Jason Dowling and Clay Lucas' article in The Age (17/7/2009) 'Suburban sprawl costs billions more', presents the problems of population growth as creating urban sprawl that will cost $40 billion. It then highlighting as a "solution", the idea that the density of the existing suburbs should be increased so Victoria can save itself $40 billion. At no point is current population policy questioned or examined. It is simply accepted that population growth will be unstoppable. The article purpose appears to justify the need for increasing density as a "cheaper" solution for Melbourne's growth crisis, without of course calculating the cost, both direct economic cost and the loss of amenity for people already living in Melbourne.
A series of academics are quoted bemoaning the cost of building new suburbs, all of them universally recommending to
"Redirect development from Melbourne's fringe into established suburbs."
As usual the Property Council wants it both ways. In one part of the article it says:
"[The Government] doesn't want to take on the outer-urban property industry."
Once again Property Council - a band of property speculators - accorded guru status by press
Presumably the academic means the Property Council. It then quotes the chief executive of the Property Council Jennifer Cunich
"Anecdotal evidence to us tells that infill development is quite difficult to achieve."
Which I take to mean that it is cheaper for the Property Council members to develop new suburbs, then Cunich says:
"While Melbourne's urban growth boundary should be expanded to accommodate the city's booming population, development in existing suburbs should also be made easier."
So the Property councils wants more growth beyond Melbourne's urban growth boundary and reducing of restrictions for development in existing suburbs, what a surprise!
A sad state of affairs when the only 'serious' newspaper ...
It's a sad state of affairs when the only serious broadsheet newspaper in Victoria is unable to examine such a significant issue beyond one dimension. The article conveys population growth as being inevitable and beyond question. There is no fostering of debate on the issue, only it's consequences in a way that presents the reader with 2 options, one of which has a cost (suburban sprawl) and the other with only benefits (densification of existing suburbs). The problem here is growth per se. Paving over backyards and building multi-story towers is not a solution to a future of climate change, peak oil and water shortages. Building new suburbs is also not a solution to those problems. Stopping growth is the solution, the sooner it is done the more sustainable the future will be for the citizens of Melbourne.
Vivienne (not verified)
Mon, 2009-07-20 10:46
Australia's cities are becoming more and more violent.
Anonymous (not verified)
Mon, 2009-07-20 22:24
Immigration and land/housing shortages
Wed, 2009-07-22 04:13
Plenty of people are shouting
Wed, 2009-07-22 12:44
Some alternative reading to 'mainstream' media
The following, while not all strictly 'independent', offer some alternative reading and analysis of current affairs issues in Australia. I am sure there are others. Notably, the fact that Fairfax is about to launch a dedicated online political analysis magazine 'The National Times' in August 2009 indicates corporate recognition of the healthy growth in Australian online journalism and blogging. The media landscape is changing. Feedback welcome.
'The Monthly (is) a national magazine of politics, society and the arts, arrived in 2005. It is published by the people who bring you Black Inc. books and the Quarterly Essay. It is unlike any Australian publication that has come and gone before.
The Monthly is intelligent and inquisitive, witty and wise. It doesn’t dumb down or suck up. The Monthly is rooted in simple but powerful storytelling. It doesn’t moan, or earbash, or take itself too seriously. The Monthly gives space to long essays and thoughtful reviews, to investigative journalism and zingy reportage, to bold photography and a brash design. It doesn’t get bogged down in bloated columns by boring hacks. The Monthly is human.
Only Australia’s best writers light up The Monthly’s stage: Helen Garner, Don Watson, John Birmingham, Mungo MacCallum, Shane Maloney, Ashley Hay, Drusilla Modjeska, Clive James, Gideon Haigh, Amanda Lohrey, Chloe Hooper, Malcolm Knox, Robert Manne. The Monthly dares them to get mud on their laptops. If Australia’s existing magazines are stuck in a rut, growing fatter yet thinner, then The Monthly is like a free-spirited friend who comes to visit, full of stories, insight, wit and surprise.'
'Crikey is Australian for independent journalism.
There are two arms to Crikey: our website and the Crikey Daily Mail, a daily subscription email service.
