Phillip Adams wrote on May 27, 2022 —  "Mr Albanese is also a signatory to the Bring Julian Assange Home Campaign petition." (ABC 27-5-2022)

The UK judge had decided to block the US request for Julian's extradition, on medical grounds. Now the US government is seeking to overturn that decision on appeal. Although the District Judge refused the extradition she nevertheless denied Julian bail.

I’m writing to ensure as many people as possible can know about the private development threat that now bears upon our National Parks in Queensland, and have the chance to make their views on it known before it occurs, rather than later when nothing can be done to reverse an unacceptable situation. 

Why do I think the preservation of a working fifty-year old bluestone toilet block, in the face of its unnecessary replacement by a production-line designed one, so important that I can bring myself to promote a change.org petition to save it? Because somehow this blocky polylith has shown the capacity to unite us, where we can agree on little else. We live in a very atomised society, suburbanites here in Australia, victims of change and population engineering. People find it difficult to agree on complex politics, but the toilet block is an obvious example of something that does not need fixing, but that someone is fixing to fix. It should be too small for the council to fight us over it, but since the council intends to replace all bluestone blocks, stopping this would obviously frustrate a significant financial transaction. Someone is benefiting financially from this overkill, but not us.

Somehow the threatened removal of the sturdy bluestone toilets symbolizes important elements of our disempowerment. Some of these are our resentment at impermanence, our growing lack of local self-determination, lack of real consultation in favour of manufactured consent, industrial design over artisanship, synthetics over stone and trees, abuse of authority, planning facism, consumerism, delocalisation of decisions, spin replacing argument, and corporate beneficiaries taking over local employment and manufacture.

Our state-ruled local government has different values from many of the locals. These values are for the imposition of unnecessary new infrastructure of banal style and flimsy construction in place of something that anyone can see is durable and which has taken on the thermodynamic patina of age and locality – a sign that it belongs. Somehow this toilet block seems the right place to make a stand. See the petition here or republished below.

Retain & Refurbish Bluestone Toilets in Frankston

33 have signed. Let’s get to 100!

---

Seaford Community Committee started this petition to Frankston City Council Frankston City Council CEO, Mayor and Councillors and 2 others

Frankston City Council plans to replace ALL bluestone toilets, rather than refurbish to make them compliant with new regulations.

The Seaford Community Committee (SCC) is supporting the many residents who have contacted us saying they do not agree with Frankston City Council’s plans to replace ALL bluestone toilet blocks with a new cheap-looking style. Together, a campaign has been launched to save bluestone toilet blocks in Seaford/Frankston, particularly on the foreshore.

Instead of demolition, please:
- retain & refurbish Frankston bluestone toilets (including those in the planning phase) to make them compliant with new regulations
- replace those already demolished
- include a shower or somewhere to wash sandy feet in refurbished toilet blocks

* the toilets can be made compliant - people don't demolish their houses to accommodate a wheelchair - they renovate
* only 1 gone so far - 2nd one is soon - others not planned for 2 years

We wish to express our strong disapproval of the decision to demolish ALL bluestone toilet blocks in Frankston and to replace them with entirely inappropriate and offensive alternatives.

Perhaps you could accuse us of doing a 'dunny spit', but the replacement block opposite McCulloch Ave is an expensive eyesore that should not be repeated elsewhere along the Frankston-Seaford foreshore.  Indeed, we implore Council to reverse its decision and to reinstate the former bluestone toilet block opposite McCulloch Ave (as closely as possible to its original state), and terminate any plans to demolish and replace other remaining bluestone toilet blocks.

We understand that a need for disabled access is one reason cited for the decision to replace the bluestone toilet blocks.  However, a cheaper and more desirable and effective alternative would have been to adapt the bluestone toilet blocks to meet this need by way of a (comparatively minor) internal alteration or external addition.

We have been contacted by many residents who feel the same.  Together, a campaign has been launched to save bluestone toilet blocks in Seaford/Frankston, particularly on the foreshore.

===========

More information:

- http://www.seafordcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=411 - Visit our Forum for more information and/or to download the paper version of the Petition to collect & return signatures
- http://candobetter.net/node/5476 - Opinion
- http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Media_and_Publications/Latest_News/Old_toilets_flushed_out - "Public toilets that no longer meet safety requirements are being progressively replaced with new facilities by Frankston City Council"

(Please only sign either this online petition or the paper version, so that we don't get duplicate names.)

