Comments

ED (not verified)

Mon, 2011-05-30 21:09

"There are plenty who would disagree about calling Australia a Christian country, but we are..." Indeed. To claim otherwise is simply absurd. Our society was founded by British settlers. And the single most decisive feature that determined the way Australian society developed was the Judeo-Christian-Western tradition carried here from Britain and Western Europe by those early settlers. As a society, we are who we are because of that heritage. I am not sure this is well understood in Australia today. It may be that a majority of Australians no longer believes the orthodox Christian faith. But whether they believe it or not, the society they share is one founded on that faith and one that draws on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2011-05-30 15:41

JulesTAS writes: Vivienne, if these countries wont become responsible by controlling their population growth

[insensitive suggestion which author probably desensitized to has been edited out here to preserve candobetter.net's non-violent policy] they are going to starve sooner or later as our own increasing population needs more of the food that we produce on less and less arable land that is left after urban sprawl and climate change has eaten up and destroyed farms.

SHEILA. We should not forget that our own business leaders, who have vast influence over our government, which is corporatised, actually suggest that we buy up such countries' precious agricultural land for our own use. See Prof Robin Batterham - Australia should buy farms in Mozambique Our leaders want us to behave like a pack of vultures.

JulesTAS: They have no right to think that everyone else in the world can absorb their overflowing population, and by us taking them in just leaves their home country free to continue breeding to maintain the status quo of their overpopulated state.

SHEILA: The above statement assumes that these populations have the power to restrict their breeding. It does not account for problems imposed from above, such as displacement from rural economies into cities where child labour is permitted and becomes the only means by which ill-paid labourers are able to increase their ptififul incomes. See more on Doepke in "World Population Day - what helps keep populations sustainable?". Doepke showed that child labour is a variable strongly associated with population overshoot and that its disappearance depends on governments overruling corporations by outlawing and enforcing the outlawing of child labour. Further, they must increase basic wages. Scolarising women to make them more valuable as wage earners than as child-labourer creators is another associated factor. What JulesTAS seems to be seeing as a failure of personal restraint is more of a collective political problem which can be laid at the feet of church, government and corporation, wherever they allow or promote the uprooting of settled stable populations and fail to promote and enforce child labour laws.

JulesTAS: Every time you hear Tim Costello whining about Australia's Foreign Aid commitment give him the bird. Around 20%, or less, of aid actually hits the ground after it's guts has been feasted upon by people like Costello, the UN, and every other parasite in between including the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt politicians.

SHEILA. The writer has a point. Much foreign aid is only business aid dressed up, or a begging bowl for modern day corporate Fagens. See "Haiti - Should the world protect Haiti from US 'Aid'?" and books on the subject of "Development AID rorts", such as Lords of Poverty and The Road to Hell. And Tim Costello, alongside Steve Vizard, was actually one of the early promoters of Steve Bracks's so-called Australian Population Summit. Costello did seem a little perturbed when I pointed out that this was only a land-speculator's festival at the time.

JulesTAS: (For instance, who in their right mind would donate money to Pakistan when Pakistan operates a nuclear defence force and just recently spent squillions on new machines (think it was jet fighters). They have a better defence force than we do!)

These countries have had their natural attrition systems interfered with by patronising Western nations and groups who insist on feeding them up to better health so that fertility rates are higher and more babies survive; stopping diseases; and supplying food during famines all without installing an effective, and if necessary compulsory, birth control regime so that their populations remained at, possibly, sustainable levels.

SHEILA: The primary western interference was colonisation where land was stolen and landless labour was created in beggar-like conditions. This happened first to Ireland, then, during the European Trade Wars, via the slave trade from Africa, then, as Britain (due to her coal and iron possessions) won the Trade Wars, through her industrial revolution driven empire, in India, Hong Kong, and later in Pacific Islands and Australia. All these places had their own land-tenure and inheritance laws pulverised and replaced with the British system. This - idea that populations of all kinds, from peoples of the third world to Australian kangaroos survived on the edge for centuries and milennia with only gruesome predator-prey mechanisms, starvation, disease and natural disaster to control their numbers - is the result of the near-total intellectual bankrupcy of the so-called science of demography, which only seems to exist to fit the ideologies of colonial empires - corporate and monarchic. How mainstream and popular demography can ignore the fact that steady state populations have existed in many places and times as a norm is amazing. Even Malthus in his Summary Essay on Population (in the 6th edition) acknowledged this fact, starting with the example of a Swiss canton.

A more sophisticated appraisal of what may be involved in population regulation is to be found in Pimentel, “Population Regulation and Genetic Feedback”.[ David Pimentel, “Population Regulation and Genetic Feedback,” Science, Vol.159, 29 March 1968, p.1433.] The author identifies a number of rules. One is that most species are quite rare, relatively or ‘by whatever criterion they are judged’. [H.G. Andrewartha and L.C. Birch , “The Distribution and Abundance of Animals, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1954, and Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, “rarity is the attribute of a vast number of species of all classes, in all countries,” cited by David Pimentel in “Population Regulation and Genetic Feedback,” Science, Vol.159, 29 March 1968, p.1433.] This rule helps to construct the idea that huge numbers involved in overshoot by a species are probably rare and do not last for long. Another is that nearly all animals feed off live material. This observation is important because dead material cannot evolve genetically in response to predation. Pimentel describes field observations and laboratory tests which show that predated populations evolve in response to a particular predator “only if the numbers of the animal are sufficient to exert some selective pressure on the host.” Using a variety of examples, he observes that the dominant control mechanism operating initially is “competition” (meaning selection), “but genetic feedback became dominant with time and through evolution.” He observes that “subtle genetic changes” affect the predator, and gives this example:

“For instance, when young pea aphids (Acyrthosiphum pisum) were placed on a common crop variety of alfalfa (Medicago sativa), they produced a mean of 290 offspring in 10 days, whereas the same number of aphids for a similar period on a resistant alfalfa variety produced a mean of only two offspring. In another example, the mean rate of oviposition (eggs per generation) of the chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) on a susceptible strain of sorghum (Sorghum vulgare) was about 100, whereas on a resistant strain the mean oviposition was less than one. In both, reproduction in the animals feeding on the resistant plant hosts decreased more than 99 per cent. This reduced reproduction obviously would have dramatic effects on the population dynamics of the feeding animal populations.”[David Pimentel, “Population Regulation and Genetic Feedback”, Science, Vol.159, p 1434.]

JulesTAS: In around 60 to 80 years time Australia will be well on the way to becoming a shit hole just like the countries that those refugees have left behind. And we will have our illustrious forward thinking Governments, the corrupt UN and refugees to thank for it.
....end of rant....

SHEILA: Actually, this could be the beginning of your rant. I would like to point out that what is happening to us is what happened to them. We are also being disorganised, uprooted, and attracted or forced into new, artificially created populations, where the fertility opportunities are higher (although immigrants new to the problems of the Australian economy are more likely to take these on face-value. Artificially created new populations occur as a consequence of a political system which has been distorted to meet the demands of a rapacious new corporate and private elite that has got control of rural and suburban land feeds of land-speculation. This same elite has investments in the production of raw materials in mining for instance, for which demands mass-imported labour. The Greens, Socialist Alliance, ALP and Liberal parties are compliant cooperative and beneficiaries of this horrendously undemocratic system which Australia has in common with the other third world commodity economies.

Why aren't Australians jumping up and down about this? Why aren't they controlling their rate of population growth? For the same reasons as the more recognised third world countries. We also lack political power. Yes, we don't have child labour yet, but, give it time. As the welfare system fails to keep up any semblance of compensating for the horrendous cost of rent, the mass of people in this country who have nothing except their day labour to stay alive will have to find some way to do so. Stealing, prostitution, and trafficking in drugs are already happening. These ways of living do not observe child labour laws. How long before the formal system adapts the ways of the black economy?

But for Mr Fraser and his helpmates, Australia might have been one of those oil-rich countries which became independent after the 1973 oil crash. [See Chapter 7 of The Growth Lobby and its Absence.] Perhaps we would now be organising against our corporate oppressors. Whitlam's plan has been to borrow to develop Australia's mineral wealth for self-sufficiency. But, due to political machinations and media hysterics Australia did not become independent and instead, it developed its oil assets by selling them off in exchange for royalties and some taxes to corporate interests. Result - we are now net importers of oil. Currently we are accessing and selling off our gas as fast as possible (a rapidly exhaustible product - no pun intended) and we are importing hundreds of thousands of foreigners to dig what we have up for export, and inviting them to remain here as consumers.

If Australians don't realise that they share common cause with other commodity economies, colonies and ex-colonies, we are stuffed.

I hope that JulesTAS will forgive me this rant and keep commenting. I am awaiting publication and availability of a book I have written on the subject of my posts here and cannot release my theory in advance. Of course most of what I communicate here, although I am familiar with it, is only patchily available to most people. I also understand why JulesTAS angrily included the part in his post which the editor "commented-out". It is intensely frustrating living within the insane political paradigm that our leaders and so-called intellectuals feed us via commercial, public and academic media.

JulesTAS (not verified)

Sat, 2011-05-28 19:36

There are plenty who would disagree about calling Australia a Christian country, but we are. They also hold up census figures as to how many of us are Christians. Fancy believing the census. I refuse to answer questions of race, religion or precise annual earnings. Always remember what wonderful and accurate collectors and preservers of data the Germans were and that allowed the Nazi movement so much success with it's genocide programme. In fact I had a Census person on my doorstep about six months ago insisting I tell him if I was Aboriginal or not. I told him I didn't answer race questions and besides I hadn't done a family tree to see if I was Aboriginal or not. He was going to fine me for not answering, and he finally filled in his notes with his own estimation if I was or wasn't, which would have been made entirely on his own racial stereotyping of what an Aboriginal should look like.

Back to religion.....with the lack of primary Christian teachings as an educational tool not as a conversion technique, I do wonder just how well kids understand many sayings, literary works or artworks. Thn agn thts proby why they h8 inglsh & spk and rite shrt txt.

I am non-religious and would be classed as agnostic, and thank my mother for sending me to Sunday School and allotting me to scripture classes through school as our culture is Christian. I am happy to live under society's laws that are based in Christianity, I celebrate Christmas etc. and wouldn't want our country to change from the voluntary adoption of religion to a system of convert or be put to death.

JulesTAS (not verified)

Sat, 2011-05-28 18:05

Dear Ed. (thanks for your added food for thought.)

I do know that the Islamic invasion of our country comes from more than boat people. Although without actual figures I would feel safe estimating that at least 90% of boat people are Muslim. (I will keep searching for some figures to post).

Our leaders are too ignorant of Islam and Sharia to realise what they are creating for our future, while they cherry-pick at bits of Sharia they will allow and bits they outlaw, eg. Sharia banking: (money & the chance for profit here) so that is a good idea; female genital mutilation....not allowed. Yet they don't have any policy in place to police those who take their female children back to their homeland for this dodgy slice job. Perhaps these female children need to have genitalia checks as part of a medical to get back into the country. Wife beating is recommended by Sharia, so is killing adulterers and homosexuals. (Funny how you never seem to hear of male adulterers being flogged or killed, it seems as though the women have to suffer the punishment for both parties.) Our Gov is supposed to be encouraging assimilation yet they divert our money to Islamic schools, that also teach Sharia.

If separation of education and religion is strengthened, will the Gov stop throwing money at Islamic schools? (Also other fundamentalist religious schools). Women wearing face coverings is offensive, yet all the PC twits get around banging the Women's Rights drum and saying they have the right to wear what they like. The West has to bend every which way so as not to cause offence to Islam but it is OK for Islam to offend us as much as they like. I wouldn't get away with covering my face at a servo or the shops.
You see Ed, division all the way down the line, and it will only get worse the more Muslims we import, until we are on the brink of civil war just as Britain is almost there. The Brits will survive a civil war as they know how to throw them. We have never had one and we shouldn't have to.

My reference to the cost of hosting Islam was in the thought of how much better use that money could be put, say, indigenous housing and other public housing etc. The cost of processing two refugees would buy a kit home.

JulesTAS (not verified)

Sat, 2011-05-28 15:29

Vivienne, if these countries wont become responsible by controlling their population growth

[insensitive suggestion which author probably desensitized to has been edited out here to preserve candobetter.net's non-violent policy] they are going to starve sooner or later as our own increasing population needs more of the food that we produce on less and less arable land that is left after urban sprawl and climate change has eaten up and destroyed farms.

They have no right to think that everyone else in the world can absorb their overflowing population, and by us taking them in just leaves their home country free to continue breeding to maintain the status quo of their overpopulated state.
Every time you hear Tim Costello whining about Australia's Foreign Aid commitment give him the bird. Around 20%, or less, of aid actually hits the ground after it's guts has been feasted upon by people like Costello, the UN, and every other parasite in between including the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt politicians.
(For instance, who in their right mind would donate money to Pakistan when Pakistan operates a nuclear defence force and just recently spent squillions on new machines (think it was jet fighters). They have a better defence force than we do!)
These countries have had their natural attrition systems interfered with by patronising Western nations and groups who insist on feeding them up to better health so that fertility rates are higher and more babies survive; stopping diseases; and supplying food during famines all without installing an effective, and if necessary compulsory, birth control regime so that their populations remained at, possibly, sustainable levels.
In around 60 to 80 years time Australia will be well on the way to becoming a shit hole just like the countries that those refugees have left behind. And we will have our illustrious forward thinking Governments, the corrupt UN and refugees to thank for it.
....end of rant....

Please see next comment for Population sociologist Sheila Newman's response.-  Ed.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-05-28 14:00

Originally posted on 27 May 2011 . -  Ed The non-white population of the England and Wales has crept up to almost 1/6th of the population. The white British population has basically stayed the same since 2001. The non-white population have added 2.5 million people in the same period. Other "white" people from Europe and Australia have also increased from 1.4 to 1.9 million people. The mixed-race population is up nearly 50% to almost a million for the first time – up from 672,000 in 2001 to 986,600 in 2009. London has a large mixed-race, Asian, black and Irish communities making up the rest. Low-skilled workers from Eastern Europe are heading to the UK in their droves to look for work as net migration hit its highest level in more than five years. Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch UK, said: "If immigration continues at this rate, our population will hit 70 million within 20 years and immigrants will account for half of new households". He said the shock figures showed firm measures were now "absolutely essential". It's a tribal race to divide and conquer by subversion. The net migration of 242,000 was nearly 100,000 higher than the previous year beside David Cameron's vows to cut immigration. The fragmentation of societies from immigration means that the host nation become eventually overwrought by the new-comers. It' a reverse colonisation, with permission. They obviously have no border controls!

