environment

The magnificent African Bush Elephant bull (male) walking tall in its native savannah homeland

Out of Victorian colonial exploits of the 19th Century, elephant tusks could be found butchered and refined into expensive goods, notably billiard balls, piano keys, Scottish bagpipes, garment buttons, letter openers and for many ornamental items otherwise considered mere 'trinkets'.

After the elephant tusk ('ivory') trade had decimated the African Elephant population from 1.3 million to 625,000, finally in 1989 the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) imposed a ban on this international elephant tusk (ivory) trade.

Ten years on, Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe, lifted the ban along with Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa and legalised the sale of elephant tusks from elephants they claimed (a) had died naturally or (b) been shot because they were violently aggressive or for 'problem-animal' control. In 1999, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) authorized an auction of 50 tons of elephant tusks (ivory) from these four countries to the value of USD$5 million. Notably, the demand for elephant has been driven outside the African continent, in this episode mainly by Japan. [I could find a comparable solution for problem Mugabe control]

In 2008, China was also given permission to become a licensed buyer of elephant tusks (ivory) and this followed 108 tons of elephant tusks (ivory) being auctioned from these same four African countries, representing the death of over 10,000 African elephants.

"The growing demand for elephant tusks (ivory) has increased black market prices from $200 per kilo to $850 per kilo in the past four years thus creating a big financial incentive for poachers. Michael Wamithi, program director for International Fund for Animal Welfare’s global elephants program, and former director of the Kenya Wildlife Service, declared: "An estimated 20,000 elephants are slaughtered annually for the trade in their tusks. Many African elephant range states clearly do not have the capacity or resources to combat these massive attacks on their countries' wildlife heritage and the burgeoning markets in China are only fuelling these attacks."

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), which exposes environmental crimes, said CITES had ignored appeals from other African nations not to increase pressures on their elephant populations which were already struggling with wars, instability, droughts and poverty. EIA chairman Allan Thornton said: "Responsibility for the poaching of 20,000 elephants in Africa each year will now lie with those who supported China obtaining legal ivory trade even though they continue to be the world's biggest destination for poached ivory."SOURCE

This elephant tusk (ivory) carving (photo) is a gift from China presented to the United Nations in 1974. It depicts the Chengtu-Kunming railway, which was opened to traffic in 1970. The sculpture was carved from eight elephant tusks. In elephant terms, four mature bull elephants were killed for this elaborate trinket.

One wonders whether the United Nations is still pleased with its eight bull elephant tusk trophy (shot and hacked off from a bull elephant like that above)?

Sylvia Hale, NSW Greens MP and Local Government spokesperson has slammed Tweed Council for imposing a ban on its Councillors disclosing information to the media. "Tweed Council was dismissed in 2005 because of corrupt conduct. Haven’t the Councillors who voted for this ban learnt anything from that experience?” asked Ms Hale.   “Denying the media and the public access to information creates the sort of climate in which corruption can flourish.”   The Daly report into Tweed Council that led to its dismissal in 2005 specifically criticised the then Council for adopting processes that “resulted in a low level of transparency in its operations.” (Daly report, May 2005, p. 294)   “Now this new Council is doing exactly the same thing, implementing processes designed to reduce transparency and shut down public scrutiny. It’s a very dangerous road for the Council to pursue and the Council should reverse its decision immediately.”   “If the Council wants to win back the trust of the community it should be looking at making more information available to the public, not less.”   “Given the potential negative consequences for public administration in the Tweed I am calling on the Minister for Local Government to intervene to ensure that Tweed Council adheres to the principles of freedom of information and stops its attempts to avoid public scrutiny of its processes and decisions,” Ms Hale said.    Contact: Chris Holley on 02 9230 3030 or 0437 779 546

Painting: John Singleton Copley, Watson and the Shark (1777)

The nationally publicized assault of a 38 year old black man

The nationally publicized assault of a 38 year old black man in Courtenay, BC by three young white thugs was predictably amplified by a media eager to sound the siren of politically correct paranoia. There was racism under every bed! White racism that is. The other kind, of “black on white” assaults, which statistically is much the more common event in America, is not the subject of polite conversation. It is, after all, socially outrageous to speak the truth in Canada. Best to ban the publication of ethnic crime data to smother bigotry in its cradle. Then again, statistical profiling may very well do the opposite by revealing that crime is not the trademark of any ethnic community but only of a tiny and troubled minority within it. And that culture, not skin pigmentation, is a relevant factor, among many.

When the Mayor of Courtenay, Greg Phelps, failed to comply with a PC injunction to support a “feel good” anti-discrimination ‘protocol’ he found substantially meaningless, to address a problem too over-blown to warrant panic, an activist of self-righteous disgust raised the specter of rampant subterranean racism. You may not see it, but trust me, it’s here, there and everywhere! Courtenay may project the image of placid tolerance, but scratch the surface, and it’s a town in the Jim Crow South. “The mayor,” he said, was “just the tip of the iceberg. And it’s not about the three young white men either. There’s got to be a large peer group who shares their racist views. And don’t forget racism begins at home. These men obviously have parents. And these parents have peers too…” Implication? Let’s find them and root them out! I wonder if Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” is included by the school board in the canon of student texts, along with the slogans of intolerant tolerance that the Ministry of Education mandates.

How inconvenient it was then, when it was later learned that apparently, the three aggressors subsequently attacked a Caucasian man. One wonders would words they applied to taunt him. Was it “fatso”, “gimp”, “four eyes”, “baldy” or “fag”? If so, would it indicate that they were motivated by a hatred of obese, handicapped, bespectacled, hairless or gay people? Or would it reveal that their despicable aggression was more accurately the result of three young punks spoiling for a fight and looking for any handle or epithet to goad their victim and get under his skin?

Media alarmism and rent-a-crowd fury

This media alarmism and rent-a-crowd fury recalls the outrageous claim made by the then Minister for Multiculturalism, Hedy Fry, that racism had reached such a fever pitch that ‘they were burning crosses in Prince George (BC).” That too was a ridiculous hyperbole and a blatant lie. Prince George was no more a racist hotbed than Courtenay is today. Nevertheless, these kind of charges serve a purpose. And what purpose do they serve? They stoke up a hyper-sensitivity not only about racism, but issues about that are peripheral to it, but not necessarily connected.

The bogeyman of rampant white racism creates an atmosphere of social intimidation that already greets anyone who dares to criticize the state policies of mass immigration and official multiculturalism. And as we have seen here and elsewhere, racial vilification laws and the revision of history are the logical complement to it. The need to suppress and punish odious views is thought necessary to smother any nascent challenge to the corporate agenda of growing the economy by growing the population. Hysteria inflates the constituency for more restrictions on contrarian speech and the ethnic cleansing of textbooks. Since Canada’s immigration selection criteria, in tandem with the second highest per capita immigration intake in the world, ensures that the country will evolve as Courtenay is evolving, into “a growing community increasing in diversity”, ethnic harmony must come at any cost.

Given that imperative, free speech can no longer be regarded as the very condition and pre-requisite of all other rights, but in the classic Canadian light, of merely one right to be weighed against others in determining the public interest.

"Cultural diversity" a sweet-sounding syrup to coat the bitter pill of naked profit and greed

“Cultural diversity” is the clarion call of the liberal-left, but it is also the mask of the corporate elite, a sweet-sounding syrup to coat the bitter pill of naked profit and greed---and the environmental degradation that comes with it. Big banks, developers and cheap labour employers fly its banner as a smokescreen to obscure their efforts to widen the labour pool and recruit more homebuyers. Immigration is openly promoted as a life-preserver for the shipwrecked home mortgage and home building industry by the Royal Bank of Canada, Scotia Bank and other credit institutions. Cultural diversity is the flavour of the month for an agenda that has no sincere interest in ethnic folk dances and exotic cuisines, but only in the making of money, and the fragmentation of a once cohesive society so that united opposition to its aims become less and less likely as the process unfolds. It is a kind of diversity that comes at the cost of both biological diversity---the staggering loss of species from human population growth in Canada----and intellectual diversity. A nation where people of different origins and hues can co-exist only if they sing the same tune, and the old slogans of “white” nationalism are supplanted by the cant of fake “diversity”. It is the ideology of current convenience, like the “Manifest Destiny” or “White Australia” of times past, to camouflage and disguise the continuing quest to dispossess whom ever happens to be the native population of its share of the economic pie.

For good measure, school textbooks, and history itself, has been revised to advance the new state religion of “Multiculturalism”—Canada’s Ingsoc. The falsehoods of the past have been replaced with politically correct falsehoods of the present. The Chinese head tax and the Exclusion Act, together with the Komagata Maru incident, now form the centerpiece of White Guilt 101, which never looks at the historical context of these events, but assigns retroactive blame on working people and politicians whose main objective was simply to defend wages and living standards from cheap imported labour. No mention is made, for example, that “Chinese exclusion” did not apply to students, diplomats or Chinese business men and their families. Some kind of ‘racism’ that.

Don't play into the PC game-plan

But making the foregoing case plays right into the PC game-plan. That is, draw us into a verbal maelstrom on race, away from the critical issue of sustainability. Away from what should be our primary concern, which is not about how people in our lifeboat treat each other, where they are from or how they look, but how many damn passengers the boat can carry sustainably past the tumultuous storms of peak oil, peak water and peak everything that loom over the horizon. The relationship between humans is secondary to the relationship of humans to nature and the resources it provides. HMCS Canada is a lifeboat, not an aircraft carrier. It is not a vast and boundless land begging for more people to unlock a treasure trove of limitless resources, but a big “little’ land in ecological terms. A nation of frozen tundra, short growing seasons, mined out and marginal soil where 20% of its best farmland is paved over and the rest is under threat from continuing sprawl and the impending loss of oil-based fertilizers. A ship hurtling toward the iceberg of overshoot with politicians on the bridge who want to stop to pick up more passengers and encourage those already on board to have more children.

It is in this context that the crusade of “anti-racism” must be seen. It is the sand that is thrown in our face to get us off our game----stopping growth. And growth is no bogeyman. It is here and it is killing us.

Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
July 14/09

Tune in

Dr Douglas has a grasp on the broader politics and bureaucracy problems which are making it impossible for the governments involved in regulating water (i.e. all Australian governments) to act effectively on the issue. When I say 'effectively', I mean to say that they simply seem to be paralysed and allowing things to drift into ever greater crisis. They are not paralysed on the privatisation issue; they appear to be enthralled by the privateers, but they are paralysed on taking the necessary measures to safeguard Australian water sources. They need the public to keep up a huge pressure because only public pressure will wake these bureaucratic government sleepwalkers, who will take Australia beyond survival mode if they are not woken up.

See other articles on this issue from Fair Water Use here: http://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/619.

The message coming from Fair Water Use Australia is that the Federal and State Governments are not handling Australia's water properly, transparently or effectively. The mishandling is causing a dangerous crisis. The public should be very concerned and NGOs should support Fair Water Use and the UN in their call for a state of emergency and a Royal Commission. Australia, this is really serious.

Higher rainfall should mean more water - so where is it going?

Higher rainfall should mean more water in public and environmental reserves, but it is going to private holdings instead and the public is not aware

Private sector increases its strangle-hold on the Murray-Darling

Data obtained by Fair Water Use from the Bureau of Meteorology and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority provides confirmation of the effect of the rapid increase in privately-held water in the Darling Basin on the volumes of water available for essential public and environmental use, refuting claims that the crisis in the Darling is predominantly drought-related.

image from Fair Water Use site http://www.fairwateruse.com.au/

Despite average-to-above average rainfall in the Darling Basin over the last two years, the amount of water flowing down the Darling has reduced dramatically.

image from Fair Water Use site http://www.fairwateruse.com.au/

Public H20 store 80% less than it should be

Storage in the Menindee Lakes is currently around 80% less than would be expected under average rainfall conditions. As there has been no similar increase in volumes released from the Lakes, the water-hoarding activities of the private sector stand clearly incriminated.

There can be little doubt that, although compounded by drought, rampant water-privatisation is also a major contributor to the current devastation of the Murray catchment. However calculations are impeded by the apparent unwillingness of State Governments to provide required data.

UN Senior Water Advisor supports State of Emergency and Royal Commission on MDB Water

Fair Water Use is encouraged by the recent support of the senior water advisor to the United Nations for its call for declaration of a State of Emergency and the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the management of the water of the Murray-Darling Basin. Such actions offer the only means whereby Australians can regain control of this vital and acutely-threatened resource.

Listen to interview.

Source: Fair Water Use Australia. Fair Water Use Australia strives for a revived Murray-Darling basin by supporting environmentally sustainable water-use.

(Photo by Sheila)

This article is a reflection on the nature and efficacy of wildlife research in Australia.

I raise 3 issues:

Can research benefit wildlife? Can research contribute to its survival? Can research engender respect for the intrinsic value of wildlife?

The Nature and efficacy of wildlife reseach in Australia

I’ve asked these questions because, despite over 200 years research into every aspect of the lives of our native animals, the many thousands of papers produced and the many millions of dollars spent, fauna populations continue to decline, the number of endangered and extinct species continues to rise and the attitude of the general public towards indigenous animals slides further into the abyss.

The current state of wildlife is desperate. It’s obvious that Australia is waging a war on wildlife. It’s a dirty war. It’s fueled by research and it will ultimately result in the destruction of all native animals.

You would think that our native fauna would be a precious and vital element of our country’s identity and that these animals would be nurtured and protected, not only for their value to the tourism industry or their role in the maintenance of biodiversity and the fragile ecosystem but for their sheer beauty and the elegance of the way they strive to survive in this harsh and dangerous land.

Two prevailing views

Photo provided by Nikki Sutterby, Co-Ordinator, Australian Society for Kangaroos

Unfortunately this is not the case. Very broadly speaking there are two prevailing views of the environment in Australia and I believe that wildlife research reflects and perpetuates these opposing points of view.

The majority view is that humans always have priority, with the right to live wherever, take whatever and do whatever they want.

Depending on who you are, wildlife is a resource to be exploited, a pest to be exterminated, or a curiosity to be dissected. For hunters and hoons, wildlife is fun to kill and for environmentalists it is sustainable food.

These beliefs are perpetrated by bureaucratic, short sighted, exploitative institutions and individuals who are always looking to maximize revenue, trade and profit. The research of selected experts is used to justify lethal management decisions and to excuse horrific cruelty to animals often by incompetent contract killers.

Taxes pay for this

Members of the CSIRO, National Parks, State and Federal Government agencies, councils, universities and agricultural colleges make up this group. Their work is often supported by the RSPCA and always paid for by the tax payer.

At the laboratory level these institutions also appear to be conspiring to eradicate wildlife by any means. They contract and conduct research into all means of destroying wildlife and habitat - poisons, fencing, traps, snares, starvation and introduced predators just to name a few. This research not only uses native animals in lab and field experiments but has contributed to the suffering and death of millions of native animals in the wild, as has the wide variety of cruel and often lethal tracking devices that have been developed and applied by these institutions for their dubious data collections.

Just last week it was revealed that in NSW, native stripe-faced dunnarts, a species classified as vulnerable, died in an experiment to see how their immune function would be affected by pesticides.

Research favourable to animal welfare

West Aust Black Cockatoos in rehab. Photo from Black Cockatoo Conservation Team

While it is true that there is research favourable to animals; research that proves for instance that kangaroos do not threaten the wheat and wool industries and that they are beneficial to the maintenance of natural vegetation, ethics committees and government departments usually choose to ignore these findings in favour of a quick result and often to cover–up incompetence in other areas of environmental protection or worse, to hide plans for building development.

Wildlife is not and has never been a priority in Australia. Based on the research and recommendations of certain experts, state governments and councils continue to sanction the slaughter of populations of flying foxes, koalas, possums, wallabies and kangaroos. Non-violent solutions, long-term planning and pro-active methods are rejected as thousands of ‘inconvenient’ animals die in holocaust-style mass-murder.

But then, when a species comes to the edge of extinction or contracts a mysterious disease, suddenly there appears to be great concern, with heaps of money flying around, lots of experiments in labs and zoos and plenty of carefully manipulated media attention, often to avert a situation which, with attention to research that had warned of environmental threats, could have been avoided.

Views of the Environment

The minority view of the environment is held by a group of Australians who believe that humans must co-exist with the natural environment for our mutual benefit. People with this view are compassionate, moral people, some of whom rescue and care for injured and dying animals, some carry out vital research of their own. They endure threats and scorn but mainly their work is ignored.

This minority group is long-sighted, non-violent, inclusive and creative. These people always look for the third alternative, they promote moral decision-making based on the interests of all players and they offer solutions that are not based on vested interest.

For example;
Last year when the Department of Defense decided to massacre hundreds of kangaroos trapped at the Belconnen Army Base, no amount of non-lethal, alternative solutions offered by researchers from this minority group could persuade the government to show an atom of compassion for these gentle family-oriented animals - and the world saw the most horrendous, unforgettable slaughter. When populations of animals are trapped in areas without corridors, when there is no proactive planning and when ‘management’ is code for ‘killing’, it’s so easy to justify their elimination.

In SA the kangaroo industry killing quotas are reviewed every 3 years after aerial and ground surveys. Although this is euphemistically called research for sustainable management, kangaroos are not benefitting from this. On top of the commercial kill, they also continue to perish as farmers take more land every year and kill more kangaroos. Independent research shows that genetic diversity is diminishing as a direct result of this slaughter but while the government profits from this industry, this issue will not be addressed.

On a smaller scale, there are the activities of the SA Museum, a centre for biodiversity research in that state. Researchers map declines and extinctions. They claim to contribute to the informed management of wildlife. This is defined as the way to provide for human needs without destroying other species. They are keen to point out that no unnecessary pain or suffering occurs in their research procedures but earlier this year a report revealed that, among other deficiencies in research methodologies, trapped tortoises had drowned during a data collection procedure. The solution to this ‘mistake’ was to invent a snorkel device to stop tortoises drowning.

These are just a few of the myriad ways that research harms wildlife in Australia.

Can research benefit wildlife?

Dr Maxine Piggott

Dr Maxine Piggott received the Voiceless Eureka prize last year for her development of non-invasive DNA analysis to research animal behaviour, genetic variation and population structure in Australian native fauna. Traditional methods of data collection involve trapping and handling animals to get blood and tissue samples. This can cause animals stress, injury or death and there is a risk of females abandoning their young in the process. Currently DNA analysis of hair and faeces samples is mainly used for conservation work and is particularly applicable to the study of rare and endangered species. It is an extremely important example of what research can achieve when animal welfare is made a priority.

Can research contribute to the survival of wildlife?

Recently Dr Mike Letnic, of the University of Sydney carried out observational research into the environmental role of the dingo. He has shown that as Australia's top predator, the dingo, plays an important role in maintaining the balance of nature and that reintroducing or maintaining existing dingo populations could reduce the predatory impacts of foxes on small and medium sized mammals, increasing biodiversity across over 2 million square kilometres of Australia..
Different regions separated by the dingo fence in farmlands of New South Wales and Victoria were compared. In regions where dingoes roamed free, there were far fewer kangaroos and red foxes and small native animals thrived. On the other hand, in lands protected from dingoes, researchers noticed far fewer native animals were present.
Dingoes suffer so much because of human pressure and ignorance – it’s amazing to find a researcher presenting in their favour, with data that hopefully cannot be ignored or distorted. And that’s what so great about this kind of research – it focuses on native animals in the context of their environment while highlighting the detrimental human impact of traditional attitudes and providing a non-lethal proposal that puts humans and wildlife on the same side. Is there a possibility that the Minister for the Environment will recognize the importance of this work and act on it before dingoes all disappear into history?

Can research engender respect for the intrinsic value of wildlife?

As you may well know, Northeast of Melbourne in the Whittlesea council, there is an area where a mob of kangaroos have become trapped on its home range by council –approved building developments. Residents are confronted daily by the sight of dead or dying kangaroos that have been hit by cars or mauled by dogs and local police have increasingly been called to euthanize injured kangaroos who have tried to escape to safety or better food availability.
The council and government have allowed development to enclose the kangaroos’ territory and are now just waiting for them all to die as this last tract of land left for the animals is going to be developed as a cinema.

Where is the research on which government based the decision to abandon these kangaroos? Where is the long-term environmental plan that showed respect and concern for the welfare of the original residents of this area? What message about the value of life and the wisdom of government is being conveyed to the local population?

Wildlife research becomes corrupt when it operates outside the ideals of preserving species and habitat; when it fails to protect individual animals and provide an environment where they prosper. Government used such research to justify the killing of the 7000 kangaroos slaughtered at Majura in the ACT over the last month.
Such actions contribute to the public perception of the disposability, even invisibility of wildlife and this manifests in the contempt consistently shown towards wildlife by sections of the public. But, appalling and shameful as any murder of wildlife is, I believe that the long-term consequence of this callous official attitude will be irreparable damage to the national psyche; the destruction of the natural spirit along with the extinction of all native animals.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

I don’t want to live in an Australia without native animals. It’s unbearable that they should continue to suffer because of pseudo-science and society’s addiction to economic growth. But there is great pro-wildlife research out there and many active people lobbying for change. We urgently need a coordinated national approach which makes wildlife protection and preservation a priority to all Australians. Meanwhile we can all get behind the campaign to boycott tourism to the ACT until they stop this obscene rampage against kangaroos.

Full text of this submission may be downloaded here in a pdf file 293.43kb.

Kelvin Thompson, ALP, Federal Member for Wills, (a House of Representatives seat.) Wills is located in the north-west of Melbourne, Victoria, comprising Coburg, Coburg North, Gowanbrae, Hadfield, Oak Park, Pascoe Vale, and Strathmore, extending as far north as Fawkner, Glenroy and the Western Ring Road and south to include most of Brunswick and Brunswick East and containing parts of the State electorates of Pascoe Vale, Brunswick, Broadmeadows, Thomastown and Essendon. At a local Government level it shares most of its borders with Moreland, but includes Strathmore from the municipality of Moonee Valley and the Essendon Airport.)

It is indeed cheering to hear a member of the Federal Government criticise the policies of the Growth Lobbyists in Australia. The speech quoted at length below was in Labor MP attacks Melbourne's expansion plan ( July 20 2009) misreported in the Age where it was conflated with statements from the Committee of Melbourne. This conflation misled me and others to believe that Kelvin Thompson was against expansion into the Green Wedges, but was calling for open slather along the main arteries of Melbourne. If you read his submission or the quotes below, you will see that he is actually stating that more population growth in Melbourne is environmentally and socially unsustainable. He is critical of arguments for expansion or infilling. He also exposes the related hypocrisy and nonsensicality of the Government's climate change policies in the light of continuous population growth. He even exposes the fact that the Victorian State Government advertises for high immigration, a fact that they constantly avoid making clear to the long-suffering public.

I have to say: Bravo Kelvin Thompson! You show leadership in a government apparently composed mostly of cowards and ignoramuses who take orders from big business against the interests of their electorates. The only thing you have left out is the role that the Federal Government plays in granting the states the numbers they so vociferously demand of it.

Headings are by the candobetter editor:

Kelvin writes:

"Our city is forecast to have 4 million people living in it by the end of this year, with annual population growth rates reaching 2% (Colebatch 2009). The outer fringe of Melbourne is currently taking 61% of our population growth (Buckley 2009). This is placing pressure on the existing Urban Growth Boundary.

Climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time

Climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time and addressing it must be at the forefront of our public policy planning. Compared to other major cities throughout the developed world, Melbourne has one of the highest rates of carbon emissions per capita. Our city’s cars, trucks, motorcycles and public transport services were recently recorded to generate 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, compared with just 8.5 million tonnes in London. This equates to 3.1 tonnes of carbon per person in Melbourne compared with 1.2 tonnes per person in Greater London. One of the key reasons for our significantly higher rate of emissions per person is because of Melbourne’s larger geographic area, which means journeys tend to be longer and heavily reliant on cars (Lucas & Millar 2008).

Twice the number of people in Melbourne will mean twice the amount of carbon emissions, congestion and pollution.

Existing Government policies are encouraging an expansion of up to 75,000 people a year. If we continue down this public policy path we will need to accommodate another 1 million people before 2025 (Buckley 2009). By 2036 Melbourne is predicted to have a further 1.8 million people, nearly twice the number forecast in Melbourne 2030 (Moncrief 2008). Twice the number of people in Melbourne will mean twice the amount of carbon emissions, congestion and pollution.

Submission to the Urban Growth Boundary Review

1. Executive Summary

Our city has reached the point where we need to change direction or risk our social and environmental future.

Melbourne is at a fork in the road. For a long time our city, its way of life and the opportunities it offers to all who come here has been the envy of cities around the world. To maintain this desirable situation we must act decisively to address the issues that threaten Melbourne with becoming another crowded, over populated, congested and polluted metropolis. Our city has reached the point where we need to change direction or risk our social and environmental future.

The Urban Growth Boundary Melbourne@ 5 million review provides the opportunity to investigate the issues currently facing our city and the options we still have to address them. This submission will identify the ecological issues associated with expanding the northern, western and southern Urban Growth Boundaries and discuss the long term consequences for Melbourne of the proposed expansion. I am making recommendations which will protect Melbourne’s social and economic
growth, local amenity, transport system and reduce our carbon footprint. I have put forward an alternative plan to that of an ever expanding urban fringe.

Melbourne is one of the world’s most liveable cities. This year it was ranked third out of 140 cities as being the most liveable city. Our lifestyle, employment opportunities, health system, education system, infrastructure and environment are all aspects of a community that is the envy of many around the world (The Age 2009).

Melbourne is now the fastest growing city in Australia, with thousands flocking to live here on a never before seen scale. Melbourne’s population is growing on a scale not seen in Australia before, swelling by almost 150,000 people in two years (Colebatch 2009). The 2001 Census recorded Melbourne’s population at 3.3 million people (ABS 2001). In 2006 our population reached 3.6 million (ABS 2006). It has continued to grow faster than that of any other city in the country.

