, recycling, outside clothes drying and solar panels. Inside living is inherently carbon-intensive and energy-consuming.

3. Social and economic participation is a subset of strong communities rather than a separate principle.

Each individual should firstly have somewhere to live (Melbourne does not even meet this basic requirement) and a place in the life of the city of Melbourne. There are many and varied ways that people can fit into a megalopolis such as Melbourne: as a worker, a parent, a volunteer, an elder, a neighbour, but the basic requirement of a place to live underpins participation. Rising house prices and declining affordability are undermining exactly what is essential to meet “principle 3” (which would remain principle 3 if the order were reversed.)

Our “ageing population” should be celebrated as the back bone of communities rather than considered a threat. Older people are living longer and healthier lives. Greater longevity is a sign of good health care and living standards. Older people’s contribution through paid and volunteer work needs to be facilitated, encouraged and appreciated especially given the necessity for 2 members of younger couples to be in paid work in order to service mortgages.

2 A globally connected and competitive city. Thanks to the Internet and other modern communications many of which have actually been around for about 100 years, Melbourne can't really help but be “globally connected”. In a resource constrained world which we are entering as we hit the wall of non renewable resources, especially oil it is more critical to our long term survival that Melbourne connect to its outskirts and agricultural regions than to remote sources of essentials.

1 A Distinctive Melbourne. This is a less important aspiration. Any place be it city, town or village is naturally distinctive due its geographical location and natural surroundings. Melbourne is distinguished by its bay setting, the Yarra River and the Dandenong Ranges. The more the underlying natural beauty of Melbourne’s setting is engulfed by housing, shops, roads, and concrete, the less distinctive it becomes with respect to its setting. Secondary to the natural endowments are our (remaining) heritage from the founders of Melbourne and those who came soon after. Examples are the Botanic Gardens, Carlton Gardens, Treasury Gardens, The Windsor Hotel, Victorian architecture through the older inner suburbs, modernist architecture in suburbs such as Eltham in their bush settings and the most humble and suburban, post war suburbs with their brick villas surrounded by gardens front and back. These last “ordinary” suburbs that allow space for children to play and habitat for suburban wild life are real treasures and an indication of what was once (but no longer) the expected standard of space, comfort and amenity for the working people of Melbourne.

What made Melbourne distinctive in the past was its seamless public transport but this is no longer coping with increased population. The people of Melbourne have enjoyed high standards of living, good quality public spaces, and heritage values. It is difficult to see how these can be preserved with a rising population with no limit envisaged into the future.

While the Minister invites the public to “talk” about Melbourne's future, its growth is considered inevitable and non-negotiable. That is, “Over the next 40 years, Melbourne will continue to grow, both geographically and in population.” This is not compatible with the overall aims and objectives of preserving and enhancing the 5 principles stated above.

Federal government policies mainly the baby bonus and the immigration program are the biggest levers on population growth but the Victorian government is remiss in its responsibility to fellow Victorians in reducing the ability of local authorities to determine the level of population they can accommodate and in its gung ho enthusiasm for population growth e.g. the website http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/

That which works well in making Melbourne distinctive is its livability which needs to be enhanced and shortcomings addressed . This means extending and improving public transport, protecting our city from endless expansion as well as the loss of amenity from intensification of development in residential/family suburbs and from towers blocking sunlight, and puncturing the horizon. Melbourne’s assets should be celebrated and protected especially, the natural setting and the heritage values bequeathed by planners of the past. Living standards, and affordability, can only erode with higher population.

The Ponzi-demographic model, relying on population growth as a source of revenue, means growing costs of infrastructure, pressure on land and open spaces, and loss of productivity due to congestion. These are counter-productive and contrary to the aims of keeping Melbourne distinctive in a positive sense.

Question 2. What do you think is needed to achieve these outcome principles?

Firstly it is necessary to look at the rate of growth which underpins the whole strategy and discussion paper. The present rate of population growth should not be “non negotiable” It is true we need to accept the present pattern of natural increase for a few more decades, but the over- all level of population growth should be curbed in the interests of people living here now. One must ask “How much harder does a high level of growth make the achievement of any of the aims underlying the principles?”

The current population of Melbourne is suffering because of traffic congestion, periodic water shortages and consequent construction of the desalination plant, cut-backs of public services, pressure to accommodate ever more people in existing suburbs, the threat of high rise in established suburbs, and the swallowing up of arable land on the fringes of the city for housing to accommodate extra population.