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2011-05-28 12:48

The following comment was posted to ABC Radio National's National Interest web pages on Friday 27 May 2011. The post was in response to a discussion. Too fast, too furious: why industry opposes a carbon tax of the previous Friday 20 May.

Wasn't the "free market", that is, serving the greed of a small minority rather than the wishes of the sovereign majority, supposed to hold all the answers to society's problems when it was imposed upon Australia and much of the rest of the world back in the 1980's?

How is it that, three decades later, it still hasn't worked out how to protect the world from global warming and other environmental threats?

Why is it that 'government', held to be so fundamentally flawed by the "free market" ideologues whose prescriptions have been so unquestioningly accepted by our political leaders, must spend so much of its time and energy trying to find a way to persuade the "free market" not to destroy our environment?

If the "free market" was all that Howard, Keating, Hawke, Fraser et al had held it out to be, it would have surely found a way to save the world from global warming a long time ago.

But it has not and no amount of tinkering with incentives from Government is any more likely to prevent the "free market" from causing calamity now than it has to civilisations in the past - the Mayans, Angkor Wat, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mesopotamians, the Anasazi of the Chaco Canyon and numerous earlier civilisations. This has been documented in books such as Jared Diamond's "Collapse" and David Montgomery's "Dirt: The Erosion of Civilization".

The only difference we face this time, is that if the sovereign peoples of the world don't take back from the "free market" the right to decide their futures, the catastrophe won't be confined just to some regions of the earth. It will affect the whole world and be unimaginably more terrible.

If, as one example, we don't act now to stop the greed of the "free market", from digging up Australia's vast deposits of coal for export to be burnt in China and India, then we will have shown that we have learnt nothing from history.

nimby

Fri, 2011-05-27 14:47

"Problematic also, however, is the infiltration by more well-established christian religions into Australian schools". There has always been Christian education in schools, not "more" of it. There must always be a separation of State and church, but they are not totally isolated concepts, and not an "infiltration". People do not exist (overall) in a spiritual vacuum, and our Western civilisation has developed, however skewed, with the support of the remnant true Christian church. Political liberty as reflected in the separation of powers, with its checks and balances based on the absolute value of human life, property and liberty. It's officially the role of the state to protect life, liberty, and property, and the constitutional protection of the rights of minorities. Christian reason triumphed in the abolition of slavery. Slavery was widespread in all the great societies of history, but only in Christian Europe (and America) was it perceived to be a sin that must be abolished. All these were bequeathed to the modern world by Christianity. It has played a vital role in building and cementing the complex socio-political and economic system of the West. It has influence our human expression in the arts, music, architecture, family values, celebrations, and laws. Today we suffer from amnesia of the past, and a disconnection with our heritage. It should be remembered that the real strength of Christian values, wherever they survive, are not in a mythical or dogmatic set of beliefs. It lies in its emphasis on kindness, sympathy and service to the cause of suffering and other such values that have almost - but not by any means exclusively - become synonymous with Christianity. Christianity is part of the fabric of our society, and although there have been many distortions and human abuse of its institutions and beliefs, its should be at least given some status in our schools, by accredited trained volunteers, so that kids understand our ideals, our festivals, and our cultural beginnings. They are thus in a better able to evaluate and think about values beyond the material and tangible. world. There is no compulsion to "convert" them! On the contrary, Islam is dogmatic, compulsory, ritualistic, unforgiving in nature of their understanding of god, and thus draconian in its enforcement of laws. Islam is being advanced into the West due to mass immigration, overpopulation and global conflicts, and thus is to their advantage.

francis (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-27 11:02

Kelvin Thomson is a politician of an antiquated period when politicians actually represented the people in his electorate and beyond, not the power of economics and big corporations. Now, we have "nimbys" and community action groups formed to challenge politicians and their actions against the interests of the people. This puts enormous stress on communities that are almost powerless to defy the big powers against them. The Labor party traditionally upheld the interests of working people, those with less economic and financial power. The roots of the ALP lay solidly in unions. After the depression one of the major tasks of the unions was to restore wages to their pre-1890 levels. Some victories were won, although any rise in wage rates was quickly accompanied by the inevitable price rise and jump in the overall cost of living. Unions were bypassed by privatisation of public assets and utilities and by importing willing and compliant workers from third-world nations. The Labor party has abandoned any vision and now are under the power of the massive property and business owners, and their sponsorship deals. It means overriding public concern for the business elite whose interests are in growth. Globalisation means that we in Australia can lure cheaper skills from overseas, and by pass the Australian people. It's actually economic treason. The demands of an all consuming Economy has hijacked our government's focus and interests. With bipartisan support for population growth and globalisation, we in Australia are sadly lacking in leadership and alternative political parties to represent the concerns of the public, and global threats to our long term survival.

dave1 (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-27 10:59

An excellent article on an important topic. The concept of a bank that enriches it's cutomers - rather than its shareholders - along the lines of the BND is worth serious consideration. US economist Bill Still has proposed a similar thing to help Iceland recover from its own banking-induced monetary crisis. Local shires in Australia could do something similar. Using their disposable assets and current deposits of rate revenue etc as security, Shire Banks could loan money to people at zero interest, with a small fee to cover the administrative costs associated with managing the loans. To avoid having the available funds drained off by speculative interests, loans would be restricted to the purposes of public works by the Shire itself, owner-occupied housing, locally based business (capital purchases only) and the reduction of pre-existing credit card debt. As pointed out in the article, the value of the council's assets providing security can currently be leveraged under existing fractional reserve banking rules. I'm NOT suggesting that this should be done willy-nilly - we don't want another sub-prime loan crisis here. But a Shire Bank might also have - as part of its service - financial coaching or counselling services to help people budget and make appropriate spending and saving decisions so that they don't get into trouble in the first place. Opponents of this idea point out that after an initial round of lending, deposits to fund future loans would stagnate under a zero interest regime. However, the Swedish JAK Bank has developed an after-savings system to ensure a healthy flow of capital to fund future loans. Once our Shire Bank was established, it could move to operating on a JAK-like platform (full reserves) that would provide (1) interest free banking for members (2) a system that does not rely on the money market and is thus inherently stable, and (3) a model for the way that all banks would have to operate if banks ever lost the ability to create new money themselves - as per the proposals of Huber and Robertson. Properly managed and with conservative lending rules, there's every reason to think that our Shire Banks could be as succesful and long-lasting as the BND. Bring it on.. Interested? Google * 'Bill Still', 'best bank', 'iceland' * 'Margrit Kennedy' * 'Huber and Robertson', 'Creating new money' * JAK Bank Cheers, Dave .

JulesTAS (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-27 02:03

[See editorial comments below this post. - Ed. candobetter.net] Was achieved by Australia until the politicians decided to begin filling our country with Muslims. The post WWII migration intake have absorbed well into our communities and enriched them. Those migrants came to join us and not to become the spearhead of community division and to eventually supplant our laws and government with Sharia. I would like to see the true cost of hosting Islam in Australia. From the $80Kpax to process a boat tripper etc to the cost for homeland security because of the presence of Islam here. We cannot afford, socially or financially to go down the same road as Britain or many of the other EU countries who are groaning under the weight of their Islamic populations. Australia has to have a referendum re: ceasing the importation of Islam. CDB Editor: Thank you for this comment. Since this is a topic that attracts significant polarity and can cause tension in the community, we do try to show good faith and avoid causing more tension on candobetter, whilst trying to represent valid points of view. Candobetter tends towards the idea that multiculturalism has been used to confuse public debate about population numbers and has thus, especially recently, negatively affected democracy and the environment. There have been environmental and social problems absorbing all new cultures and people in Australia since 1788. For hundreds of thousands of Australian Aborigines the event of colonisation was fatal or highly injurious, with generational impacts. The ongoing simplification of complex and wondrous ecology is tragic. Only a superficial short term economic and social view supports the idea that changes since 1788 have been a good thing, but for those still riding high on the hog it must seem worth the ride. We cannot stop what has happened, although post-peak oil depletion will inevitably reduce our carrying capacity and tax social expectations. (Of course a lot of Australians and most people in 'developed economies' have been implicitly educated to believe that material sophistication is a justification for depriving hunter-gatherers of land and self-government and this would include many cdb readers and some writers probably.) The mainstream press has supported expression of anxiety about the import of new fundamentalist religions, but the government has gone right on doing this, and much of the mainstream press continues to profit from turnover associated with high population growth, so this is a democratic issue and a media licensing issue. (By media licencing, I mean that interests in policy outcomes and reporting should be made publicly searchable through public declaration of media financial interests, constantly updated, as with politicians - which could also stand improvement.) Problematic also, however, is the infiltration by more well-established christian religions into Australian schools. Separation of religion and state need shoring up in Australia. Without wishing to sound patronising, we should correct the impression that Muslims typically arrive in boats. Many arrive in aeroplanes at the invitation of our governments in our skilled immigrant programs. It is not surprising that the person writing the above comment might think that Muslims arrive on boats since that seems to be the effect of much government and mainstream press propaganda. Candobetter does not have any platform against Islam, but we are critical of religion where it affects scientific and useful policy on the environment, population, democracy etc, as we are critical of anything which erodes the health of these things. We are in favour of universal franchise within functioning democratic polities, so of women's rights and these are poorly represented in many Muslim legal systems. Some of our articles reflect our knowledge of the history of colonialist interference in Islamic regions causing many of the problems we now perceive as a threat to the so-called Western World. That said, Australia is still a colony and her people have few rights at law, but many illusions still.

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2011-05-26 22:55

Richo wrote:

As population pressures grow in the nations to our north how moral is it for us to sit here with our paltry 20 plus million population and abundant natural resources and tell the billions in the rest of Asia to stay away.

If there was any chance that sharing Australia's natural resources with hundreds of millions outside of this country, through high immigration, could substantially improve the lot of any more than a tiny minority of the hundreds of millions living to our north, then that just could just be considered a substantial argument in favour of higher immigration. However, I would suggest that Richo look at Roy Beck's article Sorting Through Humanitarian Clashes In Immigration.

It shows that even if the United States massively increased its rate of immigration, it would be of no benefit to the hundreds of millions who would have no hope of gaining entry into the United States unless immigration was raised truly insane levels. In the US it would greatly harm the living standards of existing US residents and their natural environment. The same would apply to Australia if we were to hugely increase immigration levels. Any government in our region, which imagines it could substantially improve the lot of any substantial proportion of their country's citizens by invading this barren country is deluded.

That is not to say that we should altogether rule out the risk of invasion, but our chances of dissuading those who would wish to invade us would be greater if Australia behaved more morally on the international scene than it has under the former Howard Government and now under the current Labor Government. This has been discussed in on Online Opinion Forum Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence? of 28 Jul 2007.

A related forum in response to my article The myth of the Howard Government's defence competence (also published on candobetter and WebDiary), which is largely based on Armed and Ready of 1996 by Andrew Ross. That book shows that Australia was able to discourage the Japanese from invading Australia in 1942, because then Australia was much more advanced technologically in relation to the rest of the world than it has become since that time. In February/March 1942, even before their Navy was defeated by the US at the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, Japanese planners ruled out an invasion of Australia, because of their knowledge of Australia's industrial and defence capability (Armed and Ready pp408-409). If Australia, with its smaller population of 7 million at the time, was able to dissuade a Japanese invasion, then it should not be ruled out that we could similarly dissuade anyone considering invading in the 21st century. Our security need not depend upon our being allied with the current rulers of the US. Given that the US has launched aggressive wars against Indo-China, as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Libya and that its military industrial complex was prevented from launching a nuclear first strike three times by the late President John F Kennedy, and since then by Dr Robert Bowman, who is to say that it won't be the US against which Australia may have to be defended?

See also: Bernard Salt and Murdoch press cook up recipe for invasion of 22 May 2009 on candobetter.

nimby

Thu, 2011-05-26 22:48

As population pressures grow in the nations to our north how moral is it for us to sit here with our paltry 20 plus million population and abundant natural resources and tell the billions in the rest of Asia to stay away. Australia has no obligation to be an escape valve for other countries' lack of planning and cultures that promote overpopulation. We do not have "abundant resources" either! Only 6% of Australia's soils are fertile, and our "green" coastlines are already compromised by human developments. We have the highest mammal extinction rate in the world in the last 220 years, an alarming rate that should ring warning bells on our lack of sustainability. Our poor soils and irregular rainfall, and large amounts of arid desert, is contrary to the fertility and natural abundance of humid and tropical Asia! There's nothing "moral" about inheriting the woes of Asia! If disease and famine spreads through another nation, should we also share it due to "moral" pressure? Each nation needs to be responsible ultimately for its own sustainability, and care of its resources. Australia is not a global resource but a sovereign nation. Patriotism is being eroded by political correctness and pressure to internationalize our resources and population.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-26 22:35

Instead of the benefits of multiculturalism to justify ongoing population growth, it is now the alleged "skills shortages" myth to replace it. With our universities being underfunded and relying on foreign students, if there are skills shortages, why aren't they funded more? This scheme assumed that Australia's economy and business sector will keep growing, and outgrow our present supply of employees. It's about sourcing cheaper and willing labour from overseas to by-pass Australians. Multiculturalism has already been achieved in Australia, so it is a "tired" concept. What happens when our resources dry up, as any non-renewable natural resources do? Our population won't be able to be supported. Our governments are back in the 1960s, in an era of potential and "populate or perish". Our government is running an all-consuming Economy, and surrendering to its demands for cheap labour and perpetual growth, instead of running a once proud and sovereign nation of Australia! The facts of global overpopulation, climate change, depleting arable land, food shortages, climate change have not reached through the thick walls of Parliament House?

