environment

"How thick can a political skin get?" writes Victorian wildlife ecologist, Hans Brunner.

Mr. Brumby's minister for the Environment, Gavin Jennings, turns a damning report by the Auditor-General on endangered species into receiving a “pat on the back”.

In a media report he welcomes the Auditor-General’s report and stating, “ The findings are a “pat on the back” as well as a remainder that we must continue working to protect Victoria’s unique plants and animals”, hence, nothing will change.

He has received this report with a poker face grin and treated it like water of a duck.

Here are some of the Auditor-General’s remarks:

• “ At the current rate of progress, with existing resources, it will take a further 22 years for the department to complete action statements for the 653 items currently listed threatened.”
• “ Of those threatened species listed as threatened, less than half had an action statement prepared”.
• “ The gap between listed items and items with action statements continue to widen.”
• “On the advisory list are 2249 species of flora and vertebrate fauna.”
• “ Listing decisions are compromised by a lack of reliable, up to date, scientific data and limited stakeholder participation.”
• “ The Act enables the department secretary to prepare formal plans to guide the management of threatened flora, or potentially threatening processes – NO MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED TO DATE.”
• “ This review concluded that the existing regulatory policy framework for the protection of threatened species is in need for a major overhaul.”
• “ There is no legal power to compel department or other agencies to complete the directions within action statements. Departmental staff who prepare and monitor action statements relay on GOOD WILL of other departmental and agency staff to undertake tasks in the action statements.”
• “ The full range of management processes and consideration and control measures available in the act has NOT BEEN USED.”
• “ The greatest human threat to other species is habitat loss. Accordingly, tools to protect ecologically significant areas of habitat are essential.’

The report also pointed out on numerous occasions on inefficiencies, duplications and limits of resources. What it missed to clearly highlight is that huge amount of time and money is spent on listing endangered species and the production of management plans but no further action is taken or enforced to properly rectify the problems.

A typical example is the under resourced and incompetent handling of the nationally endangered Eastern Barred- and Southern Brown Bandicoot. Further more, habitat loss is still continuing unchecked with no realistic offsets possible.

If this deserves “a pat on the back” for Mr. Brumby, ordinary, daily work would have to make him immortal.

Hans Brunner
Wildlife Ecologist, Victoria
(shown left pointing out bandicoot activity in the Frankston area, Victoria)

Photo by Brett CliftonText added by Sheila Newman

In a press release on
April Fools Day 2009,
Victoria's Minister for the Environment,
Gavin Jennings
interpreted as a 'pat on the back' a condemnatory report by the Auditor General on the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.[1] Jennings' response seems like a crude damage-control exercise. The report said "the government's lack of baseline data or output performance measures means that it is not possible to conclude whether or not the Act has achieved its primary objectives. The available data, which is patchy, indicates that it has not," and notes failure to use the conservation and control measures in the Act, inadequate listing of threatened species, failure to develop action statements, to monitor implementation of these, or to assess their effectiveness, and that penalties for offences under the Act have not been reviewed or updated and therefore are not an effective deterrent." The Minister and the Government should resign; they are a sad joke.

[1]The media release cited was from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, was dated Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, entitled, "Government welcomes auditor-general report".

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council has long said that Victoria lacks any framework within which our fauna are managed and has noted that there has never been a prosecution under the Victorian Fauna and Flora Act since it was created in 1988. Victorians who have looked and listened carefully have noted the silence in many forests once alive with song and movement, the deserted grasslands, and the corpses of kangaroos, koalas, wombats on our roads. Those of us who have tried to tackle the situation with Department of Sustainability Victoria (DSE) have also observed the avoidant, unassertive, endangered staff and ever-diminishing habitat of the biodiversity section of DSE and its encroachment by primary industries, find this comes as no surprise.

But will the backbenchers of the Bracks/Brumby government's aspirational classes come to their senses and stop chorusing on cue that Victoria is the "best place to live work and raise a family". Instead, will they stand up for their constituents on nature, justice and democracy and refuse to kowtow to hollow leaders more interested in commercially trading property and finance than good government?

Below is the summary of The Victorian Auditor General's report on the Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

1. Audit summary

1.1 Introduction

Conserving biodiversity is core to responsible environment and natural resource management and is fundamental to maintaining both quality of life and economic well-being, both now and in the future.

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the Act) is the primary Victorian legislation providing for conservation of threatened species and ecological communities, and the management of processes that threaten the sustainability Victoria's native flora and fauna. The Act establishes a listing process. Once an item is listed the Act sets out a range of management processes and conservation tools that can be implemented to protect and conserve species.

Since the Act was passed in 1988, 653 plant and animal species, communities and threatening processes have been listed.
The objective of the audit was to review the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s (the department) administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and to assess how effective the processes and actions developed under the Act have been in preserving Victoria’s native flora and fauna.

1.2 Conclusions

The full range of ‘management processes’ and ‘conservation and control measures’ available in the Act has not been used.
Action statements are the primary tools in the Act being used to protect and conserve threatened flora and fauna. However, the effort directed to listing threatened species and processes has not been matched by effort to develop action statements, to monitor the implementation of actions, or assess their effectiveness. The gap between listed items and items with action statements continues to widen.

The lack of baseline data and outcome or output performance measures means it is not possible to conclude whether the Act has achieved its primary objectives. The available data, which is patchy, indicates that it has not.

2 Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

1.3 Findings

1.3.1 The listing process

The department has invested most effort in listing threatened species. However, there is duplication of processes within the department and with the Commonwealth Government’s listing process. The time taken to list an item, while within the three year (156 weeks) timeframe specified under the Act, continues to exceed the department’s internal benchmark of 31 weeks. The internal benchmark is an optimum period that requires each stage to be completed as quickly and reasonably as possible. This benchmark could not always be met in part due to factors beyond the department’s control, such as the Scientific Advisory Committee requiring multiple meetings to consider a nomination.

Over 800 items have been nominated for listing and 653 have been listed under the Act. However the department’s ‘advisory’ list (a separate list not subject to the listing process), contains over 2 200 species of flora and vertebrate fauna. Many of the species on the advisory list are likely to satisfy the criteria for the ‘threatened’ list maintained under the Act.

The listing process while conforming with the Act is compromised by a lack of up-to-date scientific data and by limited stakeholder participation. The department’s information systems relating to conservation and biodiversity are incomplete and disjointed. Major system development and integration projects are underway to address current shortcomings.

1.3.2 Conservation tools

The various management processes, conservation and control measures available under the Act to conserve and protect flora and fauna are not being used, largely because of their perceived complexity and difficulty of administering these provisions.

The department has relied on provisions in other environmental legislation, strategies, policies and plans in preference to those available under the Act to conserve and protect flora and fauna.

While ‘action statements’ are mandatory, their development and finalisation has been protracted. There is no time limit in the Act for these tools to be finalised—‘as soon as possible’ is the time standard set. At the current rate of progress, with existing resources, it will take a further 22 years for the department to complete action statements for the 653 items currently listed as threatened.

1.3.3

The Act The Act was reviewed by the department in 2002. This review concluded that ‘the existing regulatory and policy framework for the protection of threatened species in Victoria is in need of a major overhaul.’ A number of recommendations to improve the Act resulted from this review, but no amendments to the Act have been made.

Audit summary Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 3 The state government’s April 2008 green paper, Land and Biodiversity at a Time of Climate Change, acknowledges the need for legislative reform (State and Federal) and the proposed white paper will identify the extent to which legislative change is required.

1.4 Recommendations The department should:

• review the internal timeframes it sets for listing, against the resources it applies and the processes it adopts, to confirm they are realistic

• continue to build its knowledge-base on threatened species, causes of their decline and how best to mitigate threats to them; and expedite the transfer of information held on manual files to the ABC system

• formalise its collaboration on conservation activity with the Federal Government and seek a joint agreement to eliminate duplication in the listing process (Recommendation 4.1).

The department should:

• assess the resources it applies to developing, monitoring and reviewing action statements and establish a prioritised action plan to address the backlog of listed items with no action statements
• include in new and revised action statements the processes by which it will monitor progress and evaluate the effectiveness of each initiative within the action statement • review the efficacy of conservation and protection tools available under the Act
• assess whether the listing process is the most effective and efficient means of protecting species and communities
• develop a suite of output efficiency and outcome effectiveness measures to monitor and assess its conservation efforts (Recommendation 5.1)."

The Report can be downloaded here

Photos of Tasmanian Devils are from this wonderful you-tube movie by Chris Coupland of a devil in the snow at Cradle Mountain. (The music may not be to everyone's taste but it suits the devil's walk.) Note that Tasmania's devils are so inbred due to isolation that somewhere round half now suffer from a fatal mouth cancer. For this reason vigilance must be of highest order.

Fauna protection in every state is a disaster!

Victoria isn't the only state that has received terrible criticism of their administering of fauna protection laws.
You only have to google for Auditor Generals' reports on fauna to come up with them for most or all states in Australia. Here are some examples:

Tasmanian Government

Threatened Species Report, Auditor-General of Australia, March 2009
http://www.audit.tas.gov.au/publications/reports/specialreport/pdfs/specialreport78.pdf

A damning report on the state of Tasmania's rare and endangered species by Australia's Auditor-General, was released in March, 2009 and among may issues notes how only 2 of Tasmania's threatened species have full recovery plans in place.

Tasmania's Southern Forests are habitat-in-crisis for many of these species.

“It was pleasing to find evidence that private forest covenants had been numericallyeffective but that only two public authority management agreements, which provide an effective mechanism to allow public sector entities to commit to arrangements for management of species and habitats, had been made.

Another concern was that the existing organisational structure did not encourage a strategic approach to conservation of threatened species, their habitats and the threatsconfronting them. However, a divisional plan with clearly defined objectives exists and performance against the plan was regularly monitored and results published.
The Report includes 19 recommendations primarily aimed at introducing a structuredand prioritised approach to managing Tasmania’s threatened species with a focus on assessing implementation plans and monitoring progress.”

West Australian Government

West Australia:
10 June 2009
Auditor General finds number of threatened species increasing and few are improving (West Australia)

With WA’s list of threatened species now over 600 and rising, Auditor General Colin Murphy has found that recovery action is not happening for most, and few are improving.

In his report tabled in Parliament today titled, Rich and Rare: Conservation of Threatened Species, Mr Murphy found that, in many areas, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is not providing effective protection and recovery to WA’s threatened flora and fauna.

“Only a handful of threatened species are actually recovering, while the number of species on the list continues to grow,” Mr Murphy said.

“My office has found that only one in five threatened fauna, and fewer than half of threatened flora species have recovery plans, and those plans that are in place are often not fully implemented.”

The report also found that DEC’s $8.2 million threatened species program prioritises recovery plans and actions towards critically endangered species, leaving vulnerable and endangered species at increased risk of decline.

A major obstacle to DEC’s performance is the long delay in drafting a Biodiversity Conservation Act, to replace the existing Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. DEC has pursued updated legislation for over 20 years.

The current legislation restricts DEC’s ability to effectively conserve threatened species; existing protection measures are largely inadequate, and DEC does not have the power to access threatened species on private property to implement much-needed conservation action.

The report found that multi-species approaches to conservation can be effective in dealing with the growing number of threatened species.

“DEC is undertaking a number of multi-species approaches. For example, the Western Shield program has improved the status of several native mammals,” Mr Murphy said.

“DEC is also acquiring land to secure species habitat, but less than half the nationally agreed target has been reserved in WA.”

The Auditor General’s report found a number of other areas for improvement, particularly:

* DEC cannot demonstrate that all of its threatened species conservation activities are effective.
* DEC has not identified habitat critical to the survival of all threatened species.
* State and Commonwealth threatened species lists are not aligned and 190 WA species do not receive protection from the Commonwealth Government.

“Increasing numbers of threatened species and the size of WA present a significant challenge for DEC,” Mr Murphy said.

“Achieving the right balance between programs which benefit large numbers of species at once, with those targeted at individual species’ needs, will be critical.”

[image from Sheila Newman & wikipedia] ScienceDaily (Feb. 2, 2009) — "The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has released photos from the first large-scale census of jaguars in the Amazon region of Ecuador—one of the most biologically rich regions on the planet.
The ongoing census, which began in 2007, is working to establish baseline population numbers as oil exploration and subsequent development puts growing pressure on wildlife in Ecuador's Yasuni National Park and adjacent Waorani Ethnic Reserve. Together, these two protected areas make up some 6,500 square miles (16,800 square kilometers) of wilderness."

Mother Nature recognised at law

In September 2008 Ecuador became the first country in the world to declare constitutional rights to nature, thus codifying a new system of environmental protection. Original Article source.

Reflecting the beliefs and traditions of the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, the constitution declares that nature “has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” This right, the constitution states, “is independent of the obligation on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people that depend on the natural systems.”

Nature not just an object for economic appropriation

The new constitution redefines people’s relationship with nature by asserting that nature is not just an object to be appropriated and exploited by people, but is rather a rights-bearing entity that should be treated with parity under the law.

Mari Margil, Associate Director of the Environmental Legal Defense Fund, worked closely over the past year with members of Ecuador’s constitutional assembly on drafting legally enforceable Rights of Nature, which mark a watershed in the trajectory of environmental law.

Ecuador’s leadership on this issue may have a global domino effect. Margil says that her organization is busy fielding calls from interested countries, such as Nepal, which is currently writing its first constitution.

Flawed by failure to mandate indigenous community consultation

For all of the hope and tangible progress the Rights of Nature articles in Ecuador’s constitution represent, however, there are shortcomings and contradictions with the laws and the political reality on the ground. A fundamental flaw in the constitution also exists due to Correa’s refusal to include a clause mandating free, prior, and informed consent by communities for development project that would affect their local ecosystems.

“I expect them [the multinational extractive industries] to fight it,” says Margil. “Their bread and butter is based on being able to treat countries and ecosystems like cheap hotels. Multinational corporations are dependent on ravaging the planet in order to increase their bottom line.”

Mining treats countries and ecosystems like cheap hotels

Investigation of Texaco [Caltex in Australia] oil-exploration in the Amazon.