The website: This is where we??present a selection of Crikey’s original content along with links to stories from all corners of the web. Crikey editors are across thousands of online sources, from the most earnest to the most eclectic. If it’s interesting and newsworthy, chances are it’ll be on crikey.com.au.
Crikey Daily Mail: Around lunchtime every weekday, the Crikey Daily Mail hits the inboxes of thousands of subscribers. This email edition of 25 or more original stories is crammed with news, analysis, insider gossip, reviews and prescient tips about politics, media, business, the law, culture and national and international affairs.
Crikey’s aim is to bring its readers the inside word on what’s really going on in politics, government, media, business, the arts, sport and other aspects of public life in Australia. Crikey reveals how the powerful operate behind the scenes, and it tackles the stories insiders are talking about but other media can’t or won’t cover.
Crikey sees its role as part of the so-called fourth estate that acts as a vital check and balance on the activities of government, the political system and the judiciary. In addition, Crikey believes the performance and activities of business, the media, PR and other important sectors are worthy of public scrutiny.'
'Launched in August 2004, newmatilda.com is an independent Australian website of news, analysis and satire. Believing that robust media is fundamental to a healthy democracy, newmatilda.com aims to provide non-partisan information ? it has no association with any political party or media organisation.
newmatilda.com provides intelligent coverage of Australian politics, business, consumerism, civil society, international affairs, media and culture for a global audience. As well as offering an understanding of current events against a broad historical and political backdrop, it features issues and ideas often left untouched by the mainstream media.
newmatilda.com publishes the work of writers from a wide range of backgrounds. They are journalists, current and former politicians, lawyers, critical and creative thinkers, bloggers, policy-wonks and satirists. Unsolicited submissions are welcome.
Registered readers (free) can choose to receive notice of the latest content by favourite writers or of topics of interest. They are also encouraged to participate in debates on the issues we cover through the comments section that follows each article.'
The National Times
['the Age', 13th June, 2009] 'FAIRFAX Media is set to relaunch one of Australia's historic newspaper brands, The National Times, as an opinion and editorial website covering the nation's political and national affairs debates.
The online revival as Nationaltimes.com.au comes more than two decades after the paper and its short-term successor, the Times on Sunday, were forced to fold in the wake of the 1987 October share crash and Warwick Fairfax's failed takeover of the publisher.
"The National Times brand was synonymous with intelligent and thought-provoking journalism," Fairfax Media chief executive Brian McCarthy said.
"It informed and encouraged debate on the important issues of the day and that will be the commitment of our new online site."
Incurring public wrath from powerbrokers such as former NSW Premier Neville Wran, and prime ministers Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, The National Times won praise and notoriety for its independent and confronting journalism.
Under editors such as Max Suich, David Marr and Brian Toohey, several of its stories prompted the establishment of royal commissions.
The website will replace the opinion section on news sites including theage.com.au and will feature the best of Fairfax's opinion writing, commentary and analysis, coupled with guest commentaries from politicians, academics and other public figures, the publisher said in a statement.
Fairfax Digital chief Jack Matthews said the advertising-funded site, which had been months in the planning, would include interactive features such as blogging tools, forums and polls to engage readers in debates. The new site will go online in August.'
Another one is :
Wed, 2009-07-22 16:25
RD (not verified)
Wed, 2009-07-22 20:51
The Independent Australian
Another independent current affairs journal:
The Independent Australian - "Socially and culturally conservative, conservationist, and above all, proud to be Australian."
If you enjoy a bit of political incorrectness, sticking a pin into the puffery of the self proclaimed intellectual elites, as well as some serious analysis of current issues which the mainstream media is too PC or scared to print, dip into this website (still under construction). It will give you an insight into the contents of The Independent Australian magazine.
We are at the forefront of questioning conventional wisdom; for example, right from the start we have opposed Multiculturalism. Now we find that commentators, even from the bleeding heart and soft left-liberal elites, are starting to question the very basis of this State sponsored religion. Similarly we have long advocated tightening up eligibility laws for citizenship.
Our Green Pages do not rabbit on endlessly about old growth forests (important as they are), rather we tackle the basic issues of reconciling population growth with sustainability, look realistically at alternative power supplies and transport modes. The establishment environmental groups, the Greens and the Australian Conservation Foundation, are more concerned with ideological social issues than sustainability.