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2011-05-26 20:57

Hi Richo, Looking at yours and admin's exchange, it seems that Admin is saying that ANZUS is only good for our elites, not for us. Are you saying that it is good for us because it is good for our elites? Or something else? Admin would say, I think, that our elites are bad for us, so we should be highly critical of their agreements, such as ANZUS. What say you? Sheila Newman, population sociologist

Richo (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-26 19:41

I don't disagree with anything you say in the article about the lies told by the US and in a rational world there would be no reason at all for Australia to be fighting wars which concern us not at all. However the bigger picture for this country is that we are incapable of defending ourselves without the ANZUS Treaty and it has been made abundantly clear what we must do for the treaty to continue. As population pressures grow in the nations to our north how moral is it for us to sit here with our paltry 20 plus million population and abundant natural resources and tell the billions in the rest of Asia to stay away. Probably very moral but unfortunately what is right is decided by those that have the power to decide and that is not us. The same flimsy and flawed reasoning that got the US into Iraq and Afghanistan is available to any country. I don't think any rational Australian is of the opinion we are doing good things in Afghanistan but our government must take a much broader view and that is that the ANZUS Treaty has to be retained above all other considerations. Do you know of any other reason we are there? So the unpalatable answer as to "how much" death and destruction we must inflict on the rest of the world is how much the US government tells us. We wish it were otherwise but unfortunately it is not.

dave1 (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-26 16:02

An excellent article that encapsulates what many Australians think is wrong with our current system. As a former contributor to the now defunct PowerUp blog, I've long been an advocate of participatory - rather than representative - democracy. One aspect of CIR's that always concerned me, however, was the undue influence that corporations have on public opinion through the media. Mr Marlowe's article correctly identifies that 'Australia's mainstream media are not independent. They are dominated by Murdoch's News Ltd and Fairfax - a similar oligarchy with allegiances to the two dominant political parties.' Not only are they loyal to the Lib/Lab coalition, they are dependent on advertising - most of which is placed by big business. Given the power of big business to shape public opinion through advertising (look at the job certain WA billionaires did on the proposed Mining Profits Tax) what can be done to ensure that citizens voting on referenda are properly informed? The other potential problem to be confronted with CIR is the question of two separate referenda delivering conflicting results. So for instance, a proposition to significantly reduce tax rates is passed after another proposition for increased spending gets the nod. What to do? I would suggest that any system of CIR would need to include some provision for resolving these kinds of situations - and perhaps the Swiss model offers some clues in this regards. Food for thought.

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2011-05-26 14:03

Kelvin Thomson is spot on when he wrote:

They are not so much interested in the skills of migrants as their potential to provide cheap labour in occupations such as cleaners and taxi drivers and in providing personal services like house cleaning and chauffeuring at cut price rates.

Taxi driving is a particularly miserably paid occupation. The conditions that taxi drivers work in, seven decades after the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission granted Australian workers the 40 hour week in 1948 is a damning indictment of Australian governments, businesses and the media as well as unions who are supposed to have safeguarded the interests of workers.

Who would have imagined, back in 1948, when the 8 hour day and 40 hour week was granted, that 73 years later, in 2011, so many Australians would be forced to work 12 hour days, six or seven days a week, in order to make ends meet?

That anyone, let alone the highly skilled migrants who make up a large proportion of taxi drivers, is prepared to work under such slave-like conditions, shows up for a cynical lie the claim that wages are too high for Australian businesses.

dave1 (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-26 14:00

The fundamental change proposed as part of the CEC's national bank proposal is seigniorage reform. (Link to article and discussion about CEC added by editor) This means changing the rules about how money is created and who profits from its creation. Currently in Australia (and most other Western nations) the vast majority of the money in circulation is created by privately owned banks as interest bearing debt. Numerous studies have linked the interest component of this money to inflation and the impetus for further economic growth. In addition, the appropriation of profit by private interests creating a publicly owned commodity (our national currency) is a modern-day case of the enclosure of the commons. The fact that it goes on is testament to the lack of general awareness of how the system really works. Reforms proposed by James Robertson and Joseph Huber would see this power returned to the people through a central bank. Those interested can download a free copy of their work 'Creating new money' here: www.jamesrobertson.com/book/creatingnewmoney.pdf (378K) With regard to the CEC, I agree that many of their assertions seem rather odd. Personally I'd be more concerned about their notion that the British Royal family is involved in drug dealing and that Prince Charles is a reptilian alien than their technological optimisim. But, as you say, their calls for a national bank are valid, even if they themselves may not fully understand why.

admin

Thu, 2011-05-26 13:00

I remain to be convinced that ordinary Australians have gained any "strategic advantage" from our participation in the immoral and destructive wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. With more wars being waged now in Libya, the rest of the Middle East, and Africa, just how much more death and destruction must Australia help inflict on the rest of the world in order to pay for our ANZUS "insurance policy"? As this article and its extensive sources show, the justification for the Afghan War is a lie. As the movie Fair Game based on the events leading to the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame shows, the justification for the Iraq War of 2003 was no less a lie. In reality, it is not the well-being of ordinary Australians and Americans which is being "insured" by the these wars, but the well-being of the selfish greedy US and Australian elites, who would enslave us no less than the Afghans and Iraqis are now enslaved, if we let them.

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-05-25 19:01

One of the nation's richest businessmen is urging Aussies to "make love tonight and create another baby for Australia". This is exactly the sort of pressure to build our population growth comes from - these wealthy elite who have massive influence on our government. They want the economic benefits of more people and are simply ignoring the big picture. Fox urged governments to build more roads, bridges and railways. "(Inadequate) infrastructure is a big problem," he said. Does he release that it is the tax-payer that must pay these massively costly projects? Already household costs are soaring! Population growth keeps outstripping funds and new infrastructure. Lindsay Fox on population growth We have climate change, declining oil supplies, an energy crisis about to unfold, threats of water and food security, and conflicts due to overpopulation and poverty. Such shallow and reckless policies are being made by those who will benefit from more population growth. Animals are being denied paddocks due to human population pressure. More and more are confined to small cages and sheds, and must undergo mutilations and deprivations to feed and clothe more people. Wildlife are losing habitats, and losing their rights to survival as a species. The greed of human expansion has not limits? We humans must the most selfish and self-centred species ever! Sheep do not belong in sheds, and neither do pigs or hens. People also are being forced to live more in intensive housing. Our evolutionary drive to consume and propagate is still driving us to reproduce and gain, and the herding instinct will also cause our own demise - ultimately!

Wally (not verified)

Wed, 2011-05-25 17:45

King Brown Coal is out of control and the greatest polluter is he, He burns so bright by day and night to make electricity Damn and bugger the planet say the Miners, Damn and bugger the earth say the Unions we want prosperity, You're all dead beat you can't compete with the Hydrocarbon lobby! Mrs King Coal is an ignorant soul and goes along for the Royal spree, I'll be a “ fraccer “ and knacker your akfer and set the methane free, Damn and bugger your farms say the Miners Damn and bugger your food say the Unions I want what's coming to me The Worlds dead beat , you can't compete with polluting prosperity. The little Coals don't go to the polls so they rely on their Mum and Dad, Without credentials in environment essentials, all their decisions are bad., For -----'- sake have a go at renewables , have some guts and do the doables plead the royal progeny, But post Copernican ,obscurantists, sleepwalk to oblivion in ignorant alacrity!

Richo (not verified)

Wed, 2011-05-25 14:10

All good questions as to why the US is in Afghanistan. However I don't think anyone is in any doubt why Australia is there, it is the premium we have to pay on the defence insurance policy we have called the ANZUS Treaty. No nation's foreign policy is based at all on whether actions are right or wrong. The primary consideration is strategic advantage. It is preferable for us to contribute to the debacle in Afghanistan so that some time in the future we are protected against it happenning to us.

For Animals Aus... (not verified)

Wed, 2011-05-25 13:10

Many Australians are aware that sheep in Australia are subjected to the cruelty of live export and mulesing, but few are aware that they have become the latest tragic victims of factory farming. This is about to change. Footage provided by Animals Australia will underpin an exposé on the ultra-fine wool industry to be aired this coming week on 6.30 with George Negus (on Channel 10). Animals Australia has been campaigning against the cruel individual penning of sheep since our 2004 investigation into the 'Wool Factory' in Victoria showed sheep chewing on the wooden slats and strands of wire of their pens due to stress, frustration and boredom. Sadly new footage from the Wool Factory not only confirms that conditions for these animals have not improved, but that a second shed with similar individual pens has been built — doubling the capacity. With increasing numbers of sheep being subjected to the cruelty of factory-farmed wool production it is imperative that this practice is banned. This coming week's 'battery sheep' story on 6.30 with George Negus will show never before released footage. Animals Australia's Executive Director Glenys Oogjes has been interviewed as well as other animal welfare experts. Though we cannot confirm which night the story will run, it could air as early as Monday night. Please watch this important exposé and then visit our website to find out how you can help end this cruel practice. Lyn White Campaign Director

nimby

Tue, 2011-05-24 17:47

The government is under pressure to prove its commitment to scrapping the Growth Areas Authority. Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the priority for the authority was to release 50,000 lots of land this year. The development industry is a very powerful lobby growth, and is dictating public land availability and had the greatest control of the land market. It's all a political ploy to make it seem that government had control over growth, but they don't! Mr Guy last week announced a review into the possible expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. There will never be a "solution" to demand for land while our population continues to increase. Already Victoria has the most land in private hands, and it the most environmentally damaged State. With all the global threats we are encountering, why are we growing our population? What does land get "released" from? Land is not an inexhaustible commodity with no value unless it is developed! It is then denied its ecological life-functions that services that support our lives. Instead of a whopping carbon tax, why aren't we actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We should be planting trees and investing in renewable energy. Instead, we have an economy based on growth, and it continually demands more land, more people and more mega-stores springing up. Our government is running an Economy, a big global corporation instead of actually governing us. The time of growth is over! We should be stabilizing our population and our government should be changing their modus operandi towards a stable economy. The economy should be serving us, and supporting us, not driving us towards unsustainable population numbers and massive costs involved. Obviously, "big Australia" well need nuclear power. A perpetual population growth-based economy is NOT sustainable.

francis (not verified)

Tue, 2011-05-24 11:11

The death toll is unacceptable. They are not fighting for Australia's freedom or against direct threats to our safety. On the contrary, our continued presence in Afghanistan, another sovereign power, could align us with those against the Taliban. The original reason for entering Iraq and Afghanistan was to stop Osama bin Laden. This has been done. It's time to recall our troops. The death toll is tragic and can't be justified.

See also: Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan, Widow tells of her pride in slain commando, hailed by defence as a 'magnificent' soldier, Don't despair about Afghanistan: PM.

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2011-05-23 11:41

Here is the teaser for the article US Military Secures Afghan Opium Harvest of 22 Mar 11 be Elaine Sullivan, currently posted at Rock Creek Free Press's Recent Articles in the Creek page:

The biggest offensive of the Afghanistan War may be one of the biggest lies of the War on Terror. According to the Pentagon, Operation Moshtarak was to be an offensive against Marja — a city of 80,000 people; a city covering more than 80 square miles; a city, according to ABC news, “more heavily populated, urban and dense than other places the Marines have so far been able to clear and hold.” The only problem: There is no city of Marja.

Bandicoot

Sun, 2011-05-22 09:15

Opening session of the 58th General Assembly of the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) John Scanlon, Secretary-General of CITES supports hunting. Contradictorily, in this address, Scanlon says (Saint Petersburg, 12-15 May 2011) that we are fortunate to be in a country with a strong tradition of conservation and management of wildlife. Hunting and conservation are ultimately in collision courses, contrary in aim and purpose. The hunting and conservation communities have long recognized the need to regulate trade in game species in order to maintain viable populations in the wild.. Scanlon is living in a different era, not in the 21st century at a time our wildlife is under extreme threats from many human activities and habitat loss! The aim of CITES is to conserve biodiversity and contribute to its sustainable use, and it does this by ensuring that no species of wild fauna or flora is unsustainably exploited for international trade. Hunting is another (unsustainable) form of animals exploitation. It's not conservation but killing for recreation. It is very disappointing and surprising that he, representing CITES and conservation of species, could give this type of address. How does "hunting" become something to be proud of, or a valid cultural pursuit? Culture is a human construct, not inevitable or necessarily desirable. As such, we don't have to honour it or treasure it and greenwash it as if it were something to do with "conservation". How does killing conserve? It's a contradiction of terms. The anthropocentric idea that species can be protected for our own lethal use - entertainment killing - is a condemnation of his attitude towards non-human species. To label them in a category of "game", and to use wildlife in a "trade" context is obscene and a concept from out dark past that needs to be eradicated. With declining species and habitats to make way for human "carrying capacity", CITES should be about protecting and honouring our planet's biodiversity, and their intrinsic value. These are cruel and harsh attitudes. Animals are not resources but part of our world's fabric, it's ongoing systems and valid and essential life-forms. They are not disposables at human whim!

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2011-05-22 07:27

As many of us feared, it appears that MDBA (version 2011) is about to renege on its statutory responsibility to manage the Murray-Darling in the national interest, and is now merely a mouth-piece for who seek to continue to over-exploit the environment and waters of the river system. Original article may be read at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/key-scientists-cast-doubt-on-murray-water-return-20110520-1ewur.html Comment by 'Fair Water Use Australia | striving for a revived Murray-Darling basin by supporting environmentally sustainable water-use'

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2011-05-20 19:06

Ryan, your approach strikes me as a realistic and fair. What Australians get from their government and the media on population policy is organised disinformation.
Please stay in contact.
I see that you are part of the Zeitgeist movement, which is an interesting one that seems to seek to unite people on a good basis, by first attracting their attention, using very successful modern methods, to a workable theory of dysfunctional social systems. I would be keen to hear if your movement has been infiltrated by the usual gatecrashing groups that bedevil independent Australian political effort. I have cut and pasted some excerpts from Wikipedia on the movement and its fascinating films. The Wikipedia sources are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movieand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_Addendum

Zeitgeist Movement and Films

Click here to find links to the movies at Zeitgeist Movie Com

Zeitgeist: Addendum, is a 2008 documentary film produced and directed by Peter Joseph, and a sequel to the 2007 film Zeitgeist: The Movie.] Zeitgeist: Addendum is itself followed by the 2011 film Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.

Contents

1 Synopsis
2 Critical reception
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Synopsis

The film begins and ends with excerpts from a speech by Jiddu Krishnamurti. The remainder of the film is narrated by Peter Joseph and divided into four parts,[4] each prefaced by an on-screen quotation from a notable scholar: Krishnamurti, John Adams, Bernard Lietaer, and Thomas Paine, respectively.

Part I

Part One states that money is the most corrosive societal tradition and explains that the monetary system and its policies in the United States through the fractional reserve banking system as illustrated in the pamphlet, "Modern Money Mechanics". In clarifying, Part One explains how money creation as an exchange between the government and the central bank (Federal Reserve in the U.S.), creates a perpetual cycle of interest and inflation, summarizing that money and debt are necessarily correlated and increasing.

Part II

Part Two shares an interview with John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, who explains his own role in the facilitatiion of subjugation of Latin American economies by multinational corporations, including the United States government's involvement in the overthrow and installation of various Latin American heads-of-state. Perkins asserts that the there are three steps required to conquer the target nation:

1. Arranging loans that will be impossible to repay,
2. Using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank to force the host nation to renegotiate the debt through agreements that result in currency devaluation, resources being made available at a low cost, selling of public services to foreign corporations, support in foreign conflicts, etc. When these steps fail, the second measure taken is to overthrow the government, through assassinations, staged protests, and bribery. The history of Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, and the Shah in Iran, are used as asserted examples of economic subjugation.
3. As a last resort, the military is sent to topple regimes, and Iraq is shown as one of these cases.