===========

In our view, the bluestone toilet blocks should be retained on heritage, environmental and economic grounds, as follows:

Heritage: the bluestone toilet blocks were built at least 50 years ago and form part of the collective experience and memories of families who have been enjoying the unique and distinctive bush-and-beach character of the Frankston-Seaford foreshore, often over two or more generations.  More widely, the 'dunny' has a special place in Australian culture and the bluestone toilet blocks are arguably one of the best examples of seaside lavatorial architecture in the post-WW2 era.  As such, the bluestone toilet blocks should be preserved as an important part of our local and national cultural heritage.  Conversely, their replacement block opposite McCulloch Ave, Seaford has no architectural merit whatsoever and neither it nor any replicas will ever attain the iconic status of their bluestone betters.

Environmental: the scale and colour of the bluestone toilet blocks are in complete sympathy with the surrounding indigenous seaside vegetation, as they nestle below the main tree canopy and blend in closely with the typically grey-green trees and shrubs.  Unlike their replacement block opposite McCulloch Ave, which is ugly and offensive to the eye, the bluestone toilets have no disruptive or deleterious visual impact on the attractive foreshore vista whatsoever.  We are also deeply dismayed by the excessive and unnecessary removal of surrounding coastal banksias and other indigenous trees during and after its construction.

Economic: the bluestone toilet blocks are rock solid, low-maintenance and long-lasting constructions that require a minimal allocation of Council/ratepayer resources to maintain.  They are largely immune to vandalism.  Conversely, replacement blocks (e.g. opposite McCulloch Ave) involve an unnecessarily large outlay to construct and will undoubtedly attract vandals and generally be a more expensive facility to maintain.

Community outrage continues in the battle to protect the iconic Dandenong Ranges from inappropriate development following Knox Council’s recent failure to adopt the independent Panel recommendation for mandatory maximum height controls in the Upper Ferntree Gully Activity Centre. Knox Appropriate Development Alliance President, Catherine Kruse said that a petition to the State Government calling for their intervention is gathering momentum with interest from across Victoria. A rally is also planned for Monday February 27th at the Knox Council offices.

“Knox Council has shown that it cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the community, and it is time for the Victorian Government to intervene and adopt the panel recommendations before the gateway to the Dandenongs is destroyed forever”, she said.

Ms Kruse said that people are gobsmacked that Council continues to ignore, not only the wishes of the community, who have fought a long and hard battle, but the professional recommendations of
their own experts and the government appointed Planning Panel.

“The recommendations were quite clear – that mandatory maximum building heights – not discretionary as proposed by the council, will provide the Upper Ferntree Gully Neighbourhood Activity Centre the protection required from inappropriate development”.

“The rest of the foothills activity centres in Knox have that protection and surety (mandatory height controls). We call on the State Government not to sign off on discretionary controls and to intervene and save the Dandenong Ranges”, Ms Kruse said. “We call on members of the public to get behind the petition and attend at Knox Council on February 27th at 6.30pm.”

The petition will be presented to Upper House MP, Edward O’Donohue on February 27th at 6.30pm at the Knox Council, 511 Burwood Highway, Wantirna. Contact: Catherine Kruse – 0415 871 268

Jeff Dorset has begun a campaign addressed to the Prime Minister to reduce Australia`s economic, non refugee immigration intake to economically.environmentally and socially responsible level of 50,000 net pa and significantly reduce 457 Visa and other foreign worker import program. Please consider signing it.

To:

AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER

REDUCE AUSTRALIA`S (non refugee) EXCESSIVE IMMIGRATION and FOREIGN WORKER INTAKE

#A9F5D0;line-height:120%;">To: Ambassadors of nations on the UN Security Council including Samantha Power of the United States, Francois Delattre of France, Mark Lyall Grant of the UK, Vitaly Churkin of Russia, Liu Jeiyi of China and the non-permanent members

Condemn the war planned and waged by Saudi Arabia against the people of Yemen on behalf of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi the deposed president of Yemen. Demand that Saudi Arabia disband their coalition and immediately cease making war on the people of Yemen and end their 'humanitarian' bombing campaign which is creating a humanitarian disaster in Yemen.