Nowhere else will you find support for giving more power to the people via Citizen Initiated Referenda, an idea abhorrent to the Left and Right power brokers. And we are right behind those who support freedom of speech and the right to publish, including views diametrically opposed to us.
Conservative does not mean we support economic policies such as handing over natural monopolies to private enterprise and signing 'free' (but not fair) trade agreements with centrally controlled economies like China. Nor did we like some of the Coalition Industrial Relations proposals.
We hope that the website will inspire you to subscribe. If you would like to see before you buy, you can get a complimentary copy free.
The Independent Australian magazine grew from discussions among people of independent views, especially Davydd Williams. Some must remain anonymous, because they are still in employment. The fate of the vocally politically incorrect is exclusion from employment or promotion.
The Independent Australian is published by Independent Australian Publications Pty Ltd. The editor is Peter Wilkinson. A company is the most convenient vehicle to handle the business aspects, but the venture is about dissemination of ideas, not profit-making. Any success will be ploughed back into improvement of content, presentation and circulation.
Thu, 2009-07-23 12:23
Paradigm shift in journalistic analysis - 'citizen journalism'
RD, The Independent Australian looks worthy of the same genre. I like the motto: 'a politically incorrect magazine of ideas and comment outside the mainstream.'
Looking again at 'News Weekly', this publication is clearly a publication outlet for The National Civic Council (NCC) which "seeks to shape public policy on cultural, family, social, political, economic and international issues of concern to Australia." Whether one agrees or disagrees with the philosophy, policies and principles of the NCC, the concept of seeking to shape public policy takes journalism that next step from simple reporting to social and political influencing.
Actually, I personally disagree with some of the NCC's philosophies, policies and principles, but irrespective of that I consider its focus on shaping public policy quite worthy.
The reason for me highlighting these alternative online media options is to point out that CanDoBetter operates within this online political analysis journalism genre. Call it 'citizen journalism', 'participatory journalism', 'political blogging' or whatever, this online medium is evolving from an infancy phase to a growth phase.
A threat to the mainstream media
Now the mainstream media have finally become alerted to this. They are seeing their traditional readership decline away from print and to online and to these alternative online media channels. Fairfax now charges for access to some of its articles for a nominal $2 fee. The Fairfax yet to be launched online 'The National Times' threatens to be Fairfax's reactive attempt to claw back its political analytic readership. It is important that we are all aware of the market place for political comment and analysis and watch it as it changes and evolves.
Wikipedia explains that 'citizen journalism' "(also known as "public", "participatory", "democratic" or "street journalism") is the concept of members of the public "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information," according to the seminal 2003 report We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information. Authors Bowman and Willis say: "The intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires."
CanDoBetter: where to from here?
Noting the mission of candobetter.org is "to encourage ordinary people to engage themselves with the political processes that determine the course of our society," so CanDoBetter would seem to fit within this realm and has real opportunities to establish its presence and influence.
But the real value add in this genre for participating websites is being more accessible to its target readership (user-friendly/feature rich) and to take issues beyond a skin deep reporting/opinion level towards building an insightful 'think tank' influencing approach on political issues - in a sense provide influence and leadership direction rather than just opinion. Of course this is up to the owners of this website.
The traditional media criticise citizen journalism as not being objective, but in reality who is purely objective when it comes to journalistic opinion?
This new approach to journalistic analysis will leave the mainstream media for dead and instead of other independent journalistic sites being regarded as competion, competing for the same readership, these site will be complimentary to the debate and analysis. The beneficiaries will be the contributors, the readers and society as knowledge and analysis is shared. It is a consistent benefit of free exchange as that provided by the Internet itself.
This heralds a paradigm shift in journalistic analysis. A shift not suited to commercial profit making and so a real threat to traditional mainstream media, and they know it. Yet, the rise of citizen journalism (of people who omnce were the audience) it is indeed suited to developing sophisticated insights and policies to deal effectively with complex issues and so enable 'ordinary people to determine the course of our society'.