Part III

Part Three introduces Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project, and asserts a need to move away from the current socioeconomic paradigms. Fresco states that free market enterprise and capitalism do not promote efficiency, abundance nor human progress, but rather they instead encourage artifical creation of scarcity to maximize profits, encourage suboptimal technological development in order to maintain cyclical consumption, put the interest of people second to monetary gain, and engage in the production of pollution, as well as other forms of environmental degradation to lower operating costs.

Fresco states that capitalism perpetuates the condiations it claims to address, as problems are only solved if there is money to be made and if more money can be made by propagating the problem rather than solving it, the problem will be propagated.

Part IV

Part Four explores the idea that all major social problems are ultimately the result of wide-scale ignorance concerning the two concepts of emergence and symbiosis—an ignorance maintained by the political, monetary, and religious institutions. This fourth part maintains a cosmopolitan attitude, and states that human societies are part of an interdependent universe. It suggests several means of social change, largely via non-violent boycotting and educating, in order to oppose rigid social institutions.

The film concludes in a sequence depicting actors as members of the fast-paced modern world suddenly stopping in their everyday activities and letting go of various symbolic items of corporate, religious, and materialistic significance.

Critical reception

The New York Times reported that Peter Joseph describes the mission of his movement as "the application of the scientific method for social change”, and that his films Zeitgeist, the Movie (2007) and Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008) have been watched by 50 million people around the world. They also noted that while the former was famous for its alleging that the attacks of September 11 were an inside job, the second film "was all but empty of such conspiratorial notions, directing its rhetoric and high production values toward posing a replacement for the evils of the banking system and a perilous economy of scarcity and debt."

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2011-05-20 18:24

My response to "You people are nutters" is that the problems he sees only apply if you stimulate population growth beyond what the incumbent population wants. People respond to these problems by lowering their fertility, i.e. having smaller families. Our problem of overpopulation is an authoritarian and corporate governance creation. Australian and state governments have forced high immigration on a people who had chosen to reduce their growth and who were probably heading towards stability. The same people also had to be misled into entering debt. Not so long ago Australians dropped their fertility rate and also were not huge consumers or reliant on debt. [Statistically it looked like they had a high living standard due to low inflation because housing, water and other basic resources were easily available in the absence of competition due to a population which remained within carrying capacity. Australians did not have the habit of big houses and multiple cars. They were largely a friendly outdoor people.] Our transformation into a hyper consumer society required dedicated propaganda and social manipulation which has come from commercial and government sources - and the mainstream press is a big part of this. Exposure to US propaganda sources has been a part of this.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-20 17:13

The EPA allowed HRL Dual Gas to go ahead with its dual brown coal and gas demonstration plant at Morwell in the Latrobe Valley, with only one gasifier and turbine to be run on syngas. EPA chief executive John Merritt said the first gasifier and turbine met best practice. The HRL plant at Morwell, in the Latrobe Valley, will use gas from brown coal and natural gas, to produce electricity. Mr Merritt says the new plant will produce 30 per cent fewer carbon emissions than other coal-fired power plants. The second gasifier and turbine, which were planned to be operated on natural gas, were not approved. Environment groups are considering whether to begin legal action to try to stop the plant. Climate Change Minister Mr Combet told a conference in Morwell the government would help carbon-intensive communities make the long-term switch to cleaner and green technology while protecting jobs. As yet, the government has not announced what price carbon will be taxed at and how that tax will be levied. And that has some in the agricultural industry worried. Environment Victoria chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy said the plant would still damage the environment even though only part of it has been given the green light. Environment Victoria would consider legal action against the decision.

Ryan (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-20 01:28

Does anyone know what the actual carrying capacity of the earth is (for humans) if resources are fairly distributed and sustainability methods are employed? I read an article in which this was expressed: In short, it seems prudent to evaluate the problem of sustainability for selfish, myopic people who are poorly organized politically, socially, and economically. But, I don't see how you can separate these. If we are poorly organized socially, politically, and economically, how can you expect to create a population control measure that everyone adopts. This poor organization and myopic orientation is what leads to overpopulation! It makes sense to me to address these underlying issues and the problems overpopulation will become self-evident.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-19 22:53

You people are nutters, our democratic incremental approach to governance is inherently flawed and unsustainable. Give everyone what they want and vote for, whether it be big backyards, big subsidized cars, bigger highways, greater convenience and sooner or later you just reach a point where big backyards for new people are very far away, highways can no longer get any bigger things are no longer convenient no matter how hard you try and those big cars leave your children with asthma.. or worse. Sooner or later someone has to say no, you need to live within reason or the people of the next generation won't live at all. Might be tough for you to deal with but its just the way things are.

nimby

Thu, 2011-05-19 22:29

Australia has the highest rate of mammalian extinctions of any country in the world, thanks to human habitat destruction in our fragile environment. Australia's current population of 22 million will reach 35 million by 2050 if our politicians have their way. Our growth in numbers means the rape of the natural environment through deforestation, burning of non-renewable fossil fuels, methane emissions from domestic ruminants called livestock, and the unquenchable thirst of our modern lifestyles that has resulted in global warming. Our fatalistic adherence to the adoration of growth, assumed to be "good", left uncontrolled, means we could self-destruct. This pyramidal type of growth means our children and grandchildren inherit the Earth that is more and more crowded, and the victims are not only us, but the animals that we share it with. Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, direly predicted "homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years," Britain's Daily Mail reported in June last year. Modern humans have multiplied their numbers to plague like proportions, caused the extinction of 500 species of animals, ransacked the planet for fuels. Over half of the mammal extinctions in the past two centuries have occurred in Australia, and some kangaroo species could be next on this country's list. In the relentless search for more food, we have reduced animal life in lakes, rivers and now, increasingly, the open ocean. Some prominent economists have argued that there is no upper limit to human population growth, that finiteness in resources is meaningless, and that prosperity can be had by all. Eventually, they say, "market forces" will determine how big the population gets. The "short" in short-term is getting shorter, and instant gratification is the rule of the day. Humans considered little more than economic units devalues our own existence. With the possible exception of the rat, humans are now the most numerous mammal on earth! Something like this has never happened in the nearly 600 million year history of life on our planet. The population of a large animal has never before reached such dominance in the ecosystem. People lament a future in which their grandchildren will be denied seeing whales or koalas in the wild, but surely the significance of their existence is more profound than being seen and enjoyed by humans? The quest for elusive wealth, and the desire to get is faster, will mean not only will non-human creatures disappear, but eventually our own source of life - our own planet at our present rates of human growth!

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-05-18 20:59

[Ed. Also, only two submissions received yet. People need to make many more!] Interim report Inquiry into the state government insurance and the flood levy 20 April 2011 Senator the Hon John Hogg President of the Senate Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Mr President Pursuant to Senate Standing Order 38(7), I present to you an interim report of the economics References Committee in relation to the Committee’s inquiry into state government insurance and the flood levy. The reference was referred to the committee on 3 March 2011 for report by 2 May 2011. The committee was directed to examine: • the provisions of the flood levy bills; • current insurance and reinsurance arrangements of the states and territories of their assets and infrastructure; and • the appropriateness of fiscal arrangements for natural disaster reconstruction efforts. As directed by the Senate, the committee has written to the Queensland Government requesting any documentation it has relating to arrangements it may have made to insure or reinsure state assets. The committee has not as yet received a response from the Queensland government. The committee has also written to the insurance company AON Benfield requesting any information it may have on offers or proposals of insurance or reinsurance for Queensland's state assets. It is awaiting a response from the company. To date, the committee has only received two submissions, from the Commonwealth Grants Commission and a Melbourne-based academic. The committee has been directed by the Senate to holding public hearings in Queensland. In addition to a planned Brisbane hearing, the committee intends to hold a public hearing in Canberra to hear from Treasury, the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Insurance Council of Australia, among others. Accordingly, the committee requests an extension of time to report until 30 June 2011. It is crucial that the committee receives and analyses documentation from the Queensland Government and other parties on the state government's arrangements or offers to insure state assets. Senator Alan Eggleston Chair

quark

Wed, 2011-05-18 13:06

Kelvin Thomson is a politician. His 14 point plan to stabilize Australia's population at 26 million by mid century allows for immigration rates that Australia has in fact experienced in recent years. He is not suggesting a plan that involves an enormous diversion into the unknown yet his very moderate plan brings us to a very different situation mid century from the trajectory we are now on. Kelvin Thomson's stand on population puts him at odds with others in his party. I don't hear any of his parliamentary colleagues supporting him and I would bet this is not because he does not go far enough! Of course Kelvin Thomson is a hero! Unfortunately his plan since it was not implemented at the time - about one year and a half ago would, if implemented now bring us to a higher mid century population than it was aiming for but it would still be vastly better than where we are in fact headed. In "the best of all possible worlds" Australia would not increase its population at all since we are already living at the expense of our environment. We are now living in environmental deficit. Much as some say, "it is not the number of people but the way we live..", I don't see any improvement in the "how" and I see a constant increase in the "how many" so our environment is in the process of further decline. A politician works within what is do-able and the rest of us need to articulate what is needed. Of course we urgently need zero net migration.

nimby (not verified)

Wed, 2011-05-18 12:42

Kelvin Thomson is striking a compromise. To head for a slow decline in population numbers - as would happen without immigration due to our fertility at 1.9 - would be too much of a "shock" to our economic system that relies on constant population growth. It would be unacceptable politically. However, most of our immigration is due to economic immigration - students, skills "shortages" and family re unions. Less than 2% is from refugees, according to Amnesty. They are being used as a smoke-screen to hide the real immigration numbers, and consume the debates. Eventually we need to stabilize our population but there has to be some sliding into it, and Kelvin Thomson does not want to commit political suicide and isolate himself entirely from Labor policies. He's still a hero, and doing what politicians are paid to do ie. represent the interests of the voters!

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:45

I forgot to say above that I think that 50,000 for family reunion is too high. Family reunion is a problem child of the ALP, which used it for moral one upsmanship on the Libs years ago and now wears it on its back like an albatross. Family reunion has a track record of runaway growth, known as 'chain migration', where I import my wife, she imports her relatives, they import theirs etc. Australia's 'balance of family policy' mitigated this somewhat in earlier days but I am not sure what the policy is now. In addition to the above, the fact that temporary immigrants and overseas nationals can purchase Australian land, buildings and businesses with almost no restrictions is a recipe for disaster and the disaster has been served up to us annually in unaffordable and small business wrecking land prices for housing and rents for homes and business premises and in many other structural problems - such as no room for locals at universities - now for years. However the biggest problem of all is that Australians are being treated like a colony by big business and we really have no democracy. Tony Bourke's and John Howard's immigration policies show that our governments and big business simply do not consider Australia to be a nation with electors who have real democratic rights. They do not care that the cost of living is driven up by their way of making profits (land price inflation and rents on everything including road travel) and that the price of labour is driven down by the mass import of workers in conjunction with the loss of our Federation constitutional agreement to protect wages and conditions. If we keep on this way our freedom is simply doomed. It is a tragedy that in the recent inquiry into Human Rights the so-called 'Australian treasure' Father Brennan looked to international rights of an airy fairy nature and did nothing to shore up the rapid erosion of legally undefensible rights to shelter, work, and land in Australia. We really need a code of laws to detail citizens' rights as they have throughout Western Europe - a legacy of Napoleon. Few people in the Westminster system realise that Napoleon was actually very inspired (and used excellent legal assistants) in adapting the 1789 human rights to real rights for citizens in France and within the entire Napoleonic Empire. None of those codes he instituted has ever been overturned and all the germanic and scandinavian countries later adopted them, even though they had not been part of the Napoleonic conquest. Australians should get their own Civil code based on those that Europe has.

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:33

A new survey finds 52 per cent of Melbourne city's residents oppose having more people in their suburb, and only 11 per cent favour it. Melbournians say live and let live - as long as it is somewhere else A Nielsen survey for the Productivity Commission has found a clear majority oppose residential redevelopment in their suburb. Obviously what economist see as "productivity" and progress is not what the residents have in mind! A big unmet demand for housing in Melbourne is from people wanting to live in inner and middle suburbs. But resident opposition has blocked many redevelopment plans to house them. There are too many NIMBYS! 86 per cent fear more developments and people in their suburbs would lead to increased traffic congestion, 56 per cent to increased noise, 48 per cent fear loss of street appeal, 37 per cent more crowded public transport, 35 per cent shadows from tall buildings, and 27 per cent fear it would lower their property's value. They are quite right! The 11% of those who favour more people in their suburbs are probably the property developers, those allied to the building industry, have vested interests in banking or mortgages, real estate, or have big business interests in expansion. What other reasons could there be? We could relinquish our lifestyles forever for the benefit of economic growth, or hold onto our houses and stop our suburbs being resources for the growth-pushing lobby. It's assumed that because population growth fueled our economic growth after world war 2, that this phenomenon can be perpetual and ongoing. The "cup" will never be filled, and we can promote limitless growth through ongoing immigration. It's naive and shallow thinking. it's assumed that like mindless bacteria in a petri dish, we can keep growing our cities and population forever, and Nature and society will just keep accommodating - for benefit of a few! Population growth keeps outstripping land, natural resources, our fragile food and water supply, our State and Federal funding, and our hip-pockets' ability to pay for all the infrastructure demands of growth. On a finite planet and a land with limited fertile soils, irregular water, vulnerable to fires, droughts and floods, it should be obvious that there are limits to growth. Switzerland is one of the world's richest nations and has a diminishing population and only 8.8 million people. They treasure their intangible assets. Why are we in Australia hell-bent on population growth? it's time to break the cycle of addiction to population growth as our economic driver. We need a new model based on sustainable principles. It's simply fatalistic and will eventually limit humanity's survival in Australia's harsh and irregular conditions - even without the overlay of climate change! It's due to an absence of a real and innovative economy. The Stable Population Party of Australia should poll well in the next elections. Instead of NIMBYs being the problem, they are the people who will protect our city's well-being and should be listened to. Bring on more NIMBYs before we all lose our backyards forever!

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:21

As far as I know, SPA still promotes zero net immigration as an ideal, pointing out that this still allows quite large numbers to exit and enter, for, if 100,000 people leave the country permanently, zero net would mean that 100,000 could come in with the intention of staying permanently.

I don't think that it has ever 'attacked' refugees. It has suggested that Australia's intake of refugees could be increased and the other sources of immigration - family, skills, business - could be vastly reduced - and still come out at zero net.

Immigration averaged out from around the 1960s (to my recollection) came to 80,000 or so net until the huge jumps caused by the Howard government's policies. Labor was always trying to push the numbers up too. So, 70,000 net would be a reduction on that earlier high average.