The new Mining Law, introduced by Ecuador’s own President Rafael Correa and backed by Canadian companies, which hold the majority of mining concessions in Ecuador, is a testament to Margil’s forecast. The Mining Law would allow for large-scale, open pit metal mining in pristine Andean highlands and Amazon rainforest. Major nationwide demonstrations are being held in protest, with groups accusing Correa of inviting social and environmental disaster by selling out to mining interests.

Carlos Zorrilla, executive director of Defensa y Conservación Ecológica de Intag, who has been a tireless defender of the environment against transnational mining companies, says that while the new constitution looks good on paper, “in practice governments like Correa’s will argue that funding his political project, which will bring ‘well being and relieve poverty,’ overrules the rights of nature.”

Yet even as Ecuadoran President Correa embraces the extractive economic model of development, the inclusion of the rights of nature in a national constitution sets inspiring and revolutionary precedent. If history is any indicator, Ecuadorians will successfully fight for the Rights of Nature, with or without their president.

U.S. Media: Update by Cyril Mychalejko

When Ecuadorians drafted and passed a new constitution, which gave nature inalienable rights, the US media largely ignored this historic development. In the case of the Los Angeles Times, one of the few mainstream outlets to cover the story, the newspaper’s editorial board trivialized the development (“Putting Nature in Ecuador’s Constitution,” September 2, 2008) by suggesting it sounded “like a stunt by the San Francisco City Council” and that it seemed “crazy.”

“As ecological systems around the world collapse, we need to fundamentally change our relationship with nature. This requires changes in both law and culture, and ultimately our behavior as part of nature,” said Mari Margil, Associate Director of the Defense Fund, who is disappointed in how the US media largely ignored the story.

In Ecuador, at the time of the constitutional vote, the optimism over how the “Rights of Nature” clauses would translate into policy was guarded.
“As exciting as these developments are, it was also inevitable that the people in power would, and will, find ways to circumvent, undermine, and ignore those rights,” said Carlos Zorrilla, executive director of Defensa y Conservación Ecológica de Intag.

Multi-national mining companies dangerously influence national laws

According to Zorrilla, a major disappointment has been President Rafael Correa’s new mining law.

“The law takes rights-to-nature loopholes and widens them so that giant dirt movers could easily drive through them,” said Zorrilla, who has been working with communities of Ecuador’s Intag region to resist mining and promote sustainable development. “To mention a couple of examples, the law does not prohibit large-scale mining in habitats harboring endangered species, nor the dumping of heavy metals in rivers and streams.”
See also,"Ecuador Rising"..

Indigenous leaders file law-suit

Indigenous leaders responded by filing a lawsuit before Ecuador’s Constitutional Court in March 2009, seeking to overturn the mining law, which they believe is unconstitutional. Article 1 of the “Rights of Nature” clauses states: “Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution.”

Regardless of the ongoing struggles to ensure that the true meaning and scope of the constitution is upheld, Dr. Mario Melo, a lawyer specializing in Environmental Law and Human Rights and an advisor to Fundación Pachamama-Ecuador, believes that the nature clauses which reflect the traditions of indigenous peoples could offer a path to an ecologically sustainable future.

Rights to nature = progress

“I consider that the recognition of the ‘Rights to Nature’ as a progress on a global scale and one that deserves to be globally broadcast and commented on as a contribution from Ecuador towards the search of new ways of facing the environmental crisis due to climate change.”

The struggles of Ecuadorian social movements and the Ecuadorian government to uphold the “Rights of Nature” and to create a new development model that places human beings as interdependent parts of nature, rather than dominant exploiters of nature, is something we should continue to monitor and learn from.

Source:
Upside Down World, September 25, 2008
Title: “Ecuador’s Constitution Gives Rights to Nature”
Author: Cyril Mychalejko
and
Project Censored
Student Researcher: Chelsea Davis
Faculty Evaluator: Elaine Wellin, PhD
Sonoma State University

This TV ad takes the cake. Have you seen it? It is paid for by an organization that calls itself “Alliance for Life” (Ontario). It is a “provincial coordinating organization” of some 44 affiliates which, surprise surprise, includes seven Christian denominations, of which, another shocker, five are Catholic. Most interesting is an organization calling itself the “Population Research Institute”, founded of course by a priest, Father Paul Marx. Its mission? “...to expose the myth of overpopulation, to expose human rights abuses committed in population control programs.”

The Alliance, meanwhile, claims to present “a united voice for the dignity and worth of all human beings from conception/fertilization to natural death.” I can personally attest to the kind of dignity in death to which they are referring. My brother writhed in agony for months from terminal cancer, and repeatedly indicated that he wanted to die. But his Christian fundamentalist doctor was too concerned with his dignity to assist him in executing his wishes, and so my brother was forced to suffer without the ability to swallow or control his bowels. This conduct is sanctioned by the Alliance for “Life” as “morally and ethically acceptable”.

And of course, the Criminal Code, built on this kind of “morality”, stands behind them. This is the cultural “heritage” which some Canadian anti-immigrationists are intent upon saving. They are the people who grasp at environmental reasons for limiting immigration, but then turn around and advocate more birth incentives for native-born Canadians, most of whom are self-described Christians. Their objective is an ancient one. “Grow the tribe and screw carrying capacity.” So how does the Alliance for Life present its case on television?

The ad features children playing, when in a stroke, one in four of them vanish from the screen. This is to simulate the number of “children” or “babies” destroyed since the abortion law was struck down in 1988. That’s right. After 20 years the Christian right still doesn’t get it. They don’t understand the difference between a baby and a foetus. Between a life and a potential life. I once bought a lottery ticket, and I discovered that there was a substantial difference between a ticket that had the potential of winning the jackpot and one that actually did. It only took one purchase for me to figure that out. But then my learning curve is rather shorter and higher than a Bible-thumper’s I think.

But the Alliance for “Life” , or more aptly, the Alliance for the Increased Quantity of Life (rather than Quality of Life) is animated by different logic. They claim that since one-quarter of all pregnancies were terminated in Canada since the abortion law was passed, young Canadians are “missing” 3 million of their friends. Think of what a difference they would have made, they ask. Over to you Julian Simon. Another Sydney Crosby, or 100 cancer researchers, or 10,000 teachers perhaps. Forget the extra criminals, dead beats and real estate speculators. The more “life” we have the better. After all, “people” are our greatest resource.

Yeah sure. But each Canadian member of that “resource” emits, on average, 23 metric tonnes of green house gas (GHG), consumes 3 million tons of metals, minerals and fuel per year, and produces more than 150 pounds of waste annually as well. So what would those 3 million “missing” friends bring us? For starters, about 65% more GHG emissions than the tar sands produce, and about half the farmland that has been developed to accommodate the New Canadians that have arrived since the abortion law was enacted. And let us not forget the number of non-human species that would have been obliterated by the bulldozer to clear the way. Do you still miss those 3 million potential consumers now?

Each extra Canadian, whether he or she enters the country through the hospital or through the airport, diminishes the per capita share of non-renewable resources that existing Canadians enjoy. Even if the extra 3 million would have spurred more economic growth---a proposition refuted by two or three studies so far---that growth is still contingent on the supply of cheap fossil fuel and rapidly scarce minerals and metals upon which an industrial economy depends. More people does not mean a higher per capita GDP, and even if it did, the economic foundation upon which our inflated population rests is built on quicksand. The bigger we are, the harder we’ll fall. Triple digit oil will kill our transportation system and our ability to grow, harvest, transport and refrigerate our food. If we continue to grow our economy and grow our population, many more of us will starve, freeze and die, along with the flora and fauna we take down with us.

What is really required is an advertisement showing the number of various species on a screen, and those that disappear with each increment of the human population. Christians are fond of justifying the Biblical mandate for humans to exercise dominion over all God’s creatures by stressing our obligation to be wise stewards. That is a difficult task when the human population, to Catholic and evangelical cheerleading, has nearly tripled its size in my lifetime and is shrinking wildlife habitat relentlessly and mercilessly. Whether a primate’s life begins at conception or not, there are now fewer primates in existence than there are human beings born in any given day. If each one of God’s 214,000 miracles born each day is precious, what of the tens or hundreds of thousands of non human life forms that are murdered that day by our expansion? Yes, 100 species are lost each day. But many more life forms are killed than that each day. How many? Who knows? Each and every day we are breeding our life support system into the ground.

It is in this sense, then, that the Alliance for Life is the Alliance for Death.

Tim Murray
December 26/09
PS Happy New Year to Canada’s greatest and most effective environmentalist, Dr. Henry Morgenthaler.

I understand that Australia, if it keeps to its present course, is projected to grow its population by some 14 million people, or 65%, in just 25 years. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong of the growthist Labor administration of Kevin Rudd, was asked this question on September 21/09:

Interviewer:
"Minister, Australia's population is projected to increase by 65% to the level of 30m people by 2050. During that same period, the government is committed to cutting our carbon emissions by 60%. Aren't those goals or those facts mutually exclusive? How are we going to massively cut carbon as our population continues to massively grow?"

Penny Wong:
"Well, absolutely not, because the key issue with reducing emissions is that we have to de-link our levels of carbon pollution from economic growth and population growth. We have to ... Whereas the last few hundred years emissions growth - that is, growth in our carbon pollution - has essentially tracked our population and economic growth, we have to break that link and that the whole world has to break that link and so does Australia. So the key issue here is breaking that link, not, not trying to reduce population." Source: http://candobetter.org/node/1563

Letter to the Minister:

Penny, I have a weight problem. My doctor tells me that if I persist in eating a litre of ice-cream every day, I will increase my weight by 65% in just 25 months. But since it is chocolate ice-cream, I feel it is racist to pin the blame for my growing girth on it. I also feel that it is possible to “de-couple” my weight gain from my caloric intake.

In fact, while I now wolf down 4,000 calories a day, I believe that I should look forward to doubling that intake by 2035. I need a caloric stimulus package that will kick-start my body and brain from its current slow-down. I can compensate for any negative consequences by metabolizing the ice cream more efficiently. I call it “smart gluttony”, and already the environmental movement is wanting to adopt the phrase as a slogan for their “green living” tips.

If I buy green-coloured ice cream, lime-flavoured, it would be a symbolic statement of my fresh approach to a sustainable future for my body. As we know, cosmetic labeling in and of itself usually suffices for a substantive policy shift.

Ms. Wong, I must congratulate you for your faith in human ingenuity. Julian Simon was right. Malthusians chronically underestimate our intelligence. With enough brainpower, we can have our cake (or ice cream) and eat it too. Ice cream that doesn’t consist of calories. Growth that doesn’t result in carbon emissions. The Peter Pan School of Greenwash. Make a wish that growth will have no ecological cost, and that wish will make it true. Pure magic. Hey, I have seen that trick played in Canada too. We signed on to the Kyoto accords in 1990 with the promise that we would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 6% by 2012 but by 2006 we were 22% beyond our emissions level in 1990. Of course, that had nothing to do with the fact that immigrant-driven growth has increased our population level by 22% (27.7 to 33.7 million today). Like the environmental establishment, we simply ‘de-coupled’ our imagination from reality. Population growth, where? Who cares? Perhaps we could become a race of 15 billion “breatharians” who simply subsist on air in a world where thirst is decoupled from water use and hunger is decoupled from food use. As our population grows, so grows the pool of our ideas. The sky is the limit!

Oh to be young again. Hopeful, credulous and cornucopian.

Tim Murray

Population growth out of balance with nature on Sunshine Coast

Attempting to find the balance in the debate about population growth isn’t realistic as exponential growth will always present detrimental environmental, social and economic imbalance. It also won’t be achieved in an equitable way as the biodiversity and liveability of the region is already under acute stress. The stark reality is that development on the Sunshine Coast has degraded environmental values to the point where ‘critical threshold’ has been exceeded. The damage is already irreversible. Adding 200,000 more people is hardly going to reverse this devastating trend.

The coast cannot handle any more development or people

Sonia Marshall, campaigner at the Sunshine Coast Environment Council said “A glance at the SCRC Biodiversity Strategy will tell you that there is only 42% of remnant vegetation left on the coast. Development due to rapid population growth is fast encroaching on what is left. The coast can’t handle any more development or people without consequences. If we lose our environmental values, then we also face serious economic and social impacts. For example, recent data collected by Sunshine Coast Tourism indicates that 56% of tourists are drawn to the area to experience nature. Those visitors will be deterred if we have poor quality natural experiences or ambience to offer. The Sunshine Coast’s ecosystems play a huge role in the triple bottom line approach and in the community’s corporate plan vision– vibrant, green and diverse.”

Development industry's perceived financial imperatives can never justify destruction of natural capital

The development industry would have us believe that continued development is the panacea for the global financial crisis, yet their efforts continue to draw down the natural capital on which we fundamentally rely and do not equate to financial prosperity. Tactics to avoid the need to restrict development are also unacceptable.

Environmental offsets primitive and unreliable

“We can’t expect that environmental offsets will always work. The State’s offset policies are in their infancy and lack detail. In many cases, these policies facilitate development in core habitat areas, yet the development lobby wants more. Replacing remnant vegetation with a development accompanied by generous tree plantings might look good, but doesn’t adequately offset the damage. You can’t knock over mature koala food trees and replace them with seedlings. It will take years for the revegetated ecosystem to be able to support koalas again. Meanwhile the local koala population have taken yet another blow from development and their numbers decline even further. There are also other impacts such as the sediment runoff from land cleared for development, which can sit bare for several years before construction begins. This is having a massive impact on our waterways. The implications and cost of using techno fixes to reverse all the damage is horrendous” Ms Marshall explained.

Opening floodgates to development won't fix housing crisis

The Sunshine Coast community is being shot in the foot by the State Government’s ‘gung-ho’ attitude towards development at the behest of self-interest by the development industry. Opening the floods gates for development won’t fix a housing affordability crisis. Developers hold the land and release it when the price is right. Land banking has assured a steady stream of profit will be enjoyed at the expense of the wider community. Further unbridled development will equate to degrading our life style by eroding the natural beauty of the area. The science and the practicalities of inadequate infrastructure dictate a much more conservative approach.

