Australian overpopulation

The history of Australia as a nation has been brutal to the humans who lived here first, to the animals and birds, and brutal to the landscape. Australia needs a day to stop and reflect on what has been done, where we are now and where we are going. We cannot fix the problem by continuing to do the same thing that caused it. Current discussion about Australia Day focuses on the way colonisation affected and continues to affect the aboriginal population. In addition to the injustices and atrocities, Australian Aborigines have been, and continue to be, overwhelmed by sheer numbers from elsewhere. The non-Aboriginal population born here is now being overwhelmed in the same way. The fast growing population as a whole has ongoing devastating environmental impacts on this land. It has social impacts too, as it enriches a very few members of the growth lobby, while the rest pay for population growth.

In the run-up to Jan 26th, the anniversary of the arrival of the "First Fleet" into Port Jackson from Botany Bay under the command of Commodore Arthur Phillip (who had brought them from Portsmouth some 8 months earlier ) there has been much discussion regarding the appropriateness of this date as Australia's national day of celebration. It is not the day that Australia became a nation, it's not the day that the British first landed on the continent. It was the day the British flag was raised at Sydney Cove, a day that marks the beginning of massive colonisation from Britain to the Pacific Island of Australia.

The colonisation begun then is a fait accompli. It is irreversible. The hapless convicts who were brought to Australia have made themselves part of the place.Their descendants cannot go back and live in Britain as their forbears are too far removed to give them any rights of abode.

The sequelae of the Port Jackson landing amounts to an ongoing, unceasing chain of migration from not only Britain but other parts of the world, unceremoniously taking over the land of the previous human custodians

Importations of exotic animals on the scale of multi giant cruise ships have also followed - horses, deer, foxes, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs camels, dogs , cats all loaded onto the finely balanced and well adapted fauna of the continent. They now live here in their millions.These animals are by no means ideally suited to Australian soils and climate . Foxes were released so that the English gentry could resume one of their bloody pleasures,- fox hunting. Goats and deer have escaped into the wild making tracks throughout the fragile landscape with their hard hooves. Camels and horses were brought in as workers and as transport as there was no equivalent native animal. -indigenous (or exotic ) birds were brought in despite a resident cornucopia of marvellous native and migratory birds.

The vegetation of the continent took and still takes a tremendous beating. The state of Victoria has lost most of its forest cover. Grasslands are being swamped with housing to the west of Melbourne. Exotic plants have been introduced and have taken over as weeds. The biosphere of the continent of Australia- the most diverse on Earth at the time of European arrival is only a shadow of its former glory. Now we are watching the remainder of it disappear.

The humans who inhabited the continent of Australia for the previous 60,000 years in varying degrees of density from coast to coast and across the desert had learned to exist within the constraints of the land. On arrival, the first explorers and settlers found people leading their lives in what appeared to harmony with nature. The land was abundant with wildlife. The people were self sufficient. They were not waiting with baited breath for some sort of salvation through invasion. Following "our" arrival their lives would never be the same again. They were rounded up and killed or displaced at the convenience of the invaders. Until 1967 they were considered under the constitution as part of the Australian fauna. They now have status, land rights and even their own TV stations but I can see their relatively newly found voices being drowned out by the noise of the competing multicultural groups within Australia. It seems that these groups are not so much interested in hearing one another but in being heard. What space in their agendas will the be afforded the First People of Australia?

The groups of audience comprised families and groups of friends, the usual multi -cultural mix of English-speaking Australians and other ethnic groups. The Chinese-speaking group in front of us paid little attention to the singer's music and even less to his introductory narratives. What relevance would it have to them? Indeed, what relevance could it have for the Manchester-accented couple to our right who were commenting on real-estate-ads on their phones? I could just hear Archie over the barking dogs, the clatter of camp furniture prematurely packed up, and the loud good-byes as people parted company, while Archie continued to sing on the stage. I struggled to see Archie as our neighbours in front stood up for a long chat before leaving, obstructing even our view of the singer.