Thu, 2009-07-23 13:09
Candobetter think tank & media control
DeFoe Mary (not verified)
Mon, 2023-02-13 21:12
Voice fraud comment
HE VOICE YELLS LOUD OVER
ITS TRUE PURPOSE
As the pro-Voicers loud-hail about the Aboriginal voice to parliament and the anti-Voicers try hard to negate what’s almost certain to be a rigged referendum, the true objective evades all.
Firstly, the brevity of detail surrounding this mooted “voice” should tell you all you need to know: that it’s something that the deep state wants and aims to get but is misleading Australians and our massive immigrant demographic about what it all earnestly means.
The critics are naturally labelled as “racists” while the proponents are effusive with fuzzy feelings and promises of constitutional emancipation for the Aborigines. The notion one must undertake if they’re to follow the pro-voice logic is that Aborigines are currently excluded from the electoral process. One is also led to assume that they have “special needs” that aren’t being met and that, in the first place, they assume a priority in the Australian state that’s been sorely overlooked from day one.
What hasn’t been ignored is the sluice gates of immigration pouring a burst dam’s worth of immigrants into the country year after year—an accretion of interlopers that only paused for the global COVID project (sic) to facilitate what the World Economic Forum (WEF) gloats about being the first phase of the “great reset
Now immigration numbers are back in full swing under the guise of, among other names, Overseas Students. On one hand, we have a government that is eager to amplify a “voice” for a disunited aggregate of tribal peoples who share nothing much in common least of all a common language; and on the other, they want to further disenfranchise those remaining pureblood Aborigines [sacred to Australia Firsters], by forcing an influx of disparate races into their (sic) lands to swamp them even further into total marginalisation.
Either the internationalist “managers” of the economy known as Australia are just stupid with obstinate egalitarian notions of what’s right, or else they’re hoodwinking us. Given that the latter is always the case 100% of the time then it’s a fair bet that “the Voice” is a distraction from other social projects; especially given its vagueness of detail and the rush the globalists are in to establish one.
Firstly, it sets a pretext for “amending” the constitution; an act of bi-partisan tampering that’s unlikely to end with just ‘the Voice.’ Secondly, while the sweaty masses are all het-up about that Voice, they’re not paying attention to its actual purpose, which has almost nothing to do with justifying the insufferable “welcome to country” balderdash in parliament or improving Aboriginal self-esteem through the parliamentary gravy train. In truth, the “Voice” is about solidifying Australia as an Asian migrant zone. Confused? Don’t be.
Australians as perceived during the Vision Splendid era were a distinct set of the Caucasian race. Our ancestors invariably hailed from Europe and we shared customs, culture and a common language. That’s all going and the government-invited invaders are screaming up the charts and outpacing the founders of this country to such an alarming degree that according to the 2021 Census 51.5% of our 25.5 million population was either born overseas or has a parent born overseas. In other words, not Aussies. Don’t be misled if you’re told that a large swathe comes from the UK either because one look at poor old lost Blighty and you’ll quickly see that could mean anything from Pakistani to Senegalese.
Nepalese represent the fastest-growing migrant group, with Indians at the top, and Mandarin the most spoken language outside of English. Other European languages such as Greek and Italian are on the way out, as are fairdinkums ourselves. This is not by accident but by design—as the intent for Australia is not to honour in the footsteps of the “ANZACS” but to integrate into Asia as an economic zone with a principal loyalty to America’s Satanic Empire.
With such a disparate grouping of races, many of which bring with them ethnic and religious conflicts, the motif of Aboriginality serves as a fixed point of cultural agreement in a tokenistic kind. After all, the Aboriginal “flavour” serves only disingenuous ceremonial purposes and as a semiotic veneer for this new economic zone: it’s not expected that all the alien imports learn Aboriginal histories and customs. But it means that the “colonial past” and the labour movement are flushed down the can and supplanted by this undemocratic revision of the nation.
Therefore, the Voice is not for Aborigines, but for multi-racialism and rampant commercialism. It is a voice for plunder, exploitation, and the epochal lies that characterise the actors behind ‘the great reset.’
Oppose the Voice for the fraud it is, with every bit of strength you can!
The Australian peoples movement of Australia First is developing, and will be issuing an Aboriginal New Dreamtime Programme, to advance an organic based REAL FUTURE for our Aborigines.