There is no more give in the eco-system; population growth and development must now stop

Our ecosystems are too far gone and time is running out. The necessary and achievable action is to halt population growth to sustainable levels, protect and enhance what we have and diversify to the imperatives of sustainability. It’s is the only way that the Sunshine Coast will achieve the triple bottom line.

MEDIA RELEASE from the Sunshine Coast Environment Council
Tuesday 15th December 2009

Source of small picture with coat-hanger in teaser was http://new.savethecourt.org/content/womens-rights

I am frankly sick and tired of growth-promoters raising the spectre of “coercive population measures” whenever a suggestion is made that we must promote family planning or smaller families. Is there some sacred reason why fertility should not be limited if deemed necessary? In a world of 6.8 billion people going on 9 or 10 billion, or in any nation suffering from exponential population growth, there can be no “pro-creative” right.

This must not be confused with “reproductive” rights. Women should have the right not to have children. But they have no right, in the context of overshoot, to have as many children as they or their husbands want. The “right to choose” cannot be the right to abuse. Even the most jealously guarded right must be measured against equally fundamental rights, most especially the right of our species, and others, to live.

I have, at present, the "right" to drive a car. But I do not have a right to drive it over the speed limit. And it is society that establishes that limit, not me. Indeed, if society determines that there are too many people driving cars, it has the moral right to impose petroleum taxes, restrict parking permits and spaces, put tolls on highways and bridges and employ an assortment of other measures to discourage me from driving. I similarly have the right to go fishing, but I don't have the right to catch as many fish as I may like. In the face of shortages, we have come to accept that our collective right to achieve sustainability supersedes any individual “right”. The number of consumers who will compete for critically scarce resources is surely every bit as important as the number of people who go fishing and how many fish they catch. If there is a licence needed to fish, why should there not, in principle at least, be a licence required to inflict a child upon the rest of society? Am I advocating “coercion”? Absolutely. Coercion if necessary, but not necessarily coercion. Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon, if voluntary efforts, yet to be exhausted, prove ineffective. But would fertility controls represent the introduction of coercion where none presently exists? Absolutely not.

Let's get real. A great many women in the undeveloped world at least, are having children precisely because they are coerced. Coerced by husbands, priests and mullahs to have more than the number they want. Coerced by their cultural programming to give male wishes greater priority than their own. Coerced by their lack of access to birth control information, and by the denial of educational opportunities. This is where coercion makes itself most present. Not in China. Not by communist bureaucrats and law-makers. But by the dictates of domestic and religious patriarchal power.

And what of my rights? What about my right not to see my share of non-renewable resources diminished by the “personal” decision of the couple down the street to have an unnecessary child? Did they consult me about their decision to conceive another Canadian, an earth-trampling shopping machine who emits 23 metric tonnes of carbon each year, consumes 40,000 pounds of metals and minerals and accounts for over 150 pounds of curb side waste each day? Did they submit an application to the local planning authority or town council for a permit to stress the environment even further than it is being stressed? Why is their “right” to create more life considered more fundamental than our right to sustain the life that is already here? Why should the human population level of a country or a planet be subject to the whimsy and haphazard “personal” decisions of fertile individuals? Why must they replicate their own genes? Why are so many children forced to live in orphanages, foster homes and on the squalid streets of sprawling cities to fend for themselves while irrational ego-trippers generate more children just because they want to raise someone with the same pair of ears or eyes as they have? Children do not have to share your genes to share your love.

I wouldn't dream of telling anyone to have a child. So why would anyone tell me that I should move over for theirs? To paraphrase Hilary Clinton, it takes a whole ecosystem to raise a child, and as a charter member of it, I have the right to participate in the decisions that affect me. On an overloaded planet anybody's pregnancy is everybody's business. For every extra billion we grow in number, another 200 billion tonnes of Green House Gases are emitted, and to effectively reduce emissions, we must, among other things, reduce the number of emitters. Unfettered procreative rights are of little value on a dead planet. Beyond a certain point, parenthood is not a service but an imposition, not only upon humanity, but disproportionately upon the most disempowered and poorest part of it, the very people whom many Western feminists and human rights crusaders are most concerned with. How can an unsustainable population level enhance their rights? Can anyone seriously contend that the sum total of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies does not restrict personal autonomy more than the most intrusive family planning program? Or maintain that the absence of effective birth control is not the most coercive regime that women can suffer?

Just who is coercing whom?

Tim Murray, Quadra Island, BC

Property Council of Australia "Nation Building Congress 2008"

This conference affords many insights into the values and sophistication of the growth lobby community, which has such undue influence over the lives and freedom of Australians, with an impact that extends world-wide. The pressures for high immigration and massive urban expansion from this lobby group are responsible for the quasi-normalisation of a declining quality of life, freedom and natural environment in Australia.

Short review of some of the content of films from this conference.

Immigration

In this particular segment, entitled, "Immigration", Bob Carr reminds me of a man gingerly attempting to convey the concept of vegetarianism to a community of cannibals.

"Immigration - a social good. On economic terms - neutral. But, on ecological terms, on environmental terms - very very high risk, for a country that resembles Northern Africa."

The Property Council and the Prime Minister cannot say that they were not warned.

"Vision"

Bob Carr gave good value in the so-called "Vision" section of the congress as well.

"I was reminded of what John Kenneth Galbraith said, that the ruling caste of any country will just blithely identify its interests with those of the nation."

Some of the comments preceding his were of the cart before the horse variety, for instance, one young person indignant that government didn't just name a goal then work out how to get there in the Rudd 2020 summit. That seems to sum up the PCA tunnel-vision, actually. Hard to imagine how Rudd can be seen to fail them; they were the ones invited to his 2020 summit [it wasn't Australia's summit] and his Big Australia 'vision' seems made to order for the PCA - or a psychiatric facility, unless you allow for a religious belief in human destiny to 'progress' materially forever.

Environment

The remarks below are also in the 'vision' clip above.

Whatever objections may be raised about Carr's government record in New South Wales, his comments in the "Environment" section are worth recording, as I have done below.

"I think there's some very useful stuff ... for instance in the South Australian plan on biodiversity, it says, 'Objective number one: lose no known native species as a result of human impact.'

Now, that is a terrific goal; that is a quite inspiring goal, to say, 'We're going to draw a line over the dramatic loss of species that has occurred since 1788.'"

Stabbing his finger at a document, for emphasis, he says, kindly but forcefully: "It's going to be hard to implement."

One is reminded of an overworked schoolmaster trying to get four-year-olds to focus on the difficulty they will encounter in building and testing a rocket to Mars during the Xmas break.

He continues:

"And, a challenge for this industry sector, is that you might only achieve this by calling a halt to development that's going to achieve other objectives in the plan - for example, housing affordability. You might have to say, 'The only way we achieve this objective is by protecting as bushland land that would otherwise have gone to urban expansion on Adelaide's fringe'. So, the challenge for people who are enthusiastic about plans is that one inspiring objective can undercut another inspiring objective. So you get back to the 'old rule of politics'. 'Politics is a choice between different goods; between different good outcomes. Or, politics, as one American put it, is choosing between the unfortunate and the catastrophic.'"

(Gurgling from the audience.)

"Very often it is," Carr insists. "Or, as Henry Kissinger put it, about decision-making in the White House, 'Most decisions are made on the basis of a calculation that's 51 to 49'. So, your plans ... I think your plans are useful in providing an agenda for the minister and his or her head of department, so you can say, 'How are we going on this front. How are we going on that front? But it doesn't overcome the traditional tension of the political process."

Apart from Bob Carr's very important example of biodiversity, in this series of conference recordings, most of the participants seem to understand 'the environment', at most, as limited to climate change considerations.

Energy strategies

Energy strategies are discussed, disclosing a poor understanding of what 'renewables' (flow energies) can deliver and the state of nuclear breeder reactor development. Bob Carr seemed to be the most technically knowledgeable of the people in the video, yet he talks as if we already have Generation IV reactors, (whereas they are only experimental) and he also says that it might be 20 years or more before renewables "could conceivably" supply base-load energy ... 'infinitely available energy'. Film clip on energy from the congress

He was probably thinking of deep geothermal, but there is not guarantee that we will overcome the technological problems of how to get water back when it is sent down immensely deep lateral drill-holes in rock.

Carr explains the policy of intensifying development and population density around train stations as a means of planning for peak oil, whereas the usual explanation for this style of development intensification in Victoria is to accommodate population growth. Carr also tries to convey the growing unmanagability of population growth and development, saying that we are running at high risk environmentally, of collapse of the Murray Darling Basin and running out of water, so it is very high risk to grow the population. He says that he would lower immigration, although he says he knows this is

"like going into the lion's den in the Property Council and poking it in the eye."

Carr describes the NSW Government as having needed to 'force' people in Karingai, Sydney to accommodate intensification around railways. Carr blames the previous Howard government for the high immigration which is causing this problem. This chilling admission of the adoption of force seems to be accepted with no difficulty by the big population advocates of the Property Council of Australia. Indeed, this will come as no surprise to anyone who has been observing the damage to democracy involved in forced population growth all over Australia in the past few years. There is more talk about moving people around as if they were cattle without any citizens' rights. Population growth is never questioned. (Note that there is a 'Population Debate congress' scheduled for March 2010 when the PCA will no doubt expect to dictate the terms and have its own way as usual.Film clip here)

From these film records of the 2008 congress, one gets a glimpse of the intellectual level and educational scope of participants. One should not overestimate the capacity of this group to understand the democratic consequences of their behaviour, the concept of human rights to self-government, and the impact of their (enormously energy and material-intensive activities). Going by the tenor of Carr's explanations to them, they need education in the absolute basics of Australia's ecology and human rights. We know that the people in the property development lobby range from engineers with good understanding of the thermodynamics of building materials - but who seem to be naive about energy technologies - and probably have almost no idea of biological ecological systems, through to accountants, financiers and land-bankers, who may have had the narrowest of educations, lacking even science. In short, a population that has lived to one side of the world that people who love nature and freedom value. In that mix there must also exist some outstanding individuals - and maybe even some who have some idea of what we are all up against. If so, they have yet to make their impact in the industry lobby forums, and one cannot imagine their opinion being welcome in a self-satisfied organisation which expects to have its cake and eat it.

The Property Council You-Tube Channel is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Propertyoz#p/u/193/dzE-wa9viMM. More reviews by other writers would be useful for candobetter.org

Meeting 29 November - details end of story

Overpopulation will worsen if government has its way

Australia's population is now rising at about 2% per annum. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced that our population could rise to 35 million by the middle of the century. Other experts estimate that 35 million is a conservative figure and it could be more like 40 million. It is certain that If the current growth rate continues, the population will double in 35 years. That means our population would be 44 million by 2045.

Natural and Vital resources becoming rare and unaffordable

Australia's environment is under stress already with 22 million people. Not enough water reaches the mouth of the Murray River to keep the lakes of the Coorong alive. In Victoria water restrictions prevail and a desalination plant is being built. This means there is not enough fresh water in the state for people's current needs.

Who do our leaders represent?

Why are our political leaders so pleased about the level of population growth when it causes so many logistical and environmental problems?

Democracy now

A handful of politicians voice an opposing view to the prevailing glee about growth.

The Hon.Kelvin Thomson MHR for Wills is notable amongst these.

Come and hear Kelvin Thomson speak on:

- "Population reform- Political challenges"

When?
3.00p.m. Sunday November 29th 2009

Where?

Meeting Room 1 North Melbourne Library (upstairs) 66 Errol Street, North Melbourne

(next to the Town Hall and Post Office near the corner of Errol and Queensberry St. (Parking usually available in surrounding streets.) Tram No 57 from Elizabeth St. travels along Errol St.

All welcome ! This is a public meeting held by
Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch)

Please join us for afternoon tea and meet Kelvin Thomson afterwards.

contact

Jill Quirk President: Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch)
[email protected] (If that doesn't work messages will be forwarded from astridnova[AT]gmail.com)

0409742927

World Wetlands Day

World Wetlands Day is celebrated each year on 2 February to mark the anniversary of the signing of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) in Ramsar, Iran, 1971.

Australia was one of the first countries to sign the Ramsar Convention and designated the world's first Wetland of International Importance, Cobourg Peninsula Aboriginal Land and Wildlife Sanctuary in the Northern Territory, in 1974. Australia has 65 Wetlands of International Importance, covering approximately 7.5 million hectares. A report from the previous government says Australia has 65 wetlands of world significance listed under the Ramsar treaty, but water management requirements of only 11 sites are known in any detail. Roughly half of Australia's Ramsar wetlands are not adequately mapped, and information is so disorganised.

Report on Rising sea levels

AUSTRALIA must create a new, expanded network of protected wetlands around its coastline or see many bird, animal and plant species become extinct as sea levels rise, a recent House of Representatives report says. While coastal areas appear to be the worst hit, it found
Kakadu National Park is particularly vulnerable.

The Northern Territory Environment Centre's Stuart Blanch says storm surges can already push saltwater tens of kilometers up nearby rivers and the risk will increase with rising sea levels.

The report was made by House of Representatives standing committee, chaired by Labor MP Jennie George. Her recommendations include calls for greater protection for coastal wetland, the increase in size of coastal buffer zones and the creation of pathways for migration of animals. If adopted, any perceived threat to the Great Sandy Strait Ramsar wetlands from the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam would effectively kill off the $1.8 billion project. That the dam will have “minimal downstream impacts” is being touted despite of the fact that even very preliminary assessments highlighted probable impacts on Ramsar wetlands, and numerous studies since have shown this to be the case. However, with Anna Bligh's growth at all costs, how far will our Federal "environment" minister take seriously recommendations contrary to growth?

The Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts is calling for the classifying more coastal wetlands as sites of international significance under the Ramsar convention.

Third wave of extinctions

Wetlands support high levels of biological diversity and they are amongst the richest ecosystems on this planet. According to environmentalist Tim Flannery, we are heading towards a third wave of extinctions. However, "so miserable is the funding, and so immense the task, that species are slipping away before (scientists') eyes, even in the best-protected wildernesses".