Melbourne’s population grew by 74,713 in the year to last June and by 74, 791 during the previous year. Melbourne’s population is growing by more than 200 people a day, or almost 1500 per week. Melbourne’s population growth last year far outpaced all other major Australian cities. Sydney grew by 55,047 (1.35%), Brisbane by 43,404 (2.3%) and Perth by 43,381 (2.8%) (Colebatch 2009).

In response to revised population projections showing that Melbourne will reach five million people faster than anticipated, the Victorian Government announced its intention to review the Urban Growth Boundary in December 2008 (DoPCD 2009:i). The Urban Growth Boundary was introduced in 2002 as part of Melbourne 2030 (DoPCD 2009A). The boundary was expressly put in place to contain urban sprawl. It was expressly designed to prevent ongoing urban expansion into rural land surrounding metropolitan Melbourne and its fringe (DoSE 2005). It set out to place a clear limit to metropolitan Melbourne’s development. It sought to concentrate urban expansion into growth areas that are served by high capacity public transport (DoSE 2005A).

The most recent review of Melbourne @ 5 million forecasts an additional 600,000 new dwellings in Melbourne with 284,000 of these needing to be located in growth areas. Most of this future growth will be in the north and west of Melbourne (DoPCD 2009:i).

The State Government is investigating changes to the Urban Growth Boundary in response to updated population forecasts and revised longer term growth issues (DoPCD:6). Areas under consideration for urban expansion include 20,448
hectares in Melbourne’s west around Caroline Springs, Melton and Werribee; 25,385 hectares around Sunbury, Craigieburn and Donnybrook and 5560 hectares east of Cranbourne.

Under the plan Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary would be allowed to grow another 41,000 hectares to accommodate an extra 415,000 people. Development of these areas would lead to a loss of some of the most valuable grasslands on the city’s fringe (Dowling & Lahey 2009).

Around the urban fringe, we have a concentration of some of the most endangered ecosystems in Australia, including Western Basalt Plains Grassland and Grassy Woodland, and a diverse range of other vegetation types and threatened species (Environment Victoria 2009). It is vital we do everything we can to protect these ecologically sensitive and important areas from being overrun by high density development.

The Victorian Government is now seeking public feedback on the proposals regarding the proposed changes to the Urban Growth Boundary before a final decision is made (DoPCD 2009:3). In making a final decision, I encourage the Victorian Government to consider the issues of population, local amenity and liveability, climate change, economic growth and transport. I have put forward recommendations that are designed to tackle urban sprawl and that will continue to protect the
things that make Melbourne great.

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate.

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate. We must implement a strategy to control population growth, urban expansion and development. Our way of life, open spaces and infrastructure cannot be sacrificed on the altar of ever expanding population. We have a responsibility to secure our city’s future through thorough, thoughtful and detailed planning. This
planning should not include an expanding Melbourne waistline.

[...]

Encouraging urban sprawl and ever increasing high density developments will lead to a more
polluted, congested and unsustainable Melbourne. Bringing millions of people in to Melbourne will increase the stress on water supplies that are already strained, increase reliance on fossil fuels by communities that are on our urban fringe, and it will increase Melbourne’s carbon footprint when we must be reducing it.

Regrettably the planning process in Melbourne is not being used to achieve environmental sustainability. Melbourne is generating more greenhouse emissions, using more water, losing open space and turning into a high rise steel and concrete jungle. Planners and policy makers talk the talk of protecting Melbourne’s environment, but their actions have the opposite effect. They behave as Gough Whitlam once described rowers facing in one direction but heading in the opposite one.

The promise of Green Wedges to give Melbourne lungs of open space in which to breathe has been broken

A fundamental component of planning for Melbourne’s growth during the 1970s was the concept of
urban growth corridors radiating outwards, separated by wedges of non-urban land (Friends of Merri Creek 2009:3). But the promise of Green Wedges to give Melbourne lungs of open space in which to breathe has been broken, and is proposed to be broken yet again. We need to retain Green Wedges as permanent wedges between growth corridors, not as potential urban land supply that is bulldozed as soon as there is a demand for it.

Subtitled, "Admiral Wayne Swan and Kaptain Kevin Rudd D-Day WWII Budget Newsreel Spending Campaign".

Yes, this video puts our problems of 'leadership' and 'vision' succinctly.
And could lead to deeper questions about the meaning of life, the notion of human intelligence, and the nature of money.
Or we could just be happy that people like Cyrius01 are out there to balance out the Krudd and Howard humour deficits.

Fini Developer & City of Gosnells West Oz hard on near-extinct Black Cockatoos in Rehab

Glenn Dewhurst, of the Black Cockatoo Conservation Team in West Australia feels harassed and almost despairs in the face of complaints from a developer who lives next door to the 12 Acre Black Cockatoo Rehab facility in Martin, W.A., which Glenn has dedicated years of his life to constructing.

West Australian Black Cockatoos in Rehab enjoying nuts

The developer, David Fini, of David Fini Developments, has complained about noise from nesting birds, Glenn says. Glenn cannot understand why since, he says, only two birds have been born in the rehab facility. "They were accidents. It is not meant to be a breeding facility; it is for rehab. We free the birds when they are well, we don't breed them."

Mr Dewhurst says that Mr Fini has also complained about workers there picking native nuts to feed the birds.

Glenn says, "The collection of nuts is wide and varied, usually covering up to 100kms at a time. We never pick in the same spot and only 20% of any nuts. We have permits. Some weekends we have travelled over 350kms to get food for these birds. It is very important to have the native food and critical for their rehabilitation."

"Mr Fini has complained about the volunteers visiting the rehab centre, too", says Glenn Dewhurst, "Although there are only four volunteer workers at any one time."

In addition, Mr Fini has complained about the noise from the cockatoos that are being rehabilitated.

Glenn Dewhurst says that he does not believe that noise levels greater than those from wild birds in the area can be shown to be coming from the birds his team are rehabilitating.

He says that there are many more wild birds than the few black cockatoos in rehab.

More Noise from wild birds in Perth caused by birds displaced by developers

He explains that the numbers of wild birds moving in and out of the Perth area are constantly increasing because they are being displaced by developers like Mr Fini. "The wild birds don't have enough to eat and so more and more of them are trying to find food in the same place, wherever there are a few trees."

Despite Mr Dewhurst's impression that the Black Cockatoo Rehab Facility is being targeted unfairly, the Black Cockatoo Conservation Team find the local Council seems reluctant to stand up for the Cockatoos.

Council Inflexibility and unhelpfulness could kill these rare rescued birds

The Black Cockatoo Conservation Team say that they have asked the council and Mr Fini to allow them to adopt mitigation strategies which Mr Dewhurst believes have not even been stated in the report to council for the Tuesday meeting. "I have been told that the planner Andrew Bratley has only nominated 3 strategies and recommended that the strategies are refused."

"Ninety-five per cent of the birds will be moved to the other center, when it is ready. The other center is also in Martin and is called Kaarakin, and is located at 1.5km from the 'clone' facility which is the facility that is the source of Mr Fini's complaints."

"If the new facility isn’t ready these endangered cockatoos will be at critical risk. The Shire and the Developer seem to intend not to give the facility any time," says Glenn.

The Team are therefore desperately trying to move the cockatoos at the Martin facility to their other Kaarakin facility, which the Council made available to them some time ago for a pepper-corn rent. Ironically, however, the Council is inexplicably delaying a survey that is necessary before the cockatoos can be moved in.

Glenn writes, "We have fought hard to do what we do; I have personally given all my energy and strength to bring the plight of these birds to every Australian and beyond. I at times have put the birds before my beautiful family and they have been very patient with me, allowing me to follow my passion in saving these endangered birds.

In the five years of her life, my five-year-old has only been on two very short holidays down south. My three and one-year-old have only been on holiday once. Andrea and I spend every spare cent on these birds and she even agreed for us to cancel a holiday to visit her parents overseas, so that we could deal with issues relating to the endangered Black Cockatoos.

We now need your help to help us save the facility that has saved so many endangered Black Cockatoos, Please help any way you can."

These people may have some power to change this situation:

DEADLINE TUESDAY 14TH JULY -

Ian COWIE CEO City of Gosnells, icowie[AT]gosnells.wa.gov.au
Donna Faragher, Minister for the Environment Youth, Minister.Faragher[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au
Premier Colin BARNETT, wa-government[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au
Honourable Brendon GRYLLS MLA, Minister.Grylls[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au

So many contradictions in government behaviour

Glenn says the contradictions are a source of stress in themselves. He describes how, in April 2008, the City of Gosnells gave him a letter of support for the BCCT facility that they now want removed - at the request of the West Australian Department of Environment and Conservation. Only a few months ago, the same government's Minister for Environment had congratulated the BCCT on getting Land for Wildlife for these endangered cockatoos.

"We have all worked so hard for the sake of these special endangered Birds. We cannot lose this fight to the City of Gosnells and Mr Fini, as it is a fight for the survival of these birds. If we lose our 'clone' (secondary) facility then the City of Gosnells may be implicated for the demise of the endangered Black Cockatoo."

“Yes”, says Dewhurst, “The City of Gosnells has given us another facility on a pepper corn rental, for which we are thankful. We are not, however, allowed to build there unless we meet the normal conditions of building approvals. Although we should have no problem in meeting these, we are still awaiting the carrying out of the survey necessary before we can make our application.

"The City of Gosnells is responsible for the survey and for the delay. Because of these delays, we cannot even move the birds in the near future."

"We have also encountered personal hardship over this matter and have felt that we are being persecuted. For instance, Andrea and I believe that we have been subject to allegations of financial impropriety from a councilor at the City of Gosnells and from FINI Developments. To defend our good name we engaged an auditor at the cost $3.500, which we put on our personal credit cards. The complete audit showed no financial mismanagement. We are now in debt and it will take us about four months to pay this off. We estimate that the councilor in question has cost our organization $46,000 because of his allegations which have all been proven false.

Scale of the Conservation Facilities

This rescue attempt of an endangered species is no small affair. Glenn and his team are managing a wildlife rescue of international significance which has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars and many volunteer hours to run. The stakes are enormous for the birds, for their carers, for Australia and the world. At least two large facilities are required. Because of the amount of land and building involved simply to keep these birds, alive, safe and then to prepare them for release, closing down one facility before the other is opened would almost certainly have appalling consequences. Some of those consequences would be financial, of course, but the worst ones would be irreversible species decline, not to mention the extreme discouragement of the workers involved and the message this sends to children, Australians and the world. How sad if we were to lose these amazing, long-lived wise and funny creatures because a council had difficulty understanding the significance of the conservation program. This is not like a development that gets held up and costs some investors money; it is like destroying a part of Eden, never to recover.

Why the Black Cockatoos require two facilities

Mr Dewhurst says that the Black Cockatoo organisation requires 2 facilities in Perth (another is 450km away) for the following reasons:

• some of the injured and young birds require round the clock care. The Martin facilities can accommodate 24 hour volunteer care; and

• some of the research requires round the clock observation for the same reason. The Martin facility can accommodate this; and

• some of the birds housed at the Martin facilities are utilised for community educational purposes and are tame enough for people to interact with. These birds are also utilised by DEC for educational purposes. As these birds are valuable to the open market, for this reason they require secure facility; and

• having two facilities ensures protection from total disaster such as natural events like bushfires; and

• lastly, the Cohuna (Kaarakin) site requires major repairs. These are ongoing and have so far taken more than 7000 volunteer hours, which equates to a minimum of $200,000 in labour. The site is far from being the primary care facility. Currently it can only house around 30 birds.

Please consider emailing the following people who might help if they realise the significance of the problem

Ian COWIE CEO City of Gosnells, icowie[AT]gosnells.wa.gov.au
Donna Faragher, Minister for the Environment Youth, Minister.Faragher[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au
Premier Colin BARNETT, wa-government[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au
Honourable Brendon GRYLLS MLA, Minister.Grylls[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au

See also: http://blackcockatoorescue.com, Threatened West Aust Black Cockatoo gets help and Help save West Australian black cockatoo from extinction, phone Glen on 0417 988 872.

Australia's population growth out of control

World leading reproduction expert Professor Roger Short, of the University of Melbourne, says Australia’s population growth is out of control, increasing the rate of global warming.

According to the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian population is increasing by one person nearly every two minutes.

“Australia is a disgrace. We have one of the highest rates of population growth of any developed country. What are we going to do about it?” he says.

Nature too stressed already without us adding to stress even faster

According to a paper submitted on to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Nature is already under stress from human activities. The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 concluded that two-thirds of ecosystems on which humans depend are currently being degraded or used unsustainably.”

The report recommends the Copenhagen conference acknowledges the importance of population as a key driver of climate change and places the issue high on the agenda.

The latest population projections from the United Nations, reveal that the world’s population at 1 July 2009 will be 6.8 billion and by 2050 will be 9.1 billion.

Governments need to instigate population control policies sooner rather than later

Professor Short spoked at the University of Melbourne Festival of Ideas on 16 June. He said that the planet is already stretched for resources and space and governments need to instigate population control policies sooner rather than later.

Professor Rob Moodie

Fellow presenter Professor Rob Moodie, says Australians need to start their own internal carbon trading scheme by “getting out of the car and off the couch at every opportunity”.

Professor Moodie, who is Chair, National Preventative Health Taskforce and Professor of Global Health Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne, says we have the irony of burning too much fossil fuel, but not burning enough of our own personal fuel.

“Addressing climate change will require cultural shifts in the way we treat our planet, the way we treat each other, the way we treat ourselves, and the way we build our cities and towns,” he says.

“We have been lulled into a false sense of sedentariness. One hundred years ago we had to stop our work every so often to rest. Now, because sitting still for long periods increases our risks of heart disease we actually have to get up every few hours and move.”

Need for different land-use planning focus - 'Sub'-suburban

He says the design of cities and towns must go sub-suburban by re-creating local villages – “metropolettes” - where we can get to shopping, food, recreation, entertainment and schooling on foot.

Source: 'News' from the University of Melbourne, Festival of Ideas website Contact: Rebecca Scott, University of Melbourne, Mobile: 0417 164 791

Other speakers included Sana Nakata (University of Melbourne PhD candidate) and Associate Professor Catherine Bennett (Chair) from the School of Population Health at the University of Melbourne.

Time to ditch tax-deductibility for environmental groups?

Recent correspondence, where an environmental group asked other environmental groups to recommend voting against the government at the next election, has highlighted the problem of self-censoring by environmental groups which have tax-deductible status. Basically environmental groups with tax deductibility status cannot recommend that people vote for or against a particular political representative or party even if that person or party has promoted laws and activities which directly and negatively impact on the concerns of their membership.

Solutions to these constraints.

1. Abandon tax-deductibility status
or
2. Create or find another organisation or group which is not tax-deductible to use the information and advise on political choices accordingly.

Candobetter is an example of such a free-acting group

Candobetter.org - http://candobetter.org has remained informal and has not sought tax-deductibility so that it can comment freely. We like to get news and views and would be prepared to publicise a voting recommendation. Our platforms are: Reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy. We are basically a netsite with a variety of voluntary journalists who operate under their own names or pen-names. We love new authors. We also republish and publish reports on submissions or the actual submissions, which are so often wasted by being sent to the Government.

Candobetter has taken advantage of one of the few good things the Howard government did, and that was reform of Australia's defamation laws. It is now much safer to publish the truth, so it is much easier to write interesting and informative articles about what is really happening in this country. We publish from all around the country, with the aim of showing people that what is happening in a place like, e.g. Devilbend, is also happening in NSW, e.g to Cumberland Woodlands or with the Repco Rally in Tweed Valley. At the moment the editors support most of what we do from their own pockets and spare time. We are always very pleased if someone offers to pay some of the bills. The biggest cost is time, which is not billed for. The biggest financial cost is our independent server access. This independent server also means that our website is safer than most.

The disadvantages of tax-deductibility:

Tax deductibility for environmental organisations gained popularity and became a kind of criteria of respectability because it was felt that the deductibility might encourage wealthier people to contribute more donations and the respectability attribute might make people feel they were joining something mainstream and important. Goals included getting a reliable income so that the environmental organisation had a more solid foundation. Some organisations became so solid that they could employ people and fund permanent premises. They then frequently ran into problems where the secondary aim of employing people to do their work turned into a dominant need to continue to finance those peoples' salaries. In my opinion a number of big organisations have become little more than government departments because of this.

A few years ago the government overhauled its definition of tax-deductible groups and effectively outlawed independent political activism in tax-deductible environmental (and other) groups. What the government was saying was, 'We are not going to fund our potential enemies' political campaigns.'

This was the point where a lot of organisations should probably have decided to ditch their tax-deductibility status because our environment and wildlife protection are so threatened by government-supported corporate development that environmental activism generally requires opposition to most government programs.

Environmental and Union groups have lost power due to changes in laws affecting their traditional territory

Enviromental lobbying remains a discreet option but I would not think that this was directly tax deductible, albeit one assumes that members could deduct cost of membership if the lobby-group were furthering their income-gaining activities. But, overall, environmental lobbying has few places to go now, since our Federal and State laws are so antipathetic to environmental and wildlife aims, not to mention democracy.

Environmental lobby groups, like unions, have problems continuing to offer what they traditionally offered their members because the laws no longer serve the public. For instance, a union once could afford to fund a worker's legal defense because workers once had substantial rights at law in Australia. These days, unions tend simply to advertise referral to the services of legal firms, which then give the first consultation for free. In turn, the legal firms take up comparatively few individual cases because there is so little basis now upon which to fight them.

Similarly, where environmental groups could once point to planning laws that protected citizens' rights (and indirectly wildlife and vegetation), these democratic laws that served environmentalists are fast disappearing.

An indirect indicator of this situation is that Governments in Australia are eroding the concept of 'citizen' with the term consumer, and 'participatory democracy' is being replaced with commercial 'choice', with consultation reduced to public relations or outsourced to spin-doctors working for state/private partnerships or government corporate bodies, such as Victoria's water corporations (See for instance, a href="http://candobetter.org/node/1236">"Melbourne residents held to ransom on water"and the SEITA tollway projects.

Guilty plea to water theft in Sale Court

Field and Game Australia’s (FGA) Gippsland spokesperson, Gary Howard, today pleaded guilty in Sale Magistrates’ Court to illegally taking and diverting water under control of an authority. The water was diverted from the Latrobe River onto Heart Morass - the organisation’s private shooting property – just a week prior to the opening of the 2009 duck shooting season.

Magistrate Lou Hill fined Mr Howard $1,500 without conviction and was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.

The prosecution followed the Coalition Against Duck Shooting’s undercover survey of the property one week before the opening of the duck shooting season.

Campaign Director, Laurie Levy, today said: “This is a huge blow to Field and Game Australia’s credibility. It is not just a theft against the local Gippsland community, but a theft from all Victorians who are doing it tough due to the long 12-year drought.

“It is more than just a coincidence that the water theft took place in the lead-up to the 2009 duck shooting season, especially as approximately 100 Field and Game Australia members had paid to shoot on the property on the opening morning. It came as no surprise that the siphoned water had attracted around one thousand native waterbirds to the wetland,” Levy said.

“As Field and Game Australia entered into a partnership to purchase the property with the Hugh Williamson Trust, the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) and environment group, Watermark, it remains to be seen whether these highly reputable organisations will risk their credibility by remaining in partnership with FGA.

“This year the Brumby Government gave hunters a duck-shooting season, despite the science and the Department of Sustainability and Environment recommending against one, and yet Field and Game Australia let them down by illegally taking water.

“The question that has to be asked is whether this is the first time FGA have taken water without a licence, or just the first time they’ve been caught?” Levy concluded.

For further information contact:

Laurie Levy, Campaign Director,
Coalition against duck shooting
Source: Coalition against duck shooting Media Release, "Guilty Plea to water theft", Tuesday 23 June 2009

For MPs who voted FOR this awful bill, click here

NSW Bill to override local democracy and to privilege private business and protect Ministers from legal challenge

The following is from a speech to the Legislative Council of the NSW parliament by the Reverend Dr Gordon Moyes [1]. (Headings and new punctuation have been added by a Candobetter editor):

The Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 is a bill for an Act to facilitate the conduct of the international motor sport known as the World Rally Championship. Clauses 13, 14 and 15 override the Local Government Act 1993, the Forestry Act 1916, and the Water Management Act 2000 by allowing the Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 to authorise people to take actions that are expressly not permitted by those Acts. Clause 20 protects the exercise of certain functions of the Minister, or any delegate of the Minister, or a public authority, from challenge or review before a court or administrative review body, or from being restrained, removed or otherwise affected by any proceedings.

An affront and an injury to Northern Rivers area in NSW

The Northern Rivers area of New South Wales is pristine and beautiful. It is incredibly rich in flora and fauna, with more species of fish, birds, amphibians and mammals than even the world-famous Kakadu area of the Northern Territory. The region also has many threatened fauna and plant species that need to be protected. The area is recognised as having diverse ecosystems, including different kinds of rainforest, wetlands, heath lands and important zones between the land and the water.

Area already officially consacrated as a national landscape icon

Some areas of Australia are so special and unique that they have received official recognition, and this is one of them. In 2008 the Federal Government launched the National Landscape Program, selecting only a handful of regions. Along with Kakadu and the Great Ocean Road, the Mount Warning Wollumbin Caldera was awarded special status as a national landscape icon by the Ministers for Tourism and the Environment. The green cauldron, as it is commonly called, is a designated area stretching from Byron Bay up past the State border into the Gold Coast, and was selected because of its distinctive natural features, including the world's second-largest shield volcano crater, which has shallow sloping sides, awesome environmental biodiversity and a very rich Aboriginal heritage.

Gordon Moyes MP: personal observations

I have wonderful memories of visiting this area on many occasions, particularly the area around Kyogle, which my family has visited several times. Kyogle is a town of approximately 4,000 people in the Northern Rivers region of northern New South Wales. It was founded as a lumber camp in the 1930s, with red cedar and hoop pine being the main timber trees. It is about 750 kilometres north of Sydney, quite close to the border. The Kyogle area has cattle grazing, dairy farming and forestry as its primary industries, and is a tourist gateway to many national parks. The mad rush of the modern lifestyle has lost so much of the simplicity and beauty of the more natural pace of life and the smaller scale of living on the land. The people living in Kyogle and Tweed shires have purposely set out to recapture this preferred quality of life and are living their vision in the most committed way.

REPCO Rally assails regional community world-view

The back-to-the-land lifestyle is a homey, environmentally based world view that embraces home-grown organic food, handmade items of daily life, eating actual cooked meals rather than fast food on the run, raising poultry and cattle, birdwatching, bushwalking and a philosophy that supports the ongoing daily work of a commitment to recycling and a deep love and respect for, and the protection of, wildlife. These are the kinds of quiet pursuits that they embrace and encourage in their region. The people of Kyogle and Tweed collectively have identified the environment and its protection and enhancement as their top priorities, and the extraordinary natural environment is the reason people choose to live there. I emphasise the fact that the people as a community and as a region have purposely chosen that natural, life-affirming, low-carbon-footprint, close-to-the-land lifestyle.

As part and parcel of that worldview, they have eschewed big, noisy, air- and water-polluting, old-fashioned, high-energy-using pastimes from the manic-paced cities, such as international motorcar racing. It is true that there has been a small Speed for Tweed race of historic motorcars for the past five years on the streets of Murwillumbah, but it is very small scale, low key and charming. It is run as a non-profit event by the locals for the benefit of locals. It has raised thousands of dollars for local charities and Murwillumbah hospital. The race is tiny in comparison with the major-event motor car races of a scale threatened by the Repco Rally, which is simply not welcome there for many reasons—one of which is that it is an international business. It does not even pretend to benefit or serve the interests of local people. It is merely a commercial enterprise, a business. It does not share the ethos of the region and will offer nothing of value to the community.

An insulting imposition on the locals by external parties

Most of all, the Repco Rally simply does not belong there; it is seriously out of place. If the rally proceeds, it is an insulting imposition on the locals by external parties with truly alien values who are apparently such arrogant people that they will not take the broad hint that they are not wanted. Indeed, the local people could hardly be more expressive of their point of view on this matter, having written to their representatives and to the newspapers, marched in their localities, attended consultations, and done everything else they could think of to get someone to pay attention to their concerns—which range from indignation at being treated shoddily by the State Government to concerns about damage to the environment, and to issues with the suspect economic claims behind the decision to hold this race in their vulnerable natural environment.

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.

Sham public consultation

I have received, as I guess have many members, hundreds of emails, letters and visits from people in the area pointing out many different aspects. Obviously I will not go through all of them now. However, one concerned citizen, Dr Jules Lewin of Stokers Siding, pointed out to me that Repco Rally's socioeconomic impact assessment was so poorly put together, without being substantiated or having verifiable projections or references, that in scientific, medical and management circles it would be flatly rejected. The methodology was inappropriate, the numbers were inadequate, the data presentation was obscure and the analysis was unsound and contradictory.

In the assessment there was no consideration of the current economic crisis; nor were there any references to current social trends, such as green driving, concern for many environmental issues, the concept of sustainability or the impact of peak oil. With such a lack of insight and grasp of elemental issues, the so-called impact assessment is utterly irrelevant. No multimillion-dollar contract meant to last a minimum of 10 years, plus a 10-year extension, should be allowed to proceed on the basis of the authenticity, accuracy or recommendations of this flimsy report.

Also, in the socioeconomic impact assessment the Repco Rally organisers claim to have consulted with the community, but a letter written to a number of local newspapers stated the following:

"We the undersigned wish to advise the community that our respective community associations have been totally misrepresented in the report entitled Rally Australia Socio-economic Impact Statement, which was committed by Repco Rally Australia. We have been listed on page 29 of the report as being the representatives of our respective community associations who were supposedly part of the community consultation process. We wish to advise that no such community consultation ever took place."