Where does this leave us with respect to Australia Day? The history of Australia as a nation has been brutal to the humans who lived here first, to the animals and birds, and brutal to the landscape. Australia needs a day to stop and reflect on what has been done, where we are now and where we are going. We cannot fix the problem by continuing to do the same thing that caused it. Current discussion about Australia Day focuses on the way colonisation affected and continues to affect the aboriginal population. In addition to the injustices and atrocities, Australian Aborigines have been, and continue to be, overwhelmed by sheer numbers from elsewhere. The non-Aboriginal population born here is now being overwhelmed in the same way. The fast growing population as a whole has ongoing devastating environmental impacts on this land. It has social impacts too, as it enriches a very few members of the growth lobby, while the rest pay for population growth.

We cannot alter our course without reflection. Yet we must change our course and soon. I suggest we keep the date, January 26th, as a marker of the beginning of immense, irreversible change. But let's be grown-up about it! Rather than seeing it as a day of celebration and beer, let's see it as a day of reflection and re-assessment of our situation and our direction.

If we could look at things more objectively, historically, critically and realistically, then all parts of our society could participate in trying to set the right course, one which will be the best possible for all on board. Make it a day to reflect on where we are going, because if there is a brick wall in the way,and we do not change direction, we will certainly crash into it. A lot of damage has been done and we need to salvage what we can. Changing the date of Australia Day achieves little in this respect. Let's take the old Australia Day to a new level and try to get the public thinking about the next 230 years as well as the 230 years since that landing at Port Jackson!

It's interesting that we now have a Shadow Treasurer, the previous minister for Immigration under Labor, commenting on the blowout of the housing bubble, who is seeing the evidence of high rates of immigration - and loose borders that allow foreign investors to strangle the real estate market.

Economist Saul Eslake, a member of the National Housing Supply Council, said vested interests from property owners and politicians meant policies that could support first home buyers - such as the abolishment of negative gearing and lower costs for new developments - were unlikely to ever see the light of day. The housing Ponzi scheme is being driven and manipulated by investors, who create and guarantee their portfolios delivered by high rates of population growth and heavy support for domestic and foreign investors.

Booming housing market leaves first home buyers behind, says Chris Bowen by Glenda Kwek and Simon Johanson in the Melbourne Age of 16 Nov 2013.

All Ponzi schemes eventually collapse. Back in February 2012, Deakin University’s Philip Soos said that the only thing that prevented Australian house prices from crashing during the 2008 GFC was the first-home owners’ boost, who believes the sector is now operating like a Ponzi scheme. According to Soos, the tipping point for the mark will come when “the household sector is so overloaded with debt there exist no more ‘greater fools’ willing to commit to a lifetime of debt serfdom to purchase property”.

See Australian housing a Ponzi scheme and the housing bubble will burst by Larry Schlesinger in the Property News of 7 February 2012.

Sooner or later you run out of unsuspecting new investors and the whole thing collapses.

The end of the housing bubble will hurt our economy, but it's time to make the transition to a real and productive economy, rather than the predatory one of mortgages, accumulating more and more potential buyers (victims) into the scheme, and the strangle-hold property developers.

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 G21Geelong Region Plan – a ‘sustainable growth strategy’ has big plans for Geelong and environs. The areas covered by the plan are Colac, Golden Plains, Greater Geelong, Queenscliffe and Surf Coast.

Over the next 30 to 40 years the current population of 250,000 is expected to double to 500,000. What you can do

80,000 jobs are to be created.

20 homes to the hectare are planned for urban Geelong.

The existing Geelong Ring Road is to be extended to Portarlington on the Bellarine Peninsula.

The Midland Highway to Bannockburn is to be duplicated.

Areas of ‘significant growth’ are Central Geelong, Armstrong Creek, Ocean Grove, Drysdale, Clifton Springs, Leopold, Lara, Torquay, Jan Juc, Bannockburn, Colac and Winchelsea.

This plan was drawn up before the loss of major industries such as Ford, Shell, Blue Circle Cement, Target, layoffs at the Banks, etc.

We expect Geelong to connect to Torquay and most likely there will be a corridor of development between Geelong and Melbourne which is partly underway now.