If Saudi Arabia does not immediately comply, refer Prince Mohammad bin Salman, son of King Salman and current Defense Minister of Saudi Arabia, who initiated this brutal and illegal assault on Yemen and it's people to the International Criminal Court.

Sign petition

Why is this important?

How it will be delivered

What's different about this petition to tackle overpopulation in Australia? It is published on the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) site. AWPC, it seems, is the only wildlife group that remains real and courageous when it comes to protecting our fauna. AWPC is entirely staffed by volunteers, is Australia-wide, and hasn't just become some kind of professional fund-raising organisation. This one comes from Matt Moran of Brisbane, Australia and is posted on the Australian Wildlife Protection Council site here.

Environment

Australia has mandated a relatively steady average compound annual population growth of 1.6+% since 1901 combined with a relatively steady average compound annual GDP growth of 3.2+% since 1901. Inside I criticise Australia's most recent so-called Population inquiry, conducted by Tony Burke. Relatedly, I also ask you to sign a petition for a new population inquiry, which you can quickly find here: Australia requires a public inquiry to determine a basis for the optimum rate of population growth

I am asking readers to forward the petition because it cannot grow if it is not forwarded.

Why do we need an optimum population inquiry for Australia?

Any multi-national industrial company uses risk assessment techniques similar to those defined in the Australian government's WorkSafe Safety Assessment for a Major Hazard Facility.

Safety of personnel is the highest priority for such global corporations. Safety assessments are performed based on the reality of the finite resources an organisation has available to manage and implement its business strategy.

Risk assessments typically rate a particular risk based on both the likelihood of it occurring and the consequence. Where a Risk Assessment confirms that there is a catastrophic consequence (ie loss of life) and a high likelihood of that outcome (for example infant mortality in the developing world), then implementing mitigation measures would be deemed obligatory.

This is exactly the situation a country would find itself in if its population growth policy could clearly be demonstrated to reduce its ability to provide foreign aid for such mitigation measures.

A related question is: Why is Australia experiencing increasing public and private sector debt even with rapidly increasing population and manic exploitation of every natural resource that mining, oil and gas and farming operations can feasibly develop? Why also has the number of unemployed increased at a compound rate of 2.3% per annum over the last decade? Is rapid population growth a root cause of both of these outcomes?

From a macro perspective, if analysis of the rate of population growth in Australia showed that the cost of each additional Australian for the Australian economy is reducing Australia's profitability (for example due to increasing national debt) then it would follow that this is indirectly responsible for the loss of life of many people each year in the developing world, due to our reduced capacity to pay for foreign aid.

The environment is finite and this is a zero sum "game". The more pigs at the Australian trough gorging on excess, the more people die in the developing world?

This is one good reason why we need a Public Inquiry. There are many more; as outlined below.

Critique of Australia's most recent inquiry into population

See below my critique of Australia's most recent failed inquiry into population, as conducted by Tony Burke, a recent minister for Sustainability and Environment with the Gillard Government. The history of Burke's inquiry, readers may remember, followed on Gillard's remarks about not being keen on a big population. Gillard went on to preside over a continuing expansion of Australia's immigration program and this report sank without a trace.

My responses to Tony Burke's remarks highlight what appears to be an attempt to prop up a pro-growth status quo argument in denial of the facts, which continues a sad tradition of intellectual dishonesty in Australian government on the matter of population policy:

Tony Burke's severely blinkered inquiry

Extract from: Tony Burke, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Sustainable Australia –Sustainable Communities; A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia (2011)

My comments in Italic Bold:

Box 3 – Why Australia does not have a population target

A number of submissions to the public consultation phase called for the Government to set a population target. Indeed, public discussion over the past 40 years has periodically called for a population ‘target’ to be set. The pressure to provide such a target is often based on a belief that there must be a measurable, finite limit to the capacity of the country to provide resources for its population. These debates have often been fuelled by the publication of possible projected population trends.

There are many aspects of population growth, such as changes in fertility rates, longevity, or emigration, that we cannot accurately predict nor directly control, especially beyond the immediate future.