The letter is signed by a significant number of leaders of community organisations from the area. Claiming that community consultation took place might look good on paper, but it has now been completely discredited as an untruth. If the Repco Rally organisers have not provided meaningful background research, presented accurate information or genuinely consulted with the community, and they have misrepresented their own activities, what is their word worth on anything else? One lady wrote to me about Sargents Road in Kyogle, where she lives, which is a core koala habitat crucial for the survival of the species. She cited the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC] November 2008 Recovery Plan for the Koala, which seeks to ensure the survival of the koala in the wild. This State report reinforces the need to recognise the value of koalas to the community in terms of their presence in the landscape and their potential to attract eco-tourism.

Chaotic policy causing wildlife calvary

How then can another State department come along and act in opposition to those interests already committed to by that department? Sargents Road is not the kind of road recommended for racing—not if we care about animals and their habitats. In fact, the busy local wildlife rescue volunteers say that already far too much wildlife is injured and killed on the roads by automobiles, and that more cars racing on those roads is the last thing the animals need. They also mention that the methods proposed to scare the animals away from the roads—I wonder how many Government members understand this—will likely lead to stress reactions and heart failure in the animals. There will be extremely loud noises, such as banging and so on, to frighten animals away.

Road carnage bad enough without Repco adding to it

Additional concerns have been reported to me in letters from people, such as problem driving and street racing. I will not comment on those. We all know that streets and roads are already deadly to innocent drivers and pedestrians. The news is always full of copycat racing in every area after it hosts such races. Do we really want to inspire more of them? The answer from the people of the North Coast is a resounding "No". The local Kyogle and Tweed Landcare teams, made up of people who give their time free cleaning up, salvaging and repairing damaged ecosystems, dread the havoc that will be wreaked by such an event in this area—one that they have tended with such devotion over the years. The members of the Tweed Valley Wildlife Carers and the Caldera Environment Centre, who have worked for decades protecting the natural environment, are sick at heart over this bill, which will force on the rally in an area where it should not be allowed.

So many reasons to scotch the Repco rally

I assure members that local residents in this area are informed and intelligent; they know their special environment is critical to the growth of tourism in the area and is, in fact, its greatest attraction. Any activities that are destructive of the environment are anathema to them. Some believe that the Government will be in contravention of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was signed in 1992. Motor sports are an incompatible activity and irrelevant to the local agricultural industry, and can only undermine the World Heritage value of the area. Any anticipated profits from motor sport enthusiasts would be dwarfed by the year-round loss of ecotourists once the green branding of the area is tainted. In addition to the danger to wildlife at risk from the rally, there are also many companion animals and domestic stock living in this area that are very sensitive to noise and can be terrified by screeching, careening and unpredictable motor-generated noises. Even if they were able to stay safely indoors, they will be bombarded by noise, which to animals is perceived as a threat. Such noise permeates and penetrates residential walls as if they were not there. This kind of noise should be isolated away from population centres—and not allowed in an area known for its nurturing silence.

Noise pollution

The excessive noise pollution will be imposed on the human population too, of course. The standards set to protect people and animals will be overruled by this bill that we are considering passing, so that people will have no right to complain—and that is wrong. Those standards were established for a purpose, and to remove them casually in this way is a great wrong. Exposure to excess noise is known to raise the heart rate and blood pressure of many people and to contribute to anxiety; it should not be inflicted on populations as if it is of no importance. The wives, families, counsellors and companions of 4,000 war veterans living in the area have expressed their great concern over the anticipated helicopter noise—which they anticipate will cause psychological disturbance and deep anxiety as it triggers post traumatic stress episodes in the vulnerable, particularly Vietnam War veterans.

Solistalgia

Even the anticipation of one helicopter circling above them is unbearable, much less the dozens of helicopters that will be used over the three-day event. To put veterans through such stress is just unconscionable. Their absolute dread is really escalating into a serious mental health issue for them, their families and their communities. Previously I have mentioned that I was responsible for establishing a mental health facility in Taree to handle post-war traumatic syndrome. Hundreds of Vietnam veterans from the northern rivers came to the Wesley Mayo clinic at Taree for psychological services. In fact, the recently named psychological condition of "solistalgia" is now widespread in the North Coast area. Solistalgia is defined as "the deep distress induced by environmental change, which is exacerbated by the sense of powerlessness and loss of control over the changes that are occurring".

Copious chemical and atmospheric pollution

Then there is the spillage of oil, petrol and other wastes that will seep into the ground, into the atmosphere and onto roads, which is unconscionable in such a pristine area. The air pollution generated from motor racing is unhealthy for people and all other living things, including trees close to the track. The amount of dust that is raised is dangerous for asthmatics and people with respiratory conditions, not to mention dirty and distressing for the people whose homes it will fill. Advising them to go inside and turn on the air conditioning is not good enough. People have outdoor work and busy lives to live and cannot easily take refuge indoors, and many do not have the option of air conditioning. Nothing will help animals cope with the particulate matter in the air that will sicken them.

On the topic of pollution, it is reported that every member of the world rally racing team travels over 130,000 kilometres by air each year. Add that to all the carbon emitted by the activities associated with the rally and a thoughtful person cannot help but recognise that it is an unacceptable carbon footprint.

Car-racing anathema to crucial environmental concerns - Why is government encouraging them?

In fact, in this era of climate change, in response to the deadly global threat of increasing greenhouse gases, it would be far more sensible for the State Government to discourage all human activities that produce such a massive carbon footprint. Perhaps the rich race organisers think they do not have to worry about such matters, but climate change will eventually affect them too. There are also all the prudent economic arguments that many of my constituents have pointed out. Locals believe almost universally there will be far more irremediable damage than any possible benefit accruing from having full restaurants and accommodation for a few days every other year.

The proposed benefits of showcasing the northern area to an estimated 51 million people worldwide, who are supposedly going to watch the racing on television, is outweighed by the actual damage done to the whole fabric of society, the already ill-maintained roads, the environment and the people. Some things just do not bounce back that easily, and having had an event of this magnitude forced upon them is not going to sit easy with residents. Many are simply not resilient enough to cope with the magnitude of the change being thrust upon them.

It just does not make sense on any level

West Australian Government on record as saying it was deceived by rally organisers

I will say very little more. It just does not make sense on any level. The history of the rally in other States has been lacklustre, leading to large financial losses by taxpayers. The Western Australia Government expressed that by not being willing to let it continue in that State. It is on record as saying they it was deceived by rally organisers. Why have Suzuki and Subaru withdrawn their sponsorship of the rally? Why did Victoria or Queensland not want it? Why did the Welsh Assembly Government recently terminate its five-year contract after just two years? I will tell you why. Because all the promised benefits that have been presented to members of the Government and the Opposition were hyped to them were not forthcoming, after all—and if we in New South Wales are sold the same bill of goods, the same thing will happen on the North Coast.

People have asked me why are the taxpayers of New South Wales being asked to fund this rich-people's sport? Why is the State Government promising this international commercial enterprise free labour of hundreds of local volunteers, particularly, who are already overstretched by their efforts and services during two recent floods in the area? As well as the money paid to the Repco rally organisers the State intends to provide free of charge a number of bushfire brigades, 150 extra police, the services of the State Emergency Service, hospitals and all their associated staff on stand-by, on and on ad infinitum. This event will run at a loss for the State, but not for the organisers. Even though the people who thought the idea had some merit now recognise the contempt in which their region's concerns are being held by the arrogant rally organisers who act as if they have been given carte blanche to do whatever they like. The residents know full well it is not democratic, not respectful, not what they expect or deserve, and not right.

One wrote to me and said:
"Apart from being a very bad idea and unpopular with residents, this is a dangerous practice: taking control over events that the local councils should be regulating, in order to benefit outside elites."

Another wrote:
"Have our governing bodies become so anesthetised to the fact that they are elected to represent the citizens, and not given the divine rights of kings?"

Githabul Aboriginal women say attack on their sacred areas of life and death importance

There is one more group whose interests and concerns I have not yet mentioned, the Aboriginal women of the Githabul people, whose representative contacted my office when they heard that I was listening to all sides of the issue. The representative of the Githabul people explained that under the agreement reached in late 2007 the Githabul people were going to be allowed joint management of national parks and State forests with the New South Wales State Government. Regarding the Repco rally, there was consultation carried out with one sole male elder. But he, as a male, was not in a position to know anything about the areas that are sacred to the Githabul women and apparently the women are very distraught that they have had no voice in presenting their deeply honoured cultural concerns to the rally organisers and the New South Wales Government, and they call upon both to recognise that they too have a right to be heard. To them these issues are of life and death importance and they do not want the Repco rally to have access to particular areas on the race route as announced that are actually sacred territory.

Undemocratic bill to say the least

Forcing through the bill does not demonstrate respect for the opinions, needs and lives of people and their families in these areas. This is not good manners, it is not social justice, and it is not democracy. In fact it is a blatant flouting of the democratic process and does not represent the value system that Australians have gone to war to defend and protect. It is an insult to war veterans and families in that area. I am disturbed to note that this is becoming an all too familiar pattern, with bills being used by the Government to disregard other tiers of government or authorities in order to force its own way without regard for the feelings or safety of the people on the receiving end. Our political system has been built up over many years with multiple layers of power and checks and balances, and we must not give them away.

Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament

I conclude, Mr President, by reading a passage from the Code of Conduct for Members, which you signed and sent to every member of this House. I am sure that it has been quite a while since many of us read or thought about it. It states:
Members of Parliament acknowledge their responsibility to maintain the public trust placed in them by performing their duties with honesty and integrity, respecting the law and the institution of Parliament, and using their influence to advance the common good of the people of New South Wales.

Dr Gordon Moyes (MP) draws the line

I will not support any bill that allows large-scale events unwanted by the people who would have to host them.

Not all of my constituents are against motor racing per se, if it can be held in an area that will be undamaged by it and if nearby residents actively want it happening there. It is a hard ask, though. No residents that I have spoken to in the area, or anywhere near it, want motor races to be held near their children's schools, on their village streets or on rural roads. I do not approve of anything that can be construed as a misuse of power and, therefore, I will not support any bill that allows large-scale events unwanted by the people who would have to host them. I encourage any other members here today who still think they have either an environmental or a social conscience to join me in refusing to support what I believe is an ill-conceived bill. I thank you, Mr President, for extending me the privilege of being able to speak.

[1] Source: Text of Rev Hon Dr Gordon Moyes ANTI REPCO RALLY speech 23/6/09 on the Motor Sport (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009

Candobetter Ed. Record of debate, remarks and conduct below has been edited, for instance, headings have been inserted to highlight parts, and some repetitive items have been left out, as indicated by square brackets. The source of the entire document may be accessed in its original form here http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC20090623:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 23 June 2009
[...]
__________

MOTOR SPORTS (WORLD RALLY CHAMPIONSHIP) BILL 2009
Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 June 2009.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [6.15 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals will not oppose the bill, but at the outset I make it clear that we will seek to ensure that there is a full and independent review of the rally following the initial running of the event this year. It is anticipated that the Government will support the amendment. I clearly state that the amendment directly reflects the hard work and quite intense lobbying conducted by the member for Tweed, Geoff Provest, and the member for Lismore, Thomas George, both of whom have worked tirelessly to ensure that people who live in the Far North Coast have a voice at the table when Parliament is dealing with legislation relating to the rally. I commend both the member for Tweed and the member for Lismore for their effective advocacy on this issue.

The object of the bill is to facilitate the conduct of a major sport known as the World Rally Championship. It is worth noting that in September 2008 Events New South Wales and the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport announced that the northern rivers region of New South Wales would host the Australian round of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile [FIA] World Rally Championship in 2009 and then every two years until 2027. It is worth noting that only now has the legislation been introduced after many months of relatively little action. That is one of the issues that has motivated the Far North Coast community to express concern.

Nevertheless, it is estimated that the rally will generate up to $100 million in direct economic benefits to New South Wales over the life of the agreement through the creation of up to 2,000 new jobs and an estimated 92,000 visitor nights. These are significant benefits to the local community and, self-evidently, also for the entire State of New South Wales. The first event, the Repco Rally Australia, will be held in the Tweed and Kyogle local government areas from 3 to 6 September 2009. This bill provides that the legislation will be reviewed five years after it receives assent. The Liberal-Nationals, understanding the need to give certainty to the local community, to the rally proponents and to millions of World Rally Championship fans throughout the world—and I have to admit to being one of them—will not oppose the bill but will seek to move an amendment in Committee that is aimed at producing a full and independent review of the rally following the initial 2009 event.

One of the purposes of the amendment is not only to ensure that the review takes place but also to ensure that the review includes, in a spirit of cooperation, the Kyogle Council and the Tweed Shire Council, thereby remitting some ownership of the event to the local community and ensuring a degree of transparency that presently is lacking. The Liberal-Nationals believe that the amendment will give the legislation reasonable balance between the need for the proponents to get on with the job of planning this year's event and the local community to determine what impact an event such as this will have on their region in the future.

Liberal-Nationals are advised that the Kyogle Council supports the rally, but has requested that a review mechanism be built into the legislation to enable any issues that may arise from the initial event to be examined and resolved. The Liberal-Nationals are advised that the Tweed Shire Council also wants a review mechanism built into the legislation. In a press release dated 10 September 2008, the Tweed Shire Council's general manager, Mike Rayner, welcomed the announcement, saying that the event would boost the local economy and showcase the Tweed to a worldwide television audience as a tourist destination.

Mr Rayner is quoted as saying:

This event has a massive audience—last year 50 million people in 180 countries watched each round of the World Rally. That will bring immeasurable exposure to the Tweed and northern rivers region, both nationally and internationally.

In a press release dated 3 June 2009 Tweed Shire Council's mayor, Councillor Joan van Lieshout, indicated that on 3 June representatives from Tweed and Kyogle councils met with the Minister for State Development. Councillor van Lieshout is quoted as saying:

We were advised that the decision was made by the Department in order to secure the event following commitments for the delivery of relevant equipment from overseas.

While I am obviously very disappointed that the event has been taken out of the hands of local government, I have uppermost in my mind the concerns of the community in regard to transparency and full communication with all negotiations.

It has been on the agenda for many months awaiting relevant development application and during this time community members have expressed their concerns that a 'fast car rally' is not within the vision for the "Tweed Naturally" imagine which is foremost in our strategic tourism planning for the future of the Tweed.

I am determined that the process will be fully transparent and have requested that a review of the whole event be taken prior to any further agreements for the future.

We have the opportunity now to set the forum for all future events of this nature through the democratic examples set by this event.

Members of the local community are angered by the course of action taken by this State Labor Government. There has been a lack of proper process and the community has been locked out of the decision-making process. While the Liberal-Nationals support the rally and will not oppose the bill, we condemn the State Labor Government for its heavy-handed approach when dealing with the local community. The role of the Government is to ensure that the local community is fully informed and taken through the process, rather than railroaded. Clearly, there are benefits to the local community and to the entire State. That is why the Liberal-Nationals will not oppose the bill.

However, this does not excuse the State Labor Government from locking the community out in the manner it has. All too often that is what we see from this State Labor Government. We see a lack of proper process, a lack of planning and a lack of infrastructure, and now we see tourism projects drawn up on the back of a desire to achieve positive headlines in the paper. This is not how our State should be run, and the local community is justified in its anger that once again the State Labor Government has demonstrated that it is more interested in a headline than what is right for the local community and, indeed, the State. Once again I congratulate the local member for Tweed and the local member for Lismore on their considerable advocacy on this matter.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.22 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009, the purpose of which is to facilitate the conduct of the Australian rounds of the motor rally known as the World Rally Championship on a biennial basis in the northern rivers region of New South Wales. The Christian Democratic Party support the bill because of the advantages to the economy and to tourism—I am a bit surprised by the criticism of the tourism aspect—and in terms of jobs. The world rally championship organisation is one of the highest profile international four-wheel motor sport championships after Formula One, with approximately 51 million people viewing each round of the televised world rally championship. In September 2008 Events New South Wales and the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport announced that the Australian round of the world rally championship would be staged every second year in the northern rivers region of New South Wales from 2009 until 2017, with an option to extend until 2027.

Events New South Wales estimates that the event will generate more than $100 million for the New South Wales economy over the duration of the agreement. It is also anticipated that it will boost tourism and jobs and deliver major economic benefits to regional New South Wales. The first event, Repco Rally Australia, will be held in Kyogle and Tweed local government areas from 3 to 6 September 2009. Obviously, when putting on such a large event—as was necessary for the staging of the super 8 event at Olympic Park—special legislation is necessary to streamline what has become a complicated maze of approval processes. If one were forced through the maze of approval processes, the first Repco event would probably not take place until 2027, if at all. It is important to have legislation that will allow a similar approval process to operate but still ensure that appropriate conditions can be imposed to address matters such as public safety and environmental protection.

I have received many requests to oppose the legislation. When I read those requests it became clear to me that it is easy to stir up opposition, as happened recently with mining legislation that was before the House. It is easy to create an atmosphere of fear and concern, and that has been happening with this event. Some have even said that many teenage drivers will go mad and kill each other after this event. In my view what encourages dangerous driving in teenagers are video games which are played by children—not necessarily teenagers—that encourage the smashing of cars and the ramming of police cars and so on. Many children engage in that form of entertainment day after day. I think that video games will have more effect to encourage speed and carelessness by teenage drivers, than will a Repco event that will take place between 3 and 6 September. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill as it will facilitate this event.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Amanda Fazio) left the chair at 6.27 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. The Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 is designed to facilitate the conduct of the Australian round of the World Rally Championship, an internationally popular motorsport that was watched by 860 million people around the world in 2007. The bill puts in place a mechanism to consider important matters such as the environment and public safety. It provides certainty for the event and secures the estimated $100 million boost to the New South Wales economy. The boost to the economy is recognised by the Murwillumbah and District Chamber of Commerce and Tweed Tourism. Tony Zuschke, business owner and President of the Murwillumbah and District Chamber of Commerce, said:

This event has the potential to deliver massive economic benefit to the region and, recognising that, the Chamber is working with business and with the community to ensure we're geared up fully to make the most of the opportunity. Visitors to the rally can expect a fantastic experience during their stay here, and we're confident that they will take away plenty more reasons to keep coming back.

Phil Villiers, General Manager of Tweed Tourism, said that the rally would give a huge boost to tourism in the region. He said:

From a marketing and promotional perspective the rally will provide the Tweed and surrounding area with a tremendous opportunity to showcase our story to the world. With major corporate attendance expected at the event, we will also be working actively to encourage businesses to discover the Tweed for many other reasons besides the rally, for instance for conferences and events.

Mr Ian Cohen: This is the biggest shaft I've ever had. Were you shafted as well, Reverend Moyes?

[Interruption]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: Mr President, as we will consider the bill in Committee, I am sure that Mr Ian Cohen can make his comments at that time. Is that all right?

Mr Ian Cohen: No, it is not all right.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: You were not here—

Mr Ian Cohen: You knew that I wanted to speak on this bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: You were not here.

Mr Ian Cohen: You knew I wanted to speak.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: You were not here.

Mr Ian Cohen: You and the Liberals wouldn't give me the opportunity to speak.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: The bell was ringing and you were not here.

Mr Ian Cohen: I thought Fred was still speaking.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: You may have thought that, but he was not speaking. The member will have the opportunity to speak in Committee.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will speak through the Chair.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: As I said, the House will give Mr Ian Cohen the opportunity to comment on whatever he likes. He should not get so angry; life is too short. Consultation with the community and with councils is a priority. The Minister for State Development met with Tweed and Kyogle councils, and is committed to ongoing close consultation with them. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.
Ayes, 21 [i.e. those in favour of a second reading of the bill]
Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Ms Griffin
Mr Khan Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Noes, 5 [Ed. i.e. those against a second reading of the bill.]
Mr Cohen
Reverend Dr Moyes
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Question resolved in the affirmative. [Ed. i.e. Moyes and the other five who voted against the bill lost the motion, so the bill was put to the house a second time.]

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.09 p.m.]: I move:

That the President do now leave the chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill in detail.

Question put.

Division called for.

[In division]

Member Gordon Moyes physically locked out of debating Chamber

The PRESIDENT: Order! An unfortunate situation has suddenly arisen. A member who intended to contribute to the second reading debate on this bill was locked out of the Chamber at a time when he, if present in the Chamber, could have sought the call. The member sought to gain entry to the Chamber through a side door but the door was locked. The member then knocked on the door but was unable to gain entry to the Chamber. Because no member at that time sought the call, I gave the call to the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the second reading debate.

That members are not present to participate in debate when the bells have been rung and the House begins to sit is neither here nor there: that is a matter for members. If members wish to contribute to a particular debate, they should be present when that debate is called on. However, if a member is prepared to speak and intends to do so but is physically unable to enter the Chamber, a matter of privilege arises.

I propose to call off the division and to give the call as a matter of privilege to Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, the member who was unable to enter the Chamber, to allow him to contribute to the second reading of the bill. At the conclusion of that speech I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to move again the motion to enable the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill in detail.

Division called off.

Privilege

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call on Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes to address the House, as he wished to do earlier but was unable because he could not enter the Chamber.

[Candobetter Ed. Note that the speech below is published here, with editorial headings and punctuation changes. Scroll to end of speech here for more interesting comments, conduct and debate]

Gordon Moyes' Speech against the Bill

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.17 p.m.]: I thank the House for extending this privilege. It is very rare that one gets the opportunity, in an institution as old as State Parliament, to set precedent in the regulation and conduct of the House. The Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 is a bill for an Act to facilitate the conduct of the international motor sport known as the World Rally Championship. Clauses 13, 14 and 15 override the Local Government Act 1993, the Forestry Act 1916, and the Water Management Act 2000 by allowing the Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 to authorise people to take actions that are expressly not permitted by those Acts. Clause 20 protects the exercise of certain functions of the Minister, or any delegate of the Minister, or a public authority, from challenge or review before a court or administrative review body, or from being restrained, removed or otherwise affected by any proceedings.

The Northern Rivers area of New South Wales is pristine and beautiful. It is incredibly rich in flora and fauna, with more species of fish, birds, amphibians and mammals than even the world-famous Kakadu area of the Northern Territory.

The region also has many threatened fauna and plant species that need to be protected. The area is recognised as having diverse ecosystems, including different kinds of rainforest, wetlands, heath lands and important zones between the land and the water.

Some areas of Australia are so special and unique that they have received official recognition, and this is one of them. In 2008 the Federal Government launched the National Landscape Program, selecting only a handful of regions. Along with Kakadu and the Great Ocean Road, the Mount Warning Wollumbin Caldera was awarded special status as a national landscape icon by the Ministers for tourism and the environment. The green cauldron, as it is commonly called, is a designated area stretching from Byron Bay up past the State border into the Gold Coast, and was selected because of its distinctive natural features, including the world's second-largest shield volcano crater, which has shallow sloping sides, awesome environmental biodiversity and a very rich Aboriginal heritage.

I have wonderful memories of visiting this area on many occasions, particularly the area around Kyogle, which my family has visited several times. Kyogle is a town of approximately 4,000 people in the Northern Rivers region of northern New South Wales. It was founded as a lumber camp in the 1930s, with red cedar and hoop pine being the main timber trees. It is about 750 kilometres north of Sydney, quite close to the border. The Kyogle area has cattle grazing, dairy farming and forestry as its primary industries, and is a tourist gateway to many national parks. The mad rush of the modern lifestyle has lost so much of the simplicity and beauty of the more natural pace of life and the smaller scale of living on the land. The people living in Kyogle and Tweed shires have purposely set out to recapture this preferred quality of life and are living their vision in the most committed way.

The back-to-the-land lifestyle is a homey, environmentally based world view that embraces home-grown organic food, handmade items of daily life, eating actual cooked meals rather than fast food on the run, raising poultry and cattle, birdwatching, bushwalking and a philosophy that supports the ongoing daily work of a commitment to recycling and a deep love and respect for, and the protection of, wildlife. These are the kinds of quiet pursuits that they embrace and encourage in their region. The people of Kyogle and Tweed collectively have identified the environment and its protection and enhancement as their top priorities, and the extraordinary natural environment is the reason people choose to live there. I emphasise the fact that the people as a community and as a region have purposely chosen that natural, life-affirming, low-carbon-footprint, close-to-the-land lifestyle.

As part and parcel of that world view, they have eschewed big, noisy, air- and water-polluting, old-fashioned, high-energy-using pastimes from the manic-paced cities, such as international motor car racing. It is true that there has been a small Speed for Tweed race of historic motor cars for the past five years on the streets of Murwillumbah, but it is very small scale, low key and charming. It is run as a non-profit event by the locals for the benefit of locals. It has raised thousands of dollars for local charities and Murwillumbah hospital. The race is tiny in comparison with the major-event motor car races of a scale threatened by the Repco Rally, which is simply not welcome there for many reasons—one of which is that it is an international business. It does not even pretend to benefit or serve the interests of local people. It is merely a commercial enterprise, a business. It does not share the ethos of the region and will offer nothing of value to the community.

Most of all, the Repco Rally simply does not belong there; it is seriously out of place. If the rally proceeds, it is an insulting imposition on the locals by external parties with truly alien values who are apparently such arrogant people that they will not take the broad hint that they are not wanted. Indeed, the local people could hardly be more expressive of their point of view on this matter, having written to their representatives and to the newspapers, marched in their localities, attended consultations, and done everything else they could think of to get someone to pay attention to their concerns—which range from indignation at being treated shoddily by the State Government to concerns about damage to the environment, and to issues with the suspect economic claims behind the decision to hold this race in their vulnerable natural environment.

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.

I have received, as I guess have many members, hundreds of emails, letters and visits from people in the area pointing out many different aspects. Obviously I will not go through all of them now. However, one concerned citizen, Dr Jules Lewin of Stokers Siding, pointed out to me that Repco Rally's socioeconomic impact assessment was so poorly put together, without being substantiated or having verifiable projections or references, that in scientific, medical and management circles it would be flatly rejected. The methodology was inappropriate, the numbers were inadequate, the data presentation was obscure and the analysis was unsound and contradictory.