If you travel around Geelong, there are huge developments everywhere including 2000 blocks in Highton, extensive new subdivisions on the Bellarine Peninsula and in Fyansford where a 1000 house development has been announced this week. I have also heard that Barwon Water can barely cope with the rapid and huge development.

The consequence of this development is traffic congestion, long hospital waiting lists, pollution, inadequate rail transport from Geelong to Melbourne.

Yvonne Campbell
Geelong

#WhatYouCanDo">What you can do:

Federal elections will occur in a matter of weeks from now. Ask of each candidate seeking your vote whether he/she is in favour of this planned devastation of the Geelong region and cast your vote accordingly. If he/she claims to oppose this plan, ask what he/she intends to do about it if elected. Be sure to tell others of his/her response. Please be sure to let us at candobetter know also.

Government Growth Policy is not working – an example of one Growth Area municipality struggling under the financial burden of infinite population growth. Other growth corridors are also in stress.

Cardinia Shire is a largely rural municipality about 60 km from Melbourne. A government designated corridor of population growth and housing construction has been absorbing rapid population increase since 2003. The population is predicted to double over the next 10 years. Current Council records indicate that five families per day are moving into the corridor.

The council’s annual budget document and four year plan states that its greatest challenge is “managing population growth”. More administrative staff are required so the Council must move to expensive new premises in Officer. Increased financial responsibility has been placed on local government but despite an ongoing debt level of almost $50 million and increasing the annual rates each year over the past 10 years, there is still a major lack of infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the continuous high population growth coming into the growth corridor of the municipality. The infrastructure shortfall includes public transport, roads and schools for which State government is responsible. Ratepayers are virtually being taxed via Council rates, and a further increase to 6.8% this year will be a financial burden for a lot of property owners.

Huge residential and commercial development is impacting on former good quality agricultural land, sensitive environmental landscapes and waterways.

Traffic congestion is increasing, particularly on local roads not built to cope with the current volume flowing off the freeway. During morning and evening peak times traffic is at gridlock.

There is growing evidence of social disadvantage, a local welfare support agency is dealing with constant requests for assistance with food supplies, financial counselling etc. There has been an increase in antisocial behaviour, graffiti, and more serious instances of assault, burglaries and trades area break-ins. Local police are at their limit keeping up with the level of crime.

If this is the end result of government policies of high population economic growth and increased productivity, where are the supposed benefits? This is just one example of a growth area in one State of Australia. How many others are encountering similar problems?

Encouraging people to move out to Melbourne’s fringe areas, creating car dependent and socially disadvantaged communities where there is inadequate local employment and insufficient infrastructure is just not working.

Australian people urgently need a referendum on the need to limit the annual population intake via immigration, rather than on the merits of including local government in the Australian Constitution. Let’s get the priorities right. G. Terria (Fugitive from the Growth Corridor)/em>

Editorial comment: G. Terria, your suggestion that we need to hold an annual referendum is excellent. Elections such as the forthcoming Federal elections can be used as a referendum of sorts. You can vote for candidates opposed to population growth . Two such candidates are Jill Quirk and William Bourke, who are standing for the Stable Population Party in the Senate n Victoria. You could distribute your Senate preferences according to how other candidates measure up on population and other issues of concern. Ask all candidates standing for your Lower House seat what are his/her policy towards population and immigration and vote and allocate your preferences accordingly.

Speaker - Bob Birrell: "'Why is immigration running at record high levels when unemployment is increasing?"

Sustainable
Population Australia ,

Victorian and
Tasmanian branch

Annual
General Meeting and election of
office bearers

2.00p.m. Saturday
July 20^th  2013

Guest Speaker:  Dr. Bob Birrell:

Monash University Centre for Population and Urban
Research

'Why is immigration running at record high levels when
unemployment is increasing?

Venue
details: 336
Whitehorse Rd

Balwyn VIC 3103, Australia

Tram number:109

Melway ref: 46E8

Contact: Jill Quirk
– 95097429   [email protected]

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.