Kelvin Thomson's suggested 70,000 would also be a huge reduction on the organised invasion of business, skills, students and family reunion immigrants that the government is currently conducting against its own people, which it leaves with poor education, lousy job opportunities, no homes, and a social security system that makes poor people use up their limited savings and sell off their homes.

70,000 allows the population to grow some more to about 26m as I recollect, which is, I agree, too much. For safety's sake we should stop growth as soon as possible, since we have already overshot our resources and the inertia of embodied population growth will carry our numbers up anyway. There is, however, a rational basis for the 70,000 number which entails reaching and staying at 26,000,000, whether you agree with them or not. I cite them from Kelvin Thomson's 14 point plan for population reform at this source: "Kelvin Thomson unveils population reform plan at Royal Park Protection Group AGM"

"To bring the train back under control we need to return to a net overseas migration number more in keeping with previous practice. Net overseas migration in 2007-08 was 213,461. I believe this should be reduced to 70,000. If we cut net overseas migration to 70,000, and the fertility rate was maintained at 1.8, according to Professor Bob Birrell, of Monash University’s Centre for Urban and Social Research, the population would reach 26 million by the year 2050 and stabilize at about this level for the rest of the century.
The age profile of the population would also remain relatively constant."

Kelvin Thomson does really seem to be a hero though, because, if you compare his party's policies, which are abjectly compliant with the wishes of a corrupt land-development and banking sector that is driving up the cost of living and doing business in this country beyond what the average person can bear, then he is showing immense bravery and a respect for democracy, human kind, nature and science which appears to be absent among the rest of Labor and Liberal and the Greens politicians.

You surely would admit that Julia Gillard would do far better to throw out Tony Burke's shameful effort on a sustainable population strategy and switch Australia onto Kelvin's 14 point policy?

I hope that someone from SPA will answer your comment as well as me.

Dave Zero (not verified)

Tue, 2011-05-17 12:48

Am I losing my memory? Ten or 15 years ago AESP used to promote zero-net immigration. AESP used to attack refugees, arguing that $100 spend overseas went much further than $100 spent here on a few lucky (manipulative) few. AESP used to ridicule the media disaster-pornography pointing out that the human plague is occupying every square maeter of the planet and so, when natural events (aka natural disasters) happen, of course the human plague suffers. D'oh. Now Kelvin Thompson calls for a permanent intake of 70-thousand, and an ever increasing refugee and cruise ship intake. And everyone call him a hero. Please explain?

francis (not verified)

Tue, 2011-05-17 12:25

How is it that Kelvin Thomson is the only politician with courage enough to say the obvious - that a population strategy without a target is no strategy at all. "Sustainable" population minister has done nothing to make any strategy - except to distribute more growth - or make it sustainable - as his delegated ministerial role. He failed to make a policy that limits growth and cap our population because it would limit the Government's ability to use the migration program to deal with skills gaps and labour shortages. If there are skills gaps, why are our universities and TAFEs so heavily outsourced and reliant on foreign students? If there are skills gaps, we need to invest in our human resources and direct students and graduates to where the shortages are. How many unemployed would like to be employed but can't find suitable positions? Bypassing Australians to add more people to regional areas by using immigration is a betrayal. Why is our government pimping to those overseas? They are elected to represent the people of Australia. How many regional areas are closely-knit communities. It's hard to be accepted even for Australians, but for people from other cultures and ethnic groups to be integrated and accepted, there could be a lot of disharmony. Economic needs may be quite contrary to human needs and environmental capacity. People are more than economic units - they need food, water, affordable housing, social networking, security, ability to support their families and all the health and educational services. Politicians are paid well to make balanced and holistic decisions, not narrow and shallow ones based one aspect of existence - ie economics. Kelvin Thomson has stuck his neck out to actually represent the interests of Australians - something needed but lacking today is patriotism.

nimby

Mon, 2011-05-16 10:03

News from TLC - "We have more positive news to share in our campaign to PROTECT SERENDIP SANCTUARY from inappropriate development. "Our local M.P for Lara,John Eren has called in Amendment C73 to overturn Geelong Council's recent back flip and shameful decision to approve this development! "We have a revised and updated a letter of objection to the Minister of Planning containing the correct terminology .(yes we have had to be educated now we are at State level) We have also created a new Petition online. Please sign the petition

Dave Hughes (not verified)

Sun, 2011-05-15 21:08

I believe that the Scanlon Family has a major shareholding interest in Qube Logistics. Qube is the listed company hiding Chris Corrigan's return to the waterfront. Qube owns shares in AAT, and controlling shares in P&O Automotive. Qube therefore handles the majority of car imports through all Australian ports. About 900,000 cars are imported each year with some minor effect on traffic congestion, carbon emissions, and on Australia's balance of payments. And perhaps fatal effects on Australian local manufacturing. It strikes me as very crude and 19th Century tycoon capitalist, if Peter Scanlon wants a bigger population just so he can sell them more imported cars. Don't think he owns a helicopter, so he and his family must sit in traffic jams like the rest of us. I suspect the Scanlon interests in Qube are either or both held by Patterson Cheney PL 7.8%, or Taverners No 10 PL 15.6%. Disclosure I have had casual wharfie work mooring Whilhelmsen car ships, ships that are unloaded by P&O Auto. I belong to the MUA.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2011-05-15 18:33

Digging up uranium for export is not all the harm that Australia's cash economy managers intend to cause. Tony Burke's big Australia will be relying on nuclear power. Read between the lines in his Sustainable Population Strategy. The total lack of detail as to how we will manage more overpopulation is an avoidance of the explicit. Have a look at http://candobetter.net/node/1571 or read the Scanlon Foundation's Report from ATSE. It is clear that we are being herded towards nuclear power simply by having a huge population forced on us.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2011-05-15 17:52

Australia's uranium production is set to double over the next four years, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said. He won't let disasters get in the way of economic benefits, even in the assessment in the wake of Japan's nuclear crisis. We are already the world's third-largest uranium producer, with nearly half of the world's low-cost uranium reserves. with lessons from Japan's disasters would come more robust systems, not the end of uranium power. Last week the government announced it would open parts of the remote South Australian desert site of Woomera military installations to mining, It means adding Aus$35 billion (US$37.5 billion) in mineral wealth to Australia's coffers. Tragically Japan will start culling thousands of livestock abandoned inside the 20-kilometre evacuation zone around the earthquake and tsunami-damaged Fukushima nuclear plant. As always, animals bear the brunt of human activities. Inside the evacuation zone farmers have "no choice" but to abandon their pigs, chickens, beef cattle and dairy cows when they were ordered out by the government. They are considered to not have intrinsic value, but economic value as contaminated goods! A male worker in his 60s was confirmed dead after he was rushed to hospital after falling unconscious at the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) spokesman said. He said 0.17 millisievert of radiation was detected at the work place, far below the company's safety threshold of 5 millisieverts. He was was carrying chainsaws with another worker inside a facility to treat contaminated water being released from the plant's crippled reactors. A russian publication “Chernobyl” calculates nearly a million excess deaths occurred to 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination. For years, Helen Caldicott warned it’s coming. In her 1978 book, “Nuclear Madness,” she said: “As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced.” Over 30 years ago, she explained that contrary to government and industry propaganda, even during normal operations, nuclear power generation causes significant discharges of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. (Isn't nuclear power supposed to "solve" the issue of greenhouse gas emissions?) Scientists said that even though the reactor had stopped producing energy, its fuel continues to generate heat and needs steady levels of coolant to prevent it from overheating and triggering a dangerous cascade of events. The U.S. could be effected next by airborne fallout of radiation particles, the magnitude of which is yet to be determined.

Millicent (not verified)

Sun, 2011-05-15 13:17

The economy, our ideologies, our desires, our wants and needs are all a subset of the environment, not the contrary. Our existence and survival depends purely on finite natural resources. The problem is that we humans do not grasp the power of exponential growth,. This generation's desires mean that future generations will be denied a lifestyle and comforts that we are demanding. The world is not growing, but humans want to grow their population size - for the "economy"?. It's an evolutionary trait that all animals have, the instinct to consume, grow and be successful, even if it means denying other species the right to exist. Wildlife are declining in numbers to ensure human "carrying capacity". We don't have to be victims of our own short-sightedness and greed, or our fecundity. As humans we should have the moral and ethical capacity to control our wants and desires and consider a holistic strategy that incorporates the welfare of ourselves, our environment, the rest of our community, other indigenous species and future generations who should inherit a planet intact. Population expansion used to be based on colonial conquests and the plundering other cities and towns and territories by the invading forces. Now, there are not new lands to conquer. It's not territories that we are basing our nation's power, wealth and success on, but sheer human numbers and the size of our economy! Such internal growth, without further land size, surely means we are vulnerable to eventual implosion? Humans have been on the planet for 200,000 years, but the way we are heading, we won't be here even in the next 100! It's all about greed and me-ism.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2011-05-15 09:36

Placing the Economy and its needs ahead of the needs of the people, the citizens of Australia, is an abandonment of duty of care. People are more than economic units to be collected for economic growth. Human societies have many dimensions, and by only considering the economy, Tony Burke has shown himself to be inadequate for the job. Multiculturalism has been used in the past to support ongoing immigration. Australia is already represented by many nationalities, so this ideology is already "tired". The big "skills shortage" and employment gaps ignores that we already have many unemployed that need to be included into the workforce. If we have "skills shortages" why are are universities and TAFEs focusing on foreign students instead of skilling our nation? The shortage of skills is being touted now to support more immigration. It's still full-steam ahead for a "big Australia". Kelvin Thomson is right. The strategy ignores the massive costs of infrastructure needed for our cities, and the regional areas that will also need theirs boosting. Humans don't live in a vacuum of needs! Tony Burke's population strategy has actually revealed who is running this country - big corporations and multi-national businesses! The welfare of voters, their needs now and in the future, are being sacrificed for the big end of town - those with mega-dollars.

quark

Sat, 2011-05-14 22:04

Our future in Australia is being stolen from us every day by the process of which population growth is integral. Today, amongst a group who I met with, we were unanimously disgusted with the "Sustainable Population Strategy" . We all saw it as a way to give maximum flexibility for government to respond to business needs whether they be the need for people to buy houses , the need for labour or simply the need for a growing customer base. The catch cry is "skills" but it could be something else- "ageing" or as they used to ingenuously say "Without immigration our population would be in decline" (untrue of course as Australia's births are approximately twice deaths ) Whatever the public will believe! It all raises the question of who runs Australia? A new state government can be elected and negate a law mandating the local councils to accommodate population growth, but the councils continue with business as usual because the paid employees of the council are in a particular groove. The last people who seem to matter are the residents of the area. Whenever the newspapers conduct polls on population the overwhelming majority express the view that growth is too fast. But our concerns and wishes go unheard or unheeded- by all levels of government.

Bandicoot

Sat, 2011-05-14 18:02

The Titanic is a very apt analogy of our part - Australia - on this small blue planet Earth. It's a closed system with finite resources. A ship's captain is responsible for the welfare of the crew and passengers, and its cargo. To recklessly speed ahead and take more passengers and cram them in because it's "good for the economy" is surely irresponsible and reckless at its worst! Shipping profits keep the system and services running, but if risks are accepted to increase profits, not only will the business eventually collapse due to lack of public confidence, but the process could be lethal! The Titanic sunk due to pressure to compete for speed. The Titanic was carrying over it's carrying capacity in relation not to space available, but to it's life support systems being inadequate. (life boats) We are considered largely unpopulated compared to the size of our continent. However, it's not the size of our land that determines how many people it can support, but the life support systems being adequate and intact! Modern humans have been on this planet 200,000 years, and we should be ensured of safety for the next 200,000 years at least. However, the voyage will be shortened unless we have a safe and secure system with safely checks well instituted. A reckless ship's captain is a liability and should be dismissed!

Fan-of-Kelvin-T... (not verified)

Sat, 2011-05-14 17:48

POPULATION STRATEGY – A MISSED OPPORTUNITY (Original statement here: http://kelvinthomson.blogspot.com/2011/05/population-strategy-missed-opportunity.html The Government’s population strategy represents a missed opportunity to put Australia’s population on a sustainable basis and curb our rapid population growth. The failure to set targets means we are still on our way to Big Australia, with net overseas migration tracking at 180,000 per annum, the number Treasury says will see Australia’s population rise to 36 million by 2050. I remain concerned that the present rate of population growth – a 60% increase in our population over the next 40 years – will put upward pressure on the cost of housing, electricity, water, food, council rates, and upward pressure on interest rates. The impact of a 60% increase in Australia’s population on our native wildlife will be catastrophic. Then there is the issue of carbon emissions. The government has promised to cut carbon emissions by 60% over the next 40 years. How are we supposed to cut emissions by 60% if our population is rising by 60% at the same time? It’s pretty hard to reduce your carbon footprint when your keep adding more feet. I am pleased that the strategy acknowledges the challenges faced by our major cities, such as declining housing affordability and increasing traffic congestion. I hope that all levels of government – federal, state and local – and all political parties – Labor, Liberal and Greens – will acknowledge the reality of life for people living in the big cities, and abandon plans to grow these cities still bigger. If all levels of government now work together to stabilise the populations of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, this strategy will have achieved something worthwhile. But I continue to be convinced that another 13 million people will not give us a richer country, it will spread our mineral wealth more thinly and give us a poorer one. Our aim to lift the participation rate and find work for people who are presently on Job Search Allowance or Disability Support Payments would be much more easily realised if we reduced skilled migration to the level of the mid 90s to give us a net overseas migration level of 70,000. KELVIN THOMSON, MP Member for Wills 13/5/2011

nimby

Sat, 2011-05-14 08:34

[Editor's Note: republished as article here: http://candobetter.net/comment/edit/6363] Media release from Sustainable Population Australia: Government’s population policy: Shifting deck-chairs on the Titanic. The results of the Government’s consultation on a population strategy for Australia show that the process was only ever for show, says environment group, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA). SPA’s President, Sandra Kanck, says that the outcome is what Minister Burke started off saying, which was that the solution to our population problem was to move people around the countryside. “This is nothing short of the deck-chairs on the Titanic solution: put them in clusters on one part of the deck or spread them evenly, the Titanic will still sink. “There seems to be little understanding that every new person arriving on this continent either as a migrant or a newborn will ultimately be demanding the same standard of living as the rest of us. “Just like other Australians they will need water, food, petrol for their cars, hospitals for their health needs, and more power stations, and each of them will be responsible for the release of still more greenhouse gases, regardless of whether they live in the city or the country. “This is a huge disappointment – despite the large numbers of submissions to the inquiry which recognised the environmental implications of continued population growth, the Government has ignored them. “This government has demonstrated that (a) it has no understanding of the environment and (b) it remains captive to the development lobby,” said Ms Kanck. ps: our government's purse strings are clearly held by big business interests, and not by public interests, democratic processes or the welfare of people now and in the future. There is no recognition of any environmental or sustainability issues. It's purely myopic policy by political leaders who fail to have vision beyond the next elections.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-13 18:57

Julia Gillard's new population strategy makes it clear the needs of the economy are more important than her "sustainable Australia" mantra, demographer Bob Birrell said.