In the assessment there was no consideration of the current economic crisis; nor were there any references to current social trends, such as green driving, concern for many environmental issues, the concept of sustainability or the impact of peak oil. With such a lack of insight and grasp of elemental issues, the so-called impact assessment is utterly irrelevant. No multimillion-dollar contract meant to last a minimum of 10 years, plus a 10-year extension, should be allowed to proceed on the basis of the authenticity, accuracy or recommendations of this flimsy report. Also, in the socioeconomic impact assessment the Repco Rally organisers claim to have consulted with the community, but a letter written to a number of local newspapers stated the following:

We the undersigned wish to advise the community that our respective community associations have been totally misrepresented in the report entitled Rally Australia Socio-economic Impact Statement, which was committed by Repco Rally Australia. We have been listed on page 29 of the report as being the representatives of our respective community associations who were supposedly part of the community consultation process. We wish to advise that no such community consultation ever took place.

The letter is signed by a significant number of leaders of community organisations from the area. Claiming that community consultation took place might look good on paper, but it has now been completely discredited as an untruth. If the Repco Rally organisers have not provided meaningful background research, presented accurate information or genuinely consulted with the community, and they have misrepresented their own activities, what is their word worth on anything else? One lady wrote to me about Sargents Road in Kyogle, where she lives, which is a core koala habitat crucial for the survival of the species. She cited the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC] November 2008 Recovery Plan for the Koala, which seeks to ensure the survival of the koala in the wild. This State report reinforces the need to recognise the value of koalas to the community in terms of their presence in the landscape and their potential to attract eco-tourism.

How then can another State department come along and act in opposition to those interests already committed to by that department? Sargents Road is not the kind of road recommended for racing—not if we care about animals and their habitats. In fact, the busy local wildlife rescue volunteers say that already far too much wildlife is injured and killed on the roads by automobiles, and that more cars racing on those roads is the last thing the animals need. They also mention that the methods proposed to scare the animals away from the roads—I wonder how many Government members understand this—will likely lead to stress reactions and heart failure in the animals. There will be extremely loud noises, such as banging and so on, to frighten animals away.

Additional concerns have been reported to me in letters from people, such as problem driving and street racing. I will not comment on those. We all know that streets and roads are already deadly to innocent drivers and pedestrians. The news is always full of copycat racing in every area after it hosts such races. Do we really want to inspire more of them? The answer from the people of the North Coast is a resounding "No". The local Kyogle and Tweed Landcare teams, made up of people who give their time free cleaning up, salvaging and repairing damaged ecosystems, dread the havoc that will be wreaked by such an event in this area—one that they have tended with such devotion over the years. The members of the Tweed Valley Wildlife Carers and the Caldera Environment Centre, who have worked for decades protecting the natural environment, are sick at heart over this bill, which will force on the rally in an area where it should not be allowed.

I assure members that local residents in this area are informed and intelligent; they know their special environment is critical to the growth of tourism in the area and is, in fact, its greatest attraction. Any activities that are destructive of the environment are anathema to them. Some believe that the Government will be in contravention of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was signed in 1992. Motor sports are an incompatible activity and irrelevant to the local agricultural industry, and can only undermine the World Heritage value of the area. Any anticipated profits from motor sport enthusiasts would be dwarfed by the year-round loss of ecotourists once the green branding of the area is tainted. In addition to the danger to wildlife at risk from the rally, there are also many companion animals and domestic stock living in this area that are very sensitive to noise and can be terrified by screeching, careening and unpredictable motor-generated noises. Even if they were able to stay safely indoors, they will be bombarded by noise, which to animals is perceived as a threat. Such noise permeates and penetrates residential walls as if they were not there. This kind of noise should be isolated away from population centres—and not allowed in an area known for its nurturing silence.

The excessive noise pollution will be imposed on the human population too, of course. The standards set to protect people and animals will be overruled by this bill that we are considering passing, so that people will have no right to complain—and that is wrong. Those standards were established for a purpose, and to remove them casually in this way is a great wrong. Exposure to excess noise is known to raise the heart rate and blood pressure of many people and to contribute to anxiety; it should not be inflicted on populations as if it is of no importance. The wives, families, counsellors and companions of 4,000 war veterans living in the area have expressed their great concern over the anticipated helicopter noise—which they anticipate will cause psychological disturbance and deep anxiety as it triggers post traumatic stress episodes in the vulnerable, particularly Vietnam War veterans.

Even the anticipation of one helicopter circling above them is unbearable, much less the dozens of helicopters that will be used over the three-day event. To put veterans through such stress is just unconscionable. Their absolute dread is really escalating into a serious mental health issue for them, their families and their communities. Previously I have mentioned that I was responsible for establishing a mental health facility in Taree to handle post-war traumatic syndrome. Hundreds of Vietnam veterans from the northern rivers came to the Wesley Mayo clinic at Taree for psychological services. In fact, the recently named psychological condition of "solistalgia" is now widespread in the North Coast area. Solistalgia is defined as "the deep distress induced by environmental change, which is exacerbated by the sense of powerlessness and loss of control over the changes that are occurring".

Then there is the spillage of oil, petrol and other wastes that will seep into the ground, into the atmosphere and onto roads, which is unconscionable in such a pristine area. The air pollution generated from motor racing is unhealthy for people and all other living things, including trees close to the track. The amount of dust that is raised is dangerous for asthmatics and people with respiratory conditions, not to mention dirty and distressing for the people whose homes it will fill. Advising them to go inside and turn on the air conditioning is not good enough. People have outdoor work and busy lives to live and cannot easily take refuge indoors, and many do not have the option of air conditioning. Nothing will help animals cope with the particulate matter in the air that will sicken them. On the topic of pollution, it is reported that every member of the world rally racing team travels over 130,000 kilometres by air each year. Add that to all the carbon emitted by the activities associated with the rally and a thoughtful person cannot help but recognise that it is an unacceptable carbon footprint.

In fact, in this era of climate change, in response to the deadly global threat of increasing greenhouse gases, it would be far more sensible for the State Government to discourage all human activities that produce such a massive carbon footprint. Perhaps the rich race organisers think they do not have to worry about such matters, but climate change will eventually affect them too. There are also all the prudent economic arguments that many of my constituents have pointed out. Locals believe almost universally there will be far more irremediable damage than any possible benefit accruing from having full restaurants and accommodation for a few days every other year. The proposed benefits of showcasing the northern area to an estimated 51 million people worldwide, who are supposedly going to watch the racing on television, is outweighed by the actual damage done to the whole fabric of society, the already ill-maintained roads, the environment and the people. Some things just do not bounce back that easily, and having had an event of this magnitude forced upon them is not going to sit easy with residents. Many are simply not resilient enough to cope with the magnitude of the change being thrust upon them.

I will say very little more. It just does not make sense on any level. The history of the rally in other States has been lacklustre, leading to large financial losses by taxpayers. The Western Australia Government expressed that by not being willing to let it continue in that State? It is on record as saying they it was deceived by rally organisers. Why have Suzuki and Subaru withdrawn their sponsorship of the rally? Why did Victoria or Queensland not want it? Why did the Welsh Assembly Government recently terminate its five-year contract after just two years? I will tell you why. Because all the promised benefits that have been presented to members of the Government and the Opposition were hyped to them were not forthcoming, after all—and if we in New South Wales are sold the same bill of goods, the same thing will happen on the North Coast.

People have asked me why are the taxpayers of New South Wales being asked to fund this rich-people's sport? Why is the State Government promising this international commercial enterprise free labour of hundreds of local volunteers, particularly, who are already overstretched by their efforts and services during two recent floods in the area? As well as the money paid to the Repco rally organisers the State intends to provide free of charge a number of bushfire brigades, 150 extra police, the services of the State Emergency Service, hospitals and all their associated staff on stand-by, on and on ad infinitum. This event will run at a loss for the State, but not for the organisers. Even though the people who thought the idea had some merit now recognise the contempt in which their region's concerns are being held by the arrogant rally organisers who act as if they have been given carte blanche to do whatever they like. The residents know full well it is not democratic, not respectful, not what they expect or deserve, and not right. One wrote to me and said:

Apart from being a very bad idea and unpopular with residents, this is a dangerous practice: taking control over events that the local councils should be regulating, in order to benefit outside elites.

Another wrote:

Have our governing bodies become so anesthetised to the fact that they are elected to represent the citizens, and not given the divine rights of kings?

There is one more group whose interests and concerns I have not yet mentioned, the Aboriginal women of the Githabul people, whose representative contacted my office when they heard that I was listening to all sides of the issue.

The representative of the Githabul people explained that under the agreement reached in late 2007 the Githabul people were going to be allowed joint management of national parks and State forests with the New South Wales State Government. Regarding the Repco rally, there was consultation carried out with one sole male elder. But he, as a male, was not in a position to know anything about the areas that are sacred to the Githabul women and apparently the women are very distraught that they have had no voice in presenting their deeply honoured cultural concerns to the rally organisers and the New South Wales Government, and they call upon both to recognise that they too have a right to be heard. To them these issues are of life and death importance and they do not want the Repco rally to have access to particular areas on the race route as announced that are actually sacred territory.

Forcing through the bill does not demonstrate respect for the opinions, needs and lives of people and their families in these areas. This is not good manners, it is not social justice, and it is not democracy. In fact it is a blatant flouting of the democratic process and does not represent the value system that Australians have gone to war to defend and protect. It is an insult to war veterans and families in that area. I am disturbed to note that this is becoming an all too familiar pattern, with bills being used by the Government to disregard other tiers of government or authorities in order to force its own way without regard for the feelings or safety of the people on the receiving end. Our political system has been built up over many years with multiple layers of power and checks and balances, and we must not give them away.

I conclude, Mr President, by reading a passage from the Code of Conduct for Members, which you signed and sent to every member of this House. I am sure that it has been quite a while since many of us read or thought about it. It states:

Members of Parliament acknowledge their responsibility to maintain the public trust placed in them by performing their duties with honesty and integrity, respecting the law and the institution of Parliament, and using their influence to advance the common good of the people of New South Wales.

Not all of my constituents are against motor racing per se, if it can be held in an area that will be undamaged by it and if nearby residents actively want it happening there. It is a hard ask, though. No residents that I have spoken to in the area, or anywhere near it, want motor races to be held near their children's schools, on their village streets or on rural roads. I do not approve of anything that can be construed as a misuse of power and, therefore, I will not support any bill that allows large-scale events unwanted by the people who would have to host them. I encourage any other members here today who still think they have either an environmental or a social conscience to join me in refusing to support what I believe is an ill-conceived bill. I thank you, Mr President, for extending me the privilege of being able to speak.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I move:

That the President now leave the chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill in detail.

Question put and resolved in the affirmative.
In Committee

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I propose to deal with the bill by parts. There being no objection, the Committee will proceed to consider part 1.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.44 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens, I say in Committee that I strongly oppose the Motor Sports (World Rally Championships) Bill 2009, which is a burning indictment of the pervading culture of the New South Wales Labor Party. I am constantly amazed by the amount of special legislation that the New South Wales Labor Party regurgitates in this Chamber to facilitate all manner of incursion on basic rights. However, I was not at all surprised at the Government putting forward special legislation to enable this rally to go ahead. As I feared when I spoke in this Chamber in May, the rally deal was stitched up a long time ago. The rally organisers have been taking bookings and proceeding with great confidence without even lodging a development application.

The people have been robbed of their capacity to determine what happens in their area

The people of the North Coast have been waiting to see the rally be considered by their local council, which should be the determining authority. But it has been robbed of its capacity to participate in determining what happens in its area. The bill has the usual grubby and sleazy hallmarks of Labor's special legislation turning off key environment and land use planning legislation because there is one rule for the New South Wales masses and one for the international racing crowd. Taking away residents' common law rights and usurping the will of local communities is all encompassed within the bill—all hallmarks of this brave and noble Labor Government.

The bill overrides the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the Threatened Species Conservation Act, the Forestry Act, the Water Management Act, the Fisheries Management Act and the Local Government Act.

The special legislation will foist a car rally on the Tweed and Kyogle shires of northern New South Wales this September and a further four more rallies to be held biannually until 2017. On top of turning off the State's key environmental legislation, the bill will also allow the Minister to accommodate any requirements of the rally organisers. The legislation is not restricted to the northern rivers region. It will allow the Minister to prescribe any area in New South Wales as part of the declared rally area by regulation. This means technically that the Minister can declare the whole State one big rally course and turn off every key piece of environmental legislation, and the decision to do so would be immune from any judicial review at all. Some might say it is total insanity. Has this Minister gone mad? Is he somewhat of a modern-day Nero? There is no personal advantage, or will the Minister gain some personal advantage by building up his credit and riding off to some corporate retirement? Worst of all, Minister Macdonald has inserted a double-glazed privative clause in proposed section 20—

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The member should be speaking to part 1 of the bill, which incorporates clauses 1, 2 and 3, and should not be making reflections on other members.

Mr IAN COHEN: I am expressing myself in Committee due to circumstances somewhat outside leave—
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I am aware of that. Please proceed.

Mr IAN COHEN: If that means that I have to go through every section of my speech at every point of the Committee, I will do so. I would ask the indulgence of the Committee to allow me to at least express myself, which is a right that I have as an elected member of this House—

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Nobody is disputing the right of the member to speak to different parts of the bill, but in doing so he must not make reflections on other members.

Mr IAN COHEN: Even the improper exercise of functions by protected persons is exempt from any judicial or administrative challenge whatsoever. This is probably one of the most extreme privative clauses crafted by the hands of Minister Macdonald, who refuses to be accountable for his decisions. It is a total joke and this level of legislative extremism to secure commercial certainty should be thrown out.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: I do not mind the member making points about the bill, but he should not use the Committee stage to say outrageously stupid things about me. He should be brought to heel. There are other forms of the House available to him if he wishes to attack, and the Committee is not one of them. It was not my fault that he missed the call.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I remind Mr Ian Cohen that he should not make reflections on other members unless by way of a substantive motion. It is in order for him to speak about his concerns about the bill, but he must not speak about the Minister who has carriage of the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN: Thank you, and I must apologise to the Minister. I did not realise he was such a sensitive character.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Precious.

Mr IAN COHEN: It is rather precious, and I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Rick Colless. The Minister is good at dishing it out but cannot take a little bit of criticism. I am surprised he finds this such a sensitive issue.

I read on the Rally's website that the world controlling body for motor sport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile [FIA], was understood to have been concerned with media reports about the event and sought an assurance from the Government that it would proceed. With this legislation it will do more than just proceed.

The FIA and Rally Australia, a private company, can just sit back and let the Government do all the work. Inconvenient local planning laws? Consider it solved. This proposed legislation will sweep them under the carpet. Endangered wildlife getting underfoot or under a wheel? This legislation will override the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Endangered Species Act, and hopefully the helicopters will scare the koalas away. Annoying local council and residents? Do not worry, just go over their heads.

I would like to commend the Hon. Gordon Moyes for his speech on this bill in which he raised a number of issues that I was not aware. He referred to the number of Vietnam War veterans living in that part of the world, and I commend him for raising that issue. It shows how in touch he is as a church representative, as well as a representative of this House, about the problems and issues in country areas. There is the clear example of the Vietnam War veterans, but many others with all sorts of problems retire to the country for a quiet life. They go there deliberately for that reason and, as the Hon. Gordon Moyes said, to get away from the rat race in the city. People go to these areas to escape the insanity that is highlighted by this type of event. There has been no development application, no council meetings and no problems. Funding from Events NSW? "No problem again. Just keep it commercial in confidence so no-one knows how much we are spending." This is said to be commercial in confidence but where are the competitors? There are none.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Queanbeyan.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by the honourable member. But where are the competitors who would demonstrate the commercial viability of this event? There are none. It is a sewn-up deal, so why is it commercial in confidence? Why do we not have some degree of transparency from this Government? It is certainly quick to assess the profit to be derived and to make a statement about that. It just tosses up the figure of $100 million to indicate the sort of money that will be made. Is there a proper assessment of the event? No. It is commercial in confidence even though there is no competition for the event. We are heading in the right direction if we are heading for a State built on cheap, snake oil salesman-style entrepreneurialism. The Minister is looking like some sort of corporate Rambo. He has gone way beyond the principles that the Labor Party once stood for so that not even the hard Left can reel him in.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Ms Lee Rhiannon has certainly stirred you right up.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by the honourable Minister claiming that my reaction is somehow caused by my fellow Green Lee Rhiannon. I have to say that everything that has occurred recently has had no input into my feeling of revulsion at what this Government is doing and the way it is acting. Talks about the rally are reported to have been going on for two years yet Repco Rally Australia [RRA] could not manage to prepare a development application that could possibly justify this event. The FIA, headed by Max Mosley, applied a bit of pressure and the caped crusader, Minister Macdonald, stepped in to save the day. As I pointed out in the question to the Minister—

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: The member should stop the gratuitous slights he is making in this contribution. He is absolutely abusing the forms of this Chamber. If I had the right to reply to his comments, as I would in a second reading debate, I would certainly make a few comments about the nonsense he is talking. After all, the first I learnt about all of this was on 17 May.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! As I ruled earlier, the member should not make comments about the Minister who has carriage of the bill. He should confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN: I withdraw the comment. The Minister is no caped crusader. As I pointed out in a question I asked Minister Macdonald last week, I find it curious that a New South Wales Government that has become obsessed about marketing and branding our iconic natural tourist attractions, such as the Green Cauldron, could then turn around and hold a rally car race through the same areas. It is totally illogical. There are no criteria put forward by the Government to indicate that this rally is a good idea. It is simply a case of the Minister trying to circumvent our environmental planning laws for a corporate patron's convenience. The event will not be a boost to the economy. A bit of research would have shown the Minister that Western Australia withdrew its support for the rally in that State because as the Western Australian tourism Minister said—and I would suggest he would be pretty much in favour of a profit-making event:

$6 million for one single event that returns $1.60 for every dollar invested by the state, when the average return is about $8 for every dollar invested by the state, is not a good return on investment.

The Minister for State Development, Ian Macdonald, says it will boost the economy by $100 million. It is a dubious figure and I would like to know how it was arrived at and how much the taxpayers of New South Wales are expected to shell out to get this return. As I said earlier, it is commercial in confidence; despite the fact there is no competition the details are protected. The same amount is quoted as the return that we can expect from the V8 Supercars event. I wonder if this is just a shelf figure that is trotted out for such events. It seems to have the consistency of an Iranian election result.

Elsewhere throughout the world such rallies are increasingly on the nose. Rally Finland is reducing the organising budget for this year's event by as much as 40 per cent after the loss of 1,000 pre-booked VIP guests. The Welsh Assembly Government served notice of termination of its agreement with the FIA World Rally Championship organisers, and the British Motor Sport Association has had to jump in with £2.2 million to ensure the events go ahead. In referring to the 2006 Wales Rally, Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for the Economy and Transport in the Welsh Assembly said:

… the event has only had a marginal impact on the development of the Welsh motorsport/advanced engineering sector, and in terms of repeat visitation generates a modest tourism spend of circa £1 million per annum. The report confirmed that the 2006 Rally generated £3.3 million of gross value added, which represents a return on investment of less than 2:1. In comparison, even Event Scotland, the national events agency in Scotland aim for a return on investment of 8:1 across their portfolio of supported events.

So-called motor sports increasingly irrelevant in energy constrained world: Restoring a rail link would help people become more mobile and travel to work and between towns

If New South Wales is to have five of these events over the next 10 years, how reliable is the supposed revenue likely to be? The so-called motor sports—and I do wonder about this being a sport at all—are increasingly unpopular and irrelevant in an increasingly energy constrained world. If this Government were really serious about boosting the local economy of northern New South Wales, it would restore the Casino to Murwillumbah rail link. An event that occurs for a few days every two years is not going to sustain the local economy. The return of the rail link would help people to become more mobile and allow them to travel to work and between towns for commercial purposes.

With good transport links so many opportunities would arise and businesses would be facilitated. The whole community and the local economy would flourish. The funds this Government is committing to a brief and intermittent so-called sporting event would be better diverted to restoring that rail link. The people of the Tweed and Kyogle shires are really angry about this legislation. Mr Rick Wagner, a resident who lives along the proposed route writes:

Since this event was brought to the Public attention I have been in contact with RRA [Repco Rally Australia], Kyogle Council and Councillors on a regular basis to try and find out how this event will affect my life. I live on the route, in fact my property is on both sides of Sargent Rd which is on one of the special stages of the event.

All along RRA have said trust me and wait for the Development Application to be lodged with Council. Council has said I have to wait for the DA to be lodged before I can make any submission in regard to how it will adversely affect my life.

It now appears that any rights I may have had in this regard are being taken away by this legislation which will just about allow Repco Rally Australia to do anything they wish. The proposed legislation certainly appears to waive many other existing legislations that have been put in place to protect ordinary people and their civil rights. Noise, Dust Intrusion in the use of my property, environment, ecological even my own access to my property are all things that will be over-ruled by this legislation.

RRA is going to make millions of dollars from this event but for them to do this I, and many other residents along the route, will be severely inconvenienced and impacted not only financially but in the quality of our right to enjoy the environment in which we live. Many are already sick with worry about the impact of this event. Communities have become divided over the event and this in itself is unhealthy.

Denise Ewin from Tweed shire wrote:

I am a retired teacher with over 30 years as a practising pastor and teacher and 15 years during that time as an assistant principal. I was also the accredited manager in New South Wales and Queensland of our family-owned business operating tours, which encompassed many areas of the Tweed Valley, the granite belt and the outback town of Lightning Ridge. All our tours went to the world heritage listed Border Ranges National Park in the Kyogle Shire.

Whilst I am not in favour of this type of rally in any environment I am particularly opposed to it being held in this unique area of physical beauty which should not be intruded upon by speeding cars, helicopters and all that goes with this type of event causing havoc to the environment and to the people who live there.

Most people come to this area because of the special beauty and serenity, which is not only in this very scenic area but which also has some of the most diverse wildlife in New South Wales. This is indeed a blow to the people of the shires involved and might I say a very big mistake by our Government. The Government would do well to remember who elected it and to care for all the people of the State regardless of political affiliations.

The people who are writing to me are not the hysterical ferals that the Minister would like to dismiss; they are ordinary people with a genuine grievance.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: The member is straying outside the legitimate issues to which he should be confining himself. He just made another gratuitous insult and he should withdraw it.

Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order—

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I have never accused anyone of being a feral in relation to this bill or in relation to any other area.

Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: It is reasonable to say that on a number of occasions the Minister has insulted people that I represent. I would have to go through the Hansard to verify it, but on a number of occasions the Minister has spoken disparagingly about them. It is reasonable to raise issues that have occurred in the past in this House.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I ask him to withdraw it.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Minister has advised the Chamber that he has not referred to anyone in relation to this matter in the terms referred to by Mr Ian Cohen. The Minister has asked Mr Ian Cohen to withdraw that comment and I suggest that he does so.

Mr IAN COHEN: I withdraw the comment. These are ordinary people with genuine grievances. John and Janet Townsend of Murwillumbah—a community-minded couple in their late sixties—wrote to me and to the Minister. They are disgusted about what they call the most breathtaking subversion of the democratic process that they have ever seen in Australia. They also said in a letter to the Minister, of which I received a copy:

You know perfectly well that this would not have been necessary if our Shire warmly welcomed the destructive event in the middle of one of the two most important areas in the east coast of Australia ...

The opposition to the event is NOT a rabble of 50 ratbags ...

We hope you have not been taken in by Garry Connolly of Repco Rally Australia telling you that the rally organisers have been collaborating on a carbon offsetting plan with Tweed LandCare Inc. ... or that esteemed consultant ecologist Dr Stephen Phillips has given the rally the go-ahead after completing his environmental assessment of the impact of the event.

Both these claims are made by Repco Rally Australia and seriously backfired on them. Angry Landcarers phoned them (we know, as we were two of them) and wrote letters to local newspapers refuting the implied association of Tweed LandCare Inc. ...

Doctor Philips for Kyogle Shire ... his brief has been limited to assessing "which particular threatened species may be at risk along a given stage, and why", and really all he has been able to conclude is that the rally will not kill enough rare or threatened species this year as to jeopardise the viability of the local species.

This Government has shown scant regard for indigenous cultural heritage and the rally shows a continuation of that pattern, with indigenous people shabbily treated in consideration of the rally. One person was selected to represent all Aboriginal interests. The draft Cultural Heritage Assessment [CHS], which should consider the possible impacts on significant Aboriginal sites, has been considered for only three of the rally's 15 competitive stages. The Cultural Heritage Assessment for the rally has not yet been finalised but decisions have already been made. This Government is prepared to trash Aboriginal cultural heritage and ignore Aboriginal people's concerns just to make a quick buck, if indeed there is a buck to be made.

I commend Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes for elucidating that issue in his earlier speech. This Government proposes to override State planning laws to allow this rally to carve through an area designated under the National Landscapes scheme and named Australia's Green Cauldron—an internationally renowned biodiversity hotspot. This very spot was recognised by the New South Wales Government's task force on tourism and national parks. The task force made 20 recommendations that were all adopted by the Government and reinforced the importance of branding and marketing iconic sustainable nature tourism experiences in our national parks. I doubt whether anyone would come to the conclusion that this rally was an iconic sustainable nature tourism experience.

The Government's failure to heed the recommendation of its own task force and instead foist this utterly unsuitable event on the area shows an incredible lack of understanding of what north-east New South Wales is about. Tourists go to that part of New South Wales because of its natural beauty. They go to see the beauty of the rainforests, the beaches, the rivers and the wildlife; they do not go to see cars carving through these beautiful places. The Green Cauldron is so named by government agencies because people who live in that area have fought long and hard to protect it from logging, mining and now car rally racing. Those who live in the area have long known the incredible value of this place now recognised under the National Landscapes scheme.