A permit has been issued by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection to cull 2,000 Agile Wallabies at Mission Beach along the North Queensland Coast in an area almost pristine not so long ago. Wildlife activists say that there may only be about 500 wallabies there now but a lot more humans.

Overreaction?

Some wildlife activists think that this very serious decision may be an overreaction to an opinion expressed by a Cr Alister Pike at a Cassowary Coast Council meeting on 28/03/13. In the minutes of the Council meeting of 28 March 2013, there is an item under general business, headed, “Problem Wallabies, South Mission Beach”. Under that heading it is recorded that,

“Cr Pike again raised concerns about Agile wallaby numbers at South Mission Beach. Cr Pike stated that there is now a risk of health issues with wallabies urinating and defecating in residents' yards where children play.

Cr Pike asked whether a provision to allow Councils to apply for damage mitigation permits to control Flying Foxes was extended to wallabies?

The CEO advised they did not and reinforced comments made at the Local Government Meeting on 22 November 2012 that the management/control of wallabies was not a Council responsibility, however Mr Brennan advised that the matter would be referred to the Coordinator Natural Environment Management with a request that he contact Queensland Parks & Wildlife Services to inform the Department of residents' concerns.”

No vote by the other councilors or any motion is recorded in response to this matter.

Forest clearing for development causes chaotic wallaby dispersal

Wildlife carers already express concern at a rise in wallaby mortality and orphans in the area, associated with forest clearing causing wallabies to be homeless, without shelter and exposed to traffic.

“Approximately thirty (30) Agile Wallabies are killed on Mission Beach roads and at least five (5) are killed by dogs per week. Isn’t this enough of a cull? More than 1,800 signatures (local and worldwide) on the petition against the cull demonstrates the public’s opposition to EHP’s (Parks & Wildlife) actions. Has every non-violent means been attempted to keep wallabies off the land (like improving and maintaining fences around the property) before the permit was issued? A Study by Simon Stirrat proved Agile Wallabies do not compete with cattle for food and that they prefer native fauna Are there other motives for the strong desire to eliminate the wallaby population in Mission Beach, such as extensive urban development?” (Nicole.)

How wallabies benefit Mission Beach

Nicole also asks us to think of the benefits that wallabies bring to mission beach.

By attracting tourists they stimulate the local economy through an increase in occupancy rates at hotels, B&Bs, holiday homes and backpacker accommodation. They increase spending at local businesses (restaurants, shops, outdoor activities, tours, etc.). They represent a free attraction for tourists that does not need to be maintained by anyone. That is, they pay for their own food, housing, health expenses. They diversify the ecosystem by dispersing grass and plant seeds to grow rainforest. They prune and trim native bushes. They provide free natural fertilizer. The are probably a unique, new species to Australia. This status is pending studies being completed to classify the South Mission Beach Agile Wallaby.

For people wanting to know more, here is the media coverage received by the Mission Beach wallabies so far: - ABC Far North radio interview , SBS News clip, Townsville Bulletin article, and a Northern Herald article.
Concern has spread to the rest of Australia at the apparently casual and capricious decision to remove natural fauna populations from recently settled human developments in rainforest areas.

Jan Held, Secretary of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, writes in a letter to the Minister of Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Mr Powell:

Brutally wiping out an Australian native animal just cause some guy whinges about them?
Much of their forest habitat has been recently allowed to be cleared so they are homeless, this is why they have ventured into suburban areas. Open areas are not at all their usual habitat, they are probably even seriously disoriented when moving about trying to find their usual food and shelter.

Jan Heald adds:

To not have any understanding of the repercussions of removing their habitat and to then complain of their visibility is completely disgusting and inhumane.

Apparently it is widely believed by inhabitants of Mission Beach that there are only approximately 500 wallabies there.

Gross mismanagement of wildlife at Mission Beach

Last year EHP approved culling 600 wallabies in South Mission Beach to address ‘overpopulation’. However, no scientific study or environmental impact evaluation was done to support this action. No study was done to support the current culling initiative. This exposes gross mismanagement of Mission Beach wildlife by your Department.