Dr Birrell said Population Minister Tony Burke's report had failed to analyse Australia's current population impacts. The strategy fails to mention a population target, and also makes no attempt to predict how Australia's major cities will grow and cope over coming decades. It makes no mention of our welfare, our environment, our food security or the fact that Gillard previously rejected Kevin Rudd's "big Australia" gaffe.

As for climate change, it's thumb-up to the rest of the world trying to reduce their emissions! It's basically a form of discrimination - that we in Australia will continue to GROW and other countries can worry about the impacts!

Our Federal government has become the mouthpiece for a consuming growing monster called "The Economy"! It doesn't matter that the world is running short of oil and energy and that climate change will have severe impacts. Increasing our population to please the Economy is shallow and one-dimensional policy. At least it is an admission that businesses and their interests are running our government!

Businesses want new mega-stores and housing estates to keep popping up, and they are running this government's purse strings.

Vernon Terrill (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-13 16:29

This year Penguin(Australia) published The CSIRO and Baker IDI Diabetes Diet and Lifestyle Plan. The Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute is a very respected body and the book is likely to become a standard text for diabetics. The advice on diet is provided by Manny Noakes and Peter Clifton, authors of The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet, which drew much criticism for providing advice on diet with the support of meat and dairy interests. With such a team it is hardly surprising that the book on diabetes does not even mention the vegetarian option, let alone advocate it.

Anyone wishing to make the case for a vegetarian diet for diabetics can start by logging onto the Pubmed search engine at www.pubmed.gov and searching for diabetes vegetarian, then clicking on such titles as are in language they can understand. They might go a step further with a search for Momordica charantia diabetes. I majored in biochemistry for my science degree and I'm not as readily daunted and confused by the technical terms as many people would be.

kirupfarmer64 (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-13 10:40

Subject was: Dear scott So much 4 free

Dear scott

So much 4 free speech huh? Anyways i am a farmer. I see the damage. I am the one who loses money every year. Dont like it? Dont eat! Enough said.

Editorial comment: Anyone with past experience of candobetter would know the implied accusation that candobetter does not allow free speech is ridiculous. As said below, we welcome any contribution which adds to the debate. In particular, we welcome contributions of views which are critical of our own. In my experience of debating on the Internet, candobetter is a web-site which allows at least as much to be published on its site as any other web-site I can think of.

On very rare occasions, when a submitted post is disruptive to other users and adds nothing to the discussion, will we will consider deleting that post. On one recent occasion, I removed text from a post. For the information of others, here are the deleted words:

... So you might have a comfy office job or retired and think culling kangeroos is cruel and "evil" but just remember who is feeding your lazy asses! This isnt a justification.... its the way it is and how its been for generations so get over it nothings gonna change because you blog on this website!

I will leave it to others to form their own judgement as to whether or not the post or the quality of debate were improved by the removal of those words. In my view they were.

Menkit Prince

Thu, 2011-05-12 22:41

Nice Article, Vivienne. However do you really think nicole pain cares what we think? I spent an hour one day trying to talk to this creature and I came to the conclusion she is a robot, not even a human. Nothing I said went in. She was in total denial and kept chanting her mantras about everything being 'sustainable, humane, harvest, conservation' blah blah blah. She has no soul. Writing to her is a total waste of time, in my opinion. She couldn't give a fig about kangaroos, or people's suffering. No way is she going to cancel out the FATE program for us! Better to write a letter to the editor exposing her for the heartless fraud she is. menkit "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin

Scott

Thu, 2011-05-12 22:35

It goes without saying that some farmers will blame kangaroos when times are tough but nature does have a way of reducing the pain when it comes to the bottom line of those who live off the land. In the case of the southwest region of WA the crippling drought we are currently experiencing has resulted in the kangaroo population being reduced by nearly 50% in only 12 months - these are DEC figures, not mine. If I wanted to know how much a cow eats in one night I would ask a farmer. If I wanted to know how much a kangaroo eats in one night I would ask a macropod expert - at the very least I would ask somebody who at least knew how to spell the word kangaroo. Somehow I suspect you are none of the above.

nimby (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-12 19:25

Kangaroos don't thrive on crops. They do on native grasses. A drought would be an exception. They might then eat some crops. However, two kangaroos do not eat as much grass as a cow! It would more likely be 10 kangaroos! Cows are not ecologically justified. These hard-hoofed animals are an environmental disaster. The science is already very robust about the damage cattle do on grasses, wetlands, soils and cause pollution to waterways, and not to mention the greenhouse gas emissions. The real environmental pests are people - and their livestock! As for money, it's filthy lucre! The vile livestock industry has done untold damage to Australia and is eating away our future!

roohunter666 (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-12 17:23

Subject was: get over it!

Boo hoo get ova it hippies!

Editorial comment: In general, we welcome the posting of all viewpoints in regard to material published on candobetter.net, including critical viewpoints, that is, provided they add to the discussion. However, I see no reason why we should allow the time of site visitors to be wasted with posts, which add nothing to the discussion, such as this post. In future, please expect such posts to be deleted.

kirupfarmer64 (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-12 10:06

Subject was: an attempt?

Obviously your income doesnt come from farming? 2 western greys eat as much as 1 cow a night! and in farming terms that can equal big losses. As you know we have had a very dry past few years and farmers cannot afford to be feeding kangeroos. Kangeroos destroy massive crops including grain and produce Not to mention the massive costs to repair fences due to kangeroo damage. ... Editorial Comment: Abusive words, which follow, and which add nothing to the debate, have been omitted.

Geoffrey Taylor

Thu, 2011-05-12 09:07

Those we should thank the most for preventing yet more and more terrible terrorist attacks by 'islamist extremists' are not the people who have waged the "War on Terror" since at least 2001, but the people who have shown up the official accounts by the US, UK, Australian and other allied Governments of the 'false flag' terrorist attacks of September 11, July 7, the London Tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings the Bali bombings and others, for the frauds that they are. Who knows what other crimes may have been committed by the authors of these atrocities and also blamed on the mythical al Qaeda if at least the more critical-minded and informed members of of the global community had not be made aware of the gaping holes in their stories? (Note: beware of 911blogger.com. There have been ad-hominem attacks, with the apparent collusion of, and encouragement by, that site's moderators, upon Malthusian commentator Barry Zwicker, who narrated "The End of Suburbia")

Chris (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-12 07:12

It is not the size of Melbourne that concerns the growth boosters. The percentage growth per annum is all the care about, and they want this maintained forever. But simple logic says that this has to stop. All population growth will stop. The author says: "when they well know that Australia, as a nation of 22 million almost the geographic size of the United States, can accommodate many millions more without trashing living standards." Maybe, maybe not (well probably not). But what happens when these many extra millions are added? And it won't take long at 1.5-2% growth rate. What happens when we reach 35 or 50 million? Of course these growth boosters will then be cheering us on towards 100 million (and if we ever reach that then towards 200 million, and so on). Of course he reveals his true colors when he writes: "Indeed, population growth has underwritten our prosperity" Yes the percentage growth, not the absolute numbers. But the growth will end. Inevitably. Anyone who isn't a brainwashed growth booster can see that. Knowing that the end of growth is inevitable we can prepare for it now on our own terms, or continue as we are and have it thrust upon us. And as a distraction he adds: "There is a compelling humanitarian case, too, for good global citizens to share their abundance." The number of poor immigrants allowed into Australia is very limited. Almost all are comfortably middle or upper class.

nimby

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:05

James Packer is wrong to imagine that "beaches and kangaroos are completely passé", and that tourists should be drawn to our cities instead. Australia's outback and eastern coastal areas have been largely cleared of our famous and iconic animals such as kangaroos, emus, cassowaries and koalas. Our mammal extinction rate, according to the WWF, is the highest in the world in the last 220 years since European settlement. Australia's slow-evolving native animals have little chance against the powers of urban sprawl, commercial kangaroo "harvesting", land-clearing and logging regimes. They also have the challenges of Australia's floods, fires and droughts. There are already major cities in the world more alluring than those in Australia. The real problem is that we are failing to support Australia's natural heritage, rugged beauty and unique potential. Governments prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term conservation and dubious wildlife "management" practices, pushing us towards being a generic nation. What would they come to Australia to see? Our Multicultural and "diverse" cities could be seen anywhere else in the world. The concept is self-deflating as it assumes that we in Australia have nothing unique to offer culturally. It's only our wildlife, or biodiversity, our wide open plains, our bushland, our massive coastlines and diversity and richness of ecosystems that makes Australia the jewel of a country that is worth celebrating.

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2011-05-11 08:00

The farmers who regularly shoot kangaroo should think again! They may not be "sadists" in that they actually enjoy this activity, but they are still deeply entrenched in political-historical-colonial attitudes. Just like land-clearing and native animal bounty hunters in colonial times, killing kangaroos because they are still deemed as "pests" is a maligned attitude still around. Fixing fences is part of farm life, and it is shown that kangaroos don't thrive on crops. When Captain Cook landed in Australia, a carpet of native grasses and colourful flowering plants covered much of south-eastern Australia, from south-eastern Queensland, eastern New South Wales, Victoria, and into South Australia and Tasmania. Today less than 1% of the native grasslands survive and are now considered one of the most threatened Australian habitats. Grazing by domestic livestock has greatly degraded many Australian ecosystems and its legacy will be long-lasting in many areas. Kangaroos are natural grassland managers! The big problem is not kangaroos but the environmental devastation cause by livestock!

Katie G (not verified)

Tue, 2011-05-10 17:58

Sorry everyone who loves wild life - but in case you didn't know- kangaroos are just "tired clichés" now - according to James Packer and Barry O'Farrell (NSW premier) http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=609903&vId No, tourists have grown out of all that and want much more it seems-more of what they could probably get at home! Better tell God because he needs to cease production if kangaroos are no longer needed. The outback is also a cliché so I guess we can get rid of that too- I suppose it could quite happily just sink into the sea. What is really exciting and what Australia has to sell to tourists, according to these 2 is somethng far more sophisticated-Cabramatta. It's multicultural!! get with it! You'd never see it anywhere else. Can't you just see them flocking to Cabramatta from Singapore and eschewing the kangaroos. They could even buy some really good Chinese food in Cabramatta- as good as that they can buy at home. It would be akin to Australians being able to buy a MacDonald's hamburger where ever they go. So, .......sorry hand reared joeys you're out of fashion. It has been decreed. I wonder if Nicole Payne sleeps well at nght.

Anonymous1234567 (not verified)

Tue, 2011-05-10 16:05

Subject was: sadists?

Who said the people who shot that kangeroo where sadists? Farmers in the southwest veiw kangeroos as pests and shoot them regulaurly! Its a job! It doesnt meen that they are sadists....

Bandicoot

Tue, 2011-05-10 09:53

If we have a $16 billion collapse in revenue, how will flooding regional areas with 16 thousand more so-called "skilled" migrants help? Population growth doesn't pay for itself! It means that the public purse will have to be raided further to pay for the infrastructure demanded by these regional areas, already facing high unemployment! According to The Australian, Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald said this boost would "not do a great deal" for skills shortage because intake numbers included family and children as well as the workers. Peter McDonald's recent work has focused on theory relating to low fertility, the implications of low fertility for population futures and upon related policy options. He is presently working on methods to evaluate the effectiveness of pronatalist policies and upon more precise measurement of cross-sectional fertility trends. Economics and demographics as academic studies can deal with ideologies and infinite quantities, and be divorced from reality. Doctors, nurses and automotive apprentices from a number of countries had been recruited. Ironically, with so many international students coming here to study, presumably for our first-class educational facilities, why do we have shortages of such basic skills? It's almost impossible to gain apprenticeships here, due to the small numbers available. Our human resource is our own population, not foreigners from (no doubt) third-world countries! It's about driving down wages and working conditions. Mining companies should be offering scholarships, studentships, traineeships and apprenticeships to gain skilled workers, not by-passing Australian citizens. We can't control where people live, and most people head for our cities. The costs of adhering to an economy that's based on perpetual growth at all costs will cause our economy, and nation, to implode. Making government policies based purely on economics is one-dimensional and dangerously inadequate. It will limit our ability to survive the thousands more years we should hope to have in this continent as the indigenous people of Australia have done - by living sustainably within environmental constraints.

kika (not verified)

Sun, 2011-05-08 14:55

I'm wondering – like many other people – what the USA Government is really up to with their weak and contradictory story of the alleged murder of Osama bin Laden. Here's a possibility.........we will shortly see another “terrorist” attack somewhere in the USA. The American media will present this as a revenge attack by the bad guys, Al-CIA-Duh. this will then justify a new attack by the USA somewhere where there's lots of oil, possibly Iran. We are likely to see more unprovoked invasions (a.k.a. 'pre-emptive strikes') of Middle-Eastern countries by the USA and their proxy NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation) in their desperate attempt to control the last, large oil resources. Again, there will be the creation of more bogymen, as the yanks make weaker and weaker attempts to justify their terrorism. They feel it is their right to rule the world, so why bother even making up stories to justify their actions? Increasingly, people are seeing this pattern and becoming aware of the real reasons for their continuing bullying and violence. The arms manufacturers and the oil companies probably have the biggest influence, as they have most to gain. Meanwhile, the rest of us are losers big-time, especially those people whose countries are invaded and bombed, their millions of refugees, the effects of much less oil on those of us who won't have much of it and, of course, our environment, or what is left of it.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2011-05-08 14:10

I cannot say that I have ever experienced problems with mercury-based fillings but some people who do have concerns may be interested in these investigations, policies and opinions in Europe. Norway banned mercury in tooth cavity fillings three years ago. In Sweden and Denmark people are counselled to avoid them. The European Union is currently considering the merits of following suit. There is a place in Belgium where treatments are carried out to reduce the presence of mercury in people who, it is argued, are more sensitive than others to mercury in the body. A French dentist is one of their patients. She changed from dentistry to orthodentistry in order to avoid using mercury-based fillings. She asserts that dentists are endangered by the presence of mercury particles in the atmosphere around the head of patients whilst fillings are being done. Dr Michel Goldberg of the faculty of Medicine at Descartes University of Paris was interviewed. The Descartes Medical school does not endorse the measures taken by Norway, although they do recognise an incidence of mild allergic reactions to mercury and that pregnant women should be careful of having fillings. They say that there is absolutely no evidence of any serious consequences from mercury-based amalgams in teeth. Source: France 2 News, Wednesday 4 May 2011, 2000hrs:

Bandicoot

Sun, 2011-05-08 13:19

PM Julia Gillard wants 800 asylum seekers who try to make their way to Australia by boat, instead taken immediately to Malaysia for processing. In return, Australia would resettle an extra 4000 genuine refugees from Malaysia. The Greens have slammed this plan as "inhumane" however, surely the policy is not to punish genuine refugee but to deter illegal arrivals? Surely those already assessed as genuine refugees be given precedence over unknown asylum seekers? Malaysia's higher commissioner in Canberra, Salman Ahmad, said asylum seekers would be treated humanely. Mr Abbot says that We did have a problem, John Howard created a solution, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd took a solution and turned it into a problem again. The proposed asylum-seeker swap with Australia is likely to be a one-off deal. Treasurer Wayne Swan said the Gillard government would continue to pursue agreements with other countries. Abbott's position is that floods of asylum seekers come here by boat; they pass through other countries to get here; they can and should stay in those other countries but they come here because, after all, Australia is such a great country who wouldn't want to come here? Quite rightly, he said that "Australia is anywhere near being a lifeboat to the world is ludicrous". They are not "criminals" either, necessarily, but there are limited number of life-jackets. It is legal to seek asylum by boat (under international and domestic law) and asylum seekers arriving by boat make up less than 2 per cent of Australia’s annual immigration. Maybe it's time to rethink some of these domestic and international laws, and our economic immigration policies? With our own population size reaching the brim, and increasing poverty and homelessness in Australia - due mainly to an economic model based on limitless growth - we are not in a position to attract those seeking asylum here. The wars on Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by Australia, and this displaced millions of people too, however, it is estimated that there will be millions of people fleeing their countries in the future due to climate change, conflicts due to famine and overpopulation, and disasters - exacerbated by overpopulation! It's not about "racism" as some hysterical commentators say, but about our sovereignty, our environmental and border security, and understanding ecological capacity - our own life-supporting vessel - must be prioritized over politics, global humanitarian needs and those who have not proved to be genuine refugees.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-05-07 08:14

Despite the Canadian government's highest seal skin quota in history -- they sanctioned the killing of 468,000 seals in the name of fashion -- demand is very low because of activists' and organisations' efforts to ban seal product trade in the United States, European Union and elsewhere. Now sealers have little economic incentive to go out on the ice. The Humane Society International reportedly saw only a dozen sealing boats operating, and so far, about 33,000 seals have been reported killed -- that's less than one-tenth of the number of seals killed in recent years. Baby seals aren't "hunted" because they are incapable of escaping, or of self-defence. They are simply bludgeoned to death! They are continuing the campaign against the slaughter of Canada's new-born seals by lobbying Russia and China with video footage of cruelty, asking restaurants and food suppliers in United States and Canada to boycott Canadian seafood, and continuing pressure on the parliamentarians. This industry is based on exploiting the very young of a sentient animal for the high price of its fur, that is used more as a status symbol rather than a need. It's based on cruel human narcissism to allow the travesty and abomination of wearing seal skins at such as high cost. With humans overpopulating the Earth, it is especially evil that people take more than they need, simply for vanity. It is said that the "money is the root of all evil" but sometimes the lure that brings the money in must be targeted - human greed and self-absorption. In a letter released this week by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Montreal-born actor William Shatner calls on Stephen Harper to put an end to the annual Canadian seal hunt. While it is "cruel to bludgeon and shoot thousands of seals every year, the slaughter also costs taxpayers millions more to support than it actually earns." In the letter, Shatner cited a University of Guelph study that found that ending the hunt would save Canada at least $7 million annually.

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2011-05-07 05:59

[Ed. I received this comment with shocking photos of animals with ribs sticking out alone, surrounded by corpses.] Hundreds of thousands of animals are trapped in Japan's nuclear nightmare. They desperately need our help. Japan's Fukushima region has been declared a no-go zone due to the possibility of nuclear fall-out following the devastating earthquake and tsunami in March. Many hundreds of thousands of domestic and farm animals remain in this area in desperate need of food and water right now. Please take immediate action to help these animals. Animal Refuge Kansai, Japan has issued this urgent appeal for animal supporters across the world to urge the Japanese government to provide help for animals left without food and water. Estimates suggest there are over 30,000 pigs, 630,000 chickens, 2,500 beef cattle, 870 dairy cattle, and numerous other animals in this area in need of urgent help. Media reports suggest that from Sunday 8 May the Japanese Government will allow one or two family members to enter the 20k-zone to collect personal possessions. But no pets or other animals can be taken out. This means that all animals will be left in the zone to die. Many thousands have already perished. Animal Asia is making direct appeals to the Japanese government to allow farmers, vets and animal advocates into this area to provide immediate assistance. Please write to your local Japanese Embassy to urge the Japanese Government to reconsider this decision. Ask the authorities to let people take their pets and humanely euthanise those animals that are injured, in distress, or cannot be removed from the no-go zone. Please click here for more details. And click here for details of your local Japanese embassy. Thank you for your help, David Neale info[at]animalsasia.org Animal Welfare Director Animals Asia Foundation

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-05-06 18:03

THE world's population, long expected to stabilise just above 9 billion in the middle of the century, will instead keep growing and may even hit 10.1 billion by 2100, a United Nations report said. World population growth racing ahead, UN reports According to a UN Report, the world population is expected to exceed 7 billion in late October, only a dozen years after it surpassed 6 billion. The projections were made by the United Nations population division, which has a track record of fairly accurate forecasts. Fertility is not declining as rapidly as expected in some poor countries, especially in Africa, and has shown a slight increase in many wealthier countries, including the United States, Britain and Denmark. The latter nations growth is not due to fecundity but to immigration - ostensibly to promote economic growth! Yemen, for example, is a country whose population has quintupled since 1950, to 25 million, would see its numbers quadruple again, to 100 million, by century’s end. They are still living in a medieval past of tribal culture and big families. It is recklessly assumed that food and water will be available for the billions yet unborn, and that potential catastrophes including climate change, wars or epidemics will not serve as a brake on population growth. Future generations cannot be guaranteed a livelihood at our rates of growth. The great majority of the projected population increase comes in the poorest countries, where clean water, food and other resources are already hard to come by — to say nothing of transport and other infrastructure. Traditions still hold strong in Africa and other nations, such as early marriage and polygamy. Provided with information and voluntary access to birth-control methods, women have chosen to have fewer children in societies as diverse as Iran, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Mexico, and Thailand. However, ignorance and largess mainly prevail under the blanket of religious and cultural rights and political correctness. Unlike animals, humans do not have to become victims of our own fecundity! Animals can overpopulate and reproduce beyond their carrying capacity in the absence of predators, and due to environmental limitations. Their numbers ultimately collapse through starvation or predation. Despite our intelligence as a species, we are still driven by inappropriate evolutionary urges for survival of the species, dominion and expansion! Non-scientists are the ones who claim that inexhaustible economic growth and technology will solve all our problems, but it is the scientists who are pointing to the limits of such thinking.

Francis (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-06 12:01

The Baillieu government's budget gave not incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or any support for environmental initiatives. They did nothing to commit to increase to 20% renewable energy by 2020, water or energy efficiency, or a solution to our housing crisis. There was some funding for Landcare, public transport, water recycling and local groups, but without an overarching plan for environmental protection and emissions reduction it is unclear how these programs will secure a healthy environment for Victorians. On top of recent regressive efforts to return cattle to the Alpine National Park and stifle wind-farm development, Victoria's budget sends worrying signals for the future of Victoria’s environment. The budget failed to include any commitment to secure clean energy jobs currently up for grabs. Obviously economic growth overrides any environmental concerns, or leaving Victoria intact for future generations. It's a retro budget, totally out of touch with reality, and only meant for a short term frame - while they are in office! No government are prepared to tackle long-term policies that might make them in any way unpopular?

Geoffrey Taylor

Fri, 2011-05-06 00:09

There is evidence of gross media manipulation and falsification from the outset of the protest movement in southern Syria on March 17th.

The Western media has presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria.

Media coverage has focussed on the Syrian police and armed forces, which are accused of indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed "pro-democracy" demonstrators. While these police shootings did indeed occur, what the media failed to mention is that among the demonstrators there were armed gunmen as well as snipers who were shooting at both the security forces and the protesters.

The death figures presented in the reports are often unsubstantiated. Many of the reports are "according to witnesses". The images and video footages aired on Al Jazeera and CNN do not always correspond to the events which are being covered by the news reports.

For more, read SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO "Humanitarian Intervention" of 3 May 11 by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky on Global Research. Read also, on Global Research, Humanitarian Neo-colonialism: Framing Libya and Reframing War Creative - Destruction Part III of 4 May 11 by F. William Engdahl, re-published here.- Editor.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-05 13:27

When the Howard Government came to office, land clearing was accelerated in Queensland. As more and more landholders wanted to clear their properties before the feared regulation of clearing, permits were building up and creating backlogs in Department of National Resources offices across the state. Contractors used both the notorious bulldozer-and-chain clearing process and mass distribution of herbicide that poisoned native vegetation. This silencing of the bulldozers was the culmination of a 15 year campaign of public pressure, when the Queensland State Government passed laws to phase out broadscale land clearing in May 2004. The laws protect almost 20 million hectares of native bushland that would otherwise be open to land clearing. That's an area larger than the state of Victoria, and three times as big as all Queensland's National Parks combined. WWF-Australia commissioned a scientific analysis of the biodiversity impacts of clearing in Queensland in January 2003, which found that land clearing kills more than 100 million birds, mammals and reptiles each year in this state alone. Queensland had the highest rate of land clearing of any state in Australia. Between 1995 and 1997 the average rate of land-clearing across Queensland accelerated from 289,000 hectares a year to 340,000 hectares a year. However, cattle producers complained that this decision to ban the clearing of one million hectares of endangered regrowth vegetation in Queensland would cut jobs in city slaughter yards, for stockmen and in rural towns. It is still imagined that we can have a healthy economy without a healthy environment! Wonder if anyone on the Royal Commission will have the courage to connect the Queensland's floods with their massive land clearing and the permits for developments in flood-zoned areas?

W. Peters (not verified)

Thu, 2011-05-05 10:47

My husband, Bob Peters, took this photo. It is real! To allow our far-flung family to view his photos, my hubby posted it to Picasa on 20 Dec 2006.

Someone thought enough of his photo that they created an article and circulated it via e-mail. Not knowing this was my husband's photo, many friends have forwarded it to us, stating how neat a story and photo it was.

Bob recently received another copy of this e-mail and, out of curiosity, he Googled "If you build it, they will come". Snopes.com and your site came up calling the whole thing a scam!

We did a little research of our own yesterday and we discovered that the bridge the elk were using is, indeed, a railway overpass. From the lower roadway, we couldn't tell that it isn't one of the animal overpasses Parks Canada has been building.

Not once did we ever think one of Bob's photos would be so widely seen -- thanks to whomever created the e-mail.

Sincerely yours;
W. Peters

Geoffrey Taylor

Thu, 2011-05-05 00:07

Sheila Newman wrote:

Four of those men have since claimed still to be alive. ...

In fact, as shown in Chapter 1 of The 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions of 2005 by David Ray Griffin, 6 of the 19, listed by the FBI as the 9/11 suicide hijackers, were reported in the newsmedia as alive after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 6 of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, whose photos appear on pages 238-239 of the 9/11 Commission Report (PDF) are Waleed al Shehri, Abdulaziz al Omari, Mohand al Shehri, Salem al Hazmi, Saeed al Ghamdi and Ahmed al Nami.

nimby

Wed, 2011-05-04 17:57

Back in 1982, Peter Rawlinson of Latrobe University wrote to the then Minister for Conservation in Victoria, the Hon Evan Walker MLC. He condemned and challenged the commercial kangaroo industry of Victoria. Harvesting of wildlife species, he wrote, seeks to utilize the "excess" offspring in each generation rather than letting natural forces select the fittest. Natural selection is replaced by artificial selection and the wildlife status of the species is changed. Genuine culling is compatible with preserving the wildlife status of a species. Professional kangaroo shooters, however, make no attempt to cull less fit animals. It thus degrades the quality of the species. In special cases the minister can waive the "protected" wildlife status of kangaroos by giving written permission to individuals: (a) For scientific research purposes under Section 4. (b) For wildlife destruction under Section 5. Section 5 would be manipulated to justify "culling" of thousands of kangaroos under the loose and subjective terms. Section 33 states that: "Game includes deer, rabbits, hares, pigs, goats and kangaroos living in a wild state and any other animals which the Minister (for Agriculture) may declare to be 'game' for the purposes of this Act." So "protected" wildlife can become the hunted just by the Minister declaring kangaroos as "game"! A 1982 CSIRO survey revealed a surprisingly low total number and density of kangaroos in western Victoria which the authors directly attributed to the effects of intensive land use and the marginal nature of remnant vegetation. Such an authoritative and extensive study contradicts the (current) hysteria sweeping western Victorian farming communities "of plagues of kangaroos moving from crown lands onto farmlands". "The density of grey kangaroos in western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia is only 15% of that recorded for the pastoral zone of New South Wales... Such low densities appear to reflect the effect of intensive land use and the marginal nature for kangaroos of the remaining areas of natural vegetation." That was back in 1982! With higher human populations and the devastation of a prolonged drought, a commercial kangaroo "harvest" for Victoria would be even more unsustainable. The general trend is seems is to generalize and make Australia a generic international land. We encourage "diversity" with people and cultures, and multiculturalism, but diversity in the natural world is being replaced by monocultures of livestock and crops. Biodiversity is not welcomed any more. Instead of "protected" kangaroos they can simply be "controlled" - or be labeled as "game" by the signing of a DSE paper!