From the point of view of social and economic participation, jobs need to be brought back to Melbourne. They are being lost through the high Australian dollar, and the free-market economy. Business rents need to be affordable, local people need to be employed, training opportunities need to be increased (not quashed as they have been through privatization of State departments and utilities), and closure of TAFEs.

Already $10 billion is needed to bring the infrastructure of Melbourne's fringe suburbs up to standard, so we need to avoid more debt.

There needs to be a period of reduced growth, a stock-take of Melbourne's infrastructure assets and an assessment of essential road and public transport upgrades. Melbourne needs to have its transport bottle-necks fixed to achieve a fluid, flexible city. Melbourne once had a vibrant manufacturing base, and it needs to be restored.

Question 3. What are the key ingredients for success in achieving the vision of an expanded Central City?

The expansion of the Central City will only be the result of organic growth, and in response to economic demands and natural resources. Expanding the city, and then trying to create jobs and infrastructure in hindsight, does not work. Already Victoria is in recession, and our economy, and jobs growth, is failing to keep up with population growth. No more public assets should be sold, and the infrastructure in demand for many years - such as a rail link to Tullamarine and Doncaster link - should be priorities. Melbourne needs to be more accessible, not bigger.

We do not see any advantages in the expansion of Melbourne's CBD, and it would be detrimental and expensive to retro-fit our politically-imposed growth.

Question 4. What do you think of the idea of identifying and reinforcing employment and innovation clusters across Melbourne?

“The Central City is the core location of the ‘knowledge economy’. Building an expanded Central City can attract new jobs to Melbourne and reinforce Melbourne as a world city and tourism hub”. This won't happen while TAFE courses keep being slashed, teachers are retrenched, universities, starved of funds are forced rely on revenue from international students, and temporary visa holders instead of our own skilled workers. A 'knowledge economy' must rely on high standards of education, training, investment in R&D, and innovation – not housing!

Housing is not a consumable commodity, and maintaining Stamp Duty revenue means perpetuating ongoing population growth, and ignoring the downstream costs to the 5 above principles.

A jobs market heavily reliant on housing is fragile and market-dependent. It needs to be reassessed in the light of the massive infrastructure costs. Australia must invest in skills, education, innovation, knowledge and cutting edge 21st century technology, not in population growth and housing. It served us well in the past but can't be assumed to do the same in the future.

Question 5. What is needed to support growth and development in regional cities?

More investment in food production, and farming is needed. Land in our food bowls needs to be protected and preserved, not absorbed into a rubbery urban-growth-boundary. Regional growth should be in the understanding of food production, permaculture, alternative energy sources, organic farming and practices that mitigate against climate change, an anticipated energy crisis, loss of soils and shortages of oil-based fertilisers. Rail links to peri-urban food bowls should reinforce our food security. The “growth” of regional cities must be forged on growth in support of agriculture, natural resources, conservation, tourism and heritage.

Question 6. What do you think of the idea of a ‘20 minute city’?

A “20 minute city” can only be feasible by getting more traffic off the roads and increasing the efficiency and availability of public transport. Greater road, infrastructure and housing density is counter-productive to creating such an ideal. Private traffic needs to be kept to a minimum, in local areas, and the freeway mentality needs a good dose of reality. They only attract more dependence on private transport and on trucks and heavy road transport.

Question 7. How can established suburbs accommodate the needs of changing populations and maintain what people value about their area?

There needs to be a change in our immigration policy from one that is growth-based, to zero-net growth. This means that immigration should be equal to emigration, and much fewer categories of visas to reflect and reciprocate the immigration policies of our nearest neighbouring countries and the higher-per-capita wealthy nations.

While immigration in the past has benefited Australia, and created the diverse population we have now, our record-breaking levels of population growth can only erode our standards of living and entrench us further in debt. A Ponzi-economy based on perpetual growth is detrimental economically and environmentally especially in light of the planet's diminishing natural resources.

According to Australia's Energy White Paper 2012, 'Projected reductions in our crude oil production and refining capacity will mean that demand will increasingly be met by imports of crude oil and refined product.”Overseas sources of liquid fuel will mean Australia must rely more on international supply chains with increasing competition for dwindling supplies. The cheap fuel that drove our economic growth in the past will become more and more expensive and prohibitive. Stretching Melbourne's boundary any further will leave more people isolated in the outer fringes of urban sprawl, exacerbating the costs of infrastructure.

Question 8. How do we ensure a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations?