Infant wallabies despatched inhumanely and not counted in cull

During the cull, hunters are issued permits to eliminate a specific number of animals. Part of the hunter’s Code of Practice is to kill Joeys found alive in the pouch of a shot, female Wallaby. The most common methods for killing pouched young are crushing its skull under their boot or hitting and crushing the Joey’s skull against a tree.

Older baby wallabies at foot starve, also not counted in cull

Agile Wallaby Joeys feed from their mothers until they are about 18 months old. When a mother with pouched young is killed, she often has an older Joey at foot for which she still provides nourishment. By killing one mother wallaby, hunters sentence three Wallabies to death. The Joeys are not included in the “count” toward the culling permit.

SBS report on anonymous dumping of wallaby bodies at wildlife activist booth

The SBS report in the video linked here shows evidence of how human expansion has caused the kind of conflict that Australians used to think only occurred in Africa and India between wildlife activists and commerce due to overpopulation.

Who exactly is responsible?

Jan Heald says that,

Mayor Shannon has claimed that [the cull] was initiated by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, but it was the Cassowary Coast Regional Council that applied for the permit to cull the Agile Wallabies at Mission Beach!

She says that she received an email from Cr Mark Nolan of the Cassowary Coast Council, stating that he has expressed his strong view that the planned cull is inappropriate in such an environment. He believes that Cr. Pike instigated the drastic action by publicly calling for a reduction in wallaby numbers. He added that Cr Pike is an enthusiastic proponent for more tourism in the area. Cr Mark Nolan saw the cull as discouraging to tourism in “sending this disgraceful image of animal culling around the globe. He wrote,

”Mission Beach is internationally known for its biodiversity, world heritage rain forest's fronting the reef and now we send this horrible message to the tourist industry!”

Jan Heald has suggested that the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection drop any plans to kill these Wallabies, as no scientific study or environmental impact evaluation was done to support this culling initiative.
In the opinion of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, the proposed culling is unethical, unnecessary and the need for any such action is totally unsubstantiated.

How population growth & development trap us all (We are all wallabies)

Among the reports we have linked to above, one interviewee states that the reason for culling was partly due to complaints from a local farm about wallabies competing with beef cattle for food. A wildlife activist has said that the farm in question had not had cattle on it for two years. Correspondence below the article claims that cattle were there as recently as 2012.

Whatever the truths are in the detail, what we are looking at is the tragic and inevitable outcome of continuing human expansion up the North Queensland coast. The responsibility for this tragedy lies with federal, state and local governments that encourage ongoing immigration, through federal growth policy, through state government websites advertising for overseas immigrants, and through local governments giving out permits to subdivide and build. More and more frequently though, the local governments have lost the power to object to state governments pushing private developments.

Any wildlife carer, farmer, or politician that does not take on board these top-down Australian policies as major drivers of conflict and ecological disaster has their head in the sand.

This overpopulation is not inevitable in Australia. It is imposed from the top down, because of the demands of commercial lobbyists whose businesses benefit from population growth, while the rest of us all pay for it. At the bottom of the pile are the creatures of the rainforest and coastal plains. They suffer the most and have no voice except for wildlife activists, who find themselves trying to argue within the growth paradigm that we are all currently trapped within.

Australia needs to stop growing!

Everyone gets a smaller slice of the national cake and pays more for it. The arrival of Australia’s 23 millionth person tomorrow is no cause for celebration, according to Sustainable Population Australia (SPA).

Academy of Science said best stop at 23 M

Ms Goldie says: “But we are not stabilising our numbers. We continue to grow at Third World rates, at 1.7% pa.”

Treasurer Ken Henry's concerns

In 2009, then Secretary of Treasury Ken Henry expressed concern about the addition of another 13 million people by mid-century. He said a ‘population expansion of this order has a host of implications for the Australian economy and society; and it raises a number of profound issues for economic policy’.

“Yet if 1.7% continues, there will be even more than Secretary Henry cited. There will be 43 million by mid-century and 100 million by 2100,” says Ms Goldie.