According to Birds Australia, many species, such as waders and other waterbirds, are threatened by changes to wetlands and coastal environments. These can be in the form of altered environmental flows, drainage of wetlands, and reduced water quality through salinisation.
(Australian pelican)

Ramsar listed wetlands significant for waterbirds

The lake systems, particularly the Ramsar listed wetlands, are important for waterbird conservation. Victoria's Western Port has several marine national parks and is internationally recognised under Ramsar as a wetland of significance for migratory birds.

Conservation vs Development

Since European settlement, Victoria has lost more than 37 per cent of its wetland areas to degrading processes such as land clearing and draining. An alarming 90 per cent of this loss has occurred on private land. Strong population growth is projected for areas within our own Geelong to Ballarat corridor, and coastal areas proximal to Geelong including Ramsar wetlands near Lara and on the Bellarine Peninsula. About 18,000 Western Port properties valued at nearly $2 billion are considered vulnerable to flood. Nationwide, more than 700,000 coastal properties with a combined worth of about $150 billion are potentially at risk, the report finds. This is where housing expansion and further developments are happening, and this is not Kakadu but close to home!
Impacts from residential and commercial developments in wetland areas include urban run-off, loss of species and the risk of wandering domestic animals impacting on the site.

Serendip wildlife sanctuary threatened by developers

Serendip is a wildlife sanctuary situated in the foothills of the You Yangs and is a fantastic place to view some of our more special native animals. Being only 25 minutes from Geelong or just over half an hour from the centre of Melbourne. Serendip has had world wide recognition for many of its breeding programs including two of the states rarest birds Australian Bustards and Bush Thick-knees. However, the council has labelled land near the sanctuary to be "high priority for residential development"! Residents near the site have said previously that a housing subdivision could be disastrous for Serendip's breeding programs, with the possibility of cats and dogs on the loose.

Mr Garrett has one job and in that job he is to protect the environment. Instead of surveys, habitat conservation and breeding programs, "business as usual" is the normal approach!

Australia's shame - possible Ramsar delisting

In the nearly 40-year history of the Ramsar Convention, the possible delisting of the Coorong would give us a very special black mark for being the first country to delist a site of this size due to mismanagement. If the predictions are correct the Coorong could become more saline than the Dead Sea, the site will be unrecoverable.
A member of the Ramsar task force says the lower lakes of the drought-hit Murray could be delisted also as wetlands of international significance. Logging continues to provide jobs and income for local communities. The forests include wetlands listed under the international Ramsar Convention and the NPA argued that the habitat of federally-listed endangered species was at risk.
Dairy production takes place in all states, but it is particularly significant in Victoria, where more than 60 per cent of all dairy farming enterprises are located. It is no wonder that South Australia's end of the Murray-Darling Basin is drying up as it is being consumed before it reaches the Coorong!
(Coorong Salt Creek)

Consumption of users vs entitlement of the environment

Victoria in spending tens of millions of dollars trying to improve water penetration to parched Red Gum forests on the Murray River. Of the 31 billion litres of "environment" delivered last year,
18.5 billion was spread across the Murray and Northern Victoria.
Environment Victoria spokeswoman Juliet Le Feuvre said Victoria's system of water entitlements was set up to meet the needs of consumptive users rather than the environment.

''Until the environment has an entitlement that is adequate and suitable to meet its needs, it is going to be disadvantaged,'' she said.

Any wetland with a Ramsar status should mean that it cannot be used for housing due to its international significance. We have schemes and corridors to increase human population-growth, but indigenous non-human species are being overlooked even though they have a vital role in essential life-supporting ecological systems. What we need is a Federal Minister FOR the Environment, not one that continues to give priority to jobs, income and developments at the expense of our already stressed wetland ecosystems.

With just six weeks until the 2009 Kobenhavn Climate Conference, the global community has not much time to review and assess the failures of well-intentioned multilateral undertakings, commitments and promises at such global talkfests of living memory:

2008 - Rudd's 2020 Summit - how far are the results along the tri-election-cycled 12 year milestone?
2005 - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005 - World Summit
2004 - Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity Building
2002 - Earth Summit in Johannesburg
2002 - World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)
2001 - Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
2000 - Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
2000 - Malmö Declaration - first Global Ministerial Forum on the Environment
2000 - Millennium Declaration - environmental sustainability included as one of eight Millennium Development Goals
1998 - Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
1997 - Kyoto Protocol
1995 - Global Programme of Action (GPA) launched to protect marine environment from land-based sources of pollution
1992 - Rio Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development)
1992 - Convention on Biological Diversity
1989 - Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes
1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
1987 - Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
1985 - Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
1979 - Bonn Convention on Migratory Species
1975 - Mediterranean Action Plan first UNEP-brokered Regional Seas agreement
1973 - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
1972 - Stockholm United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE)

Twenty three very noble and ideal talkfests!
Most of these may be found at:
United Nations Environment Programme

But where are the results of all the undertakings, commitments, promises and hype?

Why are the total costs of these talkfest not disclosed? - the immense public cost of collective high emitting airfares, the extravagance of flying the delegates business class' and five star aristocratic accommodation, plus the salary costs of all involved apportioned to these events, copious catering, one-off extravagant printing, and the many event overheads unquestioned to date? The TOTAL SUMMIT COST is reflective on the authenticity of any such E-summit. Event organisers (politicians) must be held publicly to account for costs and condemned for such hypocritical largesse.

And what's wrong with online conferencing from home - it would probably save the outlay equivalent to the annual GDP of a small third world country!

Each talk fest should be accountable for on ground results and at the very least a positive Return on Talkfest Investment (ROTI) before launching head long into the next extravaganza. Cut the E-hype! Demand results of past promises and start sacking underperforming UN bureaucrats.

Emission Cut Recommendation:
'By 2020, the E-20 (world's 20 top emitters) fully replace their coal-fired power stations with geothermal power stations and use the redundant open-cut coal mines as non-toxic landfill. UN to provide a financial incentive for each country that does so with granting a 100% national debt forgiveness. Only such large scale pragmatic 'do-able' actions will make a noticeable reduction in global emissions.

Poaching skilled workers and removing political activists; dividing and conquering; restructuring communities to remove democratic organisation, multiculturalism as a cover for big business links with politicians

Political outcome of poaching skilled and educated elites

The poaching of skilled and educated people from other overpopulated countries is a way of removing a class of people in those countries, who might otherwise lead their compatriots to struggle against overpopulation and exploitation by corporations and crooked governments and religions.

It serves a base political purpose and helps keep people of the third world in misery.

What is more, when large volumes of skilled and educated people come to a new country, they naturally focus initially on establishing themselves and their families. It takes quite some time to establish oneself materially. They do not tend to focus on the political well-being of their new country any more than they did on the political well-being of their old country. It may not be until the second generation that most immigrants become spontaneously politically active.

If and when they are ready to look at real political integration here, they will discover that their new country is ruled by the same corporate press and the same two 'pretend' political party system as existed in their old country. They will discover in Australia the same globalising, ecociding and populationist policies, the same lack of democracy, the same cynical and evil marketing of water and soil as commodities, and the same breakdown of local networks and self-government in the suburbs where they settle. They will see, if they can see through the political propaganda all around, that Australia is a country on the way down to the condition of the countries that they left. They will see that Australians are being forced into a struggle to survive debt and dispossession that is also taking their energies away from useful political activity.

Australian elites keep new and old Australians apart on purpose

When I said that immigrants are usually not politically active until the second generation, that does not stop them from being organised into silence and against national solidarity for the political ends of the dishonest elite that dominate Australia's media and government. I would identify the daily allegations by the press and by national and state politicians of Australians as 'racist' or 'selfish' as being a calculated way to keep the new immigrants and the native-born apart, thereby atomising any likelihood of national solidarity. As long as new immigrants believe that Australians are racist or stupidly selfish, they are not going to trust us, so they will not help us to defend the nation they have come to be a part of, against exploitation, degradation, poverty and dictatorship. Also, as long as new and old Australians believe what the government and the mainstream media tell them, they will not be able to see what is really happening around them and find common cause with their neighbours and workmates.

How Developers structure political disorganisation

There is a new land-use planning structure which also has the effect of keeping new and old Australians apart and ruining natural organic settlement and social organisation. This is the streaming of overseas immigrants into newly built suburban enclaves. When property is advertised off the plan to people overseas, along with visas and job contracts, you can finish up with entire suburbs where most of the inhabitants are new Australians from the same region, with similar incomes (defined by the cost of the housing), possibly even with similar occupations (suburbs full of doctors, nurses and town planners according to the 'needed occupations stream'), all arriving more or less together, as the houses are built. This is also convenient for politicians who wish to target voters in blocks by identifying common local or ethnic or social concerns. It is convenient for business wanting to build new private schools, swimming pools, hospitals and infrastructure. They know that they will have a captive market. It is essentially a money-making proposition for business and a vote market for politicians. It artificially segregates people from others with common interests.

In the workplace as well, those new nurses and doctors won't dare to speak out for fear of losing their contracts or not being able to acquire citizenship. So once again, you have silenced a community. As for the imported town planners - well, they have probably already been brainwashed by the industry. We cannot expect them to uphold democracy, only capitalism.

(I welcome contact with any planners who can demonstrate support for organic democracy. I will be happy to publicly apologise and to publicly support them. Here is hoping some contact us at candobetter.org!)

Australians need solidarity with new Australians and real democracy

Australians need solidarity with new Australians. This means that the people here need to find a way to identify as a nation despite the political and media classes and to communicate to new Australians that what they read in the papers and hear from our Prime Minister and Premiers is not what is important to the people.

We all have to start to distinguish reality from media production and government spin.

The importance of national identity is the ability to organise to get real rights and real political choices and a real press. This is what the French Revolution got the world. The French Revolution is the basis of modern democracy. Capitalism is not the basis of modern democracy; it did not bring democracy to the USA or anywhere else; it brought exploitative capitalism. Just look at the sub-prime global heist as taxpayers are forced to subsidise banks. That ain't representation! Democracy and capitalism (and communism for that matter) should not be confused, but are, constantly, by the global anglo elite and their colonial and emerging partners in ransacking this planet. (Communism is just a reaction to industrial capitalism, with similar values which include population growth = wealth and centralised authoritarian government in huge polities.)

If we are not a united nation, with clear rights to self-government at all levels, and the ability to control our numbers and the size and impact of our cities, and to choose whether we live as hunter-gatherers, farmers or as industrialised workers in cities, we are not free and we are not a democracy and we have no power to stop what is being done to us.

Structural disorganisation means political disempowerment of grass-roots

A further point is that, apart from the structure of new enclaves, we are being physically disorganised in other ways by mass immigration and by our economic structure. People have little time, due to travel and long hours, to participate in community. Their neighborhoods are being disorganised by infilling, huge highways, winding new roads in new suburbs, and other infrastructure, including things like desal plants and new heavy industry. Even the delivery of services has been disorganised by outsourcing. This has the effect of disorganising political expression about these services.

Our local governments have lost their power which now lies with the State governments and the state governments have been infiltrated and outsourced to property developers. Public servants now serve private interests. The National government takes its cues from banking and big business. The ruling clique - the ALP - owns massive investments in property and banking - set up, amazingly, by our Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swann in Queensland before they entered Federal politics, notably in the form of Labor Holdings P/L and Labor Resources P/L. I don't pretend that the Liberal Party is not underpinned by the same business interests, but they are not as 'successful' as yet. That clique belongs to a bigger mysterious clique which manifests in arcane coalitions, such as the Australian Multicultural Foundation, which has a host of connections which would not be of any interest were it not that its small membership is mostly made up of very high profile politicians from Liberal and Labour - The Hon. Kevin Rudd MP (Prime Minister of Australia), The Hon. John Howard AC, The Hon. Kim Beazley AC, The Hon Mr Simon Crean MP, The Hon. Alexander Downer, The Hon. Robert Hawke AC, Dr J. R. Hewson AM, The Hon. Paul Keating, Mr Mark Latham, The Hon. Andrew Peacock AC... [More interesting membership details and page info reproduced at end of this article.]

These are some reasons why Australians must organise politically outside the established political parties. We need many more independents to form coalitions of common interests and we need to ensure that those independents are not actually fakes, ready to vote with the dominant political parties.

Australia's history of political oppression

It is likely that many of the convicts sent to Australia were in fact political prisoners. Removing them from Britain made it all the easier to keep the British from demanding real rights as citizens. Many other protesters were, of course, executed in England.

This is something that Australians should be able to make clear to new Australians. Our country was founded on political oppression - of the indigenous people and of the first convicts and indentured servants. Unfortunately this condition has continued because of the structure of representative government and the power of the mainstream press to support and manipulate it for economic ends.

We are still a colony and treated legally like colonial citizens. This needs to change, but not through top-down republicanism.

Notes

Do also have a look at this page which shows the Australian Multicultural Foundation in the bigger political and corporate picture.

[Links to information about members are made by candobetter.org and do not appear on the AMF page itself.]
Australian Multicultural Foundation (AMF)
Board of Directors

The Hon Sir James Gobbo AC CVO (Chairman)
Major General Peter Maurice Arnison AC CVO
Ms Carla Zampatti AM
Professor Kwong Lee Dow AM
Executive Director and Company Secretary

Dr B. (Hass) Dellal OAM
Administrative Assistant

Mrs Brigit Murikumthara

Ms Azmeena Hussain
Project Co-ordinator

Ms Athalia Zwartz
Training and Project Development Manager

Ms Lynn Cain

Members of the Foundation
The Hon. Kevin Rudd MP (Prime Minister of Australia)
The Hon. John Howard AC
Dame Beryl Beaurepaire DBE AC [Generally noted for activism in girls' education and women's affairs in Liberal Party and historic involvement in WAAF, but described as company director in the registration of the Foundation.]
The Hon. Kim Beazley AC
The Hon Mr Simon Crean MP
Mr Ivan A. Deveson AO
The Hon. Alexander Downer
Sir Llewellyn Edwards AC
Mr William Charles Fairbanks [?Secretary of Landcare Australia P/L)
Ms Gaye Rosemary Hart AM
The Hon. Robert Hawke AC
Dr J. R. Hewson AM
Ms Vivien Suit-Cheng Hope (Careers and Counselling Centre Tutor, Centre of Asian Students, University of Adelaide)
The Hon. Paul Keating
Mr Mark Latham
Mrs Irene Kwong Moss AO [Home Building regulation]
Mr Robert Brooker Maher AM Executive Director, American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, Paddington NSW and Former board member of The Australian Rail Track Corporation and with the
Ms Wendy Elizabeth McCarthy AO Interestingly, this woman is also a patron of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance, which has links with Sustainable Population Australia. Interestingly, she is also Chair of McGrath Estate Agents, currently expanding into Australia's iconic Blue Mountains.
Mr Lindsay Gordon Crossley Moyle AM
Professor John Nieuwenhuysen AM
The Hon. Andrew Peacock AC
Lady Stephen
Mr Ross Tzannes AM
Mr George Wojak AO MBE

Source: http://amf.net.au/about/australian-multicultural-foundation/
Further documentation

Also, here is the Memorandum of Association of the Company, known as the Australian Bicentennial Multicultural Foundation Limited.