Good points, but a long term average "target" has been achieved, whether by accident or by GDP chasing. That target has been 1.6+% compound average annual growth and has been tracked over the decades since 1901. 60% of population growth is currently due to net migration; which could possibly be modified to target a lower rate of growth. See http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3421. The target is currently to double population every 40 years; forever. This is not realistic.

Further, governments have limited practical tools through which they can influence population. Immigration is the most direct lever, but this is still limited in practicality (for example, migration from New Zealand, or the movement of Australians overseas or returning home). The adoption of a population target would also limit the use of the migration program as a policy lever to address emerging skills gaps and labour shortages.

Good points; but another argument for doing nothing? Skills gaps are driven by demand, which is driven significantly by government policy on population growth. Roughly half of GDP growth is attributable to the direct consequences of population growth – which also dilutes GDP per capita while lowering quality of life in a rapidly degrading environment. Rapid population growth is accompanied by rapid growth in the number of unemployed. The growth rate of unemployed over the last decade has been 2.3% per annum – far faster than population growth. So what is causing this social problem?

It is clear that any perceived ‘optimum’ population is likely to change in the future due to changes in the way resources are used and developments in technology. Such developments may, for example, facilitate an increased water supply, greater yields in food production, and increasing take-up of alternative, renewable energy. As we strive for greater efficiency in consumption of resources, it follows that a larger number of people could be supported for the same consumption.

The future is endless. A relevant question is how long Australia wishes humanity to survive here and globally? The optimum population is clearly a stable population, because growth cannot continue indefinitely. By practicing a policy of extreme growth, the time available to develop technological solutions to the massive negative impacts of rapid growth is exponentially reduced. There is no way to double population every 40 years indefinitely – regardless of the extent of improved resource use and technological development. This creates a blueprint for an inherently unsustainable society - which is what we are now experiencing.

Improvements in urban planning and technology in the future also have the potential to change the way we live and work, reducing the external costs of population growth currently being experienced, such as traffic congestion. Hence, it is more useful for governments, businesses and communities to focus on ways of improving our wellbeing, protecting our environment and making better use of the resources we have, rather than trying to determine an absolute limit to our population and focussing efforts on restricting growth in order to not exceed this ‘limit’.

This is partly true, but there are limits. It doesn't make sense to propose that solutions can be developed to accommodate endless growth without addressing the potential for moderating the primary driver of this rapid growth (aka population growth). Chaotic expansion is not preferable to disciplined improvement.

Since the 1970s, all population inquiries sponsored by Australian governments have rejected the notion of a population target or national carrying capacity. Mandated population targets would typically be arbitrary, and impossible to deliver in practice.

Australia has effectively mandated a long term average annual population growth of 1.6+% since 1901 combined with a long term average annual GDP growth of 3.2+% since 1901.[1]This proposition is not supported by the actual track record, which shows relatively steady adherence to consistent rapid long term growth targets.

In addition, setting such a target has the potential to distract attention from addressing the challenges presented by other aspects of population change, including location, age and skill composition.

Many of the distractions in Australia today are CAUSED by the rapid rate of population growth…….!

Population projections are illustrations of what the population might look like, on the basis of various assumptions about mortality, fertility and migration. These are generally based on past trends, and at best should be seen only as rough guides to the direction of current population movement. For example, if assumptions about fertility do not eventuate, then projections are likely to be quite different to actual population numbers, particularly in the medium to long-term.

This is arguably absurd in light of the relatively steady long term population growth trends already achieved by Australia and the potential for variable migration during a transition to more moderate rates of growth………

So, rather than setting a target, the central objective of this Strategy is to lay the platform for a more sustainable Australia. In contrast to relying on long term projections, this can be better achieved by managing the impacts of all aspects of our current population, closely monitoring migration levels, and using population projections for the short to medium term to plan and prepare for our population’s needs in the future.

There has been a consistent "target" since 1901. The problem is that this target is clearly far too high by developed world (or any other) standards, and therefore requires critical review. This document is paying lip service to the task at hand rather than recognising the need for performing ongoing comprehensive review that ensures we are on the right track.......... It is an oxymoron to talk about sustainability in the context of a population growth rate comparable to those of the most underdeveloped and environmentally degraded developing-world dictatorships on earth.

NOTES

[1] All the global growth rates are from the CIA World Factbook. All data on OECD population and GDP growth rates were from this source and were compared to actual ABS data for 2012.