Ken Henry’s comments prompted the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) to commission a study[ii] on the impact of different levels of Net Overseas Migration (NOM) on Australia’s physical natural and built environments out to 2050.

DIAC:Higher immigration causes adverse effects

The 2010 DIAC-commissioned study found, amongst many findings

· Higher levels of NOM impose greater adverse impacts on the quality of our natural and built environments (note: NOM to September 30, 2012 was 228,000 pa)

· Decreased urban water supply is a significant environmental constraint exacerbated by higher NOM

· Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are expected to grow to several times current levels by 2050 unless rapid mitigation activities are implemented, and will be significantly higher with higher NOM

· Urban expansion will cause the loss of horticultural production from peri-urban areas which will reduce access to high quality fresh food, especially vegetables, with Sydney being particularly vulnerable.

Today Australia reaches a population of 23 million. If we assess this against the status of our life-support systems, we should be alarmed. Neither Australia nor Earth is ecologically sustainable as shown by our national state of the environment reporting and the estimate that humans are consuming 150% of Earth’s renewable capacity. Population size is one of the underlying drivers of these trends. Should they continue, the implications for future generations are clear.

Way back in 1994, The Australian Academy of Science said “In our view, the quality of all aspects of our children’s lives will be maximised if the population of Australia by the mid 21st Century is kept to the low, stable end of the achievable range, i.e. to approximately 23 million” and “If our population reaches the high end of the feasible range (37 million), the quality of life of all Australians will be lowered by the degradation of water, soil, energy and biological resources.”

Cui bono? Big business benefits from more people via increased demand and constraints on wages. The average Aussie does not benefit economically while suffering from increased traffic congestion and pressure on various services i.e., the costs are socialised. And our life-supporting ecological systems are degraded.

If we value our children’s future and nature in general, we must apply the brakes to our ever-growing ecological footprint and population size. This issue deserves priority attention but is mostly ignored. For example, on the day of reaching 23 million, the Sydney Morning Herald found editorial space for the farce concerning the governor-general but not for population growth and its consequences.

Alan Jones, PhD,
Senior Fellow
Australian Museum

On the Sunshine Coast development has destroyed a great deal of the beautiful natural surroundings that attracted people there in the first place. Native animals are being cruelly decimated by starvation and exposure.

Developers seem animated by greed alone, machinally moonscaping lots when buyer uptake has dropped to 1996 levels[1] in Australia, despite constant mass immigration. The developer lobbies have not been able to restimulate demand, even by touting for overseas immigrants and selling property to foreign investors off the plan. (That doesn't stop them charging huge fees for membership.)

Photos by Brett Clifton

We need laws to imprison developers who ruin nature but they now run our parliaments

The conduct of developers in needlessly clearing land merits new laws that would imprison them for gross vandalism, cruelty to animals and dangerous greenhouse gas generation. The main reason that Australia lacks effective laws to protect wildlife and that it seems helpless before the grotesque appetites for speculative profits of property developers is because of the Labor and Liberal Parties' huge investment in property development and financing and the cancerous presence in State parliaments of property developers or people who represent their interests over those of other citizens.

Citizens feel helpless against residential developers

James Ray, who is a resident of the Sunshine Coast, moved into a development a little while ago. He enjoyed seeing wildlife in the surrounding bushland. Although he had some idea that this bushland was also marked for development, he was shocked to see these areas cleared way ahead of lots actually being sold. He protested that this seemed premature, but also asked why buyers could not buy lots with trees retained on them and clear them only if they chose. He wrote to his council about this in an article published at http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/ancient-bush-levelled/1794757/

Why clear land brutally and unnecessarily?

There seems no good answer to this question of why clear land unnecessarily except for the corruption in parliament and of our economic system.

In fact Australia should not be clearing any more land for housing at all and it should not be artificially growing its population either. The two things are related. We have huge immigration numbers coming in all the time, inflating prices. Investors in property development lobby constantly for mass immigration. The cost of land is now so high that even this population pressure is not producing more buyers, it is simply displacing people already here, by pricing people out of the market and into homelessness, or leaving only the option of sharing with relatives or living in group houses.