Dated 1988, with illegible month, it is signed by R.J.Hawke, (witnessed by his senior private secretary in the prime ministerial lodge in Canberra); Sir James Augustine Gobbo (Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria); Michael George Kailis, Governing Director of M G Kailis Group of Companies, West Australia [Seafood and pearl culture industries]; George Wojak; Lindsay Gordon Crossley Moyle, Chief Executive Officer, State Bank of Victoria, 131 Powlett Street, East Melbourne; Sir David Ronald Zeidler, Company Director, Park Avenue Towers, Parkville, Victoria [Past Chairman of ICI and 1983 - 1988 President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering];Dame Beryl Edith Beaurepaire, Company Director, Mt Eliza, Victoria; Vivien Suit-Cheng Hope, Careers and Counselling Centre, Tutor, Centre of Asian Students, University of Adelaide, S.A.; Ross Tzarthes, Solicitor, Pryor, Tzannes, Glebe, NSW; Marie Anna Elizabeth Blake, Managing Director Jetset Tours (Old) Pty Ltd, New Farm QLD; William Charles Fairbanks, General Manager, Finance and Management Services, The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Wahroonga NSW; Gaye Rosemary Hart, General Manager Programs, The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Elizabeth Bay, NSW; James Frank Kirk, Chairman and Chief Executive, The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Edgecliffe, NSW; Wendy Elizabeth McCarthy, General Manager Communications, The Australian Bicentennial Authority, Mary St., Longueville, NSW.

"No apology"!

Is this "Newspeak" for a decision the Australian PM feels uncomfortable about?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he makes "no apology" for believing in a "big Australia". he also said " I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for taking a hard line on illegal immigration to Australia."

But Mr Rudd should apologise !

Rudd is socially-engineering Australia's population growth

He presides over a massive rate of population growth which his government has engineered. He should apologise to the present population and also to the future population that will be so much worse off than we are now as the Australian environment inevitably declines . Australia's environment right now suffers from population overload. It's the number of us and the way we live, the way waterways are interfered with for human activities, the way natural habitat is taken over for human habitation, the impact on our environment of human wastes both domestic and industrial, mining extraction and agricultural..... the sheer scale of our activities !

Optimism without foundation may doom Australians

Rudd's optimism reported by the ABC at the growing population seems to be founded on no real data. It appears as rhetoric, no more than a declared belief. The serious concerns of continuing population growth expressed by Treasury Secretary Dr. Ken Henry - water availability , biodiversity welfare of wildlife are waved away by Rudd as mere "challenges" (in "Newspeak" challenge =problem)

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth with thin fragile soils and relatively little arable land.
Australia's environmental indicators- climate,waterways,land and biodiversity indicate stress right now from increasing human impacts.

.......but Rudd has set his reckless course and will not be diverted.

He makes no apology.

MEDIA RELEASE
22 October 2009

MORE REFUGEES - FEWER SKILLED MIGRANTS

Were Australia a compassionate nation, it would be taking in more asylum seekers and fewer skilled migrants, according to Australia’s only environment group dedicated to lower population, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA).

SPA National President, Ms Sandra Kanck, says Australia could double the number of refugees it accepts, providing that at least as many, if not more (which is SPA’s preference), were cut from the skilled migration program.

Australia's humanitarian program is currently 13,500 annually, while skilled immigration for 2008-9 is 115,000. Total net overseas migration, however, for the year ended 31 March 2009, was 278,200 persons. As well as skilled migration, this includes family reunion, New Zealanders and those on temporary visas.

“We have no moral obligation to the people coming here under the skilled migration program – they are not fleeing from war-torn states," says Ms Kanck. "They are taking places we could make available to real refugees.

“With 22 million refugees in the world at the moment, Australia cannot take them all, but we can accept more than we currently do – provided we reduce the skilled migration intake," she says.

Ms Kanck says that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s rebuffing of asylum seekers and attacks on so-called people smugglers are a diversionary tactic.

"Mr Rudd is responsible for one of the highest immigration rates in decades so his line on the current influx of asylum seekers is simply a smoke screen to avoid public discussion on the bigger issue of the immigration blow-out.

“Refugees have to wait in long queues for places to become available, while at the same time Mr Rudd has an open door policy to people who want to come here for purely economic reasons.

"Surely Australia can supply its own skills and not poach from other countries," says Ms Kanck. “If we got rid of the baby bonus we could put that money into training/retraining our current population and thus decrease our reliance on the skilled migration program."

Ms Kanck added that a multi-pronged approach was what was required in dealing with refugees. Diplomatic efforts could often diminish conflict that cause people to flee.

"For instance, what is Australia doing to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government is treating the Tamils fairly and humanely?" she asks.

Figures from The Magic Puddingby Norman Lindsay

A Victorian citizens rally cry and lament

People of Australia we’re in trouble to our nuts, it’s five to bloody midnight-no ifs or bloody buts
Its’ time for damned austerity with water, power and perks. So leave the bloody car at home and walk to work you jerks!

People of Orstralia now the water’s all run out. Some blame global warming and some the bloody drought
And some say it’s a bastard but everybody will when they get the bloody info that water’s twice the bill.

The same goes for electric that we get from bloody coal, it’s looking for sequestrum like a rabbit down a hole.
Yet we’ve got bloody solar for ten thousand times our needs and governments do nothing by thought or word or deed.

Fellas of Australia, sheilas, blokes and mates, you’ll go bloody nowhere if you retain the bloody states !
Define the bloody regions, get rid of lines on maps and focus on efficiency in government perhaps.

Females of Australia this is not the knell of doom, but you can’t legitimise your place through your bloody womb.
We all should be more tolerant of lesbians and queens but keep a bloody eye out for the pioneering genes.

Let’s educate our youngsters so they can get the skills to pay the bloody taxes, P.P.P.'s and other bills,
We're behind in infrastructure, schools, hospitals and trains, but the Government's planned nothing, they've got no bloody brains!

Sure, we are girt by sea and girt by c02 and girt by bloody methane to put into the brew.
We're girt by politicians who won't de bloody bate that overpopulation will be our terminal fate
We've species loss, degraded soils and environmental squalor, and bloody blind self serving bastards in it for a dollar!
They want Melbourne at 7 million and Oz at 35 a ridiculous bloody trajectory that Aussie can't survive.

Now Oz has got a statesman who runs the bloody show with 2020 vision and Chinese lingo, don’t you know?
And the sheila there who helps him is as smart as bloody paint and just like bloody Ablett, she’s never where the ball ain't.

But we’ve got bloody Brumby, by default you’d have to say and by default the bloody desal and dredging of the Bay.
But he’ll be Jeffed like Kennett and bloody Howard too. And I’ll be there to wave goodbye. It’s bloody overdue.
People of Orstralia, when the bugle sounds the call, don’t just bloody stand there like you’ve lost a bloody ball.
Heave and strain and struggle with all your bloody might and hope to hell your efforts will bring us to the light.

We must be multipartite on education and health, indigenous affairs and immigration so it’s not approached by stealth.
Let’s get a national anthem that sounds less like a dirge and get a new republic while the folks have got the urge
And get a proper flag as on Eureka’s noble knoll, not a quasi bloody mish mash of colonial control.

And so I ask my Aussie mates before they place their bets to consider the integrity of the “PATH OF NO REGRETS”
Get rid of self indulgence that used to be the way and save old bloody Aussie and the planet I dare say.

By Walter Grahame
For and on behalf of Arthur Cartwright a.k.a J.N. Button

Illustration source was http://www.connectinghistories.org.uk/Learning%20Packages/Social%20Justice/social_justice_lp_03a.asp
September 23, 2009

Uncontrolled immigration blocks social housing for native-born

New research by Migrationwatch, based on official figures, shows the pressure that uncontrolled immigration has placed – and will place – on social housing.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Housing Federation in London on September 23, Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green, said that in the last ten years, the number of UK born tenants in social housing in the UK has fallen by about 1.2 million while non UK-born tenants have increased by 300,000. As a result, the proportion of foreign born has increased from 7.2% to 11.1% - an increase of 54%.

Migrants who arrived here in the last five years and are not refugees are not yet eligible to apply for social housing but could become so in future years if they are granted settlement. Grants of settlement for non-EEA nationals are running at about 160,000 a year, giving a potential pool of 800,000 although, of course, by no means all will apply.

The rise in the proportion of foreign born in social housing is greater because the supply of social housing has not merely failed to meet the demand in a period of very high immigration, but the stock of social housing has actually fallen over the last ten years.

In England, the number of social housing units has fallen from 4.4 to 3.9 million in the last ten years.

Immigration has added nearly three million to the population of the UK over the same period, mainly in England.
The waiting list for social housing in England has risen by 80% in the six years 2002-8, up to 1.8 million, with a sharp peak in 2003-4. Recent research by the National Housing Federation, published in March, suggests that the waiting list could approach two million in 2011.

Earlier this month the Government announced plans to build 2,000 homes in England – which it described as the biggest social housing building project in England for "over 20 years".

By way of comparison, this would be enough to meet the projected household formation of new immigrants for just over a week.

The pressure on social housing is set to continue:

The population of the UK is growing rapidly - twice as fast as in the 1990's and three times as fast as in the 1980's. By 2028 it is set to reach and then exceed 70 million.

70% of this increase is due to immigration. In other words, unless it is controlled, immigration will add the equivalent of 7 cities the size of Birmingham over the next 20 years or so.

Immigration is the major factor in household formation – 40% or, on average, nearly 2,000 new households a week - and it is the only one that can be influenced by government. Unless immigration is brought under control, we will need to build one home every six minutes for new immigrants for the next 25 years.

Commenting on the research, Sir Andrew said:

`In the debate about housing, immigration is a huge elephant in the room. Pressures on the green belt, the need for more affordable housing, overcrowding – all of these are made worse by large scale, uncontrolled immigration. Unless the next Government makes a clear commitment not to allow the population to hit 70 million, and to build its immigration policies around that commitment, we will need to find the money and space to build seven cities the size of Birmingham in the next 25 years just to house new immigrants. We are sitting on top of a population timebomb. It must be a major priority of the next Government to defuse it.'

Commenting on this press release, Australian population sociologist, Sheila Newman, said,

"These trends are relevant to most English speaking countries since most have inherited from the United Kingdom housing and population and citizenship policies and laws. She said that many English-speaking writers commenting on population growth in anglophone countries remain unaware that on the Continent - western Europe - the roman-based Napoleonic system means that immigration is rarely 'permanent' and housing of all kinds is seen as a social obligation and cost, rather than a private profit industry. This means that in non-anglophone Europe housing is a constraint on population growth."

She added,

"It is important for the people in the English speaking settlement countries to realise that there is a much better system elsewhere."

For more on that other system see The Growth Lobby and its Absence, particularly Chapter 7 and the submission to the Productivity Commission's First Home Buyers affordability Inquiry (which quickly covers many different housing systems) which are all available on-line here, plus further discussions such as this one.

These are dark times for Australia and Victoria is one of the darkest places in the country for democracy. There are, however still some good people in parliament and we must support their efforts. The Greens and the Opposition need the electorate's help to have this bill stopped in the upper house. They have done it before, so they can do it again. See for example, "Coalition, Greens & DLP vote Tim Holding's North South Pipeline enabling regulations down!".

If passed, the new proposed Major Transport Projects Facilitiation Bill 2009, will create an Act of Law tol override existing planning and environmental approval processes under the 11 other Acts listed below. Like the Repco rally law in NSW it will overturn laws for the protection of democracy, the environment, and the public.

This Bill is bad because:

- It will exempt the State Government from its own laws and concentrate decision making power into one or two Ministers, raising the risk of corruption and 'influence peddling'.

- You will not be able to appeal to the Supreme court except to appeal the final decison by the Planning Minister, but the law will be biased against the appeal because they will have to favour "cost and efficiency" of the project rather than environment, heritage, or democratic agreement by the community.

This bill is bad for democracy and is not needed or wanted - except by big business and developers.

Greg Barber of the Greens has asked, "What public transport projects have ever been delayed by following proper processes?"

Labor is determined to ram this through.

He says, "Labor is determined to ram this through. Only the Liberal-National Coalition, by voting with the Greens, can stop this bill in the upper house. You are urged to email Liberal, National, DLP Upper House MPs and tell them that if they really care about stopping corruption they will vote to make state government decisions subject to the law."

Copy of the legislation and explanatory info
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/eb658cee32cafe23ca2576100014d381!OpenDocument

Coastal Management Act 1995
Consent under section 40(1)
Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987
Comment under section 66
Environment Protection Act 1970
Works approval under section 19B(7)
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
Permit under section 40
Licence under section 53 to take and keep fish
Forests Act 1958
Licence or permit under section 52
Permit under section 59(1)
Authority under section 77
Heritage Act 1995
Permit under section 74
Permit under section 113
Consent under section 129
National Parks Act 1975
Permit under section 21(1)(a)
Approval under section 23
Consent under section 25
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Preparation, approval and adoption of a planning scheme or an amendment to
a planning scheme under sections 8, 29 and 35
Granting and issue of a planning permit under section 61
Road Management Act 2004
Consent under clause 1 of Schedule 2
Decision under clause 2 of Schedule 2
Consent under clause 16 of Schedule 7
Water Act 1989
Licence under section 51
Licence under section 67
Wildlife Act 1975
Authority under section 21(1), (2) or (3)
Licence under section 22(1)
Authorisation under section 28A

Partial source for this article was

Through incompetence and neglect 110 ha which was recently added to the Pines Flora and Fauna reserve was mismanaged by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability Victoria to the point where nearly all the species it contained have become extinct. Now this land is due to be separated by a huge tollway from the rest of the reserve, despite many bitter protests and submissions from residents and other concerned people, whose hearts are nearly broken. See also related articles

The death of the DARA land.