This car rally is not only completely dissonant with the spirit of this landscape; it is also a blunt instrument carving through a masterpiece. Local people are genuinely concerned about the rally going through habitats of threatened or protected species. One hundred vulnerable species of wildlife and 23 endangered species in the Tweed area will be placed at greater risk as a result of this rally that will occur in September, coinciding with the breeding season of many animal species. The death of animals is a terrible thing, but the death of young people is a tragedy. I have seen horrific accidents involving young people on the roads where I live. I quote from the Roads and Traffic Authority website which states:

... the aim of the "Speeding—no-one thinks big of you" campaign is to make speeding socially unacceptable. In NSW speeding is a factor in about 40 per cent of road deaths each year. This means more than 200 people die each year in NSW because of speeding. In addition to those killed, more than 4,000 people are injured in speed-related crashes each year. The estimated cost to the community of speed-related crashes is about $780 million a year.

That is more than seven times the expected revenue from the rally, but we cannot put a price on the suffering caused by motor vehicle accidents.

There is a proven correlation between the interest in motor racing and risky driving behaviours of young male drivers. "Life in the Fast Lane: Environmental, Economic and Public Health Outcomes of Motorsport Spectacles in Australia" is a study co-authored by Paul Tranter of the Australian Defence Force Academy [ADFA].

The study, which was published last month in the Journal of Sport and Social Issues, shows the negative social effects of motor racing as well as citing a number of studies that directly link motor racing to dangerous copycat driving behaviour in Adelaide and Melbourne after the Grand Prix. I cite another study by Paul Tranter and James Warn from the Australian Defence Force Academy entitled "Relationships between interest in motor racing and driver attitudes and behaviours amongst mature drivers." The study states:

As well as the obvious dangers to drivers and spectators from crashes during motor racing events, there is evidence that motor racing events are linked to an increase in road accidents off the racetrack ... Accident rates can also be higher in localities that have been associated with motor racing events. Road accidents in South Australia around the time of the Adelaide first Grand Prix increased significantly. This increase, which could not be explained by variables such as traffic volumes and weather conditions, was believed to be due to the glorification of speed and daring associated with the motor racing event. In another instance, casualty accident rates on public roads more than doubled after the roads around Melbourne's Albert Park more than doubled after the roads were used as a Formula One race circuit. A New Zealand study found that young males who were interested in legal motor sport events were more likely to engage in risky driving behaviours (as measured by a violations scale) as well as more likely to be involved in illegal street racing.

The Minister for State Development has chosen to ignore the experts and his Government's own anti-speeding message.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I haven't chosen to do anything.

Mr IAN COHEN: Well, you certainly have not taken any notice of it.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: This is Government legislation.

Mr IAN COHEN: You still have not taken any notice of it. This is something I have raised in this House before.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Members should not interject, and members with the call should not respond to interjections.

Mr IAN COHEN: I have raised in this House a number of times issues about speed driving and impressionable young people who are vulnerable to that sort of behaviour. The fact is that we do not measure the resultant cost of hospital and medical bills. It seems as though there is an inability of government to say, "Look, we've got issues here" that spin off from a particular project. I shall refer to that in more detail shortly. I received an email from a person named Wayne Smith who said simply:

Drivers are already practicing the rally course on Byril Creek road. There are many people living along this road who report that they are practicing late at night with their number plates covered or removed. This has been reported to the police on several occations who ignor the reports.

The proposed rally already is having an impact. I guess young people will do what young people do: they are practising at night along this bush rally route, not taking into account any road kill along the way. I hope a serious accident does not occur on those very narrow and dangerous roads. I can stand being abused in this House for all manner of things, including being irrelevant, but I do question priorities in this House when compelling evidence against a proposal is ignored. I ask the Minister for Police to at least investigate the situation. I understand that police have a huge task patrolling the Murwillumbah area and they are understaffed. The rally route is a fair distance from the town and the chances of catching these young people may be remote, but they are covering up their registration plates and are revving along the road at night with no controls. This is happening months before the rally is even scheduled to start. One can only imagine what will happen after the event. I hope no serious accident results from this behaviour.

It is difficult for police to be patrolling that bush rally route area because they have many other activities and responsibilities. Residents beyond the route have complained to me about the current activities, yet somehow it is not the responsibility of the decisions or actions of this Government; somehow it does not count.

This is a despicable situation.

I hope the police Minister's office can at least go a small part of the way to remedy the problem. Perhaps the cost of providing a police presence to curtail this activity this can be taken from the profits the rally organisers claim will be made. Perhaps they would like also to take into account some of the other impacts of this dangerous activity, particularly hospitalisation, motor accidents and also wildlife destruction.

Many community people give selflessly of their time to protect our wildlife. Sometimes the priorities in this Parliament are quite farcical.

This bill takes away the power of the people most affected by this rally to have any say through the normal planning process. The New South Wales Government wants this event irrespective of environmental or human concerns. If this event is such a good thing, as the Minister said recently in Parliament, why does the Minister need special legislation? The people of northern New South Wales should not have to cop deals this Government has done to appease an international motor racing organisation and underwrite a private company, Rally Australia. The State should not be creating special legislation for one single corporate beneficiary—it is undemocratic. The unique environment of the North Coast cannot be rented out to whoever wants to use it. The due planning process should be allowed to proceed. I was ridiculed by the Minister a few weeks ago when I asked a question on this very matter, and the Minister invited himself to my residence. It is okay to dish it out.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I wasn't dishing it out.

Mr IAN COHEN: The Minister assumed somehow that he was going to be welcome at my residence. There are a number of reasons why you are not welcome to my house, Minister. I do not accommodate an abject hypocrite and leader of the hard left doing the bidding of the extreme right. You are not welcome as a Minister who is engineering the most environmentally destructive action against forests in New South Wales at this point in time. Minister, you are a man who ridicules safety issues and is abusing his power.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: When?

Mr IAN COHEN: Right now with this Repco Rally.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: the Committee is indulging this member. Through his incompetence he missed the second reading debate. We have allowed him to speak in the Committee stage, totally outside the rules of the House. He now is personalising this debate by having a go at me all the time. I do not mind, generally. If he did it in the second reading debate, it would not worry me. However, he should not be doing it in Committee. For all his animated carry-on, he fails to grasp the point that the first I heard of this race was in May when I was asked to propose it by the Premier. The Premier is responsible for Events New South Wales. I am just carrying this legislation forward as a member of the Government. I have had nothing to do it other than that.

Mr IAN COHEN: So you are retracting what you said about me in the House?

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I just made a joke at the end of the speech.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Both members will sit down.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order—

The CHAIR: Order! I will not take further argument on the point of order. When members contribute to debate they must confine their comments either to the bill or to a point of order. They should not engage in slanging matches across the table with other members. They must also direct their comments through the Chair. I ruled previously that Mr Ian Cohen should refrain from making imputations about other members in his speech. Equally, it is not appropriate for the Minister, when taking a point of order, to make imputations about Mr Ian Cohen. The member may proceed but will not make further imputations about the Minister or his carriage of the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your balanced assessment of these points of order. I thank you also for allowing me in these rather unusual circumstances to at least place on record what I believe is a reasonable representation of the many people in northern New South Wales who are quite abhorred at this proposal. I agree with the Minister wholeheartedly: I have been incompetent. Yes, I missed the opportunity to contribute to the second reading debate and I feel frustrated at the resulting circumstances: my incompetence created that. At times I have been incompetent—I agree with the Minister—in that I have failed to convince my fellow Greens party members across New South Wales to desist from giving preferences to this Labor Government. I will not be so incompetent at the next election.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.18 p.m.]: I support the remarks of my colleague Ian Cohen and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. I doubt whether I can match their eloquent passion on this matter, but I certainly match them unequivocally in that I and Greens members to whom I have spoken around New South Wales oppose this legislation and this rally.

I will begin by referring to the opposition from the local community. I notice that once again Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile suggested that opposition to the rally was stirred up and, once again, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is wrong. Just nine days ago I attended an environment fair in Murwillumbah and I have to say that opposition to the rally was palpable.

Everywhere I went, and not just at the environment fair, but especially when I walked down the street and spoke to people in the street at Murwillumbah, there was no question of overwhelming opposition to the race and overwhelming support for the work of the groups and members of Parliament who have opposed the rally as well as absolute and utter concern for the impact of the rally on the community. Northern Rivers people constitute a community that strongly values its natural environment, its peace and quiet, and personal safety—all of which will be undermined by the Repco rally and this legislation.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is wrong in suggesting there is any need to stir up anger: the anger was stirred up by the Rees Government, by the proposal for the rally, and by this legislation. Moreover there is anger that the community has been ignored. One of the recurrent themes was a complaint about the complete absence of any meaningful community consultation. Many members of the community mentioned to me that a great degree of deception had been perpetrated on the community about the level of community consultation. The community is not only angry about being ignored but also angry about the consequences of the rally for their community.

One of the recurring themes was concern for the natural environment and for the values of the Green Cauldron. High speed vehicles and low speed marsupials and other fauna are an inherently bad mix. Particular concern was expressed for koalas and the way in which koalas will suffer both from the noise and the risk of impact as well as from chemical pollution. The koala population in the area has declined. The koalas are vulnerable in that area and could be savagely damaged—all for a car race. The environmental concerns relate not only to noise and animal strikes but also to air and water pollution and road run-off. These types of assaults and insults to the environment have no place in areas with high degrees of natural values and natural beauty.

There is no question that if nothing else happens, the noise that will scare the animals away will have an impact per se. There is an overriding concern that the flora and fauna of the area around the race will be damaged to the extent that some may never recover. They will be damaged by one race, by another race two years later, and they will continue to be damaged as long as the race goes on, with cumulative effects on the ecosystem. The only way that the race can be justified is if people admit they have no concern for the natural environment and for the natural values of the Green Cauldron.

Another matter of huge concern is the almost complete absence of meaningful consultation with the local Aboriginal people. The Githabul people, for whom the Green Cauldron has deep and lasting social and religious significance, have not been appropriately consulted. For many of them, a car race through the Green Cauldron will be like a car race through a cathedral. We owe a great debt to the Aboriginal people of the State, and we are exacerbating that by hosting a car race without even bothering to appropriately consult with the traditional owners of the land.

Both Mr Khan and Reverend Moyes spoke about the encouragement of copycat high-risk driving behaviour. Rally driving, however highly skilled it is, clearly encourages emulation, particularly by young and adolescent males. What we are doing with this car rally is sending an appalling message to young men and young women whom we are trying to discourage from risky driving behaviours. The Government has invested heavily in the prevention of hoon driving, but by officially sanctioning a car race and ramming through legislation that will put on display what can only be described as risky car driving behaviour, it sends an appallingly mixed message.

The poor quality of the socioeconomic and cost benefit analyses of this race are outstanding. Not only are the methodology and data dodgy, but so is the way the results have been interpreted to justify supposedly a $100 million benefit from the car rally. The figure of $100 million is highly questionable, if not entirely fictitious, but even if there were $100 million in supposedly economic benefits, the proposal ignores the social and environmental impacts, and the impacts upon the longer-term economy of the region. Western Australia had the right idea by kicking out its Repco rally because the Western Australian Government recognised that when all matters are taken into consideration, the dollars simply do not stack up.

To the extent that any money is to be made from this rally, it will be purchased at the expense of the local amenity of residents, the future of green tourism and other natural values that are derived from the green branding of the area and from the integrity of the environment. In reality, any proper analysis of this car race would result in the conclusion that it is simply not worth doing. When the damage inflicted on the environment, the community, and the individuals within the area are all taken into account, the proposal simply cannot be justified by a fistful of dollars, especially when the magnitude of the profit is questionable. Reverend Moyes and Ian Cohen have referred to the appalling process that has led to the introduction of this legislation; the way the legislation will undermine important protections for people, animals and the environment; the way it takes away a right of appeal; the way it takes away the ability of a community to stand up for the environment and the way in which it rides roughshod over the important protections that exist in other legislation.

From my point of view and for many Greens, the worst aspect of this legislation and the car rally is the absolute and complete lack of vision for the region. It is a lack of vision that could come only from a total misunderstanding of the environmental values of the region and the values of the population of the region. Surely anybody who has spent any time in the Tweed and in Kyogle would automatically start thinking about ecotourism, cycle tourism, and tourism that includes activities based on respect for the environment.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I have listened to the contribution being made to debate by the member. I know the amendment that is before the Committee. I have a sneaking suspicion that the member is making a second reading speech.

Dr John Kaye: You were not here. We decided we were going to do this.

CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda FAZIO): Order! Dr John Kaye will not interrupt the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, when he is taking a point of order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I have just arrived in the Chamber and I am saying what I am seeing—a member making a second reading speech during the Committee stage. There is an amendment before the Committee and, from what I could hear, the member's remarks were not even close. I request that he be directed to confine his remarks to the amendment that is before the Committee.

CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda FAZIO): An amendment has not been moved. We are dealing with part 1 of the bill. In a very roundabout way, members are speaking against the adoption of part 1 of the bill. Dr Kaye may proceed.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I oppose part 1 of the bill, which is the long title of the legislation. The Greens oppose the legislation not only in detail but also in its substance. Our opposition to the bill includes part 1 of the bill. I appreciate the ruling of the Chair. I conclude my speech by pointing out that the Repco rally is not a sensible use of the landscape or a sensible imposition on the people of the area, and it is not a sensible imposition on the environment. I urge all members to vote against this part of the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.28 p.m.]:

I congratulate my colleague Ian Cohen on his speech in the Chamber and his work with the community and the No Rally Group Inc., which has set out very clearly why this legislation should not be passed. The Repco rally should not be held in northern New South Wales. That would be a huge mistake and would result in a huge setback not only for the region but also for the standing of New South Wales. It will just make us look even more of a laughingstock and show that this Government is more dysfunctional than people realise.

There are many reasons the event should not go ahead, and the environmental concerns have been well set out.

More than a decade ago I did a great deal of work with the Rainforest Information Centre based at Lismore. Obviously I had an opportunity to enjoy the delights of that area. The green cauldron, as many speakers have referred to it, is wondrous. I imagine that when people stand on the lip of the crater, which is millions of years old, they are spellbound by the sheer beauty of what they see when they take in the full panorama. And the Government is pushing this madness onto the local environment and the local community. This is not the area in which to hold this rally. Again, the Greens are not saying we are against all car races, but holding street car races particularly through natural areas is a deeply flawed policy that reflects on the Minister. One must wonder how many long lunches he had to participate in—

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to withdraw that comment. Dr John Kaye made his second reading contribution in Committee with a great deal of dignity. Ms Lee Rhiannon is straying into sleights, insults and imputations. Obviously she missed the point that my involvement with this event began in May. I do not have carriage for Events New South Wales. So I ask the member to withdraw those imputations.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio)

: Order! I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to withdraw the comments to which the Minister objected. I advise the member that at this stage she should be speaking only to the reasons she is opposed to part 1 of the bill. She should not be making imputations against other members.

Ms LEE RHIANNON

: As requested by the Minister, I withdraw those comments. There are many reasons to oppose part 1 of the bill. Madam Chair, I appreciate that you have highlighted the need to set out those reasons. One issue that should be of concern to any responsible government is public safety. Many scientific studies have demonstrated that there is a clear association between interest in motor racing and driver attitudes. Surely the Government should recognise and respond to that, and recognise that this event should be cancelled. Paul Tranter and James Warn established this disturbing link in an article entitled "Relationships between interest in motor racing and driver attitudes and behaviour amongst mature drivers: An Australian case study", which appeared in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008). They stated:

Results indicate that the level of interest in motor racing is significantly related to attitudes towards speeding, controlling for age, education level and sensation seeking propensity.

I recommend that the Minister and members make themselves aware of that detailed paper. When street races are held, the impact on public safety is considerable. My colleague Ian Cohen also spoke about this in his contribution and I want to add some comments because it is one of the disturbing aspects of the legislation. On top of extreme environmental damage and damage to local communities, there is the wider issue of public safety. When people attend these events and then leave to travel home or wherever they are going, often there are terrible accidents. J. R. Warn, P. J. Tranter and S. Kingham wrote a paper entitled "Fast and Furious 3: illegal street racing, sensation seeking and risky driving behaviours in New Zealand", which was presented at a forum held in Adelaide.

The authors of the paper looked at how motorsport influences risky driving behaviour through the influence on attitude to speeding. It should trouble members that it has been clearly established that after such events have been watched and enjoyed, particularly by young men, when people get in their cars and travel on public roads the level of speeding becomes dangerous. We cannot deny that involvement in motorsport has an impact on driving behaviour. These are some of the conclusions set out by Warn, Tranter and Kingham. They detail how involvement in motorsport produces a negative effect for road safety. The effect of motor racing on attitudes to speeding can be wide ranging. Motor racing enthusiasts are more likely to believe that speed limits are too restrictive or that driving over the speed limit is acceptable if they are skilful drivers.

Others who have written in this area include P. Ulleberg and T. Rundmo, who produced a paper in 2003 for Safety Science. They reported that risky driving behaviour is influenced by attitudes to speeding. Also, research in America has found that racing car drivers are more likely to have been fined for speeding and involved in accidents than other drivers. The findings of the research undertaken by Warn, Tranter and Kingham demonstrate that it is important to counteract the pro-speeding messages such as the glorification of speed and risky driving behaviour emanating from motorsport. This has to be undertaken in order to shape attitudes about driving behaviour on public roads and to reduce risky driving.

We hear many messages and have had some good campaigns about reducing risky driving behaviour. However, those messages and campaigns are undermined by events like this. Good work to make our roads safer is periodically undertaken, with expensive campaigns run by the Roads and Traffic Authority. But these sorts of events are a setback. One problem with motor racing as a sport is that spectators who wish to emulate the behaviour of motor racing drivers can emulate this behaviour only on public roads. That is the essence of the problem. The risky behaviour ends up occurring on public roads, putting the public at risk. The burden of risk is then redistributed to other road users who may happen to be in the vicinity of any illegal racing activity.

The broader response that is put forward by these authors is the need to deglorify the car, and they argue that one way to do this is to ensure that motorsport events are never allowed to be staged in significant public spaces as this signifies that such events are an accepted part of the culture of a city or a society. That point has been taken up by P. J. Tranter and T. J. Keeffe in a paper published in 2004 in the Urban Policy and Research journal. Members can see that the extensive work on this issue is thorough and evidence based. It is time the Government took notice of the research and brought some balance to how it is managing this sport. Again, I acknowledge that many people enjoy the sport, but it does not need to take place around northern New South Wales in the Tweed and Kyogle shires.

Another aspect that is relevant to this debate is how the socioeconomic impact assessment report was drawn up. It is extremely difficult to analyse the report critically because it is much poorer than the environmental report. The socioeconomic impact assessment report is entirely unreferenced. It is unbelievable that something so central to establishing the case for this Repco Rally, the socioeconomic impact assessment report, is not referenced.

Without citations of any source material in the report, all claims and projections are unsubstantiated and unverifiable. In scientific circles at least such a report would be rejected out of hand. The terms of reference lead one to conclude very quickly that the report is inadequate.

I thank Dr Jules Lewin for providing material, which I acknowledge I have not gone through in detail, on the socioeconomic impacts. Terms of reference No. 2 refers to analysing the feasibility alternatives to carrying out the development, which did not occur. No. 3 refers to identifying likely impacts, in relation to which the underlying research was flawed and the likely impacts were not explored. Terms of reference No. 4a refers to identifying issues and affected groups. The key issues identified were unreferenced, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the report. No. 4b refers to looking at historical trends and social and economic issues. It is extraordinary that the global economic crisis was not mentioned once. Surely that trend should have come into that term of reference. Again, there is no mention of the issue of peak oil—the price of oil is increasing—and that we are facing severe oil vulnerability for which our societies need to plan.

That demonstrates the poor way in which the project has been managed at every turn. Dr Lewin said, "Last week I attended the latest public consultation gathering". As other members have said, people have become very angry not only about this outrageous event that is being imposed on them but also because of the meaningless consultation. Dr Lewin attended the so-called third public consultation—the first since the reports were released—and states:

Besides the fact that there was no-one qualified to discuss the SEIA or answer some fairly basic questions, notice of the meetings was only released on the Sunday of a long weekend, with the first meeting scheduled at 9am Wednesday.

That is just one small example of how poorly the preparations for this project have been managed. It draws one to the conclusion that the proponents knew they had this project in the bag. They went through the motions of ticking the boxes, producing a report that did not need to be referenced, and conducted consultation that did not need to be advertised because they were confident that the legislation would be passed and the project would be up and running because the Government is onside. This bill should be defeated. We understand that the Government has the numbers—the Government, the Liberals and The Nationals, and some conservative crossbenchers are backing the legislation. It is shameful that we have arrived at this point. Any part of New South Wales that is open to the public should not have this project thrust upon it, but it should never have even been proposed for the far north of New South Wales, which is so exquisite and unique.

Parts 1 to 4 agreed to.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There are two amendments to clause 25 that are in conflict. Greens amendment No. 1, on sheet C2009-058, was lodged first so it will take precedence over The Nationals amendment No. 1, on sheet C2009-064.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.44 p.m.]: I have had a productive discussion with the Hon. Trevor Khan and he has agreed to modify The Nationals amendment. Having reconsidered the matter, I am happy to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Greens amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn by Mr Ian Cohen.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [9.45 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 12, clause 25, lines 10-17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
25 Review of Act
(1) The Minister is to conduct a review of the impact in the Northern Rivers region of the rally event to determine whether future rally events should be conducted in that region. The review is to include, but not limited to, the impact of the rally event on:

(a) the tourism industry, and

(b) the environment, and

(c) Aboriginal cultural heritage, and

(d) public safety, and

(e) the local community.
(2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the end of the declared rally period in 2009.

(3) The Minister is to ensure that the review includes consultation with the local community of the Northern Rivers region, Kyogle Council and Tweed Shire Council.

(4) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months from the end of the declared rally period in 2009.

Clause 25 of the bill provides for a review of the objects and terms of the Act some five years after the commencement of the Act. The proposed amendment seeks a more precise review, as set out in new subclause (1), to deal with the impact upon the five specified areas, although not exclusive to other issues. Equally importantly, the review is to take place within 12 months and as soon as possible. It also provides that the review must include consultation with the local community of the Northern Rivers region, Kyogle Council and Tweed Shire Council.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Members will not engage in conversations in the Chamber.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I thank Mr Ian Cohen for his input into the matter. As he verballed me in a sense, I note that he acknowledges the appropriateness of subclause (3) in particular, in that it ensures that appropriate consultation occurs with the local community. When dealing with part 1, members expressed various concerns about different matters, which I will not canvass. But the proof will be in the pudding. The running of the event in early September 2009 will be an opportunity to see how the rally goes. The oversight of it will obviously reinforce people's views as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the event. The review is required to be tabled within 12 months from the end of the declared rally period, which will no doubt offer a further opportunity for discussion on the matter.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I ask members to set their mobile phones to silent alert, otherwise I will be compelled to call to order members whose mobiles are heard to ring in the Chamber.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [9.48 p.m.]: The Government supports amendment No. 1 moved by The Nationals. I note that the Government made a commitment to hold an informal review next year. The Government is happy to enshrine this amendment in the legislation and conduct the appropriate consultation.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.49 p.m.]: I pay tribute to the two members of Parliament in the area, Geoff Provest and Thomas George.

[Interruption]

I know my colleague did, but the key to the amendment—which the Minister has gracefully accepted—comes from those two men acting on behalf of their communities.

We certainly appreciate the pressure that they put on us to bring the amendment forward. At this stage I believe it is proper to recognise the role that these two great local members have playing in supporting their communities, and we thank the Minister for accepting the amendment when we approached him on their behalf.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.50 p.m.]:

As I said earlier, The Nationals amendment No. 1 is very much in the same spirit as the amendment that my office had prepared. It replaces the existing provision for review of the Act, which was a standard five-year legislative review. I am pleased that all parties are supporting the amendment. It certainly does not resolve the many problems that I and other members have raised with the project or concept. Nevertheless, I am sure that conducting a proper review within a period before any further rallies are held will unearth some worthwhile information. We can examine whether the economic benefits put forward by the Minister stand up, and whether those benefits compensate for the environmental damage. The report will be required to consider impacts on the tourism industry, the environment, Aboriginal cultural heritage, public safety and the local community. I think it is a worthwhile amendment, and the Greens support it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.51 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports The Nationals amendment No. 1. It is reasonable to review the Act to take into account the impact of the rally on tourism, the environment, Aboriginal cultural heritage, public safety and the local community. Will the Minister confirm that this event will be held between 3 and 6 September, and not every day of the year? I got the impression from most speakers that the rally will tear New South Wales apart.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [9.52 p.m.]: The rally will be held on 3 to 6 September this year, and the next event is in 2011.

Question—That The Nationals amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

The Nationals amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Clause 25 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment.
Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.
Third Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [9.52 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.
Ayes, 27 [Those in favour of the bill]
Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Noes, 5 [Those AGAINST the bill]
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Reverend Dr Moyes
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

[...]

Source dated as Last modified 24/06/2009 14:05:20

"Dave the Developer" at the Restore Residents' Rights protest rally, June 10, Photo: Progress Leader

Development Assessment Committees' Legislation Stopped In Upper House

Ed. The following story is adapted from the MRRA Macedon Ranges' Residents Association site: It describes a really important battle in the ongoing war for democracy in Victoria which will probably be reported on in other articles at candobetter.

Where to from here?

'Where to from here' depends on whether government finds a way around needing parliament's consent to change the law

The day after the "Restore Residents Rights" rally at parliament house on June 10, which was attended by 600 [1] people, Victoria's upper house rejected changes to the Planning and Environment Act that would have introduced Development Assessment Committees [DACs] to the State.

Initially proposed for a limited number of metropolitan areas, the government's aim is to have this system of decision-making apply more broadly. The DAC system takes planning powers off Councils and hands them to majority government-appointed committees which then make planning decisions in Council's place, while Councils and community carry the financial costs of having DACs make the decisions for them.

Lack of transparency key concern for democracy

Key concerns with DACs include a lack of clarity about accountability and transparency mechanisms, the breach of fundamental democratic principles and the community's right to know, and the potential for planning decisions to be driven by party politics, and implementing specific development agendas without any obvious ability by the community to express their views to the decision-makers.