Good living spaces, backyards for families, community gardens, unencumbered and protected green wedges and buffer zones, sporting facilities, protection for our parks and gardens, bike paths, seamless and regular public transport, protection of neighbourhood values and character, and high standards of amenities are all important contributors to a sustainable environment . Cities should be built for people and families, not for a “bigger” economy that's not in the interests of ordinary people. We need to bequeath a city offering a positive experience and environment and social justice for future generations.

Question 9. What do you think about the possible ways of funding infrastructure?

Infrastructure to accommodate population growth is extremely expensive. It has been worked out at over $200,000 per additional person. If we are not to live in perpetual infrastructure deficit , infrastructure and services must be in place before the population is in place!

Ref . The downward spiral of hasty population growth

By Jane O'Sullivan - posted Monday, 8 March 2010

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10137&page=0

Melbourne’s present infrastructure needs a stock-take, audit and assessment. Priorities must be set. Good household and economic management means not overspending. Likewise, Melbourne needs a plan rather than ad hoc expansion. Without adequate infrastructure funding the public is condemned to live in deprivation. There needs to be a long period of consolidation, and improvement of infrastructure and services in Melbourne, not more stretching to accommodate growth.

Question 10. How can all levels of government, business and community work together to create the city you want?

What makes a pleasing and liveable city are comfortable living standards, heritage values, clean air, cultural venues, recreational facilities, accessibility, transport, and vegetation. One of Melbourne's greatest assets is the Yarra River, plus the accessibility of beaches, coasts, parklands, Mount Macedon and the Dandenongs for tourists and residents. Our near regional centres and coastline must be protected from generic urban sprawl. Rather, they need to be preserved to encourage tourism and day-trippers.

Melbourne must retain its position as a “liveable city” .We should be investing in 21st century technology, cutting-edge inventions, and be leaders in sustainability. A growth-basis served us well in the past, but must be replaced by sustainability - by building resilience into our communities, environment, and economy.

Unfortunately the “principles” as discussed describe qualities we are losing in Melbourne rather than qualities to which we are aspiring in an improving and developing situation. Unfortunately, all that makes Melbourne distinctive and livable is in jeopardy because of never ending population growth and increasing dominance of the built environment.

Planning is for the long term and as such it should not respond to short term pressures. Developers will act in their own interests. This means that government regulations are imperative and strategic plans are the role of government. Strategic plans should also be bipartisan since they are long term if not “forever”.

Planners, economists and politicians are generally well educated, with logical thinking skills and the ability to link cause and effect, but when it comes to population growth, logic often fails. The cornucopia myth is that when it comes to the human species, barriers and constraints to Nature don't exist and the Horn of Plenty will keep providing food, land, water, energy. This fallacious perspective is one where there are no limits to Nature's abundance, nor to how many people can be crammed into our finite urban areas.

Building cities and retro-fitting them is expensive, and standards can only be eroded. Sustainable growth is an oxymoron, and if the State's economy depends on profits from housing, then there's little to look forward to for the residents of Melbourne- and the city which future generations will inherit.

News Limited is the main perpetrator of media abuses in Australia, writes Alan Austin, and hence the strongest proof the current self-regulation system is useless. (Article originally published on Independent Australia, from which we republish it with thanks. See end article for details.)

Twitter response to Daily Telegraph’s comparison of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy to various brutal despots, along with a depiction of him as Joseph Stalin.

AFTER Rupert Murdoch’s chickens came home to roost spectacularly in the UK, his emus are scuttling about in Australia.

The entire Australian organisation is attacking the Federal Government over proposed legislation to strengthen media self-regulation.

Absolutely predictable. News Limited is the main perpetrator of media abuses in Australia.  And hence the strongest proof the current self-regulation system is useless. Naturally, it will squeal when called to account.

Intriguingly, we are seeing precisely the same tactics deployed against the Minister for Communications Senator Stephen Conroy and his proposed rule changes as gave rise to the need for them in the first place.

News Corporation in the UK now admits to having hacked the phones of a murdered schoolgirl, and of countless public figures, and of deceased servicemen and their families. All this they denied for years with point blank lies.

They have been found to have fabricated damaging stories about their enemies and suppressed stories damaging to their friends. They have been caught using criminal means to obtain information, including pay-offs to police. These they also lied about for years.

Several British editors and executives have now been sacked, others jailed or charged, and a newspaper shut down in shame.