110 ha of land once belonging to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, known now as 'the DARA land" was recently added to the Pines Flora and Fauna reserve. Through incompetence and neglect it has been mismanaged by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability Victoria to the point where nearly all the species it contained have become extinct. Now, in a crowning act of environmental vandalism,[1] this land is due to be separated by a huge tollway from the rest of the reserve. This is to go ahead, despite many bitter protests and submissions from residents and other concerned people who do not want it.

Here Hans Brunner describes the process by which the species became extinct and pleads for the area to be rehabilitated. It is the least that the State government and SEITA (now renamed the Linking Melbourne Authority) can do. This time there should be transparent aims to increase the fauna species representation to its optimum and reproducible methods to test the success of the operation, so that the public may monitor the effectiveness of it.

Hans Brunner sends a plea to Department of Sustainability and Environment and to Parks Victoria to bring the Dara land back to life again. It can and must be done.

The future of the DARA land can be so much brighter than its past

The Dara land is the 110 ha that has been added to the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve. It borders on Ballarto Rd and McClelland Drive and joins on to the golf course, North-East of the original Pines. The proposed Bypass will separate the two parcels of land.

Some twenty years ago the Dara land, then occupied by the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, was teaming with wildlife. There were large colonies of Swamp Rats, lots of Bandicoot diggings everywhere, there were Wallabies, Ringtail- and Brush-tail Possums, Echidnas, an occasional Koala and Sugar Glider and only a very small number of Rabbits. This was the result of regular poisoning of foxes and rabbits and the total absence of dogs. Boundary fences were inspected weekly and repaired immediately.

After a large wildfire, it took about two to three years for these animals to recover to their original numbers, but they did so with the help of ongoing fox and rabbit control and the absence of dogs.

After Dept of Agriculture left, Parks Vic and DSE allowed ferals to run amuck

After the Dept, of Agriculture vacated the Dara land Parks Victoria was appointed to manage this land. Immediately fox and rabbit poisoning stopped, a number of gates were erected to allow people with their dogs to enter as well as foxes and cats. The bandicoots were the first to suffer. It took only about twelve months for them to totally disappear from the whole of the Dara land. Where there were once large colonies of Swamp Rats one could find only the mounds of soil where they used to be. Rabbit numbers increased and fox and dog foot prints became prevalent not only along the walking tracks but also throughout the bush land off the tracks.

20 yrs ago foxes' and domestic dogs' scats revealed diet of endangered fauna

During my many visits, I collected scats of foxes, cats and dogs containing hairs and identified them in order to determine the prey species.

Since we know already too well what foxes prey on I concentrated on dog scats with hairs of prey species. It is well known that some people encourage their dogs to hunt for rabbits in the Reserve and the dogs will than go for anything that moves including native animals. Bandicoots are especially vulnerable to predation as they have to dig deep holes to get to their food and then can easy be ambushed while doing so. They also have not got large ears like the rabbits have to hear predators approaching. Subsequently I established what the contents were of twenty four dog scats. Of these, 8 had Rabbit, 4 had Wallaby, 4 had Bandicoot, 3 had Brush-tail Possum, 3 had Ring-tail Possum and 2 had Swamp Rat. Fox scats had a higher proportion of Rabbits but preyed on all the other animals as well and included some Sugar Gliders and lots of lizards.

Now the same scats show diet of mostly rabbits

Fox and dog scats now contain manly rabbit and a few ring-tail possums as all the other small native animals have almost totally disappeared.

This was not helped when Parks Victoria control burnt a large area of prime bandicoot habitat and before this area could recover an adjacent area was also burnt. This resulted in the absence of all the animals that used to live there and consisted of about fifty percent of the whole Dara bush land.

Active fox dens are now distributed throughout the whole area and there is no hope for the native animals to become re-established again.

The ultimate blame lies with DSE and PV

The ultimate blame lies with DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment)[2] and PV (Parks Victoria)[3]. They both were unwilling to protect the nationally endangered bandicoots and with it all the other native mammals, birds, lizards and frogs. How can they completely neglect and mismanage this prime habitat for not only this rare bandicoot but also for Koalas, Sugar Gliders, Swamp Rats, Echidnas, Brush- and Ring-tail Possums and all the other native wildlife! We have to urgently go back to the way the Dara land was managed by the Agriculture Dept.

In the absence of dogs, the control of foxes, cats and rabbits could than be carried out completely un-restricted and efficiently.

I plead with the DSE and PV to bring the Dara land back to life again. It can and must be done. If I had time, exactly the same story could be told about the Western half of the Pines where beside the predators and rabbits motorbike riders cause havoc to Wallabies, birds and other wildlife.

Hans Brunner

[1] Works undertaken by the Linking Melbourne Authority (once called SEITA) with the support of the Brumby government and your taxes.

[2] The Department of Sustainability and Environment has almost no staff devoted to actively protecting and sustaining healthy biodiverse fauna populations. DSE seems to be far more interested in pushing human population growth by stimulating high immigration, providing land to developers and pushing through infrastructure programs to the detriment of our indigenous fauna and the loss of green spaces. DSE is dominated by agriculturalists and property development oriented planners and technicians.

[3] Parks Victoria is a public authority (akin to a government department), funded from three major sources; payments from the State Government Budget (your taxes), an annual charge based on a property rate levied on all metropolitan properties, and user fees.
It is managed by a board with the following members:
Rob Gerrand, BA, FAMI, FAICD
Lois Appleby
Clarice Ballenden, BA (Hons) M.Ed.
Damien Bell
Rod Gowans, PSM.
Ken King, Dip. For., B.Sc (Hons)
Noel Harvey, OAM, MAICD
Jennifer Labourne, B.Bus, FCPA
Jan Mahoney BA, PhD, FAICD

What are these people doing with our money?

ABC Australian news reported that someone somehow placed rocks on the road where rally cars would pass at some time prior to the Repco Rally event. Apparently stones or rocks were also thrown. See Rally rock-throwing 'could have killed', ABC news, September 5, 2009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/05/2677430.htm

First day of the rally

The picture of the car trailing dust has been included for educational purposes because it shows how much dust is being thrown up by a rally car on the unpaved roads that pass through national parks of World Heritage significance. One can imagine the noise and the speed from the picture. Unless you like noise, speed, metal and dust, this would be a very unpleasant experience. For wildlife it could be a fatal experience. Politically it could represent a fatal breech in the wall of law that has preserved Australia’s wild spaces to date.

Would Repco race cars through a cathedral?

The idea alone of racing cars through national parks is appalling to many. With the position of National Parks in Australia it is a bit like racing cars through cathedrals in Italy or France, except that the damage it is likely to do in the long term is that much more significant.

It may not result directly in the extinction of endangered species but, whether it does or not, it is like a big breech in the wall. If government can get away with doing this to our National natural cathedrals, they may soon be running the equivalent of brothels in cathedrals there. Indeed, the same NSW government which overturned local democracy (the most immediate form of democracy) to force this race on Australians, is also apparently prepared to allow the Shooters Party to shoot indigenous animals in National Parks.

The car is not exactly an endangered species

Many of us live on highways or have to drive to work and find this difficult enough. It is amazing to think that the NSW Parliament actually legislated away 12 environmental laws in order to import such a rally to this area, which, to date, was a sanctuary for animals, trees and humans. The local inhabitants have complained of the risk to life for humans and other animals in the area.

Today we received a letter to candobetter.org claiming that “Greenies” threw rocks at the rally drivers.

“Rally Australia"

On September 5th, 2009 Jack (not verified) wrote:

"You greenies who are responsible for putting boulders on the road and throwing rocks might get charged with attempted manslaughter or murder if you are not careful. It is not a joke to do these things, one could expect it in a third world country but one would have hoped that in a so called educated society things like this would not happen. If you want to protest then do it in a more effective way than risking the life of another human being!”

The writer assumes that ‘Greenies’ were responsible for putting boulders on the road and throwing rocks. In fact we do not know who was responsible. However, let us take his other assertions in this paragraph. He says that we could expect such activity in a third world country, but not in an educated society. However it has been the anti-rally protesters’ contention that an educated society would not put a rally through international heritage rainforest national parks including 16 km of koala habitat. To many people the notion that we are an ‘educated society’ does not hold up because of this. Regarding third world societies: what are the criteria that make this kind of protest likely in the third world? Perhaps the quality of not having any other means to protest?

Is the writer actually unaware that 12 environmental laws were overturned to permit the rally?

Is the writer actually unaware that 12 environmental laws were overturned to permit the rally? This event has been enabled by the NSW Motor Sports (WRC) Bill 2009, which overrode 12 different planning, environmental protection and heritage laws and removed all right of appeal.[1] Or has his enthusiasm for the rally diminished the importance of this fact in his eyes? If that is the case, I suggest that he reconsider these inconvenient facts.

What more effective ways are open to people in the Green Cauldron? They have protested peacefully in the streets, written to politicians, and invoked the law. The response from the government was extreme: The government abrogated the very environmental laws that the people had invoked to stop the race. Then, when a councilor took the matter to the courts, she felt that it was given the bum’s rush. Behind the abrogation of the 12 environmental laws was pressure from Repco, a global corporation of retailers of car parts, which apparently had far more pull with the NSW Government than the democratic wishes of members of its electorate.

Even some of the competitors sound as if they understand.

"Some people don't like us in front of their house but I didn't ask to come here," French competitor, Loeb reportedly said.
"I can understand why some people don't like the rally, but I have to do my job."

Indeed he does. But the problems are not the fault of the people defending their rights and their environment. (Source: "Rock throwers halt Rally Australia", ABC News, 4 September.)

What would have been much better is if the FIA had adhered to its stated high principles of environmental standards and good governance, saying, “No, Premier Rees, we want to be good global citizens. You must find a venue for this event which is acceptable to your citizens. We cannot stand by and let you overturn your own peoples’ laws in order to run a mere race. It will not do our reputations or yours any good. People have a right to self-government. We cannot impose things they hate on them. The French Revolution taught us that.”

So much for an educated, first world society.

“And do not bother denying it had anything to do with your movement, you ARE tarred with the brush in the same way that you like to tar motorsport with the "hooning" brush.”

Why didn't the FIA or drivers stand up for democracy against Repco and the NSW Government?

It would be reassuring if people in the rally movement had stood up for democracy. Since they have not it is hard not to see them as hoons. And since their representatives have not spoken up, they look like representatives of hoons. Those perceptions will change when rally-people stand up for democracy and justice along with the environmentalists. As long as you do not you defend the wholesale destruction of laws by a dictatorial government. Candobetter.org cannot comment on allegations about people who used rocks as weapons since we have absolutely no idea who those people were. It is even conceivable that people wishing to give the environmentally concerned a bad name threw the rocks themselves. That would seem to me more likely since, from the point of view of an environmentalist – a person who defends wild spaces – throwing rocks is rather similar, although not as bad, as driving racing cars through world heritage landscapes and biodiverse hotspots.

False argument pretends area not worth protecting

"I watched the you tube video and I have never seen so much rubbish in all my life,
Mostly it looks like farming country, overgrown with weeds, so much for the environment."

I am not a resident of the area, but, to me this is what the videos have conveyed. We saw a koala crossing the road and we have been told elsewhere that the rally passes through 16km of koala habitat. We know that koalas are endangered. That, to me, is enough to tell me that the area cannot be totally degraded.

Secondly, it would not be surprising if the area is being degraded, given the kinds of forces it is subjected to. That is not the fault of environmentalists. The area was rural with forested parts. There is obviously a tension between rural, other commercial values and the environmental values of local constituents. Environmental has to win out, however, because the area is internationally recognized for its biodiverse and landscape qualities. Car races, shops and farms already take up substantial parts of this country and if we still cannot make a go of what we have already got economically, then destroying more wildlife habitat is not likely to help.

Impact of farming

"Farming does far more harm to the environment than Rally could ever do!

After having experienced Rally Australia in Western Australia for 18 years I can assure you that there will not be hundreds of wild animals killed, in any way!
If the people who live and run businesses in the towns involved have any clues they will see the prospects for adding value to what they do or in fact even starting up new ventures all because of the Rally."

Farming is certainly problematic because it converts wild-spaces for food. However the farms are already there. The rally was not. It was an additional stressor. As for the damage it might do. I have compared it to racing through cathedrals and I stand by that. This country is absolutely covered and ringbarked with roads, for Pete’s sake – how could racing car drivers possibly justify taking roadspace in National Parks? And, I do not see how you could argue to put a koala at risk just for some ephemeral potential ‘profits’ which will not sustain any human in the long term.

Little evidence for much touted 'economic advantages' and no amount of money could make this right

The Rally will bring economic benefit to the area and to the state in general, you lot rave on about eco tourism, I can assure you that if the area does indeed have something to offer then the Rally will bring thousands of international tourists.

The insistance that this rally will bring lots of money to Tweed has been knocked down over and over. Our definitions of what constitutes 'economic benefit' must differ.

"Same Rally cost WA tax-payers $6m+ p.a.

Previous speakers who praised the rally indicated that it will bring $100 million of value to the area. They do not understand what they are talking about. For example, $100 million over what period? It is certainly not for this one race that is coming up; nor for the one in two years time or the one in 10 years time. It is the accumulated value they think they might get if everything is done and all options are accepted between now and 2027. A more true picture comes from Western Australia. The Western Australian Government no longer wanted the rally, indicating that it was costing Western Australia $6 million a year and it was not getting economic value to make up for that $6 million." Source For more on the debate read here.