In their present proposed form, DACs are vulnerable to being 'stacked' politically, while cutting off Councils and communities from decisions that affect them. Another concern is the inadequacy of the current planning system to produce outcomes that the community, as opposed to the developer, wants.

DAC Ideology

The whole DACs ideology captures and builds on a belief held at governmental level that all it takes to make a "good" planning decision is some 'tick boxes' and for applicants and decision-makers to settle it between themselves - no such thing as "no", just "whatever it takes". You get to know about it when it happens. So much for community ownership of decisions that affect the community! And they wonder why we are all getting peed off!

As "Dave The Developer" said at the RRR rally, this a fantastic government - when us developers go in with 12 storeys in a 5 storey area, all they say is, is 12 enough?!!

Chris Gaffney played the part of Dave the Developer and put on a great comedy act. The whole show was the idea of the Darebin Appropriate Development Association and they had working bees to make the little houses and garden that were knocked over by the Bobcat. In the photo you see the splendid high rise blocks called Brumby Towers and Villa de Maddening that rose in their place.

[1] A reestimation based on the known number of people carrying balloons (300) plus the number of people not carrying balloons, puts the total around 600 people, which is huge for the sprawling, socially disorganised and transport-disconnected city of Melbourne, where, although population is growing, democracy and communication are shrinking.

Discrepancy

Ms Pennicuik, Greens member of Victorian Parliament, has drawn attention to discrepancies between figures apparently given the Auditor-General by the Port of Melbourne Corporation and figures obtained from them by the Supplementary EES statement process and the hearings and the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration.

If it is true that 96% of ships were able to use the Port of Melbourne with no problems, does this discrepancy mean that the Auditor General will have to review his report and the validity of the PoMC's business case, quality of information and practice?

Dredging has cost Victorians enormously already financially, socially and environmentally. Confidence is not high in the PoMC. It is to be hoped that Ms Pennicuick will follow this matter up urgently. Any member of the public wishing to find out more could put questions to Ms Pennicuik to ask in Parliament.

Ms Pennicuick (Greens) (Southern Metropolitan)

"I am speaking today on the Auditor-General's report on the channel-deepening project. This project has been the subject of much public interest since it was first announced in 2002. That interest continues as, unfortunately, dredging is under way. It is a mega-project with a scale of dredging way above anything seen before in Port Phillip Bay -- or pretty well anywhere else in the world. "

"I have read through the Auditor-General's report on the channel-deepening project (CDP), and he concludes that after a very poor start the Port of Melbourne Corporation had developed an effective channel-deepening project. On page 2 of his report he says that the CDP included: "

" a robust business case, complying with better practice guidelines and providing government with the type and quality of information it needed to endorse the project "

" an environmental management plan that addressed the requirements of the environmental assessment process and was endorsed by ministers under the state and commonwealth environmental legislation "

" contracting arrangements, where the corporation followed sound processes in determining how works should be procured and the contractual terms. "

"The Auditor-General concluded that all of these were in order. "

"I am pleased that the Victorian Auditor-General's Office chose to audit the channel-deepening project, because due to public and community concern about the scale and risks of the project it certainly needed independent analysis, which has been sadly lacking hitherto. This report is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about the pros and cons of channel deepening, which, it must be remembered, is still happening. It is not a finished project, a point the Auditor-General himself acknowledges. It is still continuing, and he has not in fact audited a completed project. "

Was Channel Deepening needed or will it ever be needed?

"The Auditor-General's report is, perhaps, unable to answer some of the fundamental questions about channel deepening. The first question is: is it, was it or will it ever be needed? The second question is: will it provide any benefits to either exporters or importers or to the people of Victoria? These questions cannot be and are not answered by this report. "

"The fundamental question regarding the channel-deepening project has always been the need for it and the extent to which ships are actually depth constrained in the port of Melbourne. "

Wide range of figures has been quoted by PoMC

"Over the last few years the Port of Melbourne Corporation has quoted figures ranging from 25 per cent to 38 per cent of ships being unable to enter the bay fully loaded, but during the supplementary environment effects statement process and the hearings, and in the Report on Port Phillip Bay: Channel Deepening by the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration released last September, the port admitted that the true figure is around 4 per cent of ships that cannot come into the bay or leave it fully loaded. That means 96 per cent of ships are able to come in and out of the bay fully loaded. "

"The Auditor General's report states that 50 per cent of ships are unable to come into the bay fully loaded. I asked the Auditor-General at his briefing yesterday where he obtained that figure from; he replied that he had obtained it from the port. Elsewhere in this report it states -- in fact, it recommends -- that the Port of Melbourne Corporation start to collect figures on this. "

PoMC does not collect data on number of depth constrained ships entering/leaving Port Phillip Bay

"In fact it does not collect data on what ships are able to come in and out of the bay and are depth constrained. That was an assertion by the port, and it is unfortunate that that figure was used in this report. "

"The Auditor-General then went on to say that in order to measure the benefits the port should start collecting figures on what ships it feels has made use of the benefits of the project. "

Costs of shipping in Port Phillip Bay rising due to 'Channel-deepening levy'

"The other benefits of the project, as they were raised in the briefing, are to be measured by reduced costs to exporters and importers. Certainly information that has come to us is that costs to exporters are rising, because they are paying a $60 channel-deepening levy, whether they need it or not. Many exporters have said throughout the lead-up to this project that they did not need or want the project, and they did not want to be paying for it. They are now paying for it. "

"It will be interesting to see whether, through the life of the project, that measure -- the reduced costs to exporters and importers, when they are in fact rising -- ever comes to be seen. "

Source: Member Sue Pennicuik, Council, Statements on Reports, Auditor-General: The Channel Deepening Project, Hansard, 7 May 2009, p.2141

Population growth, climate change and industrial push threaten Westernport ecology

There seems to be a big focus on Westernport at the moment, as population growth, climate change and further industrialisation threatens to further harm its fragile ecology.

Ordinary people are worried about social and environmental impact

There has been a shift in attitude amongst ordinary people who are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of protecting our environment. The Global Financial Crisis, water shortage crisis, climate change and predicted population expansion have incited an awakening about how fragile our society is, and how dependent we are on the health of our environment and the role we all play in it.

Spread the word about Western Port Seagrass Partnership's DVD launch & website

Last week, SVCAG Vice President Gillian Collins and I attended the launch of The Western Port Seagrass Partnership's DVD about the loss of seagrass in Westernport and the efforts of WPSP and others to address this problem. We urge you to visit their website www.seagrass.com.au and click on the link to receive a free DVD, then spread the word to others. Raising awareness about the importance of a healthy Westernport is crucial to addressing the problems facing it.

Report on Victorian Transport Infrastructure Conference

On the 11-12th May, I attended the Victorian Transport Infrastructure Conference, representing various groups and individuals across Victoria. What amazed me was that although all roads lead to Hastings, as you can see from the q & a's asked at the conference, there are many questions still left unanswered. Interestingly, the speaker from Asciano (who own the interstate rail and the Port of Geelong) completely got it when I spoke with her about a National Transport Strategy which would allow for the utilisation of other existing container ports. We will follow up on that conversation shortly.

PoHLUTS Pollutes becomes PLUTS

Recently, we had Ralph Kenyon CEO of the Port of Hastings Corporation attend our committee meeting to discuss where the PoHLUTS [Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy (Consultation Draft)] stands now. (To our disappointment, they've taken the 'oH' out of it so now it's just 'PLUTS' - maybe they didn't think it was quite as funny as we did, that spell-check wanted to make it 'Pollutes'.)

Anyway, Mr. Kenyon informed us that the Port Futures document would be out in a few months which would outline the grand plan for Victoria's ports, and contain details in response to the original PoHLUTS. Keep an eye on www.portofhastings.vic.gov.au .

Why the Refusal to include SVCAG in PoHC "Community Reference Group"?

Ralph Kenyon

We have also requested several times that SVCAG be included on the Port of Hastings Corp Community Reference Group so that we may better inform you, our supporters, but Mr Kenyon refuses our request on the basis that 'this is the group we began with, so we'll keep it that way until we review it later when the next stage of the port strategy document is released.'

I'm sure if Mr Kenyon or the Chairperson of the CRG said to the other members of the group 'considering SVCAG have been heavily involved within the community helping us to raise awareness regarding the PoHLUTS, would it be OK that they join the group, particularly considering the professional manner they have maintained, and valid points they have raised?' I couldn't imagine anyone would refuse - would you?

PoHC funding not evident

In the meantime, the PoHC have been unsuccessful in their attempts to acquire funds from both state and federal governments to begin Stage 1 of their EES. After attending the Vic Transport Plan Conference, I'm not convinced that anyone has any money to do anything, let alone develop yet another port for container imports, especially when they haven't even finished dredging Port Phillip!

Frankston Bypass lacks financial, political and democratic support

Frankston bypass cuts and damages wildife corridor via The Pines

The Frankston Bypass, a key transport route for the Port of Hastings development as outlined in the PohLUTS, did not get complete funding in this year's State budget either, and got nothing from Infrastructure Australia. Mr Brumby is still talking as though it will go ahead, and there are surveys being conducted along the route. Gillian Collins, who has been working tirelessly to protect the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, along with local activists, has been visiting Federal and State politicians, Environment Victoria and Green Wedges Coalition representatives, and urges all of you to contact Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett and raise your concerns about the unnecessary construction when traffic congestion alternatives exist. There will be destruction of endangered habitat, and endangered species will be threatened if this freeway proceeds.

Again, the lack of funding gives us a bit of a reprieve and allows more time for people to connect the dots, and raise further awareness of the importance of protecting Westernport.

Catherine Manning
President
Southern Victoria Community Action Group Inc.
www.svcag.org
Contact her via contact at candobettter.org or via info[AT]Svcag.org

The closing date for submissions to the Human Rights Consultation process established by the Federal Government is June 15th 2009.

The following is a draft of a submission prepared by the Australian Water Network, in consultation with FWU. We encourage all supporters to submit their concerns with respect to Australia's water future, via the link posted to the "NEWS" page of the FWU site.

Rationale for inclusion of reference to right to water within a proposed bill of rights.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its 22 May, 2009 report expressed concern about the negative impact of climate change on the right to an adequate standard of living, including on the right to water, affecting in particular indigenous peoples, in spite of the State Party’s recognition of the challenges imposed by climate change.

“It needs to the recognised that sooner or later the Federal Government will need to (or be forced to) take on the role of conservator and distributor of water without fear of favour. Corrupt and parochial state and local governments can have no part in such undertakings and neither can cashed up private companies who have shown an inclination to feed corruption for their own ends”. (Bruce Haig and Kellie Tranter. courtesy ABC Online, May 27, 2009)

“National Water Plans and Senate Inquiries offer little hope of prescribing the empirical rethink that is manifestly required. The implications of "getting it wrong" are quite simply too momentous to leave the task in the hands of those who happen to be charged with governmental responsibility at this time” (Ian Douglas, Fair Water Use (Australia): courtesy ABC Online, Sept 16, 2008)

In his concluding notes on the Right to a Pristine Environment, (Statute of Liberty pp 205/6) Geoffrey Robertson says,

'there are repeated references in international treaties and resolutions to the human right to a healthy environment. It has been recognised in the South African Constitution and by the Supreme Court of Canada. Australians proudly sing “our land abounds in nature’s gifts in beauty rich and rare”, so why not provide nature’s gifts with a measure of legal protection against being given away.'

This must include the essential right to water as a global commons. (Article 31, United Nations, Maude Barlow Blue Gold /Blue Covenant)

Proposed text

The Right to Water and a Healthy Environment

The Federal Government of Australia will use its vested powers to ensure that its citizens are vouchsafed the fundamental human right to water for sustenance and all reasonable use.

The governance of the nation’s water, including determination of “reasonable use”, will fall under the sole jurisdiction of a fully independent body accountable, via federal parliament, to the Australian people. The structure and independence of this water authority will be analogous to that of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

The right to water will be declared an essential human right as a global commons. Under this definition, the right to water will be given precedence and advantage, in international and local law, over any other interests. Access to water will not be subject to market forces or to private or corporate interests. The precautionary principle of ecosystem protection must take precedence over commercial demands on water.

The carriage of this right will always be within the public domain. Any dilution of this right or interference in its carriage will be declared an offence under Australian Federal law.

These fundamental rights are contained within, and hold self-evident, provisions pertaining to the right to a pristine and healthy environment, namely:

The right:

(i) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being of citizens

(ii) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that:

- prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
- promote conservation; and protect native flora and fauna, and areas necessary to maintain biological diversity and ecosystems;
- secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development;
- establish a planning system that ensures encroachments upon areas of natural beauty or heritage value and species and ecological communities of National Environmental Significance are not approved unless by fair, transparent and non-corrupt process, which takes that value into account.

(iii) to timely and adequate assistance in the event of fire, flood, cyclone or other natural disaster or catastrophe.

The Black Cockatoo Conservation Team has just pulled off a remarkable rescue of wildlife habitat. One West Australian Black Cockatoo colony has been saved from the developers, in the nick of time, but the species is still not out of danger. Video-link inside article.

See also: “Help save West Australian black cockatoo from extinction”, blackcockatoorescue.com.

Last year we ran an article calling for help to save land for the Black Cockatoo at “Help save West Australian black cockatoo from extinction”. The University of Western Australia had been determined to bulldoze rare bushland in the middle of Perth for future property development, and that would have destroyed the habitat of one of very few remaining West Australian Black Cockatoos. Sixty per cent of pristine 36 hectare bushland was to be razed to make way for offices and housing. The situation looked hopeless, but this area has now been saved.


I was delighted today to receive an email pointing to a video link to a news item which shows David Dewhurst and others from the Black Cockatoo Conservation Team in West Australia reporting on the establishment of that threatened habitat as land for Black Cockatoos under Land for Wildlife provisions on private land.

Having said this, I have to add that I have personally run into trouble over Land for Wildlife in Victoria. The occasion was when a number of people went to the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to attempt to stop intensive development of 9 Diosma Court Frankston, on the banks of Sweetwater Creek. One of our major arguments was the new development would impact adversely on parts of the creek held under Land for Wildlife. We were astonished and dismayed to hear that the Member who presided over the case had never heard of Land for Wildlife and that he held that it had no legal status to protect wildlife from adverse developments.

The history of this struggle and others to do with these birds may be read at this website.
There will soon be a new website. And there are two other struggles to save what remains of these endangered birds' habitat at Perth Airport and Jandakot airport.

These birds take a long time to mature sexually and then they only have a maximum of one baby every two years. This means that as they have already become rare the risk of losing all of them is very serious.

See also: “Help save West Australian black cockatoo from extinction”, blackcockatoorescue.com.

The NSW state government has taken the decision about planning approval for the proposed Repco Rally Australia leg of the World Rally Championships away from local councils by announcing that it would prepare special events legislation to ensure the rally goes ahead despite growing local opposition.

In a sign of growing desperation the Minister for State Development, Ian MacDonald, made the announcement on Friday.

Local residents are outraged and appalled! The fact that the announcement was made the day after a well supported protest rally was held in Murwillumbah to oppose the rally was a real slap in the face for locals residents.

It demonstrates yet again that this government is not interested in listening to the views of locals, preferring instead to listen to the assurances of "flim flam men".

At the same time that the state government is ripping the guts out of local health and transport infrastucture it can find up to $8 million to support a bash and crash rally though National Parks and rural gravel roads.

The Minister calims that “The legislation will permit the Government to impose environmental protection measures to manage any temporary impacts on affected local areas.” This begs the question ... Upon what evidence will the imposed conditions be based? Will the government undertake its own environmental studies? Because the studies undertaken on behalf of the organisers are seriously lacking!!!

All the studies acknowledge that they are walking on untested ground and thy don't know whether their suggested strategies will work! In other words, the Tweed and Kyogle areas are to be used as a laboratory to test untried strategies. Is it any wonder that local residents are not impressed???

The noise (acoustic) study acknowledges that the organisers are unable to meet the recommended standards.

The dust report recommends that residents on the route either "go out for the day" or " close their windows and doors and turn on their air conditioners".

The waste report recommends the use of split waste bins (recyclables at the rear), that even the council is replacing, rather than separate bins for recyclables.

The Carbon Offset Plan consists of one page on their website plus Q&As.

And they wonder why we don't want the bloody thing here!!!!!

We will continue to fight on!

Join us ...
- write / email / phone the NSW government
- write / email / phone your local MP if you live in NSW and encourage them to vote against the special legislation being introduced to allow the rally
- if you have contacts in Greenpeace, WWF, GetUp or other similar organisations urge them to get involved.

Our contact details are:
No Rally Group
Tel: 0438 357 452 (Australia)
Web: sites.google.com/site/norallygroup
Email: no.rally[AT]yahoo.com

A slightly pythonesque moment occurred when I rang the Premiers Department to speak with someone from the "Office of Protocol and Special Events" (who are the organisers of government support for the rally) and found out that they had been renamed as "Community Engagement and Events". George Orwell lives !!!

In his review of "Overloading Australia" by Mark O'Connor and William Lines, Frosty Wooldridge author of America on the brink who has cycled 100,000 miles across six continents in the past 25 years, refutes commonly held misconceptions that the Australian continent is underpopulated.

Also published on Australia.to News and in American Chronicle as part 1 and part 2.

With a scant 21 million people on the vast continent of Australia, how could anyone state with any certitude that Oz suffers from human overpopulation? What impudence might that take? How out of touch? How completely absurd? Definitely not 'fair dinkum'!

China features not much more land mass than Oz but houses 1.3 billion souls. The United States--at least the lower 48 states--equals about the same land mass, but houses 306 million people. Mexico, less than a quarter the size of Australia, features 108 million people.

So what's the problem? How could there be a snag? Australia encompasses an endless amount of land. It features 2,970,000 square miles of terra firma. How do I know? In 1984 through 1985, I cycled 17,000 kms around Australia including Tasmania. One Aussie, after learning that I intended to cycle the entire perimeter of Australia said, "Well Yank, you must be dead from the neck up!" I answered, "Yes, but it's a great adventure." He responded, "Do you know what the Nullabor Plains means?" I said, "No." He said, "It means treeless for 2,000 kms and 40 degrees C. every day. You'll fry in the heat!"

None the less, I traveled from Sydney down the Princess Highway to Melbourne; sailed over to Tasmania, up the Great Ocean Road to see the 12 Apostles, to Ceduna and across the Nullabor Plains (treeless) and on to Esperance and then to Perth, onward to Port Headlands and upward to Darwin. From there to Cairns and back down to Sydney! What did I see and how did I feel? I fried in the saddle and sweated while I slept at night under the Southern Cross. Withering heat at 120+ degrees F. daily! I stopped at the Great Australian Bite, saw Bondy's (Alan Bond) boat that beat the Yanks in the Americas Cup, viewed the Pinnacles of Cervantes, rode past the ant castles, witnessed the 'prison boab tree' near Port Headlands and watched the big crocs in Darwin. A frilled lizard scared the daylights out of me near Tenant Creek and I dove on the Great Barrier Reef. I read A.F. Facey's "A Fortunate Life." I'm still friends with John Brown in Kiama and Lance Hill in Perth. I've backpacked with Lance in Nepal and push-biked across the USA with John. I love Oz and its people.

So why does Australia suffer an overpopulation crisis? From my firsthand experiences, I am here to tell you: desert and sand cover 95 percent of Australia. No water and no arable land! It's a wasteland with kangaroos, emus, wombats and stray camels eking out their existences in the devil's horrid heat. When I traveled Oz, it featured 14 million people which it could support. Today, at 21 million, it's on the edge of its own non-sustainable future. Australians might fool Mother Nature in the short term, but they cannot in the long run. Oz doesn't possess water or arable land needed to grow food thus to sustain a large human population. That's a brutal fact!

However, powerful governmental, capitalistic and growth oriented organizations expect to push Australia's population to 50 million tortured souls. Much the same holds true in the United States and other countries where 'growthists' disregard reality and push human populations beyond the ability of the land and water to sustain them. How do they do it? They promote unlimited immigration from other countries that have already exceeded their carrying capacities---and simply exhaust their excess humanity onto the shores of Australia and other countries that possess stable populations. The third world grows by a net gain of 77 million annually, so the line never ends. That alone should give any Oz citizen pause!

The author Mark O'Connor of Overloading Australia, lamented, "I found this book almost impossible to write." He found the fortitude to finish the project only after teaming with his co-author, conservationist William J. Lines.

With electrifying clarity, O'Connor and Lines spell out a sobering future for Australia. Any kangaroo could figure out what the 'kangaroo' government in Canberra cannot seem to grasp! As one man who has seen more of Australia than 95 percent of Australians, I can vouch for the fact that Oz does not possess the farmland or the water to sustain any more population.

"Rightwing growthists demand endless growth of 'the economy' backed by endless population growth," O'Connor said. "Forced since late 2006 to accept a serious public debate about water supplies and about how to maintain 'growth' without increasing greenhouse gases, they are nevertheless determined to scotch any discussion about limiting growth."

I found it exceedingly exasperating that the 'very' people in charge of Australia's future, like Prime Minister Rudd in 2008, did and does not understand the consequences of his/their own actions. He promotes a "Faustian Bargain' on every citizen in Australia that will force a "Hobson's Choice."

"Rudd announced a million new homes would need to be built over the next six years to house the influx [of people] he did not venture to question," Lines said.

Where might that influx originate? Answer: Australia immigrates roughly 300,000 people annually into its dry and dusty desert country.

Why?

"There is a powerful lobby concerned not with whether human life or that of other species would be better in a 'larger' Australia, but with profits!" O'Connor said.

What 'growthists' create stems from that "Faustian Bargain" or selling their souls to the devil of growth for the present to place everyone into an environmental and unsustainable 'hell' later. Once another five or ten million Australians manifest on that desert continent, everyone suffers "Hobson's Choice": if you pick door number A---you walk through and over a cliff. If you pick door number B---you walk through and sink into quicksand. In other words, all your choices lead to death of your civilization.

How do I know that? My cycling travels across six continents have given me a bird's eye view of death from overloaded countries. Over 18 million people starve to death or die of starvation related diseases every year. Over 10 million of them are children under the age of 12 years.

"'Business as usual' desires even more people each demanding more from a finite Nature. A sustainable future is one in which human demands on the natural environment are within the capacity of that environment to meet. It means living within a boundary set by Nature. As we are already well beyond that boundary, it means reducing our population and our per capita demand. Both! Not one or the other!" John Coulter, author "Population and Sustainability: A Global Role for Australia." (pdf, 83K)

In the first part of this book review, Overloading Australia, by O'Connor and Lines, we covered Australia's daunting future if it continues on its present immigration-driven hyper-population growth path. We discussed a "Faustian Bargain" and "Hobson's Choice." We discovered that Australia does not possess enough water or arable land to sustain more than 20 million citizens.

Yet, corporations, politicians and immigration groups known as 'growthists', defy all logic while pushing their agenda toward a 50 million population in Australia.

Oz and the United States, where I live, share similar paradigms. Both maintain stable populations via their own citizens, but both find themselves suffering hyper-population growth by immigration forced down their throats by pandering politicians. Both countries don't comprehend their end-result of relentless immigration

.

U.S. demographic expert Dr. Albert Bartlett said, "A century of 1.6 percent per year growth, which is Australia's current growth rate, would cause Australia to increase to 100 million."

It shows you that if you were riding in a car with Kevin Rudd, he would drive over a cliff and take you with him. Once you arrived in Heaven, and you asked him why he did that, he might answer, "I didn't realize where I was going."

The fact remains, folks pushing growth agendas don't understand where they take Australia, but overpopulation advocates drive Oz over a cliff.

"First, we need to clear away a quite different objection," O'Connor said. "Clearly the writers of this book care about nature. So why, some conservationists will ask us, are we writing about the number of people, instead of worrying about the amount of damage each person does?"

Obviously, like in the U.S., Australian media and politicians deftly avoid the population issue. It's the sacred cow of Faustian proponents. You'll hear about tons of people pushing alternative gardening, alternative energy and all sorts of environmentally feel-good concepts that fail to address the one issue that will negate all their efforts. No matter how many new energy saving light bulbs or 100 kilometers to the liter of gas automobiles or water conservation---when you add another 10 million people, you lose on all counts.

It's simple mathematics, but those devils drive you toward the cliff by spinning the facts into confusion! Amazingly, they assume they are not, nor are their children vulnerable to the consequences.

Simon Grose, writing in the Canberra Times, in 2007, said, "Can we really expect to increase our numbers by about 30 percent over 50 years and keep all fed and comfortable with the hope of a car and a fridge without raising greenhouse emissions? No way!"

Finally, a mind that writes a reality based piece! What a concept! Reality! Deal with it or be swept away by it!

"No one wants to go back to rushlights and mule-back," Lines said. "But there are just two problems. First, any interruption to the power-supply brings chaos and before long, deaths. Second, there seems no way that the planet can provide resources for this lifestyle to be shared by nearly seven billion people, let alone another two or three billion by 2050."

At the head of each chapter, O'Connor and Lines place compelling quotes from experts and world leaders. It doesn't take a Sydney lawyer with an ounce of common sense to connect the dots! Australia already stands in the cross-hairs of terrible environmental conflict with its own human numbers.

Mikhail Gorbachev said, "We are all passengers aboard one ship, the Earth, and we must not allow it to be wrecked. There will be no second Noah's Ark."

What I found most compelling with O'Connor's work stems from the fact that I have witnessed firsthand the ramifications facing other countries that allowed their populations to spin out of control. For example, Bangladesh, not much bigger in landmass than Tasmania, houses 144 million people. Can any Australian fathom Tasmania with 144 million people? That's what's happening worldwide and that's why people flee those countries by the millions.

Instead of absorbing an unending line of immigrants, Australia and other first world countries might help those other countries by NOT taking their refugees, but instead, send them birth control and family planning along with food production techniques and water purification. Help them in their own countries. If they refuse help, then, in the final analysis, they must suffer their own Malthusian overload. If Australia keeps taking immigrants, then, Australia becomes another Bangladesh or variation thereof at some point in this century.

"Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all--ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet." Dr. Otis Graham, Unguarded Gates

In chapter 5, the authors land, like the shocking wildfires in Sydney and NSW last year, with a savage reality punch: food or the scarcity of it!

"There are several reasons why Earth is failing---but they all come down to the fact that an increasing number of people are making increasing demands on a single planet," Lines said. "The Green Revolution is basically over, it's gains already cancelled by population growth."

To attest to that fact, an average of 18 million people die of starvation or starvation related diseases annually worldwide. I can say, that in my world bicycle travels, I've seen those deaths firsthand. It's not a benign statistic to me; it's a harsh visual reality. If you look at any "Save the Children" program begging to feed the children, you have seen what I have seen. For anyone that really wants to save the children, first world countries should send birth control with food. (www.quinacrine.com)

"Humans will continue to clear the diminishing lands left to other species," O'Connor said. "Wreaking disaster upon creatures already pushed to the margins."

Worldwide, humans cause the extinction of 100 creatures daily via human encroachment on habitat. In Oz, many kangaroos suffer endangerment as well as dozens of other species.

"The debate ought to be about the carrying capacity of the continent---a continent that has lousy soils, fragile soils and depleted and degraded river systems." Bob Carr, writing for Weekend Australian, June 1994

In the third part of this book review, Overloading Australia by O'Connor and Lines, we covered the fact that Australia cannot sustain added population numbers as to food, energy and water. That hasn't stopped 'growthists' in their 'spin' to obfuscate the realities facing the 'desert continent'.

The authors covered the 'refugee' dilemma, but again, the world grows by 77 million annually, which leaves long-term immigration a futile gesture. At some point, all civilizations must come to terms with their own numbers and their own recovery.

How many more people can Australia sustain? Short answer: not many! The most realistic question arises from anyone with a three digit IQ: what's the point of growing more population in Australia when you see what it did to China, India, Indonesia and other hyper-populated countries? Let's face it, the reason those immigrants flee their countries provides the exact reason Australia should stabilize its own population in order to remain within its carrying capacity.

John Coulter said in a letter to the editor in The Age, "If I were a Melbournian, I would not reduce my water consumption until Premier Bracks abandons his crazy plan to bring another million people into Melbourne. Why should I save to have my savings squandered by an irresponsible Premier and leave my children in an even worse situation than today?"

Another writer said, "We have been told that Melbourne must populate or perish and that by 2030 we must absorb another one million residents. The question that Planning Minister Justin Madden should ponder is: how do we cater for increased population given that our rivers, dams and reservoirs are drying up, the drought shows no sign of breaking, one-third of the state is affected by bushfires, and blackouts are becoming commonplace?"

O'Connor addressed the 'shortage of workers' façade that also occurs in the United States. While 2.4 million legal and illegal migrants pour over our borders annually, corporations demand hundreds of thousands of work visas for foreign workers.

However, as of March 2009, the U.S. suffers an 11.1 percent unemployment rate and 32.2 million Americans live on food stamps. Yes, that number 32.2 million is correct!

If Australia's politicians prove as cunning and feckless as my country's leaders, both our countries face being overwhelmed by the third world---again with no end of the line of immigrants fleeing their own misery as they grow by 77 million annually. Once millions of poor established in both our countries, our poverty rates, language chaos and sustainability will not survive.

While you read this book, you can't put it on the coffee table. Every chapter enlightens you to greater understanding. If you feel like it, start yelling at the top of your lungs, because it could put you into a logical rage.

"We know that by mid-century the world population is going to be as high as 10 billion people. The world advice is that, that simply cannot be sustained. We are down to fewer than 50 days of flow-on food availability to meet any great emergency and will be facing a mammoth, chaotic social outcome of too many people with too few resources on the planet in the lifetime of some of us here. That is why I asked the government whether it had a population policy, and I do not believe it does," Bob Brown in the Senate, September 16, 2008

That same applies to the U.S. It causes you to wonder if the patients run the insane asylum. Why can the media and government maintain such a high level of arrogance and stupidity side by side?

One writer said, "How can you kill a planet and still expect to live on it?"

O'Connor and Lines in the final chapters of the book provide a sobering rendition of the consequences of endless growth to the 'desert continent'. I invite every politician, college professor, high school and college student in Australia---to read this book. It needs to be read in boardrooms and bedrooms of parents. It needs reviews by every critic across Australia. It needs to be a best seller in the first world. Every mother and father needs to read it because their kids will be wrapped up in this great 'human dilemma'.

Thankfully, the authors addressed 'racism' in the book. I can vouch for Mother Nature that she doesn't care what your race, creed or color happens to be when your species overwhelms its carrying capacity. Mother Nature kills and cripples without prejudice. As in Chapter 15 of the book, "Fooling people, fooling nature", you bluff Mother Nature for only so long, and then, she will kick your Aussie ass! That blunt, that simple!

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said, "Twaddle, rubbish and gossip is what people want, not action. Politicians know this. Aided by the media and cheered by intellectuals, they peddle illusion, fantasy, myth, faith and hope."

"But then there is the natural world," O'Connor said. "It's vastly different from politics and our delusions. People can be fooled over and over again, but nature cannot, not even once."

At the end of the book, Lines and O'Connor show how 'green groups' avoid the population equation along with the media. It's a cute and dangerous façade. They address the "Aborigines" guilt complex. They talk about climate change and ecological footprint. They nail it!

"You'd have to be an economist or a fool to think you can keep adding population forever!" said Kenneth Boulding, economist.

While the authors present cogent advice at the end of the book, I found myself laughing out loud at one of their ideas. "Why we should all waste water!" While all the environmentalists and do-gooders cry out to conserve, and the same happens with the Sierra Club in America, all the conservation in the world won't help as Australia adds another 10, 20, 30 or 50 million people. Therefore, start wasting as much water as possible today to force the population issue to the front burner. Frankly, it will power its way into the public's attention either now or later.

As I said at the beginning of this review, I've already seen what's coming in my world cycling travels. It's not pretty. Instead of walking that same perilous path as overpopulated countries, I invite every Australian to read this book, heed its wisdom and change course toward a sustainable nation and bright future for all Australians. Call for an "Australian Sustainable Population Policy" that limits mass immigration to near zero. You cannot save the rest of the world, but you can destroy your own civilization or turn it into a water starved, food scant and quality of life nightmare. Your children will thank you in 2050 and the world will thank you for leading the way for humanity toward a plausible and livable planet. By the way, the rest of Earth's creatures will thank you, too!

Overloading Australia: How governments and media dither and deny on population
Mark O'Connor & William J. Lines

America on the brink: the next added 100 million Americans

By Frosty Wooldridge

Published April 27, 2009; Available at 1-888 280 7715;  Barnes and Noble   www.barnesandnoble.com ;  Borders ; Amazon www.Amazon.com

Reviewers - Radio, TV, newsprint: for complimentary media copy, call Yvona Doane: 1 888 519 5121 Ext. 5299

"Eye-opening, incisive, brilliant!

"The U.S. has the fastest growing population of any industrial nation, and one of the world's highest consumption rates.  Water, topsoil, forests, fish, petroleum... the more of us, the more pressure we exert on our environment.  Many discuss our personal consumption patterns, but few dare talk about the underlying crisis of population growth.  Wooldridge is one of the few courageous voices warning us about the implications of our current direction, and informing us what we can do to change course."

   - Richard Heinberg, author of Peak Everything

"Electrifying reading!  This is a veritable cannonade of a book.

"Wooldridge targets the people and institutions, from the President on down, who refuse to look at the consequences of population growth in the modern era.   His focus is on the United States, but his range is the world.

"He fearlessly addresses issues that politicians fear to mention, such as the effects of mass immigration on our population future and our social systems.  He engages to force population issues into our local and national political decisions."

   - Lindsey Grant, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment & Population

"The environmental community may be outrageously AWOL on the important subject of population, but not Frosty Wooldridge.  Read this book!"

   - Richard D. Lamm, Governor of Colorado 1975-1987

"Wooldridge's powerful indictment of our political leaders for failing to address U.S. overpopulation should be required reading in classrooms and boardrooms.

"To mindlessly add 100 million more people to our nation's population in the next 30 years will put the United States economy and social order at further risk.  His challenge needs to be addressed on individual, national and international levels before it's too late."

   - William B. Dickinson, The Biocentric Institute

America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans --

injects a whole new dynamic facing the United States in the 21st century.  While national leaders at every level ignore accelerating consequences, immigration-driven hyper-population growth will become THE single greatest issue facing America in the years ahead.

In adding 100 million people by 2035, every crisis facing Americans today accelerates in harsher consequences -- whether it is water shortages, climate change, energy scarcity, dwindling resources, gridlock, air pollution and a decline of quality of life.

Wooldridge compellingly states the obvious... the U.S. cannot continue unplanned population expansion indefinitely.

He offers Hobson's Choice as a final result of mass denial.  If the U.S. adds another 100 million people via immigration, it faces two doors:

   -- if the country picks door # 1, this civilization walks over a cliff.

   -- If it picks door # 2, it walks into quicksand.

Once that 100 million people manifest, no one, no matter what their race, creed or color---escapes.  Americans will endure water shortages, energy problems, crowding and a much diminished standard of living.  The American Dream will no longer be available.

However, Frosty offers concrete ways to change the future.  In all great social change, it takes a 'conscious shift' that leads to a 'critical mass shift' and finally, a 'tipping point' whereby a civilization turns toward a sustainable and viable future.  It's up to each citizen and leader to make sure that 'tipping point' occurs.

The fate of this civilization hangs in the balance.

Author Contact: www.frostywooldridge.com

Ed. This article is adapted (with insertion of headings) from the introduction at www.savethepines.net This reserve is located at the top of the Mornington Peninsula, which extends south of Melbourne like a boot. Until Jeff Kennet became Premier of Victoria, this area was zoned rural. With his arrival it was rezoned into 'Greater Melbourne' and thus became targeted for continuous urbanisation. There is a video of the freeway route & landscape at the bottom of this article.

Brumby to bulldoze tollway through Pines

Premier Brumby has announced his intention to bulldoze the Peninsula Link Freeway through the centre of Frankston’s 220 hectare Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve. He pre-empted the “Independent” Panel report reviewing the South and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority’s Environment Effect Statement thus wasting $5m of taxpayers money and thousands of hours of submitters time.

This land was recommended by Victorian bureaucrats in 1993 for reservation as a National Park. They also recommended that Vicroads remove the road reservation.

Vital for wildlife corridor to save Peninsula species

This is the closest place to Melbourne where the endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot and other endangered species survive in the wild. It’s also the closest place in Melbourne’s South and South East where Swamp Wallabies, Echidnas, Koalas and other iconic Australian species roam freely.

The Department of Environment and Sustainability said “The potential impact of the proposed bypass may cause the local extinction of this species.” This advice was repeated to the EES Panel by many experts including the Government’s ecological consultant.

In 1995, the Minister for Conservation (Mark Birrel) advised Parliament that “This is the most botanically significant reserve in south-eastern Melbourne.”

214 Regionally significant flora

Parks Victoria advise that two hundred and eighteen flora species recorded in the Reserve are considered to be regionally significant within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion. Land abutting the Reserve’s edge was the last place the Frankston Spider Orchid was found in the Peninsula’s north. It numbers now fewer than 40 plants in the wild.

Alternatives not being considered

There are alternatives. If fly-over’s could be built over Burke, Toorak and Tooronga Roads, then so to can Cranbourne road be overpassed and the delays alleviated.

Mark Birrel’s statement followed 20 years of public controversy regarding successive proposals to subdivide and quarry this land. The issue first came to media prominence in 1975 when a group of residents hoisted the Eureka flag and claimed the land for Frankston residents.

The time has come to reclaim this land.

The time has come to reclaim this land.

But there is more.

Most precious reserves sacrificed to unnecessary urban expansion

The 20 odd kilometer swath cut into the landscape from Carrum Downs will destroy an extraordinarily rare patch of herb rich grassy wetland. DSE says it can’t be replaced. The road will plough through 60% of the Belvedere Reserve in Seaford, the Pobblebonk/Willow Reserve and the Wittenberg Reserves in Langwarrin, destroy a pristine remnant at the heritage listed Westerfield property and bisect precious farmland the length of the Moorooduc Plain.

Help us save this priceless landscape and species that are our Australian heritage.

The www.savethepines.net asks readers to "Please contact your local member and Federal Minister Garrett to voice your opposition."

Chart of alert levels from World Health Organisation (WHO) http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html This page also contains details of what the chart symbolises and is useful to understanding the situation.

Full Statement by WHO Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan, 29 April 2009, Swine influenza

Original source is http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_20090429/en/index.html

Ladies and gentlemen,

"Based on assessment of all available information, and following several expert consultations, I have decided to raise the current level of influenza pandemic alert from phase 4 to phase 5. Influenza pandemics must be taken seriously precisely because of their capacity to spread rapidly to every country in the world."

Related links

Watch the video [wmv, 7min 13 sec]

Listen to the audio [mp3 57 Mb]

Swine influenza - full coverage

Current WHO phase of pandemic alert

International Health Regulations (IHR)

On the positive side, the world is better prepared for an influenza pandemic than at any time in history.

Preparedness measures undertaken because of the threat from H5N1 avian influenza were an investment, and we are now benefitting from this investment.

For the first time in history, we can track the evolution of a pandemic in real-time.

I thank countries who are making the results of their investigations publicly available. This helps us understand the disease.

I am impressed by the work being done by affected countries as they deal with the current outbreaks.

I also want to thank the governments of the USA and Canada for their support to WHO, and to Mexico.

Let me remind you. New diseases are, by definition, poorly understood. Influenza viruses are notorious for their rapid mutation and unpredictable behaviour.

WHO and health authorities in affected countries will not have all the answers immediately, but we will get them.

WHO will be tracking the pandemic at the epidemiological, clinical, and virological levels.

The results of these ongoing assessments will be issued as public health advice, and made publicly available.

All countries should immediately activate their pandemic preparedness plans.

All countries should immediately activate their pandemic preparedness plans. Countries should remain on high alert for unusual outbreaks of influenza-like illness and severe pneumonia.

At this stage, effective and essential measures include heightened surveillance, early detection and treatment of cases, and infection control in all health facilities.

This change to a higher phase of alert is a signal to governments, to ministries of health and other ministries, to the pharmaceutical industry and the business community that certain actions should now be undertaken with increased urgency, and at an accelerated pace.

I have reached out to donor countries, to UNITAID, to the GAVI Alliance, the World Bank and others to mobilize resources.

I have reached out to companies manufacturing antiviral drugs to assess capacity and all options for ramping up production.

I have also reached out to influenza vaccine manufacturers that can contribute to the production of a pandemic vaccine.

The biggest question, right now, is this: how severe will the pandemic be, especially now at the start?

It is possible that the full clinical spectrum of this disease goes from mild illness to severe disease. We need to continue to monitor the evolution of the situation to get the specific information and data we need to answer this question.

From past experience, we also know that influenza may cause mild disease in affluent countries, but more severe disease, with higher mortality, in developing countries.

No matter what the situation is, the international community should treat this as a window of opportunity to ramp up preparedness and response.

Above all, this is an opportunity for global solidarity as we look for responses and solutions that benefit all countries, all of humanity. After all, it really is all of humanity that is under threat during a pandemic.

As I have said, we do not have all the answers right now, but we will get them.

Thank you.

Also published on Online Opinion on 21 Apr 09.

As the G20 summit of world leaders tries to resolve the economic crisis, where are we really heading? Many key issues are being ignored in the rush to "restore growth" at any price.

Back in May 2008 seven former European heads of state, five former finance ministers and two former presidents of the European Commission wrote a prophetic open letter to the EU Commission. They warned that the global financial system risked systemic collapse. The financial world, they argued, "has accumulated a massive amount of 'fictitious capital' with very little improvement for humanity."

Among the measures they proposed, was a world conference to reconsider the current international financial system. "When everything is for sale, social cohesion melts and the system breaks down." Were Gordon Brown and other world leaders asleep?

At the centre of UK economic policy for 12 years, Brown is forced to wake up to the biggest economic crisis we face and first claims the UK is particularly well placed to ride the storm. As we hit the grim reality, he tries to tell the world he can lead us back to prosperity. If he succeeds in this manoeuvring it will be an unworthy triumph of spin.

Lost in a maze of targets, controls and sticking plaster policies, Brown first promised a weary electorate to "let the work of change begin." "Change in our NHS, change in our schools." The British public is weary of endless calls for 'change'. His speeches are mindless, recycled clichés devoid of real ideas.

Despite well-documented criticisms of his 'stealth taxes' and warnings by the International Monetary Fund that the UK tax burden is the highest in 20 years, Brown pointed to his 'prudent' grasp of the economy and relatively low unemployment -- now rising rapidly. As we now realise, much of the feel good factor in the UK economy was not down to underlying strength, but more to do with property price inflation fuelling spending and Britain's record £1.3 trillion debt mountain.

In truth, Brown breaks much of what he touches. The think tank Civitas concluded "that big spending promises on health and education have been tested to destruction and have not produced the expected improvements." Like most politicians, Brown does little more than kick the usual political footballs and repackaged promises on education, health and crime, where ever-more money is spent with little effect.

Now he is spending public money big-time, like a gambler trying to recoup his losses. After promising billions of taxpayers' money to bail out greedy money markets and watching the pound plummet, Gordon Brown and his crew have thrown savers overboard in a last ditch attempt to float the sinking British economy.

Zero interest rates and printing money to fuel inflation lie ahead and still we have high lending rates. Many fat-cat bankers will be laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts. The public is given no say. Unlike the US Congress, where are the big debates in Parliament and on TV as the Government hoses billions around to little avail? With weasel words of 'fiscal stimulus' and 'bank restructuring', he increases the medicine of debt and bailouts to restore the financial web that got us into this mess. Instead of bailing out failed banks and toxic debts, where is the strategic thinking to build a genuinely sustainable economy in a sustainable environment?

Euro miscalculation

After fudging for years over his 'five economic tests' on whether Britain should join the euro, sterling's collapse after the Bank of England slashed interest rates to half a per cent in a matter of weeks, will make it more difficult to persuade lenders to invest in the pound and they will demand high returns - adding to the UK's debt burden. The merits of saving investment have also been ditched.

Britain's gloomy economic vision and the plummeting pound is hitting businesses, devastating pensions for British retirees in Europe and squeezing holiday makers into deeper debt. The UK is no longer a big exporting economy like Germany so claims this will be good for exports are overstated. We are a major importing economy and the weak pound is already inflating prices. How will markets now judge the City of London's financial competence, when it is a key part of the UK economy?

The Treasury Select Committee now discovers that the taxpayers' bail out is potentially liable for billions more in bank debts and assets based on foreign lending, subject to exchange rate risks and a weak pound. We are back to the instability and speculation of the '90's and may bitterly regret not joining the strong and stable Euro Gordon Brown and George Osbourne disdain.

Riches to rags on oil and gas

Oil imports paid in dollars and rising long-term global demand will see bills for UK consumers rise further. Britain's North Sea oil reserves are running down rapidly and we will be reliant on more expensive oil and gas imports. A study for the Department of Business Enterprise: UK Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Production and the UK Economy, predicts that in five years the UK could run up a cumulative deficit in oil and gas imports of over $500 billion.

Pensions and PFI

Brown also embraced the costly Private Finance Initiative (PFI), off-loading debts from Treasury balance sheets to look prudent, but in reality, storing up a huge burden on taxpayers for years ahead. Now, the PFI sector is rattling the begging bowl, claiming a 40 per cent, £4 billion shortfall in funding. A double whammy on the taxpayer. The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that creative accounting by the Treasury already conceals a £500 billion public service liability for PFI schemes, Network Rail debts and public sector pensions.

Much of the blame for Britain's pensions crisis also rests with Gordon Brown for his tax raid on pensions in 1997, according to former Treasury adviser Dr Ros Altman, costing pension schemes an estimated £5 billion a year. Now we are told his 'quantitative easing' or printing money will further hit pension funds. Why doesn't Brown help hard-pressed pensioners now reeling under near zero interest rates on any savings by removing this tax on pension funds?

Billions to trillions

As the economic crisis unfolds, we need to ask whether throwing trillions into the marketplace will do more harm than good? Governments around the world have already pumped in around $10 trillion into banks. This should have solved the toxic sub-prime mortgage problem, but the underlying problem is the financial 'debts and bets' market amounting to $500 trillion, when the annual GDP of the whole planet is around $50 trillion. Where has all the money gone? We need to think radically about how to ditch this impossible financial burden. Bankers need to do more than say sorry as they walk away with knighthoods and obscene rewards for failure.

Now the bubble has burst, instead of the casino deregulation popularised by the Thatcher and Reagan administrations, we need to get back to real financial values and quality investment. It is one thing trying to keep people in their only home, but the taxpayer should not be bailing out the buy-to-let property market. Nor are many sound businesses about to collapse. We need to rethink and rebuild.

As Brown spends billions he hasn't got "to restore growth," in a world of finite resources that are depleting rapidly, Green parties should be welcoming this warning for the endless "growth is good" mindset that will wreck our planet.

After years of crazy price inflation, house prices are beginning to drop to more affordable levels. A modest reduction in market capitalisation would be a buffer on the free-spending leverage and investment that creates so much unnecessary growth - in speculative empty office blocks, hedge funds and a shopping binge economy.

Journalist Paul Mason points out the fragile interdependence of the globalised economy, where 10 countries can be involved in the supply chain to produce a single disk drive manufactured in Thailand.

In a few years, the markets will face another major trauma when they realise that once plentiful oil supplies are running down rapidly and the 'globalised' economy this has supported will have to rethink completely. Major investment in a 'Green New Deal' to help us adjust to post oil realities would be a start.

A crack down on money laundering and tax avoidance by the super rich using tax-free enclaves, needs more than talk about "naming and shaming" countries that are not transparent in their banking practices. We have long known of this problem, yet with a bundle of tax havens under UK jurisdiction, socialist Gordon Brown for years looked the other way.

Where is the choice and fresh thinking from our leaders, locked in a world of 'me too' politics? The electorate deserves more than bailing out bankrupt politicians and bankers.

Letter to Caroline Batty, Manager, Population Policy Unit, Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) in South Australia

Thursday 9th April, 2009

Dear Ms Batty,

In light of the following points:
(a) that over two-thirds of our overall water use is in food production, and
(b) the Murray-Darling Basin is receiving its lowest inflows in 117 years of record-keeping, and
(c) the irrigation water supply to most of the Food Bowl has collapsed, and
(d) Adelaide's proposed $1.3 billion desalination plant will provide part of the water needed for households but only a tiny fraction of the water that would be needed for food production; and
(e) continuing predictions from the top climate scientists in the country and the world that droughts are likely to get worse; and
(f) the recent rises in fertiliser costs to farmers; and
(g) the widely-accepted fact that crude oil production has reach a "ceiling" worldwide and is likely to decline in the coming years due to lack of investment,

I am very interested to know how the Population Advisory Group intends to meet its stated goal to "support the achievement of South Australia’s Strategic Plan targets to grow the South Australian population"?

Does the Group intend to come clean with the State Government and the public about the fact that our country is set to soon become a net food importer if we continue to increase our population? Does the Group intend to come clean with the public about the fact that, as well as absolute reductions in fuel and energy use (due to declining oil production and increasingly strict emissions targets), there will need to be a steep and ongoing reduction in per-capita consumption in order to "make room" (both metaphorically and literally) for all of the additional people?

Of course, there are food choices that could greatly reduce our land- and water-footprint, enabling us to accommodate more people. For instance, countries like Bangladesh manage to keep their population very high and their footprint very low through a highly successful culture of abject poverty. Does the Group have a similar vision for South Australia? Has the South Australian population been consulted to find out if they desire a lifestyle and diet similar to that of a typical Bangladeshi?

Below is a recent letter to my local MP and councillors on these issues. I expect it (and this) to be the first of many such letters.

Yours sincerely,

Dr James Ward
Ph.D., B.Eng.(Civil) (Hons), B.App.Sc.(Env. Mgt)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow
School of Chemistry, Physics & Earth Sciences
Flinders University

Letter to member of Parliament about democratic and other concerns re population policy in South Australia

TO:
The Hon. Mark Goldsworthy MP, Member for Kavel

CC:
The Hon. Isobel Redmond MP, Member for Heysen
The Hon. Jamie Briggs MP, Member for Mayo
Mayor Ann Ferguson, DC Mt Barker
Cr Lindsay Campbell, DC Mt Barker
Cr Jason Kuchel, DC Mt Barker
Cr Kathy Brazher-Delaine, DC Mt Barker
Cr Lyn Stokes, DC Mt Barker

5th April, 2009

Dear Mr Goldsworthy,

I am writing to express my gratitude for your taking the issue of population growth to Parliament [See also at end of this article], and to add my voice of disgust at the current Labor government's deliberate assault on Mount Barker, Nairne and Littlehampton (as well as other areas targeted for unnecessary growth).

My wife and I moved into the old township of Nairne in mid-2007. As first-home buyers, in part we were forced to move here by unaffordable house prices elsewhere, but the truth is that we both cherish the country lifestyle - we have some chickens, ducks, vegetables and fruit trees, happy relationships with neighbours and the local shopkeepers who know us by name. However, in the State Government's relentless pursuit of population growth, they apparently wish to abolish all desirable
aspects of this country lifestyle, in favour of short-term economic rewards (read: profits to property developers). To quote the State Treasurer, Kevin Foley, "the population is rising, and that's a damn good outcome." As with most people, I violently disagree.