Scott

Wed, 2011-05-04 16:34

Isn't it amazing how things can change so quickly in less than 3 years. Only back in 2008 the DSE printed up a fact sheet outlining why kangaroos shot in Victoria are not processed for commercial purposes. It states clearly that allowing commercial utilisation of kangaroos shot in Victoria: may also lead to a situation where commercial expectations for regular ‘supply’ drive the demand for culling and permits, rather than a permit system based on the need to mitigate damage I only wish other state government environmental departments could come out with such an enlightened statement. So what happened?

nimby (not verified)

Wed, 2011-05-04 08:25

More bad news for koalas! A report states that koalas could be headed for extinction due to a disease similar to AIDS. It means they are often killed by other diseases such as chlamydia. Koala researcher Jon Hanger told a Senate inquiry in Brisbane yesterday the decline in koala numbers was far more dramatic than could be explained by habitat loss. This sounds a bit simplistic! Our native animals are very stress prone, and habitat is their protection - everything! This is despite Queensland spending $43 million on habitat! Maybe this is not enough, considering the massive land clearing in Queensland. It's like locking the gate after the horse has bolted! Australian Koala Foundation executive director Debbie Tabart said environment laws and policies had been proved totally inadequate in protecting koalas. The human-induced stresses are clearly overwhelming in the last 200 years. We are already the biggest mammal exterminators in the world. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/koala-virus-could-result-in-extinction/story-e6freoof-1226049369082

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-05-04 07:53

Thank you for the kind review on lulu. I also read your longer review at candobetter. I do not agree with your interpretation in all honesty. I have been in contact with hundreds of Chiari patients many of which were outside the US. Most of those outside the US have experienced an even worse experience than I. I was not treated appropriately because the disease is so poorly understood not because of the insurance system. I have seen this with Chiari patients regardless of the country they are from. I do not wish to debate with you but wanted to share my opinion. Let me just say that I am well today because of the outstanding care I received in this country as a cancer patient following my battle with Chiari. Ray

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-05-04 00:40

For the record, French petrol prices on 2 May 2011 rose to over $2.00 AUD per litre.

1.54 EUR = 2.09584 AUD
Euro Australian Dollar
1 EUR = 1.36094 AUD 1 AUD = 0.734788 EUR

http://candobetter.net/node/2454

Furious (not verified)

Tue, 2011-05-03 20:43

A local ecologist is reported to be "shocked and disgusted at the 100 plus Snow Gums and Manna gums that were removed from the end of Moorooduc Hwy last week by Peninsula-link. He says that it appears to be illegal removal and believes that no zoologist was present. "The result is 10 dead ringtail possums and 3 dead brushtail possums hit by cars. I can’t understand why the pines were left and the native veg was removed. The trunks and limbs are full of hollows and need to be retained not mulched." The public need to know how bad Peninsula Link are. The government needs to bring them to law.

Black Friday (not verified)

Tue, 2011-05-03 11:27

I can't believe they finally found him. I'm glad it's finally over and the US can find peace knowing there is one less terrorist in this world.

Editorial comment: Until evidence is produced, we should no more accept the US Government's claim that Osama bin Laden was killed yesterday than we should the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed President John F Kennedy on 22 November 1963. The fact that "Osama bin Laden" was 'buried' at sea, even before his relatives were given a chance to identify him, is cause to be gravely suspicious.

For further information see Osama bin Laden's Second Death by Paul Craig Roberts, republished from Global Research. See also FBI's 'wanted' poster, now updated to record the fact that he is deceased. In the almost 10 years since the crime of September of 11, Osama bin Laden's 'wanted' poster has not been updated to include September 11 on the list of crimes he was wanted for.

Why not?

According to Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, when asked on 5 June 2006 "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

nimby (not verified)

Mon, 2011-05-02 19:38

A VicUrban report also reveals Melbourne's building industry is failing to meet the need for housing for overseas migrants to Melbourne. Our population growth rate is so high that the supply of houses in established suburbs is dramatically inadequate, a leaked confidential report reveals. This means that new housing developments on the city's fringe are the only areas in Melbourne where building approvals outstrip demand, with a surplus of 4775 houses. Read in The Age, "Home construction in the urban fringe "excessive". http://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/home-construction-on-urban-fringe-excessive-20110501-1e364.html?comments=30#comments Overseas migration to Melbourne was the main factor driving housing under-supply. Melbourne's migrant intake rose sharply from 40,000 a year in 2006 to 83,000 a year in 2009, and is now at 63,000. Planning Minister Matthew Guy is obligingly trying to make housing for families affordable by "doing this through a program of faster land release, regional growth and urban renewal". However, with no end of population growth in sight, there will never be a "solution" to the "shortage" of housing. It's exactly what they want to invigorate Victoria's otherwise ailing economy. The lack of sales in means that the industry is now a victim of their own success! Prices have been pushed up to outstrip the average pay packet! The allegorical petri dish will overflow and we will continue to be covered by toxic urban sprawl unless we curb the growth in our numbers. Our State government keeps accommodating population growth instead of stopping it. There is no "solution" to the housing crisis while there is no end of population growth in sight. It's all a farce. Politicians only have a 3 year term but the implications of unsustainable growth must be faced by the residents, now and in the future. Victoria receives more than our fair share of immigrants, but we don't need them here due to lack of industries and jobs. Our trade deficit keeps blowing out! 63,000 new arrivals to Melbourne means over one thousand new home seekers - from immigration only - each week in Victoria. Existing Victorians are being squeezed out of home-ownership. Where is the justice in this? Our State government should be making policies for the benefit of Victorians, not outsiders and opportunist new-arrivals. We vote for our government to to act on our behalf, not for the international community who want to improve their lifestyles. We should be standing up for our sovereignty, and not putting dubious economic arguments to support ongoing population growth before the welfare of the residents. It is actually a form of discrimination, bigotry and racism. We lure people from overseas by convincing them that they will have a better life, and they find themselves in the far-flung outer western growth areas that are the least desirable addresses. We deny them public transport and infrastructure and jobs, just so the establishment can have the (short-term) economic benefits. People are being treated as economic units, but many will find themselves abandoned by expensive fuel costs and being forced to drive taxis due to unemployment.

nimby (not verified)

Sun, 2011-05-01 08:38

The extent of "middle class" welfare has been exaggerated so that there is justification for the cuts rumoured for the next budget. There will be predicted slashes to "middle class" tax rebates and concessions. A study found that just 4.6 per cent of benefits were paid to the richest 40 per cent of families. However, Australia's welfare system was ''very tightly targeted'' to those in most need, especially when compared to other OECD countries. The family tax benefits have increased living standards for lower income families. There will be a reported $400 million cut to medical research in the Federal budget too. Australian researchers have made numerous discoveries that have significantly improved health-care, but without continued government support, many more promising research projects would have to be abandoned. Another report shows a 66 per cent increase in the number of times dole payments were suspended for eight weeks as a penalty for not looking hard enough for a job. However, the penalties do not ensure more unemployed found jobs. The May federal Budget will be about getting the long-term unemployed and those with low-level disabilities into work - that's assuming that the jobs actually exist! Last year 278,000 families received the $5294 baby bonus. it is estimated to cost about $500,000 to raise two children to the age of 18, that baby bonus isn’t going to go very far. But Families Minister Jenny Macklin, who is finalising welfare proposals for the May 10 federal budget, says the baby bonus scheme will stay. If the baby bonus does not represent the true costs of raising a child, and more parents are left without support further down the track when child-raising costs escalate, why continue it as it is? With less welfare, less jobs and less research on medical care, boosting our population is surely absurdly the wrong and reckless thing to do? Increasing poverty will ensure cheaper wages eventually, and less welfare will mean more poverty, including children living in poverty. More people means less benefits - and everything - for each!

nimby

Sat, 2011-04-30 14:24

The Anglican church is to be congratulated for being enlightened enough to condemn our population growth rate - and to question the rationale that it brings prosperity. Such a politically sensitive topic like this takes courage and wisdom to be contrary mainstream political thought. There should be some limits to the baby bonus so that big families are not encouraged, and the costs passed onto the public purse.

However, the real source of our growth, and the same proportion of our "natural" growth rate, is from economic immigration. Thus, this is the easiest source of growth to limit. It's all about misanthropic greed and selfish take-what-we-can now mentality, leaving little for future generations.

With the wind-down of our natural resources, to grow our population now is simply foolish and reckless. We have so many challenges this century, and without being sure of our food security, energy crisis, climate change impacts and impending global disasters, with a stable population we would be in a better position to handle and survive them.

Church agencies often are forced to deal with the poverty and social issues caused by population growth. There are many dimensions of human communities, and the implication of limitless growth are enormous. A one-dimensional justification, based on the specious and groundless theory that it promotes "prosperity" while ignoring the other multiple impacts - mainly negative - cannot and should not be enough to have it forced onto us.

The Salvation Army estimates that there are 2.5 million Australians living in poverty, which is approximately 12% of the population. This is an increase of 400,000 people in the last three years, or an additional 0.5% of Australians living in poverty since 2002.

The Anglican Church asks how did we learn to live with the idea of 30 per cent of the population living below the poverty line, when wealth and prosperity abound at the top of the economic heap? Wealth is being re-distributed to a few, while the rest are becoming poorer.

There is not virtue in denial!

See also: Both parties reject Anglican Church plan to cut baby bonus in aim to curb birth rate, Anglican think tank targets baby bonus, Gillard Government vows to keep baby bonus despite church calls, Babies are an economic bonus in Rupert Murdoch's Australian, Baby bonus here to stay: Macklin, World's future is a crowded place of 30 Apr 11 by Nicky Nicklin in the Sydney Morning Herald. The corporate newsmedia, on the whole, and their Government glove-puppets have united to shout down the Australian Anglican Church's sensible proposal for Australia to become sustainable.

Chimeric (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-29 20:25

The Master Builders Association has come up with a frightening proposal which will deprive Australians of their rights. I know it sounds ridiculous that a bunch of builders could do that, but have a look at the article. They are demanding that there be no permits for building in residential areas. That's it. Open slather for slums and corporate landlords. The price for housing is dropping so that cannot be used as an excuse Write to the Minister Matthew Guy to urge him to not do this, since the Liberals promised power back to local councils and the community whereas these proposed changes would give all power to developers. You can comment on the article at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/push-to-cut-home-red-tape/story-fn7x8me2-1226046532878. Ask them when the Master Builders were elected to government, for pete's sake.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-29 17:05

Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy launched a joint effort to stem immigration and have demanded European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to deny new arrivals. They are demanding an "in-depth revision" of European law regulating the passport-free travel that takes in almost all of the EU - with the exception of Britain and Ireland.

The Italian prime minister called the meeting after his decision to give more than 25,000 Tunisian refugees residence permits. The French president has responded furiously and criticised "flawed" EU rules that have let the migrants into France.

France has accused Italy of violating the EU's "Schengen" free movement rules by giving the Arab migrants permits and encouraging them to travel to France. French gendarmes have sent back Tunisian migrants trying to cross the frontier has been the visible symbol of growing acrimony between the two countries.

Italian Foreign Minister said there was no question of scrapping the principle of free circulation within the EU but the treaty needed a "check-up" revision. Thousands of Tunisians entered the EU via Lampedusa, a tiny island closer to Africa than to the Italian mainland. More than 4,000 boat-borne asylum seekers have arrived on the island, off the coast of Tunisia, in the past few days. France stopped a train carrying Tunisian immigrants from Italy at the French border, sending back those who could not support themselves financially.

The truth is the famine brewing in the Muslim countries is the best thing for Islam. It will prompt Muslims to move into Europe which will speed the Islamic takeover. These food riots going on in Muslim countries such as Egypt will bring Muslims to Europe. Revolutions are the easy part. It's what comes next that is hard to deal with.

Editorial comment: The statement, that the famines, made worse by the wars being waged in North Africa, somehow benefit the group of people being afflicted by the famines and war, namely Islamic North Africans, is hard to accept. Even if the humanitarian crisis causes European nations to relax their immigration restrictions and allow some Islamic North Africans to enter, it can't seriously be held that Islamic North Africans as a whole have gained.

Certainly, European nations, in particular Italy and France, should behave humanely towards the victims of this human tragedy. Whatever else can be said of their treatment of refugees from North Africa, the Governments of France and Italy have a right and a duty to act to prevent their own native populations from being demographically overwhelmed as a consequence. (end of editorial comment)

francis (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-29 12:36

Optimists have been able to build persuasive rebuttals of the arguments of the "population pessimists" with respect to many aspects of environmental decline, however, they encounter much more difficulty with the critical issue of climate change. Yet those who are more technologically and scientifically literate are more aware of the limits of technology to solve the planets mounting challenges. Scientists have long drawn a connection between population growth and increased greenhouse gas emissions, but previous research has not focused on demographic shifts that are likely to go along with the increase in the number of people. Generally speaking, the more people there are, the more fossil fuel they use, causing more greenhouse gas emissions. That's why it's called *anthropogenic* climate change! As the economy of the countries grow faster and overall demand for energy rises, it will drive emissions up, as much as 25% in some developing countries. The number of cars owned and trips taken are increasing at a faster rate than population growth, material wealth adding to emissions. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and people still rely heavily on private cars. Our population is expected to increase by 50% by 2050. It is hard to reconcile the need to increase food supplies with the need to reduce global emissions. It is hard to imagine Australia meeting its longer term target of a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 if agriculture (currently 16%) is not included in the emissions reduction process. The carbon trading scheme is all about political spin, smoke and mirrors instead of directly attacking the problem through renewable energy production. A new study suggests that slow population growth paths by 2050 could account for 16 to 29 percent of the emissions reductions thought necessary to keep global temperatures from causing serious impacts, according to the study conducted by an international team of scientists from the NCAR, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. In contrast, an ageing population can reduce emissions levels by up to 20 percent in some industrialized countries, mainly because older populations are associated with lower labor force participation, and the resulting lower productivity leads to lower economic growth.

Bandicoot

Thu, 2011-04-28 22:09

A kangaroo was found in Yarrambat earlier this month with its scrotum missing. The wildlife carer Laurelle Erwin claimed it was cut out, and mercifully put the kangaroo out of its misery. However, an autopsy from a vet at Healesville Sanctuary gave the result as due to being dragged! Sanctuary acting communications manager said a sanctuary vet, who reaffirmed the autopsy results, sought a second expert opinion from Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine pathologists. They denied a knife had been used! There were no drag marks on the body. It's all too convenient. Surely a drag injury would have tell-tale drag marks, and not knife marks? When it comes to kangaroos, and whales, there is a lot of bizarre and weird science around. They are basically political "hot-potatoes" and nobody wants to dispute the other side for fear of "offending". Like at Belconnen and Majura in the ACT, the scientists paid to do "research" on kangaroo damage mitigation were not independent but paid for by the ACT government, so they were selected especially and were obliged to produce the results expected. Similarly, we all know that Japan's "scientific research" on whales is a thin disguise for commercial slaughter, but what Australian politician has the courage to challenge their massive economic powers? Kangaroos are "protected" wildlife, but the DSE contradictorily freely give out ATCW permits on a whim! Public sympathy for kangaroos is prohibited, and any illegal killings and mutilations must be kept behind a political smoke-screen. There is a cold culture inside the DSE of shooters and red-necks from a colonial-era. Even the Victoria Ombudsman is unable to approach them, or the local Council. They are a monolith of power unto themselves. This culture needs to be broken down and community attitudes and local biodiversity needs to be protected from these cruel bureaucrats. NMIT's permit to shoot kangaroos must be revoked and democratic principles allowed to prevail. There is no science to support these shootings, and even the Victorian Ombudsman admitted it!

Pages

Click to read all comments.