Our definitions of ‘eco-tourism’ must also differ. Who want’s tourists in national parks who come to watch noisy cars go round and round and tear up the earth and vegetation, kill wildlife, and pollute the atmosphere with petroleum fumes and dead soil organisms from the dust? How could anyone consider that desirable? For someone who likes quietly walking through a forest amid a community of other species, just like someone who might enjoy praying in a cathedral and looking up through the stained-glass windows and imagining they were in God’s house, your idea that racing cars through these quiet and otherly places might add to their ‘value’ seems really strange.

And the thing is, nature preservation does not cause the extinction of car-rallies, since there are roads for rallies everywhere, but roads and rallies do destroy nature. I mean, what environmentalists do and like does not stop rally fans from doing what they do and like somewhere else. For instance, the Goldcoast Super GP Rally will be staged next month, through city streets, just across the border from this one. However, if you want to do your thing in our quiet places, you destroy what we have. Look around you: the world is absolutely full of roads and noisy cars. Your kind of ‘paradise’ is proliferating daily. Ours isn’t. It is disappearing. Have a sense of proportion.

There is a huge contingent of International Rally people who follow the WRC around the world, just like the people who follow Tennis or Cricket or Footy, Yep just the same, and they will be coming to your part of the world, generally speaking they have a few bucks in their back pocket and have great fun unloading the stuff, so do not think there is no money to be made.

Obviously money is very important to you, much more important to you than beauty, wildlife, peace and quiet and democracy. Even if money were more important than place for environmentalists, it has already been shown many times that the rally has brought a net financial loss when costs are taken into account or no benefit to other communities where it has been held.

You need to try to see that environmentalists need to protect what they love and that rally values will harm what they treasure most. The rally is invading green environmental space and trying to change it. It has also destroyed democratic space, by forcing the overturning of laws. That alone should signal "Danger! Danger!" On the other side, environmentalists are not invading road-space. The huge contingent of International Rally people have lots of places made of concrete and tar and cement where they can go and they will possibly even be welcome there.

"If you think however that you should just need to stand in line with your hand out to get your share then you have your head in the sand (or somewhere else!)"

Honestly, this stuff about making lots of money out of these rallies just sounds like pie in the sky. After the rally has been run, however, I think that residents would be justified in demanding compensation for the trauma of having their democratic self-government annihilated and their environmental laws overturned, as well as their peace disturbed and their happiness destroyed by the need to go out of their way to try to protect what they love due to the failure of their governments to enforce protections which were available at law prior to the rally and were overturned because of the rally and for no other reason. Those environmentalists would be justified in demanding ongoing compensation since the intention is to continue to stage this rally for decades.

Democracy is the big question

"An event like this will always have those who are against having it, well we live in a democracy, so if it is taking place then there must be a higher number of people who want it than don't, bad luck!"

But that is the very problem. We DON'T live in a democracy in Australia anymore, and things have got particularly desperate in Tweed Shire due to the Repco Rally. By removing legal protections from the community's right to environmental protection and self-government the NSW Government has left the community in a situation of lawlessness and injustice. Did you not realise that 12 laws were put aside to run this rally? Why would the NSW government and Repco have had to go to such extraordinary lengths to impose the rally - and overturn democracy - if so many people, as you believe, wanted this rally? Why did they not just allow democracy to prevail, instead of removing it?

"I suggest that you greenies would be better off spending your time and money trying to fix up a couple of the countries biggest environmental disasters which are on your back doorstep, like the Murray Darling disaster for one!"

At candobetter we continue to represent problems with the Murray Darling and other threatened waters. If environmentalists were not busy defending multiple cherished places under attack by developers and now democracy under this rally, they would indeed have more time to dedicate to these ongoing other threats. If the rally were withdrawn from the Green Cauldron we could all get on with the other jobs.

[1] "" Source: http://www.norallygroup.org/

Today is a dark day for native vegetation and the environment

Website - http://livingwiththebush.org/dp/
Today (Thursday 3rd Sept) Brumby bulldozed amendments to the Dandenong Ranges and Yarra Valley Regional Strategy Plan.

This was pushed through both houses of parliament with less than one days notice so the Government can soon remove vegetation protection to allow:
- clearing of all trees and vegetation within 10m of a house
- clearing a 4m wide strip of all vegetation along each property boundary
- clearing any vegetation except trees between 10m and 30m from a house;

from all of Victoria except the 20 urban councils around Melbourne proper.

Devastating impact

This will have a devastating impact in many areas of Victoria where many communities live with in a bushland setting.

And the evidence is that doing this will not make us safe from bushfire.
There are examples from Black Saturday of houses without any nearby vegetation that burnt, of fires that raced through short grass fields to ignite buildings. Houses located more than 380 metres from continous bush were lost.

Vegetation can also act as an essential windbreak, reducing the wind that intensifies fires, and may provide protection from radiant heat as well as slowing down or stopping embers.

Yet the Brumby government intends to allow this clearing until the final recommendations of the Bushfire Commission are released next year.

This will encourage unneighbourly behaviour

By then everyone who has been endeavouring to clear their block for any reason, including gaining a better view will have done so. We will have lost forever even more of our biodiversity and dumped more green house gases into the atmosphere.

The Living With The Bush Coalition has been formed to campaign against this proposal. We believe that this unfettered clearing is fundamentally flawed in that it will not protect houses from bushfires, may in fact increase the danger by creating more intense fires and will destroy the reason so many of us live with the bush.

Read our charter, "Living with the Bush"

You can read our charter at as well as more information on this issue, why we have reached this position and what you can do.

If you support the views expressed in the charter please consider endorsing it, either individually or as on behalf of a group.

You can register your support at the website.

With a large community outcry I hope we can get these unilateral changes modified to something that will protect our lives instead of just removing trees.

Please forward this on to your networks to help build the Living with the Bush Coalition,

best regards
Louis Delacretaz
0407 300 188

Many ordinary people and committed activists are despairing of parliamentary democracy in its current form but say “What else can we do?” So many things just happen without us feeling that we have had any say at all or that our concerns have been completely ignored. Many of our friends are deeply disheartened. We say the community can no longer rely on our elected representatives to make objective and reasonable decisions on our behalf and we have to do something different. At the moment it is democracy in name only. We really have no control over our elected representatives from one election to the next, and we no longer have the time to be patient with them for 4 years at a time.

Here are our major points:

* It is clear that politely attending EES hearings, submitting thoughtful and well researched responses, running peaceful rallies, letter writing campaigns and using the law to try to protect the environment has become a useless exercise. Indeed it’s only function has perhaps become to furnishing government with its “community consultation” obligations. Blue Wedges for example has tried all of the above for the last 5 years, including collecting around 60,000 signatures on two petitions, 10,000 letters to MPs, and demonstrating to a Parliamentary Inquiry that a project has no economic credibility, but still the development juggernaut rolls on and over us. Government has managed to turn what appears to be detailed “community consultation” into a box ticking exercise. So, rather than continue to merely engage in government’s paradigm, we need to start the conversation about a different paradigm for decision making on important issues.

* Politicians have made themselves increasingly inaccessible and impervious to their constituents’ views – they are now mostly irrelevant to most of us most of the time. They are only responding to the growth lobby and a few other noisy, demanding, irrational but powerfully connected minority groups. Our current parliamentary system, where for the 4 years of their incumbency, and where a politician has no obligation whatsoever to vote according to how she/he campaigned and was elected, or how the majority of their constituents might subsequently ask them to vote is no longer serving a useful purpose for most of us.

* Old growth logging, the Tamar Valley pulp mill, the channel deepening issue, De-Sal, North-South pipeline, and of course Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) have all had well run campaigns aimed at engaging our local MPs and government to at least consider alternatives. The unpopular and unnecessary policies and projects just roll on.

* Most recently Planning Minister Madden has even ignored the recommendations of two EES Panel Inquiries, which recommended against the development of Bastion Point Mallacoota and the Crib Point bitumen plant. It’s obvious that parliamentary democracy and its underpinning administrative processes no longer serve us on so many social and environmental issues. As Cr. Rosemary West said at the Planning Backlash Rally on 10th June, “Were any of us asked whether we wanted 5 million people in Melbourne by 2030 (now 2020)?” We weren't asked, and in the case of population growth we weren't even really told what was going to happen.

* All levels of government in Australia have powers to initiate referenda on any issue. With the host of unrepresentative decisions being made by people elected by us perhaps it is time to look at alternative decision making processes.

* Unfortunately under existing arrangements, in Australia a referendum will only be held if a government or local council determines that a poll should be held on an issue. In Victoria we have provision for referendums but unfortunately the decisions are not binding on government.

* Referenda are already in use in a number of countries around the world, including Switzerland and many states in the USA, and Australia, where in recent times referendums have been conducted in Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria. Some countries have Citizen’s Initiated Referenda (eg. California USA) and some, like Australia only conduct a referendum if initiated by a council or government.

* The state-wide issue of whether to adopt daylight savings was recently decided via referendum in WA, as well a local issue in the City of Box Hill regarding liquor licenses. It would be relatively simple to organise voting on federal, state and local issues, as most people now either have Internet access via a home computer or mobile phone, or can access a computer via a public library. Electronic voting could be managed by voters using of a unique ID number such as tax file or Medicare numbers (no sillier than in the 21st Century still queueing up at the local school to have your name manually ticked off an electoral role).

* Referendums would need to be properly constituted, conducted by the VEC or the affected LGA. A properly constituted poll would be required to equally fund the for and against arguments, so that people could be properly informed, not marketed to. Candobetter Editor comment: Would this over-ride the mainstream press, which distorts every electoral issue by producing political options that it wants by restricting scope of argument? I suppose that what is being suggested here would at least help to combat commercial press propaganda.

* An electronic system could also present the ‘for and against’ argument equitably. It need not be compulsory to vote on every issue, but perhaps it could be organised so that a statistically significant sample is required to decide any outcome. I am sure that it is not beyond our capacity to devise a suitable system.

* Citizen’s Initiated Referenda is an ideal alternative to the present system and is currently operating in various democracies worldwide. (This is not the rather odd “People’s Mandate” idea promoted by some, which aims to collect signatures from over 50% of eligible persons to then invoke powers which have purportedly existed since Magna Carta. Blue Wedges sought legal opinion on the People’s Mandate and were advised, by the now President of the Court of Appeal that the People’s Mandate has no legal standing)

* CIR on the other hand is legally robust and already operating around the world. A CIR is determined to be conducted if 10% of eligible voters petition government to conduct a poll on a specific issue.

* CIR would have the benefit of providing direct democracy for all citizens and could eventually enable the abolition of state governments, which largely duplicate federal government bureaucracy and cost billions of dollars.

* New Zealand has CIR and has recently conducted two polls. One on the issue of whether parents should be allowed to use corporal punishment on their children and one on raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The result of the corporal punishment poll determined that parents should be allowed to smack their children, thus opposing the legislation that the government has just adopted, banning corporal punishment by parents. Unfortunately in NZ, CIR outcomes are not binding on government. To be effective of course CIR outcomes must be binding on government.

At the very least, perhaps our elected representatives should be required to conduct statistically robust polls in their electorate to guide their voting on issues currently before them in parliament. We understand Independent Victorian MP Craig Ingram did this on the recent abortion reform debate. His electorate overwhelmingly supported reform so that’s the way he voted. Other MPs of course proceeded with a “conscience” vote without any obligation whatsoever to consult or inform their electorate. As it stands, for most of the time that is precisely what most of them do – ignore almost everyone that voted for them!

The way things are at the moment, we will be fighting many unwanted policies and proposals in future and if nothing changes we will just keep on being ignored. From now on, when campaigning for the retention of something special, or against something dreadful, amongst all the points we make, why not take the opportunity to remind people that the conventional and proper methods for community input are being ignored by those “in control”, so we need to start thinking about a different way forward – otherwise it is a dead cert we will get what we DON”T want, the environment will be trashed, and those of us running the campaigns will get very depressed and worn out for no sum gain.

A component of all our current and future campaigns should be the message that “community consultation” is off the rails and heading for the cliff. We need somehow to take back control from those who purport to represent us, but are doing nothing of the sort. Otherwise we will just get steamrollered time and time again. We might not make a dent straight away, but sooner or later we just might if we keep giving it a go, and those who come after us will thank us!

We are still willing to believe that if given the facts, most people are capable of making a reasonable decision. If we think otherwise, and don’t trust our fellow citizens then we don’t believe in democracy either, and are just as bad as those we are currently criticising.

Written by Jenny and Len Warfe of the Blue Wedges organisation.

Injunction to prevent suffering to native animals fails in Australian World Heritage National Park

Councillor Katie Milne of Tweed Shire Council, NSW, failed in her attempt to prevent the staging of a 3 day long international car rally through Tweed and Kyogle Shire national parks, state forests, World Heritage areas, nature conservation areas, major koala colonies, core koala habitats and habitat where over 12 nationally-threatened species live. In September 2008, the Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett dubbed the area as the ‘Green Cauldron’, one of 8 national iconic landscapes.

On 27th August, 2009, in Milne v. Rally Australia Pty Ltd, Federal Court Justice Stone was assigned to hear the case in Sydney for 3 hours. The Judge had only just received the last of the reports an hour before the hearing and admitted she had not had time to read all the material.

Fastest case in the history of Tweed Shire?

“It was the fastest case in the history of Tweed Shire. The Judge was able to somehow determine the case in about 10 mins flat after we began," commented Cr Milne. "We didn’t even have a chance for all the issues to be heard. The rally has assigned 600 police for 5 days including training, but they couldn’t even assign a Judge for a proper full day trial to hear all the evidence."

She said, "We knew we were gone when the Judge said, 'Times up, you’ve got one more issue you can raise’.'"

"We had barely started. We had only just got past our argument when the judge dismissed both our ecologists’ reports."

Ecological expertise wasted

Ecologist Dr Stephen Ambrose was there to present his report which challenged Repco's assertion that there would be no significant impact on any nationally-listed threatened species. Dr Ambrose had presented a 12 page resume of his qualifications, his published papers, committees he had chaired and court cases he was involved with. He had supplied a huge dossier of issues including a comparative study and a raft of arguments refuting Dr Phillip’s methodology and many assumptions made. For instance, he claimed that there is a higher probability of mortality as animals actually frequent roadside verges.