Very scary numbers (like 400,000) are already being touted for this area. If that nightmare came true, we might as well all be living in one big, filthy city covering the whole of the Hills, with no culture of place whatsoever. As the Member representing citizens from this happy and attractive part of the world, I ask that you fight this proposed development with all of your power. I understand that your party may also have been pro-development in the past, but let us not forget the
Liberals' true heritage as a conservative party. If there ever was a time when we needed conservative thinkers, it is now in the face of the reigning Government's reckless push for a population explosion.

Of course, as conservative thinking people we must bear in mind that it is impossible for the proposed experiment in population growth to be successful. Like a population of bacteria on a Petri dish, the human population cannot increase forever. I direct you to the Ronald Wright's small book "A Short History of Progress"; the book contains numerous
sobering examples we would do well to learn from before embarking on this doomed quest for more growth. Another excellent book, only just released, is "Overloading Australia" by Mark O'Connor and Bill Lines, which provides the irrefutable case against further population growth in this country.

As you know, in the case of the modern industrialised global economy, we have now reached an upper limit to global oil production. The International Energy Agency has finally endorsed the reality of Peak Oil, predicting a global energy supply crunch. Right on cue, last year we witnessed the first collapse of some of America's "suburbia" - it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots: as fuel prices skyrocketed, the car-dependent suburban lifestyle became rapidly unsupportable, the
collapse of vulnerable mortgages ensued as people were no longer able to meet their financial obligations, and this generated what we now call the Global Financial Crisis. This is discouraging further investment in oil production, so it is fair to say we have begun the bumpy descent.

We would be well-advised to compare the example of the failed suburban experiment in America to the State Government's proposed experiment in endless growth in the Adelaide Hills. The magnitude of the proposed growth betrays a total disregard for the limitations on the world's fuel and energy supply that all intelligent and informed people now accept as real and extremely serious. As global fuel supplies contract further, the existing suburbs will be hit hard as they were in the US, let alone any proposed new car-dependent suburbs in semi-rural Adelaide Hills.

For brevity I will not go into water scarcity in detail (this tends to receive more media coverage in any case). Suffice to say that increasing the population increases the demand for domestic water supply, but more significantly it increases the demand for irrigated crops and pasture. Not only are we experiencing water restrictions at home, but the area under irrigated land is in decline due to limits to water abstractions in the Murray Darling Basin. To increase the population now would force
us onto tighter water restrictions in our homes (we've already said goodbye to green lawns, long showers, and children playing under sprinklers), but it would also generate higher food prices due to the water-scarce farming situation.

I must state that I am not opposed to development, as long as all future development is negotiated to be within certain very reasonable requirements. As a starting point, the bare minimum requirements are that all new developments must be:
- Commuter-independent, through a strong local job market (i.e. Mt Barker CBD), and - Car-independent through full provision of public transport and safe cycling facilities, and

- Energy-independent through suburb-scale renewable power generation, and
- Water-independent through stormwater and wastewater recycling, and
- Food-independent through local (including suburban) production, and
- Within prescribed, and unchangeable, limits such that biodiversity and aesthetics are maintained forever

These are completely reasonable obligations in the face of widely accepted global (and national) shortages in water, energy, fuel and food, and ongoing biodiversity loss. If property developers and governments are happy to work together to meet these obligations, then as a citizen I am happy for such developments to take place. However, if the vision they have for our future is one in which we are all crammed in like sardines with only the distant memory of what it was like to be able to afford fuel, or water-intensive products like beef and milk, and only a distant memory of such amenities as cars, fountains, swimming pools, air conditioners or warm baths, then let us encourage them to move to India or China and ask the residents there if they are happy - please don't let the Rann Government force such conditions on us here. The people simply do not want the growth, and any effort to hide this fact is grossly undemocratic.

I trust that you will take this on board and continue campaigning for the abolition of the State Strategic Plan's population target. You are not alone!

Yours sincerely,

Dr James Ward
Ph.D., B.Eng.(Civil) (Hons), B.App.Sc.(Env. Mgt)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow
School of Chemistry, Physics & Earth Sciences
Flinders University

Here is the document where Mark Goldsworthy questions the rate of growth in South Australia from

WILL THE PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE BE THAT GREAT FOR HILLS RESIDENTS? Email this page Back

Friday, January 09, 2009

Mark Goldsworthy MP, Member for Kavel, announced today that he will undertake extensive community consultation within the local community as a result of the Rann Labor Government’s plans to allow the urban sprawl to continue in the Hills as part of their Plan for Greater Adelaide.

Mr Goldsworthy said whilst the State Government would be conducting their own consultation, they have a poor track record as has been experienced recently with their Country Health Plan and the water resources issues for the Mount Lofty Ranges.

“The Rann Government claims they consult with the community, yet the community feel the Government makes the decision and then tells them what is to occur, all in the spin of consultation”, said Mr Goldsworthy.

Mr Goldsworthy will contact residents and businesses in Mount Barker, Nairne and Littlehampton to gather their comments about the proposed expansion of housing in the district. He wants to know what people think about increased population, increased traffic, and increased demand on already stretched services such as schools, health and police.

Mr Goldsworthy’s consultation will include those service providers, being schools, health, police and others.

Mr Goldsworthy said the comments he has already received are that the services are now at or near capacity and it doesn’t appear the Government is doing much to meet the current demand. If the Government hasn’t been able to address current community expectations, what commitments will they give to provide improved services and infrastructure in line with their plans to reach the 2 million population target in the State? To give an example, car parking at the new Park and Ride in Mt Barker was at capacity virtually from day one, with bus services also full to capacity. The second freeway interchange is continually ignored by the State Labor Government and there are other examples.

“Some people tell me that housing development in the Hills is at a point where we should consolidate our current position and that it is at the limit, with now being the time to stop and properly assess the situation.”

“I understand the concerns already put forward by academics and the SA Farmers’ Federation, for example, the continued growth of residential development into prime agricultural and horticultural land”, said Mr Goldsworthy.

“I support economic development and sustainable growth, in a manner that is not detrimental to other important factors that impact on our community such as social and environmental effects. Some of my concerns are the fast rate in which the Rann Government is acting to expand the housing development, the impact on infrastructure and services, the loss of agriculture to the Hills, and the destruction of the Hills environment.”

“I undertake to ensure the local community is properly consulted about what they want to take place in their area. My community survey will go out in the coming two months to residents in Mt Barker, Nairne and Littlehampton who are most affected by the developments, however, anyone is welcome to contact me at any time to inform me of their views”, Mr Goldsworthy said.

“I intend to compare the results of my consultation with that of the Government’s, to hold them to account and to ensure that the wishes of the local community are heard loud and clear” Mark Goldsworthy said.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Address: 20 Main Street, Lobethal SA 5241

Email: kavel[AT]parliament.sa.gov.au
Web: www.markgoldsworthy.com.au

This document is republished to give background dating from 2003 as the Victorian government began to take control away from citizens and locals over water, land and government, and to assume more and more control, in public-private associations. It was the beginning of overt attempts to promote private profit from induced scarcity. The induced scarcity was created by the government policy to grow Victoria's population and economic activities. At the time few Victorians had the faintest idea of what was going on. I was one of few environmentalists to question the authority of the government's actions.

Wimmera Mallee Water Piping Scheme and PipeRight Inc

(Originally published at home.vicnet.net.au/~aespop/spavicnews.htm in August 2003.)

(Editor's Update

Note that the environmental allocation of 1000 megalitres of water to the affected farmers (mentioned in this 2003 article below) has still not been delivered.)

Water privatisation and economic rationalism: impact on democracy and environmental values

The privatisation of water and economic rationalist schemes that alienate water from the land and aim for totally managed total redistribution for 'economic' objectives are disturbing. I am not convinced that efficiency is a value which can be prioritised over all other human values, nor am I convinced that this is the value that is really driving privatisation. Clearly water trading is being exploited by the rich for speculative purposes; prices are inflating from the same population and consumer growth push which drives up land prices.

SPA Vic recently responded [President and Vice President Sheila Newman and Jill Quirk in 2003] to an invitation by Culgoa members Audrey Mather and Glen Marshall to investigate the concerns about water allocations of a group of drylands farmers in Birchip. The farmers had formed a group called PipeRight to counter a proposal by Wimmera Mallee Water to enclose and control every drop of water in the area at what seemed to be substantial benefit to irrigators and little or no benefit but great cost, to Wimmera Mallee farmers, who would also be required to fill in 22,000 farm damns. The proposal seems largely driven by these past four years of drought, when the supply of water has been completely interrupted there for the first time in 96 years, according to PipeRight. Jill and myself feel that many of the farmers concerns are valid and I have included below information from PipeRight.

The Wimmera Mallee is where the famous stump jump plow and various inventions for pulling out mallee roots came from. Subsequently the results of these 'miracles' of human ingenuity became infamously associated with massive soil loss. This part of the Wimmera Mallee has been watered a century by over 17,000 km of open earthen channels dug by man with horse. Few Australians know of this outback wonder, although it is said to be the largest gravity fed system in the world. On a map the channels look like a complex uniformly spaced geometric maze, but one that covers 3 million hectares and occupies approximately 10 % of Victoria. The earthen channels provide water to 14 recreational and environmental lakes, 22,000 farm dams and 51 towns. The system runs South to North from the Grampians to the Murray River. For 2 to 4 months of the year it receives water released from twelve storage areas, of which the largest are the Grampians and Rocklands. The overflow goes to the Glenelg River. The water is used only for stock, domestic and environmental purposes meaning for trees and habitat that are not directly benefiting agriculture, including land for wildlife and land which has social value and also supports native vegetation and wildlife, for instance around recreational lakes.

Livestock form up to 34% of Southern Mallee mixed farming. When there is little water there are few stock. The bulk of farming is broad acre cropping, entirely reliant on rainfall, which is traditionally described as good for up to 6 years in ten depending on proximity to the desert. If it does not rain no crops are grown. High protein wheat for bread and high quality wine are two crops special to the area. None of the PipeRight farmers are feedlot farmers.

The descendents of the original selection farmers, who learned to farm this near desert land, surviving the government land clearing policies which led to so much damage, form a close knit community of highly skilled professional farmers with major investment in the land. Farms average 9000 hectares. They are like giant factories with many moving parts. Fuel comes by the tanker and machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. But business and efficiency are not the whole story, of course. People remain on these farms because they also value the lifestyle. The lifestyle of farming communities depends greatly on open water on farm and in the community and on the natural amenity where plant and fauna have adapted to man made water distribution and have been preserved and enhanced in many places.

Many PipeRight farmer-activists have longstanding involvement in Land for Wildlife and Land Care. Much remnant mallee and black box dominating this arid red sandy country would rely on seepage or dedicated water from the man made system to supplement rainfall. In turn the vegetation keeps the soil in place and supports numerous native birds, some remaining native animals, and the potential for more. Given the vast area of the channel system the habitat in place is probably quite extensive.

Wimmera Mallee Water wants to bypass the open channel system with water transported via 7000 km of small diameter pipes using coal fired electricity at financial, environmental and social costs far outweighing some purported benefits which are arguably meagre or even non-existent.

The scheme would deliver to 9,000 service points and 40 towns. Four main trunk pipelines would transmit water continually to existing urban storages. This would be redistributed to farm tanks, stock troughs and households.

The project claims it would provide near full supply in 93 years out of 100, however the farmers of PipeRight claim that the current system has supplied them for 96 years out of 100. Much of the new proposal appears to rest on arguments based on the past 4 years of drought. An additional argument is that climate change may further reduce rainfall, however the new proposal would give much of the water saved from seepage to irrigators at a lower price than the dryland farmers would pay. According to the 'Business Case' of Part 5 of the WMW proposal, the Glenelg and Wimmera rivers would only receive new environmental flow if the farmers agreed to foot about 40% of the cost for the whole scheme! This plan, led by Government and undisclosed members of a 'business case' group (whose names arguably should be made public before any decision is made) seems to be a case for extension and intensification of development, based on that ideological excuse for greed of doing 'more with less'. Commercial in confidence is no excuse when water is at stake; this is a community issue and discussion must be absolutely open.

My feeling is that water should not be decoupled from land and that regions should be assessed separately according to their long term viability on environmental, agricultural and social grounds. I would not support allocating MORE water to irrigation or to extending irrigation to more land on current evidence. This is partly due to my mistrust of powerful irrigation lobby members, individuals and corporate, my horror at water speculation and the dangers inherent in trading decoupled water, and my impression that economic arguments for preferring irrigation are based on short term market considerations, concern for Riverina votes, (Wimmera Mallee only has one vote), and pressure from a corporate sector with little or no concern for Australians' quality of life.

"PIPE RIGHT INC.

The piped system for the Wimmera Mallee Region will cover 2.3 million hectares to achieve water savings of 93,000 megalitres.

PIPE RIGHT INC SUPPORTS THE PIPED SYSTEM OF WATER MANAGEMENT FOR THE WIMMERA MALLEE REGION.

The cost of the system is $300 million. State Government $77 million, Federal Government $77 million. Approximately 2555 Farms: $117.3 million (including on farm costs); 23,750 Urban users: 15.9 million DRYLAND FARMERS ARE THE LARGEST SINGLE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE SYSTEM.

PRESIDENT: K Barber Phone 54922426, Fax 54922786 helenbarber[AT]bigpond.com

Secretary: J Chivell Phone 53990528 Fax 53990539 Key areas of concern arising from the preliminary Wimmera Mallee Feasibility Study - June 2001 are:

1. ENVIRONMENT

Allocation of 83,000 ML of water savings mainly to the Wimmera and Glenelg Rivers . No allocation for farm dams, lakes and wetlands to sustain the flora and fauna away from river system . Inadequate flood management strategy when channels are filled in . No shire dams to provide habitat for birds and ground dwelling species and access for emergency water for fire fighting Pipe Right recommends a formal environmental survey of species in areas away from rivers

2. ON FARM IMPACT

The cost/benefit analysis of the Feasibility Study based on the Northern Mallee pipeline is not applicable to the Wimmera Mallee system . Benefits such as increased stocking rates, reduced cultivation time and increased production have limited benefits in our region .Improved water quality and security of supply will have varied benefits to customers. System must have the capacity to deliver water for present needs and future development

On Farm Infrastructure costs. Water to be delivered to farm boundary in 2" pipe . Farmer must have the facilities to store 3 days supply in peak periods . On farm costs for a property of 900 hectares is estimated at $46,800 or $52 hectare . Extra time and labour cost involved in checking troughs and tanks . Farmers should have the option of retaining a percentage of dams to help reduce infrastructure costs and maintain environmental, economic and social sustainability

. Irrigation

The proposed allocation to irrigators is 29,000 ML. Allocation to all other customers is 27,000 ML. Pipe Right recommends a

. Tariff Review

A tariff review is sought to reflect the difference in cost between domestic and commercial water Northern Mallee customers pay a hectare charge of $2,02 and $560 ML... If half ML water is used per 256 ha the cost of water is $1570 per annum.

Government make a one off payment of $1800 ML with no future service fee or ongoing maintenance cost.

. Safety

For fire purposes pipeline must be able to deliver water at 600 litres per minute . Pipeline is restricted to filling one tanker at a time . Who is responsible for paying for water for fire fighting purposes? . Who pays for large tanks for fire fighting purposes if they are necessary? . Shire dams have provided emergency water in the past. Shire dams could be important in the event of accidental contamination in the pipeline.

.Water Entitlement

Pipe Right seeks 2 entitlements: Farm entitlement attached to the title of the property not saleable but transferable between block of the same ownership. Commercial Entitlement tradeable on an annual basis

RECREATIONAL LAKES/SOCIAL AMMENITY

Allocation of 2000 ML is insufficient to maintain the lakes in the region (allocation only for 3 lakes) . Lakes contribute to the environmental, social, and economic well being of the community . Capacity of the system must be great enough to fill lakes from empty and keep them topped up. The cost of water and maintenance of the lakes should be shared by tax payers. Some of the $3000 ML of water savings should be retained in our region. Piped system must acknowledge that dryland areas need water for social, amenity, recreation, economic and environmental purposes

Pipe Right recommends All lakes with facilities to be filled

4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

.The piped system must have the capacity to support existing agriculture and commercial industries. The capacity and flexibility for future value adding enterprises and intensive agricultural industries. System must be able to deliver sufficient water to all farms across the region . Failure to deliver sufficient water could devalue farms. Small towns could suffer loss of income if there is no provision for recreational water. Angling contributes $75 million to the local economy. The cost of water will be the limiting factor for the development of new industries. Stock and domestic Water may need to be replaced by a Farm and Commercial Entitlement to reflect equity in costs

5. PROJECT COST

.Farmers will be expected to contribute over 40% of the cost of the system must have equitable sharing of costs and benefits."

Many thanks to Glen Marshall and Audrey Mather, who attended to our every need and organised meetings with very hospitable local farmers. Audrey, at whose home we stayed, is also a member of the CWA and Glen was educated as an agricultural scientist and taught much of his life, in Australia and in New Guinea, finally retiring to Culgoa town.

"The Wimmera River is one that does not empty into the sea; it is entirely landlocked and its water has been over-allocated for many years, i.e., demand exceeds supply. Those who have travelled through this area will have seen that the water is distributed in open channels. To me, it follows that any technical improvement which conserves water should see that water kept in the river and not used for any further expansion of demand. The costs given in this piece suggest to me that the economic cost will be too great for farmers to bear and the scheme will not get up on these grounds. The figures are very interesting for if a technical solution to the problems of our much larger river systems such as the Murray/Darling are to be based on piping rather than open channel distribution, the economic cost is going to be high indeed." Dr John Coulter, SPA National Vice President.

The Regional context - Related 2003 Report

If State Government plans to upgrade rail services between Melbourne and Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong and the Latrobe Valley perceptibly improve those services, then towns along the rail lines are all likely to gain population, both transient and permanent.? Land prices would then rise in these areas.?

Victorian government projections for regional areas probably greatly underestimate the rate of growth in the respective populations.

Projections from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) [Now Department of Sustainability -ed.] and other planning bodies tend to link prosperity to population growth, because they measure everything with GDP, which is merely a measure of activity involving financial transactions. These transactions could be increasing national debt, as indeed are a lot of property and infrastructure projects, but they count as positive. At a per capita level we are dividing an increasing number of people into a type of economy that does not require much labor and which is selling low cost commodities on the world market.? Population growth in this kind of economy is not such good news except for those who own property and utilities which increase price with increased demand. It is in fact these people who are driving population growth in Australia.

Property development and construction directly benefit from population growth. The industries upstream from property are the suppliers of raw materials for building, such as mining and forestry, and the suppliers of processed building materials. The major downstream industries are the finance industries, such as banks and building societies, which rely on mortgages as a major source of profitable income and to finance other business investments. State Governments also earn billions each year through collection of stamp duties on property sales. Solicitors earn money from conveyancing and real estate agents, of course, rely on sales and rentals. The individuals and companies who stand to gain the most are possibly the big developer-building companies that own large land banks which they sell out in parcels of land to home buyers when demand is high. Many of these developers also have housing finance companies. Some build shopping centres and roads as well as houses. But speculation is big business and transnational corporations, like insurance companies, also invest in water, property markets and agriculture. The print media relies heavily on real-estate ads for income. The Murdoch and the Fairfax press both have property dot coms which market Australian real estate to buyers and investors all over the world.

Some organisations representing these major interests are the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Population Institute (Apop), the Housing Institute of Australia (HIA), the Urban Development Institute of Australia and the Real Estate Institute of Australia.

For most of the rest of us, rising land, water and energy costs contribute to inflation that is, they raise the cost of living. More population, especially in a deregulated industrial system, drives down wages. Since land is the basis of everything in our economies, rising land costs contribute not only to unaffordable housing, but they increase costs to business as well.

Home owners can sometimes capitalise on their assets by selling up and moving to cheaper outlying areas. Many may finish up in the large, medium and small regional cities and towns. Coastal and mountain areas are particularly attractive for people who are retiring and for whom the rising cost of living in the cities and the fall in superannuation value makes moving out good sense.

In the Victorian regions, population is generally less than the infrastructure provides for, since people have been leaving for decades. Here, the population growth which was bad news in the city, is probably good news for the country in a number of ways.

Although our commodity based economy has many drawbacks, regions that produce wood from plantations, such as those in the area around Bairnsdale, will have the added attraction of providing semi skilled and skilled jobs.

Parts of regional Victoria will experience population loss due to land degradation and pricing of water beyond a point where farming becomes profitable. The has already happened in Kerang, for instance. Some parts of Victoria, notably the Riverina for which population growth is predicted by DOI, may suffer population implosion if the Murray Darling River river system and the land it feeds degrades and industry flounders, as has been warned by numerous land and water ecologists in CSIRO and elsewhere.

Cost of food is likely to rise steeply along with the cost of water as competition between the demands of an increasing number of people and industrial concerns causes scarcity. Climate change also threatens to make dry areas dryer. The Hubbert Peak theory of petroleum production, widely subscribed to, predicts peak production of oil between 2006 and 2011, with a quite rapid decline in oil and gas supply after that.

What could this mean to the regions? Again, what is bad news generally for the cities is probably better news for the regions. If the cost of living rises due to competition for water and land, and if fuel becomes much less affordable, there would be a tendency to produce less and to rely on local markets. Life would be led in situ, with less travel and fewer organisations doing the same things.

Regional populations may be thrown back to judicious use of dryland farming in any areas which have managed to retain access to local catchment water, despite competition from corporate irrigators and water speculators. Caution inclines one to advocate maintenance of independent sources of water so that regions can maintain some self sufficiency if democracy further erodes and water is privatised. The cities will not have so many options, having covered their farmland with housing.

In the short term there are also what economists would term some positive indicators for regional areas. House prices could rise so that country people will have more chance of borrowing from banks. Currently city peoples' land assets are far superior items for negotiating finance. Recreational/health industries could have new population types to service and more customers with less mobility, due to age, reduced income and increased travel costs. Increased infrastructure demand in the short-term could lead to high demand for raw materials and to processing industries. New opportunities for jobs and business could arise from this demand and would attract a variety of new population types, including young people.

A regional town with a university able to attract international students, would be likely to attract both population and money and increase property values through rentals and sales. Current immigration policy encourages foreign students who take degrees in Australia to become permanent migrants, and this creates a heavy demand for rental and owner property. Universities currently vie to attract foreign students because they can charge them high fees and because of the flow on benefits to the property investment market. It would not be surprising to find that universities have made substantial property investments.

Feedback from a recent talk to YMCA regional managers was informative and confirmed that there were increasing trends of urban-rural migration, growing housing unaffordability in the regions and speculation by developers. For instance, in Phillip Island, where much of the population is social welfare dependent, I was told that land prices have recently quadrupled. Regional officers were indeed observing housing become progressively more unaffordable as speculators and people from the city moved in. Of great concern to regional officers everywhere was the shortage and cost of water and its effect on the ability to run swimming pools and recreational lakes.

Whilst many people have been aware (but have mostly been ignored) that vegetation, especially forests, creates rain, and whilst desertification has been linked to deforestation historically many times, there is a new and robust theory to explain how this may happen.
See also How logging causes forest fires

Original source of article:Rainforests may pump winds worldwide by Fred Pierce, New Scientist, 1st April 2009, issue no.2702.]


Whilst many thoughtful people have worked out (but have mostly been ignored) that vegetation, especially forests, create rain, and whilst desertification has been linked to deforestation historically many times, there is a new and robust theory to explain how this may happen.

The theory argues that forests generate winds that help pump water around the planet. This article says that the theory would explain how it rains as much in the interiors of forested continents as on the coasts.

"If correct, the theory would explain how the deep interiors of forested continents get as much rain as the coast, and how most of Australia turned from forest to desert. It suggests that much of North America could become desert - even without global warming."

The New Scientist article reports that "up to half the precipitation falling on a typical tropical rainforest evaporates or transpires from trees. ... Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva of the St Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute in Russia say that forests also create winds that pump moisture across continents."

How can forests create wind?

[Water vapour from coastal forests and oceans condenses into droplets and clouds. The gas takes up less space as it turns to liquid, lowering local air pressure.] Because evaporation is stronger over the forest than over the ocean, the pressure is lower over coastal forests, which suck in moist air from the ocean. This generates wind that drives moisture further inland. The process repeats itself as the moisture is recycled in stages, moving towards the continent's heart (see diagram). As a result, giant winds transport moisture thousands of kilometres into the interior of a continent.

Coastal forests create giant winds that push water thousands of kilometres inland

Huge volumes can be involved.

More moisture typically evaporates from rainforests than from the ocean. The Amazon rainforest, for example, releases 20 trillion litres of moisture every day.

New Scientist reports that Makarieva and Gorshkov told them that, "In conventional meteorology the only driver of atmospheric motion is the differential heating of the atmosphere. That is, warm air rises." "Nobody has looked at the pressure drop caused by water vapour turning to water." The scientists, [whose theory relies on the physics of air movement] have dubbed this the "biotic pump" and claim it could be "the major driver of atmospheric circulation on Earth".

To back up their hypothesis they show how regions without coastal forests, such as west Africa, become exponentially drier inland. Likewise, in northern Australia, rainfall drops from 1600 millimetres a year on the coast to 200 mm some 1500 kilometres inland. In contrast, on continents with large forests from the coast to interior, rainfall is as strong inland as on the coast, suggesting the trees help shuttle moisture inland (Ecological Complexity, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2008.11.004, in press). In the Congo, for instance, around 2000 mm of rain falls each year at the coast and the same amount falls inland. The same is true in the Amazon, the Siberian Arctic and the Mackenzie river basin in northern Canada. But the US, largely forested until recently, now seems be headed for desert. Makarieva and Gorshkov told New Scientist that without rapid reforestation "the degrading temperate forests of North America are on their way to desertification".

Read the full article here Consider reading, as well, two extraordinary books about deforestation and history. One is David Montgomery, Dirt, the erosion of civilisationsUC Press, 2008 and the other is John Perlin, A Forest Journey: The Role of Wood in the Development of Civilization, Harvard Univ Press, 2007. Dirt is the best written, but both are packed with information which will advance your state of knowledge way ahead of most environmentalists' and situate your understanding in a very wide context.