What is happening to our wildlife is a weeping sore in our society. It is consuming and deforming our whole way of life. Although Queensland and West Australia are the worst for recent wildlife annihilation due to state-induced rapid population growth, the older states had already cleared too much to keep on clearing. In Victoria, the most cleared state, population growth has outpaced New South Wales due to State Government policies that ram development down the throats of local communities despite continuous protests.

Stupidly stealing habitat from native animals and the ignorance of people

It seems that the Sunshine Coast is a dark and depressing place for those who love nature. In Victoria, in an outer suburb, also called Sunshine, things are very gloomy too.

Pamela, who lives in Sunshine Victoria, and works in animal welfare, writes:

"Every time we steal more habitat from our native animals people are stupidly surprised to see kangaroos looking lost on a new vacant block where their habitat used to be. They wander down new cul-de-sacs or get hit by cars.

People come into contact with them and call them 'pests' just because they're still there.

People believe kanga numbers are 'exploding' just because they are more visible without their Australian bush to hide in for protection from humans and dogs. When the truth is their numbers are actually dwindling because of floods, dogs, dumb human hunters, vehicle strike and bushfires.

Those who spread the myths of 'ballooning populations' are only the shooters and hunters who have a vested interest in killing them.

We also have a spate of vicious attacks on kangaroos by yobbos. Kangaroos are being shot with arrows, hacked to death, beheaded, joeys are being ripped from pouches and swung against the bullbars of utes or dragged behind them until dead.

I work in animal welfare and these sorts of brutality are an ongoing problem in this country. We should be ashamed of ourselves for the way we treat the animals we proudly display on our Coat of Arms."

NOTES

[1] "House Sales Drop: The number of houses and units sold in Australia last year dropped to 256,559, the lowest level of transactions since 1996, according to RP Data. The second half was 7.6 per cent stronger than the first, but analyst Cameron Kusher said a further incease in sales would be needed to underpin more price rises." Australian Financial Review, 10-17 March 2013, p. 3. Candobetter Editorial Comment: This is a sociopathic policy, to keep housing prices up for the benefit of the few who care more about their investments than in the country, and the disbenefit of the vast majority, who go into debt and homelessness because of this Australian political and economic phenomenon that corrupt parliaments encourage.

“Mr. Rudd needs to be severely questioned on the title of his talk but the context makes this unlikely. Were he speaking in parliament or the public realm he might be questioned but his speech on Thursday will be heard at a forum of an industry known for its bias to high population growth with no practical or logical end point.” (Jill Quirk, President, SPAVicTas)

“The Urban Development Institute of Australia congress being held in Melbourne this week is a blatant exercise in talking up Melbourne’s and indeed Australia’s population for the benefit of developers rather than for the current residents,” says Jill Quirk, President of Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian and Tasmanian branch).

“In a return to the past (the year 2010) ex PM Kevin “Big Australia” Rudd, will be the keynote speaker on Thursday March 7th. His topic will be “Population growth for a stronger economy”. He would do better to find out how Melbourne residents actually feel about more population growth. Melbourne is presently groaning under the planning and environmental implications of being capital of the state with the highest numerical population increase of any in Australia, with no relief in sight.”

Miss Quirk said, “Mr. Rudd needs to be severely questioned on the title of his talk but the context makes this unlikely. Were he speaking in parliament or the public realm he might be questioned but his speech on Thursday will be heard at a forum of an industry known for its bias to high population growth with no practical or logical end point.”

President Quirk added, “Population growth is placing strong pressures on our environment and on planning. Economically it is causing reduced housing affordability and a huge need for upgrading, replacing and building infrastructure and services. It is clear that Victoria is already not keeping up with these increasing needs in the vital areas of schools, hospitals and fire and ambulance services.

Endless and high population growth is not inevitable and with the reality of an energy and resource constrained future, responsible leaders would be planning for a stable population and a steady state economy as soon as practicable. SPA hopes these issues will be raised effectively but the program and industry bias of the conference gives little hope of this.”