Councillor Milne said it was frustrating that he had been available as a witness but the court wouldn’t interview him.

"Dr Ambrose was the key ecologist in the V8 Homebush Supercar case. He is a bird specialist and familiar with the problems a rally is likely to cause. There is a population 35-45 Black Breasted Button Quails near the Mebbin locality Byrill Creek stage of the rally route and it is believed that the loss of one or disruption to their breeding cycle could be fatal to the viability of the entire population."

She added that another ecologist, Mr Mark Graham, who also presented a damning report "had extensive and specific local experience of the area, having coincidently carried out a 3 month ground survey of the endangered Giant Barred Frogs on the Byrill Creek route. The spray of dust can settle on their eggs and larvae and totally destroy their breeding cycle."

Arcane-seeming technicalities defeated community’s try for justice

“The Judge said we had not presented the argument in the manner required by the Courts. It was our ecologist’s case that this was not possible. She made no attempt to ascertain the validity of the arguments with Dr Ambrose. The whole crux of the ecological case was not even argued. It was absolutely appalling” said Cr Milne.

She went on to say that Repco Rally Australia had employed Dr Stephen Phillips (Biolink Pty Ltd) to conduct an ecological report on the impacts on species living on the rally route in autumn. As a result many species that were not visible at that time were visible in spring, breeding season for many species. Had Dr Phillips found any significant impacts to any of the nationally-listed threatened species, the matter would need to be referred to the Minister for the Environment for assessment as these are matters of national environmental significance.

"In the first report released by Repco in April 2009, Dr Phillips actually did recommend that the rally be referred to Minister Peter Garrett. However Repco claimed in the Court that this was a mistaken release of a draft document. Dr Phillips was not in court to confirm or deny this." Cr Milne said that regardless of whether the document was a draft or not, Dr Phillips had actually stated that the rally should be referred to Minister Garrett up until July and therefore the community had believed this would happen. While Dr Phillips may have changed his mind in his July report, it shows that the matter was in contention and that a precautionary approach should have been taken. The matter of referral to the Minister should have been debated by the ecologists but never was. "It feels like we haven't even had a proper hearing and it feels extremely unjust," said Cr Milne.

Late timing issue a non-sequitur and not our fault

Cr Milne said “The late timing of filing for this injunction was being used as if it was something we were responsible for. The fact that the community has been asking the Environment Minister Garrett to make a decision on this right from the start, and that the Minister had failed to do so, did not seem to worry the Judge at all. Nor did the fact that the community was misled up until July by the Repco report and that a Development Application was also promised up until July, seem to worry the Judge.”

"When were we supposed to take an injunction?" she wondered. "We only had between July and August after the special legislation Motor Sports Bill 2009 was brought into force. The community have done everything in their power to seek a legal outcome including commissioning not one, but two, ecological reports. Minister Garrett has joined with the State government and local Council to ignore this community and this World Heritage environment completely."

She said, "Rally Australia's claims that 'this is going to be the most environmental friendly rally in the world' is a joke. How can this rally be 'environmentally friendly' when it needed to bypass State environmental laws to be held? Many of our environmental laws have had to be extinguished to force this otherwise illegal event through. This race will set a new environmental standard but it’s an absolutely appalling one, one that allows such extreme sports races to run between World heritage corridors and through National Parks and Conservation areas."

Non-profit organization well-provided for in legal counsel

Repco Rally had five lawyers present in court at a cost of $40,000 in three days. “They won on legal technicalities, not on issues”, said Councillor Milne. She added that she was surprised that a non profit organisation could afford such representation. "They have threatened that they will vigorously pursue costs. The costs order case is going to be rushed through as well, in less than a week for this Wednesday", she concluded.

This rally is intended to become a bi-annual event until 2027.

Not a good look for the Fédération internationale de l'automobile

These political and environmental impacts must also be doing great harm to La Fédération Internationale de l'automobile and the road safety and green reputation it promotes on its pages:

"Formula for the Environment: As the governing body of motor sport and the representative of more than 100 million consumers worldwide, the FIA has been actively putting the environment on the top of its dual agendas. Formula for the environment outlines the FIA’s environmental efforts, from proposals for global emission benchmarks by policy makers to forward thinking environmentally relevant initiatives in motor sport such as the introduction of energy recovery systems in Formula One, highlighting what the FIA is doing to reduce the impact of motoring on the environment." Source: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mobility/policy/Pages/FIAPolicyCentre.aspx

Residents of the community are reportedly devastated.

One has written to candobetter: I am so sad!! Today I drove on most of the rally routes and saw so many beautiful animals, right by the road. Many kangaroos mostly, wedgetail eagles, low-flying little birds, lots of snakes, very sad looking cows and sheep and horses all looking at me as if to say 'please save me, take me away from here' .... the grief is so deep inside me right now....I am utterly inconsolable."

The making of a new law to disempower environmental laws and local government powers in order to hold the rally means that democracy has been extinguished in Tweed Shire. Environmental damage and loss of democracy always seem to go together. This is surely a matter which should concern judges all over the land.

How to make donations to court costs

Something just as bad could easily happen to a place you love, now that it has happened in Tweed Shire. Downsizing democracy is a pernicious trend in Australia. Australians need to fight these trends as hard as they can and prevent communities from being destroyed by financial costs. Perhaps there will be an appeal. People can make donations towards the $40,000 court costs. It has been suggested that if 200 people can donate $200 each the shire will be able to pay.

Bank details are:
No Rally Group
BSB 062 580
A/C 10275161
Commonwealth Bank

See also: Repco Rally route - the calm before the storm of 26 Aug 09, URGENT! Contact Peter Garrett re Injunction to stop Repco Rally of 29 Aug 09.

This interesting letter about the experience of a citizen representing a group's appeal at VCAT vindicates the citizen, educates others about the VCAT attitude, and shows VCAT up.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC).

The Hon. Justice Kevin Bell
President
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
55 King Street
Melbourne 3000
13 August 2009
Your Honour

ADDENDUM TO SUBMISSION TO VCAT REVIEW

I refer to my letter of 15 May 2009, written on behalf of our organisation Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., containing our submission to the review of VCAT. I am writing to you with an addendum about a number of urgent concerns about VCAT proceedings following a Practise Day Tribunal hearing on 13 March 2009.

See attached the VCAT Order (Reference P3692/2008) relating to the Practice Day hearing on 13 March 2009, the applicant being the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and the Responsible Authority Port Phillip Council. We were represented by a barrister.

A matter which perturbs us greatly is the failure of the Tribunal to comply with the Practice Note which sets out procedures for submitting evidence and submissions. Port Phillip Council failed to comply with the Practice Note as its legal representative produced additional documents at the hearing without having previously circulated them to us the requisite two days beforehand or at all. Apparently this is a routine occurrence at VCAT hearings and puts community groups at a significant disadvantage because they cannot afford the expense of an adjournment to consider fresh material. I have heard from a number of our member groups that this has happened to them. In our case the Port Phillip Council brought its request to strike out our case on 13 February 2009 yet came up with additional material five minutes before the hearing a month later on 13 March 2009. Hence Council’s legal representative had plenty of time to circulate additional documents.

I understand that there are many different jurisdictions (14 different lists?) and each has different procedures for “bringing applications”. There are different Practice Notes, different forms and requirements for the different jurisdictions. It appears that Tribunal members do not enforce them, as we found in our case.

The Tribunal member hearing our case justified allowing Port Phillip Council’s legal representatives to provide additional material five minutes before the hearing by saying:

“The applicant was aware of the statement of grounds being relied upon by the council prior to the hearing; they have not come as a surprise... In the present case, there was nothing in the council’s outline of submissions or the additional material that the applicant or I could not comprehend or respond to on the day”.

In fact, some of the material was new and there was no time to even read it closely. (See Paragraph 9, Page 2 of Order.)

The Chair further made the following comment:

“The applicant, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., through its spokespersons, Julianne Bell, appears regularly before VCAT and is familiar with Tribunal procedures, planning legislation and planning control. The applicant was represented by experienced legal counsel who himself presented detailed written submissions and was well able to request an additional opportunity to respond to anything at the practice day hearing if indeed he has been taken by surprise. He did not do so.”

(See Paragraph 10, Page 5 of Order.)

Not only was the statement about regular appearances before VCAT false, and not based on any evidence, it is apt to create great disincentive to community groups seeking to have a voice at VCAT hearings. The Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. has not appeared regularly at VCAT, in fact we have had two cases only since our establishment in 2004 - the present one included. The other case was an application in July 2008 to obtain information under FOI from Port Phillip Council. (VCAT referred the case to the Ombudsman who was unable to extract information from the Council and the case lapsed.) The organisation does not know about planning legislation or Tribunal procedures as claimed by the Tribunal Chair and accordingly engaged lawyers to represent it. I have only had very limited further contact with VCAT in other matters and do not pretend to understand the procedural requirements.

The comments by the Tribunal carry the implied slur that Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. has been vexatious, but of course there is no redress for a community group confronted by this kind of attack from a VCAT member.

Community groups come to VCAT in order to have a hearing according to law about issues of importance to the community. In many ways they ought to have more entitlement to a proper hearing than those who do so from motivations of profit. The refusal to hear a properly formulated proceeding, accompanied by this studied slight to the group bringing the claim, is typical of the type of alienation of the community by VCAT which has been so distressing for those involved in the process.

Yours sincerely

Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 2052

The Discovery of Honey, painting by Piero di Cosimo, taking the happy social connotations of honey to the mythical plane.

According to the film, The Vanishing of Bees, there are 90 food crops dependent on bee pollination. If we lost bees, rice, corn, and wheat would continue to be available, but there would be little fruit or vegetables.

Bees most common insect pollinators

Here the film includes other insect pollinators as well as bees - such as flower wasps: "If we want a diet that is more than gruel, we need insect pollinators."

Emotionalism and Rationalism

In "Pollination and Reproductive Behavior of Crop Plants" by Dr. C Kameswara Rao of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India, Dr Rao says, "Biotic pollen vectors such as honey bees and bumble bees and some others have an important role in sustainable agriculture, but that has been exaggerated, romanticized and emotionalized by expansive claims by the environmentalists."

But what are we humans, if not emotional, and what is life to us, if not an emotional experience? Without emotions there is no concentration and no learning. Without emotions there is no capacity to imagine what we might lose.

Garden of Eden

To highlight the shallowness of confining discussion to human survival prospects alone with a severely depleted and dumbed-down natural ecosystem, consider how it makes you feel to contemplate the myth of the Garden of Eden without the food trees and flowers and almost devoid of wild birds and animals - for all of the other creatures on earth depend on a natural environment which relies heavily on pollination. Agribusiness and genetic plant engineering aren't going to look after them. To the contrary!

Without the bee

Without the bee, it would be as if we had all been banished from the garden of Eden, a notion which gives pause.

Insecticides and Colony Collapse Disorder

See also "From Watchdog to Lapdog: An Insider's History of the EPA"
The name which has been given to the problem of bee colonies dying off is "Colony Collapse Disorder - CCD".

The blog associated with the film implicates pesticides in this awful problem, notably one from Bayer’s CropScience division, Clothiantin, with the trade name Poncho® among others.

The blog states:

"BAYER are the last remaining major global brand still producing and distributing this vile pesticide even though it is proven that farmers can Banned in Europe, this European company sell this primarily to the poorest countries in the world – including to many farmers in India where they dominate the pesticides market.

We believe that this is wrong and that BAYER should live up to their responsibilities and support a global ban rather than fight it. 14 years ago, they also pledged to remove some of the most toxic pesticides from the Indian market. And they still have not yet done that!"

Maryam Heinan writes,

"Bayer makes baby aspirins (which are supposedly bad for infants) and also gives headaches to bees.

Bayer has global sales of $45 billion and owns a subsidiary called Bayer CropScience AG that manufactures herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides as well as treated seeds. CropScience alone does $8.8 billion in global sales that is about 20% of Bayer’s business.

Poncho and Gaucho are some of the trade names that have caused strife to the bees.

The EPA in a fact sheet issued 5/31/2003 has described Bayer’s Clothiantin, one of who’s trade names is Poncho® a pesticide from Bayer’s CropScience division, as follows: “ Poncho® is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 0.0439 µg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of Poncho® residues in nectar and pollen. In honeybees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen.”

In May 2008 Germany banned the use of Poncho® when German beekeepers reported loosing over 50% of their hives after a Poncho® application was linked to the deaths of millions of bees in the Baden-Württemberg region. Bayer responded that the toxic effect was an isolated incident caused by an “extremely rare” application error. So Poncho® is banned in Germany where Bayer was founded in 1863 and has its global headquarters. After the “extremely rare” application error people started to link Poncho®with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

So why does the EPA still allow the use of this insecticide in the US even though they described it in 2003 as “highly toxic to honeybees”? And why does the EPA still allow the use of this insecticide when its use has been banned in Germany where Bayer was founded 146 years ago, and has its global headquarters?

Because this country doesn’t adhere to the Precautionary Principle. In other countries when there is a slight risk they err on the side of caution. Not in America. Money and Greed rules."

See also :
"Trouble with bees", ABC Radio National's Background Briefing of 29 Jul 07, including transcript and link to 22Mb MP3 file.
A typically excellent documentary from the Background Briefing team. Much of it describes the insane US agricultural which is dependent, for pollination, on mobile bee colonies which are transported in trucks backwards and forwards across the US.

This week - 25 August 2009 - it's about creating a citizens bank. Joe points out that Australians demanded a peoples' bank in 1909 (after the 1890 depression) and got it. Unfortunately they made it the property of the government, and the Hawk Government sold it off.

"Next time", says Joe, "It needs to be made to belong to us, not the government." Then they won't be able to sell it off without a referendum.

You learn a lot about politics, rights and institutions from Joe. Also about how to conduct demonstrations. And about how we need to be active and let the government know we are out there.

Joe is also wise to big business and unsustainable population growth.

Listen to Joe Toscano here. From anywhere in the world.