In the USA, Murdoch’s Fox News is notorious for distortions, omissions and fabrications in political reporting.

Outlets there bow to the whims of Rupert Murdoch regarding content. But the man himself is unaccountable.

Downunder, Justice Bromberg found Australia’s most widely read columnist Andrew Bolt guilty of multiple fabrications in Melbourne’s Herald Sun. The Federal Court judge found Bolt had no evidence for more than 19 damaging lies in his racially-motivated attacks against vulnerable Aboriginal people.

This was not a first for Bolt. For years, he has waged campaigns against Aborigines and others based on falsehoods. He has been admonished by academics regarding his persistent refusal to write accurately about climate. He was found guilty of “very, very serious libel” in 2002.

No other media organisation in any other civilised nation would employ Bolt as a journalist.

Just a year earlier, Justice Stephen Kaye in the Victorian Supreme Court slammed Murdoch executives for lying to the court. In the matter of Bruce Guthrie’s wrongful dismissal, the judge said he “had reservations about a number of features” of the evidence of News Limited’s then chief executive John Hartigan.

“In my view Hartigan was an unreliable witness …”

Kaye was even more scathing of Herald and Weekly Times chief Peter Blunden. “The explanations given by Mr Blunden in evidence,” the judge said, “do not survive scrutiny”.

In the matter of Eatock v Bolt, Justice Bromberg also rejected the testimony of Murdoch executives.

The conclusion is inescapable: News Corporation is an organisation run by liars who employ lying editors to supervise lying reporters.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has a 12-point code of ethics. All twelve are now routinely violated by Murdoch employees.

In 2010, Herald Sun reporters lied about their identity to ensnare politicians in a British tabloid-like sting. They had the support of editors and executives — despite explicit condemnation in the code.

Most Murdoch publications are now merely spruikers for conservative political causes which they advance with distortion and lies. The frequency and viciousness of these crusades increased markedly after Labor came to power in late 2007.

In 2008, Glenn Milne in The Australian attacked PM Kevin Rudd over a risqué play in Gippsland which the local Labor candidate had promoted in his newsletter. Milne failed to disclose, however, that the tawdry theatrical event was actually approved and funded by the previous Howard Coalition Government.

Glaring examples since then are the relentless campaigns against the economic stimulus packages during the GFC, against climate change, against the mining tax, against the carbon tax, against internet security, against changes to discrimination laws and against the National Broadband Network (NBN).

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph was found by the Australian Press Council to have used false customer figures in a news story on the NBN. Other Telegraph articles were found misleading by serious omission. The Council expressed concern that

‘within a short period of time three articles on the same theme contained inaccurate or misleading assertions.’

The Daily Telegraph ran a front-page story headed: “Thousands of boat people to invade NSW”.

The Australian Press Council found elements of the story to be “gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive”.  The Council condemned the newspaper for “an especially serious breach of its principles.”

Murdoch outlets have attacked the PM ruthlessly over her alleged involvement with a union two decades ago. They have produced no evidence whatsoever of anything amiss and were forced to retract and apologise at least twice.

They have constantly attacked the Treasurer Wayne Swan who, according to external assessment, has done a better than average job.

The last four years “have been disastrous for Australians,” claimed The Daily Telegraph in 2011. “There have been broken promises, billions lost in wasteful spending and economic mismanagement and sheer incompetence.”

This was the month Australia gained its AAA credit rating with all agencies for the first time ever. And shortly after The New York Times reported “Australia’s economy has been booming”.

In February last year, The Australian ran a cover story headed “Mutiny kills PM’s Bob Carr plan”. It contained at least six “revelations” relating to the appointment of Bob Carr as Foreign Minister. All six were soon proven to be fabricated.

Murdoch publications have campaigned against all Labor state governments. News reporters at Brisbane’s Courier-Mail were instructed to use the news pages to drive a campaign targeting then Premier Anna Bligh.

The campaign against the Greens, and former leader Bob Brown in particular, has been particularly vicious.

An editorial in The Australian declared:

‘We believe he (Brown) and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.’

These are not just vigorous campaigns confined to the opinion pages — something that would be not so objectionable. But rather these are crusades fought with distortion and lies in the news content.

Can anything be done? Former employee Bruce Guthrie – who defeated News Limited in court in 2010 – believes ‘you can bite back against Murdoch’.

Senator Conroy seems to be attempting exactly that. Will he succeed? We shall see.

(This story was first published by the Australian Independent Media Network and was offered to IA by the author.)

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